When people talk about the value of paying attention and slowing down, they often make it sound prudish and monk-like. But we shouldn’t forget how interesting and overpoweringly pleasurable sustained attention can be.
Wonderful piece Henrik. An extension thought: the type of attention matters and changes how information is processed, like attentive consumption vs creation.
Having played piano for many years, I realised that when I listen to a new piece, my mind compresses the music to understand it. The notes and rhythm blend together because there’s not enough mental bandwidth to process everything.
But by learning to play the piece, your mind gets better at comprehending it. It's like the music flows through your brain in a laminar, rather than turbulent, flow. Each note becomes crisper, each harmony more intertwined.
Every time you engage with a form (art, architecture, music, sports, your lover's face), your capacity to experience it increases as the information is more fluent in your head. A chef can break down 'yummy' into the swirl of different spices, an engineer can appreciate the marvel of how a tower stands.
Isn't it wonderful that engaging with the universe leads to a more beautiful life?
Too many novel stimuli make it near impossible to remain attentive to a single purpose. The incessant context switching prevents attention from ever breaking below the surface. I have to remind myself of this when I catch myself doom scrolling. It feels ok in the moment, but once I break out I'm left with a static buzzing through my head.
Curious about the dyadic case: is co-attention necessary—and to what effect? When two people sustain attention on each other for 20–30 minutes, do you see co-regulation (breath, pulse, gaze) and a blooming closeness at arm’s length?
Great essay. The bit about cortisol was particularly enlightening.
Thinking about this kind of attention makes me think immediately of Thoreau's Walden. He spends pages and pages describing the details of things like mud thawing, or bubbles forming in layers under ice on a pond. It feels like a meditation just to read it.
Verne is similar, like with his lists of species of fish in Twenty Thousand Leagues. Not quite as meditative though.
Deeply insightful about the underutilized enchantment of normal, ordinary occurrences being anything but normal and ordinary once we stop and immerse ourselves in paying attention to complexity. I can’t wait to read more!
I always felt myself unable to appreciate visual art emotionally. My thoughts are that trying to understand "what it means" is more an attempt to get "something" out of it, when you otherwise just don't feel anything. So therefore, not entirely appropriate or useful, but still perhaps better than nothing.
In a gallery I'm drawn to pieces with impressive technique (technical pen, the very large, or anything hard to imagine the creation process–including impressionistic paintings actually). But by and large, I don't feel much of anything. Likewise, poetry simply never made any impact on me.
I can read a book or watch a movie, see a photograph or listen to music—and get emotional. But for whatever reason, painting (and poetry) typically do nothing to me.
I suppose that's not entirely true. There are some sci-fi digital paintings and even video game concept art that I appreciate simply because of the subject matter, probably because of the relevance to my own interests.
Also you could say that the feeling "how fucking cool" and "how fucking gross" (if horror) are emotions.
Anyway, just felt like sharing. After reading this section I felt a bit seen.
I would love it if we collectively were able to normalize "attend to x" vs "pay attention to x". "Attend to" evokes a more active participation vs. passive consumption.
This article reminded me of the aesthetic philosophy of Utpaladeva (c. 900–950 AD) and the Hindu tradition of non-dualistic Shaivism where unity with Shiva (God, the cosmos) may be achieved through a beatific vision the beauty of nature, a manifestation of the beauty of Shiva.
But such visions are rare because it is difficult to break free from everyday sense-experience with its endless succession of unsatisfied cravings and desires. However, through the aesthetic response triggered by the beauty found in a great work of art, the spectator loses his individual spatial or temporal awareness. He achieves a complete ecstatic immersion and a union with the Divine through the door of sense-perceptions.
Thus art can be a road to enlightenment, like meditation.
I have been thinking a lot about this essay as in how can I make sure to loop more on the things I do want to grow and to reduce looping on the ones I find rather dangerous to evolve. I keep getting back to the first word. Why do you think "almost"?
Henrik, my favorite mornings are those that begin with reading your essays. Perhaps I should make this a ritual!
Thank you! 🙌🏽
Wonderful piece Henrik. An extension thought: the type of attention matters and changes how information is processed, like attentive consumption vs creation.
