The Convivial Society

I don't like this view that our attention is being "taken" from us, or that we're being "robbed" of our ability to focus and concentrate. Here are some other ways to think about attention:

L.M. Sacasas:

The language of attention seems particularly loaded with economic and value-oriented metaphors, such as when we speak of paying attention or imagine our attention as a scarce resource we must either waste or horde. However, to my ears, the related language of attending to the world does not carry these same connotations. Attention and attending are etymologically related to the Latin word attendere, which suggested among other things the idea of “stretching toward” something. I like this way of thinking about attention, not as a possession in limited supply, theoretically quantifiable, and ready to be exploited, but rather as a capacity to actively engage the world—to stretch ourselves toward it, to reach for it, to care for it, indeed, to tend it.

https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/attending-to-the-world#details

Simone Weil:

Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty, and ready to be penetrated by the object; it means holding in our minds, within reach of this thought, but on a lower level and not in contact with it, the diverse knowledge we have acquired which we are forced to make use of. Our thought should be in relation to all particular and already formulated thoughts, as a man on a mountain who, as he looks forward, sees also…

I think there's something about the physical acts and moments of writing out or typing out the words, or doing the analysis, etc. Writing 'our', backspacing, then forward again. Writing out a word but skipping two letters ahead, crossing out, starting again. Stopping mid paragraph to have a sip of coffee.

What Dutch OSINT Guy was saying here resonates with me for sure - the act of taking a blurry image into the photo editing software, the use of the manipulation tools, there seems to be something about those little acts that are an essential piece of thinking through a problem.

I'm making a process flow map for the manufacturing line we're standing up for a new product. I already have a process flow from the contract manufacturer but that's only helpful as reference. To understand the process, I gotta spend the time writing out the subassemblies in Visio, putting little reference pictures of the drawings next to the block, putting the care into linking the connections and putting things in order.

Ideas and questions seem to come out from those little spaces. Maybe it's just letting our subconscious a chance to speak finally hah.

L.M. Sacasas writes a lot about this from a 'spirit' point of view on [The Convivial Society](https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/) - that the little moments of rote work - putting the dishes away, weeding the garden, the walking of the dog, these are all essential part of life. Taking care of the mundane is living, and we must attend to…

Such a lovely statement.

I had a bit of a philosophical naval gazing about hoping we get a computing that was more apparently interesting to everyone again, that was engageable. Just over a silly-but-fun Parallax Mountains background generator[1]. I hope you don't mind if I share it, because that carrying a torch for interesting ideas, for letting people learn & see & get hooked & excited is such a great fuel for people.

As another great post, "What You Get Is The World"[2] was on, we need rich material to grow & thrive & gain interest. Tech keeps having repetetive interactions, where the "user" just pushes buttons. It's not really computing, it's an interaction-appliance. I hope we can create a computing where people are allowed to be interested again, where we can see how stuff works, go in & monkey around. I believe that's what it takes to let interests form, to let us keep walking the path to better & better futures.

Thanks for your words, I agree very much. I hope we can feed the roots, make accessible the world, so we can stay interested in it, all be allowed to keep bettering that future. You've done well helping that along, cheers, thanks again.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916424

[2] https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/what-you-get-is-the-world https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34161077

I think the article is both too simplistic and too outside HN's regular ideas regarding space, science and progress, which makes it easy to see how it was received as it was.

As you say, there's a much more nuanced way of explaining the parallels between space colonization and mythology. Another common trope you can read in these discussions is the "myth of limitlessness":

In this way, modern technology conveys an ideology of limitlessness by offering itself as a way of overcoming all manner of limits, chiefly those that arise out of our being situated in the world as embodied creatures. But cultural and moral boundaries also yield to modern technology. At every turn, we tend to choose the tools, devices, and techniques that allow us to act beyond or irrespective of the limitations of place and time that have historically conditioned the texture of human existence. At the far end of this tendency we encounter the transhumanist disdain for the human body, otherwise and unaffectionately designated our meat sacks.

– https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/the-convivial-society-no-27

Nice observation on this "hyper-optiming" the human element away! You might like this quote, in a similar vein:

“There are two ranges in the growth of tools: the range within which machines are used to extend human capability and the range in which they are used to contract, eliminate, or replace human functions. In the first, man as an individual can exercise authority on his own behalf and therefore assume responsibility. In the second, the machine takes over—first reducing the range of choice and motivation in both the operator and the client, and second imposing its own logic and demand on both. Survival depends on establishing procedures which permit ordinary people to recognize these ranges and to opt for survival in freedom, to evaluate the structure built into tools and institutions so they can exclude those which by their structure are destructive, and control those which are useful.”

— Ivan Illich, Tools for Conviviality (1973)

and an extended discussion of this theme here: https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/care-friendship-hospitality-reflections

I think this is an important point. Recently I was reading a post that talked about how one belongs to a community. Which on one hand means you are accepted and identify with it, but also that the community has a claim back upon you. People within that community depend on each other and that dependencies offers opportunity to connect more deeply.

In the article he blocks out a longer excerpt from O Pioneers! by Willa Cather, with this bolded bit:

> Freedom so often means that one isn't needed anywhere.

https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/the-convivial-society-no-4