Mindfulness is not merely negation, subtraction, or reduction.
This was the thought that occurred to me as I read Miranda Ward’s reflections on her inadvertent break from the Internet, which concluded with the following observation:
“Why can’t we at least acknowledge that, with or without the internet, we still have to work hard, fight distraction, fight depression, and succumb, every once in awhile, to paralysing self-doubt? So it was nice, while I was on holiday, not to have any mobile phone reception. It’s also nice to be able to video chat with my 86-year-old grandmother in California. Disconnected, connected, whatever: I’m still fallible.”
Indeed, we are all fallible. If we assume that merely withdrawing from certain facets of digital life will by itself render us supremely attentive and mindful individuals, then we are certainly in for a rather disheartening disappointment.
That said, I do think the little word merely is essential. Mindfulness is more, not less than what I’ve called attentional austerity. To put it otherwise, attentional austerity is a necessary, but not sufficient cause of mindfulness. It’s not a matter of starving attention, but training and directing it.
Ordinarily, mindfulness is a habituated response, not a spontaneous reaction. Habituated responses arise out of our practices. If our online practices undermine mindfulness, then moderating these practices becomes part of the solution.
Learning to establish and abide by certain limits is, after all, an indispensable discipline. But imposing limits for their own sake is at best unhelpful and at worst destructive. Limits, as Wendell Berry has written, are best understood as “inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship and meaning.” They are for something.
Mindfulness must be for something. It is about fostering a certain kind of attention and learning to deploy it toward certain ends and not others.
While doing whatever we call the Twitter equivalent of eavesdropping on an exchange centered on David Foster Wallace and the idea of mindfulness, I was reminded of Wallace’s Kenyon College commencement address in which he makes the following observation:
“The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the ‘rat race’ — the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.”
Mindfulness, in Wallace’s view, is about redirecting our attention toward others; and not only toward others, but toward others as ends in themselves (to put a Kantian spin on it). This latter qualification is necessary because we very often direct our attention upon others, but only for the sake of having ourselves reflected back to us.
There are, of course, other legitimate ends toward which mindfulness may aspire. The point is this: We ought not to be for or against the Internet in itself. We ought to be for the kind of loving mindfulness Wallace advocates — to take one example — and then we ought to measure our practices, all of them, online or off, by how well they support such loving mindfulness.
5 thoughts on “Mindfulness Is Not Merely Subtraction”
Thanks. Your insights feed my mind when she is nibbly. People for their own sake is just the delectable treat to satisfy today.
Reblogged this on Escaping the Crab Bucket Mind and commented:
I love the focus on mindfulness, I write a blog along exactly these lines. I’m even currently writing about how we focus on people as a means & not an end! Spooky
“It’s not a matter of starving attention, but training and directing it.”
My life, my work, and my obligations do not leave me the option of subtracting. So I have to add. For example, about an hour before I read this post, I downloaded a random mindfulness bell app on my phone. Sad, I know. But I take it where I can get it.
I met Sophocles under an olive tree. Good of him to find me after 2,508 years. He still looks good. But that damn Chorus keeps distracting me. There’s tea and I notice on his lap-top that you’re missing the “T” in subtraction in your title making t-point I suppose. Sub-raction is distracting Sinfulness is not merely addition of “S” to “indfulness” I suppose.
The fan is going, the tornado is coming. “mindfulness” odd concept — sounds like an ego-less multi-tasking of senseless senses without tea. I don’t know how to explain this to him but I imagine he’s had enough time to learn http://bit.ly/oolivee
Well, the t’s been added … because I hadn’t been so clever as to do that intentionally.