I think the term you’re looking for is obsession, rather than concentration. People in the roles you describe (and many others) can become obsessed with their particular object of attention to the exclusion of much else. Obsession can drive you mad if you don’t have guardrails, sure. But that’s a different thing than just having a strong ability to concentrate.
I don’t think ‘people insane with obsession run the world’ is a sound claim without further analysis. There’s an argument to be made, but I’ve mostly seen it about the political class and/or the very wealthy (people obsessed, in most discussions, with their own benefit and enrichment to the exclusion of the people they are supposed to represent/support/treat fairly/whatever). Then there’s getting specific on what we mean when we say insane.
Concentrate regularly on a thing, physical, mental or emotional, and it will produce the disease as well.
And that second form is hidden because the sufferer is not visibly raving. And they are embedded in a society filled with people that look much the same.
But don’t take my word for it. Study attention and its forms (direction, concentration, distraction…). Experiment with it. See for yourself.
I’m wondering if you can expand on what the disease is in this context. It seems pretty straightforward in the case of obsession, but less clear to me in the ‘lesser’ form you discuss here.
Are we just talking about myopia (psychologically speaking)? Missing the forest for the trees, that kind of thing (might actually be what I’m doing here, lol)? If so, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I wouldn’t chalk this up to an inherent issue with concentration. Seems more like undue or excessive concentration on a particular thought object - or perhaps more importantly, an active rejection of alternate perspectives relevant to said thought object (without evaluating them appropriately).
IMO concentration itself is simply a tool, neither the cause for ‘insanity’ in itself nor the ultimate form of attention that needs to be present in 100% of all circumstances. People can and should be able to move between different states of attention as circumstances allow or require. Good example is the impact taking a break and going for a walk has when trying to write a paper or something- the change in attention state can help you approach the task from a fresh, perhaps more useful perspective. But a return to concentration is ultimately what gets it finished.
Just a question asked honestly, no offence intended: where do you see yourself, how you act and behave in the world, in relation to this topic?
Ok, fair enough. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say that people in roles that require high degrees of concentration are necessarily insane (the sense you described in your original response, cut off from key elements of themselves outside their primary or most frequent object of attention). There is a risk of becoming too attached to the object of concentration if one isn’t careful, sure, but I’d say most folks (even the examples you give) move in and out of that specific attention state, and switch focus quite frequently.
Do people get jammed up sometimes (e.g. a limited set of concentration objects, creating imbalance and suffering negative impacts from that)? Absolutely, and techniques like meditation (among others, including just setting aside time to do other stuff or be present with other people) can help with ‘widening the aperture’ so to speak. But there are people out there who maintain a balance - I’d say this is true of many high achievers (though not all).
Personal question (you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to): do you have anyone IRL you discuss this kind of stuff with? Meditation group or zen discussion group or anything? If not I think it might be useful to seek that out, if only to bounce these concepts around.
I think the term you’re looking for is obsession, rather than concentration. People in the roles you describe (and many others) can become obsessed with their particular object of attention to the exclusion of much else. Obsession can drive you mad if you don’t have guardrails, sure. But that’s a different thing than just having a strong ability to concentrate.
I don’t think ‘people insane with obsession run the world’ is a sound claim without further analysis. There’s an argument to be made, but I’ve mostly seen it about the political class and/or the very wealthy (people obsessed, in most discussions, with their own benefit and enrichment to the exclusion of the people they are supposed to represent/support/treat fairly/whatever). Then there’s getting specific on what we mean when we say insane.
Obsession is just the overt form of the disease.
Concentrate regularly on a thing, physical, mental or emotional, and it will produce the disease as well.
And that second form is hidden because the sufferer is not visibly raving. And they are embedded in a society filled with people that look much the same.
But don’t take my word for it. Study attention and its forms (direction, concentration, distraction…). Experiment with it. See for yourself.
I’m wondering if you can expand on what the disease is in this context. It seems pretty straightforward in the case of obsession, but less clear to me in the ‘lesser’ form you discuss here.
Are we just talking about myopia (psychologically speaking)? Missing the forest for the trees, that kind of thing (might actually be what I’m doing here, lol)? If so, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I wouldn’t chalk this up to an inherent issue with concentration. Seems more like undue or excessive concentration on a particular thought object - or perhaps more importantly, an active rejection of alternate perspectives relevant to said thought object (without evaluating them appropriately).
IMO concentration itself is simply a tool, neither the cause for ‘insanity’ in itself nor the ultimate form of attention that needs to be present in 100% of all circumstances. People can and should be able to move between different states of attention as circumstances allow or require. Good example is the impact taking a break and going for a walk has when trying to write a paper or something- the change in attention state can help you approach the task from a fresh, perhaps more useful perspective. But a return to concentration is ultimately what gets it finished.
Just a question asked honestly, no offence intended: where do you see yourself, how you act and behave in the world, in relation to this topic?
Call it a perceptual tunnelvision that becomes a habit.
Ya, a tool with a sneaky downside.
Shikantaza meditation (it’s what the zen buddhists do) has the opposite effect.
Ok, fair enough. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say that people in roles that require high degrees of concentration are necessarily insane (the sense you described in your original response, cut off from key elements of themselves outside their primary or most frequent object of attention). There is a risk of becoming too attached to the object of concentration if one isn’t careful, sure, but I’d say most folks (even the examples you give) move in and out of that specific attention state, and switch focus quite frequently.
Do people get jammed up sometimes (e.g. a limited set of concentration objects, creating imbalance and suffering negative impacts from that)? Absolutely, and techniques like meditation (among others, including just setting aside time to do other stuff or be present with other people) can help with ‘widening the aperture’ so to speak. But there are people out there who maintain a balance - I’d say this is true of many high achievers (though not all).
Personal question (you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to): do you have anyone IRL you discuss this kind of stuff with? Meditation group or zen discussion group or anything? If not I think it might be useful to seek that out, if only to bounce these concepts around.
So in summation, “nuh uh”.
Well you wouldn’t know what’s lost until you see it yrself.
From what I’ve seen, it’s vast. What remains is a single sunflower seed left from the whole flower.