Having played piano for many years, I realised that when I listen to a new piece, my mind compresses the music to understand it. The notes and rhythm blend together because there’s not enough mental bandwidth to process everything.
But by learning to play the piece, your mind gets better at comprehending it. It's like the music flows through your brain in a laminar, rather than turbulent, flow. Each note becomes crisper, each harmony more intertwined.
Every time you engage with a form (art, architecture, music, sports, your lover's face), your capacity to experience it increases as the information is more fluent in your head. A chef can break down 'yummy' into the swirl of different spices, an engineer can appreciate the marvel of how a tower stands.
Isn't it wonderful that engaging with the universe leads to a more beautiful life?
lovely article!
small typo here: "On the other hand, there is also *be* an upper limit"
thanks!
Too many novel stimuli make it near impossible to remain attentive to a single purpose. The incessant context switching prevents attention from ever breaking below the surface. I have to remind myself of this when I catch myself doom scrolling. It feels ok in the moment, but once I break out I'm left with a static buzzing through my head.
Curious about the dyadic case: is co-attention necessary—and to what effect? When two people sustain attention on each other for 20–30 minutes, do you see co-regulation (breath, pulse, gaze) and a blooming closeness at arm’s length?
Great essay. The bit about cortisol was particularly enlightening.
Thinking about this kind of attention makes me think immediately of Thoreau's Walden. He spends pages and pages describing the details of things like mud thawing, or bubbles forming in layers under ice on a pond. It feels like a meditation just to read it.
Verne is similar, like with his lists of species of fish in Twenty Thousand Leagues. Not quite as meditative though.
What happens when you put sustained attention to attention?
/Brain explodes/
This winderful essay?
That's called meditation
Worship is attention. That which you divide the most attention to is that which you worship.
I hope so. I keep giving my substack attention and effort. LOL I am still waiting for it to bloom.
Deeply insightful about the underutilized enchantment of normal, ordinary occurrences being anything but normal and ordinary once we stop and immerse ourselves in paying attention to complexity. I can’t wait to read more!
Re. #3 (https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/i/169544261/3)
I always felt myself unable to appreciate visual art emotionally. My thoughts are that trying to understand "what it means" is more an attempt to get "something" out of it, when you otherwise just don't feel anything. So therefore, not entirely appropriate or useful, but still perhaps better than nothing.
In a gallery I'm drawn to pieces with impressive technique (technical pen, the very large, or anything hard to imagine the creation process–including impressionistic paintings actually). But by and large, I don't feel much of anything. Likewise, poetry simply never made any impact on me.
I can read a book or watch a movie, see a photograph or listen to music—and get emotional. But for whatever reason, painting (and poetry) typically do nothing to me.
I suppose that's not entirely true. There are some sci-fi digital paintings and even video game concept art that I appreciate simply because of the subject matter, probably because of the relevance to my own interests.
Also you could say that the feeling "how fucking cool" and "how fucking gross" (if horror) are emotions.
Anyway, just felt like sharing. After reading this section I felt a bit seen.
Hey this was super good man. Thanks for sharing.
> We have to “pay” attention—like a tribute.
I would love it if we collectively were able to normalize "attend to x" vs "pay attention to x". "Attend to" evokes a more active participation vs. passive consumption.
I like to think of myself more as a plant than an animal when coming up with metaphors. this is another good one, thank you (:
This article reminded me of the aesthetic philosophy of Utpaladeva (c. 900–950 AD) and the Hindu tradition of non-dualistic Shaivism where unity with Shiva (God, the cosmos) may be achieved through a beatific vision the beauty of nature, a manifestation of the beauty of Shiva.
But such visions are rare because it is difficult to break free from everyday sense-experience with its endless succession of unsatisfied cravings and desires. However, through the aesthetic response triggered by the beauty found in a great work of art, the spectator loses his individual spatial or temporal awareness. He achieves a complete ecstatic immersion and a union with the Divine through the door of sense-perceptions.
Thus art can be a road to enlightenment, like meditation.
I have been thinking a lot about this essay as in how can I make sure to loop more on the things I do want to grow and to reduce looping on the ones I find rather dangerous to evolve. I keep getting back to the first word. Why do you think "almost"?