Quote from: p21if people merely become caught up in reacting, moving to the left or to the right, depending on conditions, the result is only more activity. The non-moving point of origin [Dare I say, The Timeless Way of?] [..] is passed over, unnoticed. I believe that even "returning-to-nature" and anti-pollution activities, no matter how commendable, are not moving toward a genuine solution if they are carried out solely in reaction to the overdevelopment of the present age.

Quote from: p18Human beings with their tampering do something wrong, leave the damage unrepaired, and when the adverse results accumulate, work with all their might to correct them. What the corrective actions appear to be successful, they come to view these measures as splendid accomplishments. People do this over and over again. It is as if a fool were to stomp on and break the tiles of his roof. Then when it starts to rain and the ceiling begins to rot away, he hastily climbs up to mend the damage, rejoicing in the end that he has accomplished a miraculous solution.

Ergonomic chairs, anyone?

Quote from: p15

Toward a Do-Nothing Farming

The usual way to go about developing a method is to ask "How about trying this?" or "How about trying that?" bringing in a variety of techniques on upon the other.

[..]

My way was the opposite[..] making the work easier instead of harder. "How about not doing this? How about not doing that?"

I love this. I could stop reading now because this is everything I need to know: that this was his approach and that this approach, along with enough care, turned out a result good enough that he wrote a book about it.

Now actually reading the book, I see the preface has made an attempt to recontextualize parts of the translation, in a way that seems odd to me. This section is prefaced by a philosophy that "everything is meaningless and of no value." Nihilism. In that light, this quote takes on a very different character:

Quote from: p13Instead of offering a hundred explanations, would not practicing this philosophy by the best way?

The general philosophy (above) came first, and was followed by the farming practice.

Quote from: p13My method of "do-nothing" farming began with this thought.

Quote from: Wendell Berry (preface, xii)Mr. Fukuoka started as a laboratory scientist [and eventually moved his work from the laboratory to the farm:] "[..] I decided to give my thoughts a form, to put them into practice [..] To spend my life farming . . . this was the course upon which I settled." And he says: "Instead of offering a hundred explanations, would not practicing this philosophy be the best way?"

Masanobu Fukuoka went on to found a farm based on his theories (?) and seemingly went on to live the rest of his life following them, living on a mountain with students who would come, act as labour, and go again. He trained in the science of farms, then went to go operate a single one in a way which was, and still is, not popular, but which he believed to be best.

QuoteThis translation has been a communal effort by the student workers on the mountain.

Quote from: Look at me, Leo BenedictusLonely people lack attention that is positive and accurate, in short.

So why don't they ask for more? Because attention can be harvested only from the minds of other people, and high-quality attention won't come by force. "In anthropological terms, it's a gift economy," says Dr Amy Pollard of the Mental Health Foundation (MHF).

This morning, while I lay in bed, I thought about connecting with people and in particular spending more time listening to and trying to help people, to give them what I already know they will appreciate rather than predict what people don't know they want. I am planning to run Masks for a few friends, and so much of GMing a TTRPG is about paying attention to the players. Giving attention. It feels good to give attention, and I find it quite easy to forget that. The 'like' button only works because people choose to give.

Art can make the artist feel seen, but it can also make the person appreciating the art feel seen. By nature, Attention-Seeking Technology's secret flipside may be Attention-Giving Technology.

Quote from: Look at me, Leo Benedictus[RE: mass shootings]
The truth is that if you want the world's attention badly enough, you can have it tomorrow.

Last night when I wrote this I was thinking about how much technology we have available to us which is capable of amplifying the amount of attention we can get. The gun onebuttonized death; the screen onebuttonized attention.

See how the television, bright-screened and noisy and containing multitudes of simulacra of life, is a device which at the press of a button one person can use to attract the attention of many, bind it within a shared magic circle. Attention seeking isn't all bad, necessarily.

"Attention seeking behavior is to act in a way that is likely to elicit attention."

The article 'Look at me' summarizes several expert opinions into the basic idea that "people have been shown to need [..] attention that is positive and accurate." In this case I'd like to emphasize need. It's absolutely crucial.

brittanica.com describes technology as "the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life," and in this case I'm identifying technology which is applied to the practical aim of acquiring attention that is positive and accurate, or as 'Look at me' calls it, 'belonging'.

I think I've finished with the article, but I found it while thinking about 'attention technology'. I googled everyone wants attention and the article was the first result.

My own secret notes are mirrored in this quote:

QuoteThe truth is that if you want the world's attention badly enough, you can have it tomorrow.

Quote"'If only in real life we had a backspace button.' But no. Once you say something, it's out there. You don't get that kind of control." Until recently, in other words, most of us were simply too socially clumsy to avoid being ourselves.

Until recently, most of us were too socially clumsy to avoid being ourselves.

I have heard warnings about technology displacing human workers. The above idea suggests technology is similarly capable of displacing "being ourselves." What is the downside of that? I hope this article goes further towards answering my question.

QuoteLonely people lack attention that is positive and accurate, in short.

We walked along College on Saturday night -- after midnight -- and saw so many people doing so many things. This kind of living nightlife reminded me that such cultural phenomena occur, and I missed it: escaping loud places with friends to get a bite to eat at 2AM when none of us should have been awake but we were anyway.