Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

I created a diagram, see here
<img src=”http://leden.ecademytwente.nl/RonaldWopereis/AttentionFlow.jpg” />

Perhaps this can be a chapter in my new book about attention.

I will start off with the subject of frustration (as a reply to this posting).

Best regards, Ron

About Frustration

Frustration is the feeling of reaching beyond reach.

Body / Physically - that's where it starts. Without the experience of this physical movement, you can not know this feeling. (see Vygotsky's work on child development)

Mind / Mentally -again, to reach beyond reach means that i want the other person to do the reaching. Vygotsky states that every mental operation builds on previous external movement.

In the AttentionFlow diagram, frustration is when the female needs to wait (action#0, not drawn) until the male pays attention to her (action #1). Her urge is to send love (action#2), so when she can not send love (#2) because #1 hasn't taken place yet, she gets impatient - that is the frustration.

Her remedy doesn't work - to push away the male, and do the attentionpaying (#1) for him. The Attention Flow is then stopped, for she occupies both male and female positions.

Comments anyone?
Best regards, Ron

Re: About Frustration

Sounds like a personal thing to me!

Re: About Frustration

Makes no sense at all to me, except perhaps as a projection of the psyche of the formulator… uhhh, what Sandy said.

Re: About Frustration

thanks to all who read my article.

Your feedback and non-feedback gives me an opportunity to propose the nature of conflict in general, and of inner conflict more specifically.

Propositions:

1. Conflict can only arise when there is something in common.
2. Frustration is a type of conflict, in this case an inner conflict.

Re: About Frustration

Ron et al,

I like the idea of describing the process/flow of attention to illuminate some of the more basic transactions of social interchange. I believe that there is merit in this, but would like to know more about the conclusion you are trying to draw. It would seem that illustration of a process is illumination and represents %50 of the outcome you are trying to drive. The remaining %50 is really a “how to fix this process” guide. It is critically important that you have both of these or else your theory has no traction in an objective driven world.

I will argue about conflict and frustration however. I believe these concepts arise from only one source, and communion or commonality is not it. I believe that all suffering is a disparity between what we want the world to be in fantasy vs. what the present is. It is this and only this that creates conflict and frustration. In your case, you set up the expectation or fantasy that you wanted X type of feedback. The expectation is the cause of your frustration and not anything else. Expectation is a form of attachment to outcomes, and thusly doomed to cause suffering. The creation process should free you from expectations, not chain you to them. I suggest you view this process as that of collaborative creation, and free yourself from your desired results whatever they may be.

Warm regards to all,
Wiseman


edit: Spellcheck etc.

Re: About Frustration

Hi Wiseman,

I like the idea of showing the process in its natural flow, and also in its opposite flow. The title of the diagram states “male view” - i mean to say that it is my mind's view. So 50% is missing, which is the female view - again, this missing is perceived only from my mind's perspective.

To solve frustration, there is a technique or method that i call unknowing. It was originally inspired by Krishnamurti, who said “dont say yes or no, because then you are stuck. Find out !”

The method is also inspired by Vygotsky's findings, that there are two movements connected together inside our belief system, and that both movements have an origin in the external physical world. One movement is from the person, the other movement is from the environment. See for detailed description my blog here.

Additional evidence for my technique or method i found in Spinoza's book Ethics, where he states something like this (sorry i dont have the book with me right now) : if the original experience was that one body that we imagined was accompanied by the appearance of a second body, then whenever we imagine again this first body then the second body automatically appears. So this in turn made me think about the two external movements internalized into one.

I believe that all suffering is a disparity between what we want the world to be in fantasy vs. what the present is.

Dear Wiseman, with the above information available, i hope to have painted the context in which i see conflict - the two external movements internalized into one movement. Your above statement defines suffering, which i call not conflict but sorrow. Sorrow is the strength to have reality different from what it is.

Lastly,  you ask about the conclusion that i try to draw. My original intent was and still is, to create a theory of attention that bypasses all conceptual words, down to the levels of energy and movement.

Best regards, and thanks much for such inspirational contribution,
Ron

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

Frankly, Ron, i think these ideas about male/female attention flow hit the resistence inherent in assumptions about political correctness, that may be translated into personal belief systems, such as in the case of feminism.

