<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Ben, The general direction of your comments n this post is very interesting. I think you are following a path you had not done before.<br><br>"Should we distinguish between being aware in the moment and<br>
being aware of the memory of having been aware in the past? The notion<br>
of trajectory seems to imply the latter. If we limit ourselves to the<br>
moment, it seems a trajectory cannot exist."<br><br></div>The distinction you make between "in the moment" and "the memory of the moment" I believe is crucial. The difference is like dreaming and telling of the dream.<br><br></div>If in the moment of daydreaming trajectory cannot exist, how can we say possibly that an aware of daydreaming in the moment (therefore predictability) possible?<br><br></div>Murat<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:32 PM, B. Bogart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
Hello Lyn,<br>
<br>
I managed to miss this message which certainly gets into some<br>
interesting territory we have not dealt with. There are a few points I<br>
would like to respond to:<br>
<br>
You write:<br>
> These small moments where we begin to diverge from the task at hand<br>
> so that we can maintain some sense of awareness, or even presence, so<br>
> that we don't mire in the nothingness that boredom threatens to make<br>
> for us.<br>
<br>
In the mind wandering literature there is evidence that our task<br>
negative networks are most active when we are not aware that we are mind<br>
wandering. It seems that in mind wandering we can loose ourselves to<br>
some extent. Of course, when one does mind wander they inevitably return<br>
to presence in the world. I can imagine that this moment of returning to<br>
awareness would reset and re-tune our sense of self and be more present<br>
than we would have been able to otherwise. One of the arguments for why<br>
mind wandering improves performance on some tasks is that mind wandering<br>
allows us to dishabituate from the current stimulus; when we return<br>
we do so with a fresher perspective that is not saturated by previous<br>
work/tasks/thoughts. In terms of labour, it's possible that moments of<br>
mind wandering could improve productivity.<br>
<br>
You write:<br>
> ...boredom was once assigned to youth as something to avoid at all<br>
> costs: we must avoid boredom, lest we become delinquents. Idleness<br>
> brings us to the devil, as it were.<br>
<br>
This is interesting in the context of the Dietrich paper I previously<br>
referenced. If we accept mind wandering is linked with the default<br>
network, and Dietrich's conception of creativity, it's clear that the<br>
"spontaneous mode"'s lack of social conformity is both dangerous and<br>
powerful. Dietrich may argue that true creativity (Transformational in<br>
Boden's terms) would not even be possible without the ability to go<br>
outside of norms to develop revolutionary ideas. For a time where<br>
'innovation' is important, it could be strange to constrain the system<br>
of labour to discourage innovation. I suppose it's a signal of the usual<br>
stratification of labour. We have the well paid high level leaders that<br>
innovate and direct and the lower level implementers that engage with<br>
the nitty gritty of making things work. I wonder about this notion of<br>
idle and the devil in relation to conformity in power structures.<br>
<br>
You write of meditation:<br>
> Boredom becomes a state that the practitioner is expected to see<br>
> through to its every possible end: what happens if, in a state of<br>
> boredom, we do nothing, and we just accept it?<br>
<br>
Acceptance seems quite interesting here. Acceptance could be accepting<br>
the mind-wandering and let our minds unwind freely, loosing our<br>
awareness of doing so. Acceptance could also be accepting the<br>
nothingness and using attentional control to suppress mind wandering.<br>
What does it mean to accept that which is constantly reconstructing<br>
itself (our thoughts, our selves, etc.)?<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
On 15-05-10 12:46 PM, Lyn Goeringer wrote:<br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi All,<br>
><br>
> Thank you for making our introduction, Renate. It is really nice to<br>
> be a part of this discussion.<br>
><br>
> My interest in boredom comes from a deep interest in essentially the<br>
> function of boredom in the workplace, and how we work to challenge<br>
> and diverge from our daily routine and attempt to reclaim our own<br>
