On the subject of disclosing a simplistic conceptualization of our basic alignments, we should not do so out of ignorance, inexperience or lack of analysis, but only once we have worked hard to develop the structure that underlies them. What’s the issue with disclosing a simplistic view of one’s beliefs? If it is an accurate representation of one’s inner states, and one has spent ample time in considering the reasoning behind why they believe the idea to be valid, at least in reference to consciously held inner belief, then it would be useful in the transmission of one’s nature to others.

In conversations we often find ourselves frustrated by people pointing to information which they lack an in-depth knowledge of, or making truth claims upon subjects with which they have minimal knowledge, especially when we ourselves happen to hold a greater degree of expertise and competency in the conversed domains. As we recognize this in the manifestations of other’s beliefs in conversations, we must safeguard against falling into similar areas in our own conceptualizations and in the content with which we too make truth-claims on. While we may do this unconsciously over trivial matters, we must seek to train our minds to better articulate a truthful representation of our knowledge. If we have little experience in a subject, but still have an opinion on a matter, we can disclose both in a way to articulate that we believe something to be so but with minimal confidence due to inexperience.  When questioned, the person spouting off erroneous beliefs betrays his true nature, sort of like mask wearing, emitting a representation of himself that is less than descriptive.

Once we have put in the work to develop a hierarchy of values, and a system of philosophical understanding that is coherent and through and through non-contradictory (logical), then I see no harm in reporting the spark note version of such claims. If this is done with the intention to properly represent oneself, or to inform the other, rather than espouse an egoic defense or further antagonism, or make a truth claim where it is quite uncertain, then the lack of complexity is something we can forgo in the short term. If the other party is further interested in the simplistic claim (we should never generalize), then expansion on the subject into its complexity would be warranted.

The frequency of directed introspection, the more we learn in regards to better being able to articulate our own Being, the more we live, and experience, the more insightful we become into the nature of the content of our consciousness. That being said, consistent pursuit of philosophical understanding is often hindered by its repetitive nature, if it is consistent and never “left alone” for a substantial period of time. What happens is the same schema and content will be consistently recirculated, that of whichever path we are looking to explore. Breaks from this pursuit, interest in different fields, attempting to acquire different knowledge in different subject, experiencing different content within our day to day lives, actually proves to provide us with new insight into the same issues we were pursuing once we return our attention to them. Aside from learning in this fashion, the mere escaping from the loop of relatable memes and schema that make up our conceptual understanding, allows for our brains to develop new representations once we return to the subject, opening up the playing field for new insight.

But on the other hand, the more we can expand upon the intricacies of our thought the more we open ourselves up to accurate comprehension by the receiver, as well as to a more thorough representation of our ideas, for the benefit of our own cognitive abilities (through more elaborate conceptualization, profundity), as well as for the benefit in clarity of the subject matter.