Megalomaniacs, Monopoly, and Madness: The Choice of Those Running from One Thing or the Other

I have discovered over time, that my initial infatuation with the latest “shiny thing” fades, but the billing is real.  Steve Dickinson

If you don’t pay appropriate attention to what has your attention, it will take more of your attention than it deserves. David Allen

The title of this short piece is not about politics and politicians, but about the politics of individual attention and the way individuals as well as groups of those individuals decide and act on the meanings they and we come up with.

Attention is a tool.  A tool used well is a gift.

That noise in our heads is actually a tool and a gift.  The space in our heads is also a tool and a gift. At some point we might notice the difference between the noise and the space is also a gift.

It is interesting to watch the leash attention has attached to us—and that it tends to fool us it is we who hold the leash. Yep, we have agency, but we’re not the only agency afoot.  And since it’s both our own and other agencies that can turn us into overcooked noodles, we therefore need to be powerful to overcome noodledom, or to at least associate ourselves with the powerful. All of that so-called reasoning might need further examination.

Unexamined attention is attention unregulated. That lack of regulation can be fine for creativity, but horrible for making decisions. For instance, deciding something commands attention.  Discovering something can awe attention.  But we seem to think and feel that commanding attention is power and power is what is needed to overcome weakness. I’m suggesting that instead, commanding is largely a cover for weakness so we don’t see what’s chasing us.  Better a predator than a prey supposes a reality instead of discovering one.

Nothing new under the sun in any of the above.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t re-examine our creation to see if awe is afoot rather than no-mercy save an alignment with the powerful.

Another for instance: Adversarial collaboration (a term coined I think by the recently departed Daniel Kahneman) is not the same as confrontational denigration. The former is about uncovering, the latter about covering up. Cleaning or tiding up even it’s a house of cards is one thing. Mudding it up is quite another.  But the magic trick of megalomaniacs and monopolies is to convince others they’re the weak ones and just in need of leadership.  I’m suggesting that’s madness sold and madness purchased.  The strong may survive, but the cooperative thrive does not mean giving up due process and checks and balances in either process. Nature itself is not that foolish.

If we’re going to have meanings (and clearly we do): Being mind- and emotion-hacked does not mean we just need to roll over, it means we need courage to own the mess and to get on with righting it. Yet there’s the exploiter’s rub: they step into the tangle pointing out the mess we all know about and selling cooperation with them as the cure instead of cooperation with each other. The windsock in such a situation is a loyalty or denigration policy. The solution? Pay attention to the wind’s direction and fly into the wind.  It’s a better landing than being pushed about by that wind. And it might be more important to pay attention to the craft we’re flying, which I note does not require loyalty, just ability.

Okay—this piece is also a bit about politics and politicians, but voting for such folks is one thing, owning our own politics with our attention and what’s chasing us is quite another thing.

Instructions for living a life. Pay attention. Be astonished. Tell about it.  Mary Oliver