To refresh your memory, here’s my “sum the sum” from part 1 of my summary of Hamlet’s Blackberry:
- The analog–digital divide may well be the most pressing issue facing philanthropists and service providers today.
- Hamlet’s Blackberry is a book that may allow us to explore, understand, and bridge the analog–digital divide.
- The analog–digital divide brings up many potential boundaries (and boundary crossings) that are worth considering, such as (but not limited to): human–posthuman, modern–postmodern, inner experience–outer experience, depth–shallowness, human care–robot care, natural intelligence–artificial intelligence, and therapy–enhancement.
- There are essentially two mental worlds: one outer and object-oriented; the other inner and meaning-oriented.
- Digital technologies tend to emphasize outer experience while deemphasizing inner experience.
- Philanthropists and service providers should work together for a balanced world that allows for both inner and outer experiences.
- The ebb and flow of inner and outer experiences is like the moving out to explore and the returning home of a safe and secure Bowlbian attachment relationship.
- A book like Switch has the practical information for both philanthropists and service providers on how to bring about social change by getting the rider (upper conscious brain) to work in concert with the elephant (mid procedural brain).
Lets get started with part 2 of my multi-part summary of William Powers’ book Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age.
Powers continues discussing the topic of depth (which we began looking at in part 1) with this quote (p. 12):
Depth roots us in the world, gives life substance and wholeness. It enriches our work, our relationships, everything we do. It’s the essential ingredient of a good life and one of the qualities we admire most in others. Great artists, thinkers, and leaders all have an unusual capacity to be “grasped” by some idea or mission [such as using Bowlbian attachment theory to guide grantmaking], an inner engagement that drives them to pursue a vision undaunted by obstacles. Ludwig van Beethoven, Michelangelo, Emily Dickinson, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr.—we call them “brilliant,” as if it were pure intelligence that made them who they were. But what unites them is what they did with their intelligence [e.g., how they focused their intelligence], the depth they reached in their thinking and brought to bear in their work.
I would suggest that there is a close connection between achieving depth as Powers describes it, and the Executive Functions of the upper brain. I have blogged about the Executive Functions (EF) in other posts and I invite you to visit those posts. To review, EF is concerned with such cognitive processes as:
- Appropriately focusing attention
- Appropriately shifting attention
- Planning for the future
- Mental time travel
- Delaying gratification
- Perspective taking
- Mental modeling (e.g., creating “as if” worlds)
- Meaning making and reflectiveness
Powers gives us this “bottom line” (p. 17): “Digital busyness is the enemy of depth.” In turn, digital busyness is the enemy of secure attachment relationships, a point that MIT researcher Sherry Turkle makes in her 2011 book Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. Further, digital busyness is the enemy of the Executive Functions as talked about in Nicholas Carr’s 2010 book The Shallows—What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. Powers tells us
We’re always clicking here, there, and everywhere. Thus, although we think of our screens [i.e., screens on cell phones, smartphones, tablets, etc.] as productivity tools, they actually undermine the serial focus [which is part of EF cognitive skills] that’s the essence of true productivity.
On page 19, Powers presents information that I would frame thus:
- Desiring objects = action of the various behavioral systems
- Desiring meaning = a meta-action designed to reconcile the drives
The above fits with neurobiologist Elkhonon Goldberg’s observation (mentioned in part 1) that the mid brain is object oriented whereas the upper brain is meaning oriented. The above also fits with John Bowlby’s idea that attachment relationships are about bridging mid brain to upper brain. Or to use the imagery of the Heath brothers (presented in their book Switch), attachment relationships are about getting the (mid brain) elephant working with the (upper brain) rider. One of the great ideas to come out of Bowlbian attachment theory centers on how safe and secure attachment relationships (if all goes well) have the potential to resolve the motivations arising from often conflicting behavioral systems. Bowlby focused in on the following behavioral systems: care, attachment, and sex. Simply, each of these behavioral systems desires its own objects (in an object relations theory sense), and these objects are often in conflict with each other. To complicate matters, the so-called desires of the various behavioral systems change with development. (Comparing Freudian child sexuality to adult sexuality would be an example.) Meaning, therefore, principally emerges through the process of rising to the challenge of resolving these behavioral systems in an attempt to bring about greater coherence and harmony. Bowlby suggests that safe and secure attachment relationships have the potential to bring about resolution and, in turn, meaning. In contrast, Powers suggests that extensive screen time reduces the potential to bring about resolution. And this makes sense. Allow me to explain.
