The abnegation of simplification. Is it from a desire for complexity? Why? Vanity, perhaps? Pride? If so, then how does the simplification of one's identity hurt one's vanity? When pondering this, we are to set aside the notion of misunderstood and inaccurate simplification of the concept of oneself. We are to ponder this question looking at one's disapproval of an accurate simplification of the conception of oneself.

Perhaps this is only problematic at a relational level? That one feels one's vanity scarred when the other whom one relates to comprehends every bit of oneself while one is unable or has not yet acquired full comprehension of the other? I suppose this is where one's vanity is most hurt. Is it on his inability and lack of knowledge relative to the other? Or is it one's insecurity in one's inability to empathize with the other; the inability to reciprocate empathy based on interpersonal understanding? If this is the case, then I suppose it follows that the other would find one's inability as distasteful. Therefore a loop of negativity is formed. "I can't understand him and I find this problematic." Says one. "One cannot understand me even though I can understand one. I find this distasteful." Says the other. What does this mean? That it ultimately depends on a component in the reward system of our brains (for the other) and the realization that one is unable to reciprocate the same level of understand at a given time which in turn trigger feelings of inferiority (for one)?

This is a tangent, but I was under the impression that the greatness of life ultimately depends on psychological states, though I suppose I must correct this to 'brain states.'

Anyways, is there some truth in saying that one's hatred of being reduced to simple bits of data (in order to simplify something, it must first be fully understood) is based on... rewards and the superiority complex? And the fulfillment of our sense of belonging? But that is just based on the situation I created. In the real world where it is, as I see it, impossible to understand someone else in complete fullness (I am under the impression understanding is ad hoc; it is sort of reactionary and dependent on context, expectations,...etc though at the same time being reflective and intuitive), then is it not the case that one hates not being simplified, but being simplified in an inappropriate way in relation to the given situation? For example, say that lover B has been spending more time with his/her dog than lover A. Lover A may say that lover B is problematic because recently, lover B seems to care more about his/her dog than him/her. Lover B then insists that it is complicated. Lover B has indeed grown very attached to his/her dog and he/she is upset that lover A is speaking some truths about his recent behaviour but is not speaking of how the situation with lover A is very different with the dog. In this situation, A is correct on saying that B has recently been caring more about the dog than him/her; she/he is correct with this simplification. However, B is repulsed by this simplification as he thinks that there is a difference between person-pet and person-person relationships. Regardless of the difference, A's simplification is still true. Another example: say that X and Z love cookies and would like to start a cookie business next year, but X is diabetic. Z says that it is detrimental for X's health to continue consuming cookies. X agrees and refrains from eating cookies in order to be in good health once they start their business. In this situation, Z asserts a simplification about X, but X is not repulsed by this because he understand what Z is implying without him/her having said so, that they are to start a business next year and bad health would hurt this plan. These two situations show us that simplification is not repulsive in general but it is interpreted as negative or positive dependent on the situational context of any given simplifications.