I used to wonder how to deal with that and have come to the conclusion that there is no need to convince anyone of the truth of or lack of in these ideas that are based on observations and patterns of experience.

I think it was on the art board in this pod that someone made mention of the tradition of creating art from suffering,depression etc. I think the same can be true of some having an attachment to creating reality the same way except there frustration is often a more obvious component, but one can get so used to operating on that level that it becomes inconceiveable that anything else is possible. People awaken in their own time if at all.

Since one of the central aspects of  our work has been to embrace radical inclusion, perhaps there is a place for those who prefer to pay attention to frustration as a feeling, rather than exploring what it is?

What is there to be learned about paying attention to frustration rather than seeking to leave it?

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

What does political correctness have to do with confusing diagrams and confusing explanations of confusing diagrams. It made no sense to me before I read the exlanations and less after. I still don't get the link to PC, whose PC anyway?

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

My reference to PC was attached to mention of  personal belief systems, so there was not specific “who” reference as the personal refers to the individual. My point was more that PC is born out of shared personal belief systems, and i mentioned a specific example that had been of interest to me, feminism.

If it made no sense to you perhaps it's just not for you. When i was working on Oci Novosti one of the things i concluded was that the audience for our work were those that were interested in it and those that “got it”.

Radical inclusion is about paying attention to inclusion, it is up to the individual to decide whether to accept or reject. To approach differently would likely lead to frustration and i have no interest in that.

Hope that helps.

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

Sorry if some of our comments have offended you-
or non -comments I should say.
That's no very fair is it -as you are looking for some
constructive feedback.
Have you recently gone through a break up and are
looking for answers?

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

Dear Sandy, i would rather focus on my original request than to divert into the source of my passion. Feel free though to create a separate thread on a question like “why are you creating this attention theory?”, and i will most gladly join you.

In terms of my attention theory - in this thread as it is related to conflict - i interpret your response as a no longer being present of that which is in common. When i talk solely about my inner process, then there is nothing in common between your mind and mine, and so the attention flows in the natural (or perhaps: positive) direction, i.e. in concordance with the direction of the arrows in the diagram.

Best regards, Ron

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

I found the diagram quite illuminating. It fits the conflict experiences in our relationship of forty+ years standing.
An “a-symmetrical” attention balance definitely has caused many of the “downs” in our otherwise happy partnership.

As an aside, the English expression “pay attention” seems to me to have a depth and richness that is much ignored in normal use. Maybe attention is more in the nature of a currency than a product (and we have the power to issue and spread it around).

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

Hi Janos, thanks much for your response.

Please note that the man in the marriage may sometimes take up the female position, and vice versa the woman in the same marriage will take up the male position. Male and female are words that i use to represent the two forces that create the attention flow.

Male is sending attention / creating space / for the female love.
Female is sending love / filling space / for the male to converse.

Instead of male / female , one can subsitute mind / body , or child / parent , victim / agressor, passion / action , or any combination of two entities who are in a relationship of A/B where A is born out of B. So in the case where female and male is actually a married couple, the person in the male position is the child of the person in the female position. And it really doesn't matter if the male person is a man or a woman.

The attention flow can only change speed by the male force ; the female love is infinite, and only the amount of love received by the male decided the speed of flow.

Example:
i am very much connected to my mother, in fact, she prefers me to represent her husband rather than my father. Note that this is merely my own perception; it might very well be that she herself could never be a child, and now sees her husband as her own father.

So in the above example of my parent's relationship, my mother is the child and my father is the parent ; or, in terms of the original diagram, my father is the female / love / side, and my mother is the male / attention / side. In the relationship between me and my mother, since i am bound to her and pay attention to her, she is the female side, and i am the male side.

Hope this helps.
Best regards, Ron

PS feel free to create a new thread introducing attention as a currency. I will gladly join.

Re: Request to co-author my new theory of attention book

Re: drawings of frustration

Wow !
What a gift !

The images make me smile.
Thanks much for sharing, Curmudgeon !
Best regards, Ron