Digital technologies are about providing access to objects in such a fast-paced way that there simply is not enough time for us to experience any interaction between them. We click on a link, poof, an object appears. We click on another link, and, poof, the old object disappears and the new object appears. It must be very much like what a young child experiences before he or she has achieved what cognitive scientist Jean Piaget called object permanency. This is why peek-a-boo is so entertaining for a young child. Maybe hyperlinks are a form of peek-a-boo for adults. As a result of extensively using digital technologies, we have little opportunity to experience and assess relationships between objects, that is to say, how they fit together within an overall coherent system or whole or context. It’s like keeping various family members separate at family events so that the dynamics of family systems are never fully experienced. So, yes, keeping objects separate while using digital technologies or hosting family events makes sense—the potential for friction and conflict is greatly reduced. But then meaning-making and depth are kept at bay as well. Digital technologies and extensive screen time allow objectification to run rampant throughout our society, no longer confined to rarified worlds such as pornography and war. (For more on this theme, contact the Foundation and I’ll see about getting you a copy of a video we supported by Dr. Jane Caputi entitled The Pornography of Everyday Life.)
Page 24 – Believe it or not, Powers brings in the idea of naturalistic systems theory. As a background, here are the various systems levels that Ludwig von Bertalanffy (arguably the father of naturalistic systems theory) points to in his 1969 book General System Theory (in ascending order):
- static structure — atoms, molecules, etc.
- clock works — clocks, conventional machines, etc.
- control mechanisms — thermostats, servomechanisms, etc.
- open systems — cells and organisms in general
- lower organisms — “plant-like” organisms
- animals — increasing importance of traffic in information, beginnings of consciousness
- man — symbolism; past & future, self & world, self-awareness, etc.
- socio-cultural systems — populations of organisms (humans included); symbol-determined communities (cultures) in man only
- symbolic systems — language, logic, mathematics, sciences, arts, morals, etc.
Keep the above systems levels in mind as we hear Powers tell us
Before you can get on to the more consequential tasks you really [emphasis in original] care about [i.e., upper-level concerns], you have to take care of the small stuff [i.e., lower-level concerns]. If you don’t pay the mortgage, you won’t have a house to shelter you and your loved ones. If you don’t book tickets and renew your passport, the dream vacation will never happen. If you don’t check your work inbox regularly, there goes your brilliant career. In effect, our highest goals and dreams [my emphasis], everything we’re shooting for in life, is riding [like a rider] on our ability to plow through [like an elephant] those practical to-do items….
Simply put, what Powers is trying to tell us is that “spontaneity is not spontaneous.” In other words, spontaneity is a part of a system where some parts (like paying the mortgage, or renewing a passport) seem rigid and mechanical whereas other parts seem more creative, open, fun, and free, like participating in a dream vacation or dream career. Within a naturalistic system frame, there is a dynamic relationship between the rigid, elephant parts, and the flexible, rider parts. As an example, for my 50th birthday celebration, I went on a catamaran cruise with friends down in Belize. There was a lot of planning involved. The cruise had to be booked way in advance so that cruise dates were available for the week of my birthday. Tickets had to be booked. Passports had to be checked and renewed if need be. Money had to be saved to cover travel expenses. There’s nothing spontaneous about this level of work. But it is this level that lays the foundation upon which rests the level of true spontaneity. Once merrily cruising the waters of Belize, my friends and I were free to choose any small island we wished to explore as we pleased. Or we could explore a coral reef by snorkeling to our heart’s desire.
So, all this to say that in order to truly assess for a dimension like spontaneity, I would suggest that one would have to adopt a naturalistic systems perspective and ask a systems question like, “What level of the system are we looking at? The more rigid mechanical parts, or the more open, creative parts?”
Sorry, I went a bit over my allotted 1,000 words. Here’s my sum the sum for part 2:
- To quote Powers, “Depth roots us in the world, gives life substance and wholeness.”
- Historical figures that seem to model depth are: Ludwig van Beethoven, Michelangelo, Emily Dickinson, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Achieving depth seems to be associated with such upper brain Executive Functions as: appropriately focusing attention, appropriately shifting attention, delaying gratification, mental time travel, mental modeling, perspective-taking, etc.
- Depth seems to be associated with bringing harmony and coherence to the various object-loving behavioral systems, such as care, attachment, and sex.
- Extensive screen time keeps us in mid brain regions in that it allows us to experience objects in isolated, random, even chaotic ways.
- Experiencing objects in isolated, random, even chaotic ways, is part and parcel of objectification.
- The best way to understand such dimensions as rigidity, flexibility, spontaneity, isolation, wholeness, etc., is to take a naturalistic systems perspective where, say, rigidity may be seen as providing a foundation for spontaneity.
- Digital technologies tend to keep us operating in domains characterized by isolation, randomness, a lack of wholeness, a lack of meaning, a lack of executive functioning.
Stay tuned for part 3. I’ll try to get it out as soon as I possibly can. In the mean time, consider reading Powers’ book Hamlet’s Blackberry. If you have read Hamlet’s Blackberry, feel free to leave your comments concerning the information that Powers presents.