> sense of self when we find work dissatisfying, unchallenging, and, by<br>
> extension, what happens when boredom sets in. It's those little<br>
> moments within our workdays that we find ourselves mindlessly doing<br>
> other tasks: scribbling or doodling on the margins of a piece of<br>
> paper in a meeting, folding a paper clip, or doing really any other<br>
> thing we can. These small moments where we begin to diverge from the<br>
> task at hand so that we can maintain some sense of awareness, or<br>
> even presence, so that we don't mire in the nothingness that boredom<br>
> threatens to make for us.<br>
><br>
> As John mentioned in last weeks discussion about boredom and it's<br>
> outcomes that "It's non-productive of capital, and so boredom very<br>
> much is a problem (I think). But is it just a problem for<br>
> capitalism?”" I would say that it most certainly is, or at least a<br>
> problem for contemporary labor practices. Each moment we are not<br>
> doing the assigned or intended task, we are, in essence, 'stealing<br>
> time' from our employers. These moments where we doodle, play with<br>
> other items, surreptitiously check Facebook, these are moments when<br>
> we steal time, when we create within boredom, a byproduct of labor,<br>
> to work for ourselves, to work to escape from things we cannot. In<br>
> our boredom, we begin to find a place for ourselves, we make an<br>
> effort to shift towards something other, some other state of being,<br>
> as soon as we acknowledge our moments of boredom and try to alleviate<br>
> this.<br>
><br>
> I can't help while thinking on this topic from the perspective that<br>
> I've come to it from (from labor and learning, where people focus on<br>
> things that are distinct from the often assigned task at hand) to<br>
> thinking about childhood and boredom. Most immediately, I find myself<br>
> thinking of the zine Murder Can Be Fun, Issue #17, "naughty<br>
> children". This comes to mind because so often childhood delinquency<br>
> is blamed on 'boredom'. Of course, the subject of the zine is<br>
> children who murder, but there is always the threat of children being<br>
> mischievous or bad when bored, because they lack the discipline to<br>
> not misbehave when bored. I am no expert in children, or child<br>
> psychology, but I do find it interesting that before we reach a state<br>
> where labor and work is a primary factor in our boredom, boredom was<br>
> once assigned to youth as something to avoid at all costs: we must<br>
> avoid boredom, lest we become delinquents. Idleness brings us to the<br>
> devil, as it were.<br>
><br>
> I do wonder if this has much to do with contemporary fears and<br>
> attempts at assuaging boredom. Without constant occupation, without<br>
> keeping busy, we would fall into the devils hands. Or, more<br>
> contemporary, to be idle would lead us into a state of<br>
> non-productivity, and without productivity, we cannot have equity, we<br>
> cannot have goods to sell. Production at all costs, regardless of the<br>
> needs of the person involved.<br>
><br>
> I would like to suggest, however, that the function of boredom is<br>
> actually a moment of downtime, a moment of void, from which anything<br>
> could grow. In meditation practices, it is what is done with boredom<br>
> that gets interesting. Boredom becomes a state that the practitioner<br>
> is expected to see through to its every possible end: what happens<br>
> if, in a state of boredom, we do nothing, and we just accept it? This<br>
> is an interesting question. I don't have an answer for it, but it is<br>
> one of the many states that must be dealt with. As an active<br>
> meditation practitioner, I can tell you that for me, when boredom<br>
> sets in I get antsy. I want to get up and move around. It's one of<br>
> the biggest factors in why people stop meditating. It is not<br>
> entertaining.<br>
><br>
> But what happens on the other side of boredom? That's the question I<br>
> want to ask. How can boredom work for us?<br>
><br>
> Thanks again for having me here, and I look forward to continuing<br>
> the discussion.<br>
><br>
> best, Lyn Goeringer <a href="http://www.lyngoeringer.com/portfolio" target="_blank">www.lyngoeringer.com/portfolio</a><br>
> <<a href="http://www.lyngoeringer.com/portfolio" target="_blank">http://www.lyngoeringer.com/portfolio</a>><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________ empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
empyre forum<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>