
On Monks and Email - spking
http://www.calnewport.com/blog/2019/04/29/on-monks-and-email/
======
athenot
This reminds me of Knuth's stance on email:

 _I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an
email address. I 'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15
years of email is plenty for one lifetime._

 _Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of
things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do
takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn
certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that
knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don 't have time for
such study._

[https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html](https://www-cs-
faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html)

------
ryanisnan
The article stops just as it was getting going. I can't help but feel like
this was deliberate and for the purpose of selling _Deep Work_.

~~~
smacktoward
The real meat is in the _Aeon_ article this post links to:
[https://aeon.co/ideas/how-to-reduce-digital-distractions-
adv...](https://aeon.co/ideas/how-to-reduce-digital-distractions-advice-from-
medieval-monks)

~~~
tictoc
What was the takeaway from the Aeon post? Ascetic practices?

------
ARandomerDude
Interesting historical note: the Puritans, also known for being extremely hard
working, pointed out the monks had correctly identified the problem but
misidentified the solution.

~~~
rexpop
In what text did they point this out?

~~~
ARandomerDude
Two that come to mind are John Owen's _The Mortification of Sin_ and Jonathan
Edwards' _Religious Affections_.

They agree with the monks that the body is weak, and often desires what is bad
for you. Likewise, the mind is weak, unfocused, and filled with pride,
jealousy, etc. Both agree that a focused, pure (holy) life is the goal. Where
they differ is what to do about it.

The monks advise rigor, abstinence, and communal separation. The idea is if
you're good enough, God will accept you. The Puritans say "just try harder" is
a counsel of despair because perfection is impossible, and rule-following is
always incomplete (there are always more rules to follow). So, the Puritans
say ask God for strength to live uprightly, knowing that forgiveness is given
by Christ, not a reward for good deeds.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
They also shunned, kicked out or hanged anyone that didn't "try hard enough"
so I wouldn't take their philosophical/religious opinions too seriously. They
believed in a merciful god because the earthly reality they subjected
themselves to was anything but (i.e. it was a coping mechanism). They
basically ran the closest thing to a caliphate to ever exist in the western
hemisphere. Of course they put a good spin on it but every utopia is also a
dystopia.

~~~
ARandomerDude
Hmmm...that doesn't seem to fit the historical data. Most of what they said
was inline with protestantism generally. For example Luther (certainly no
Puritan!) said this as early as 1518:

> The law says, "do this," and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in
> this," and everything is already done.

At most we could say they didn't live according to their preached views, but
that's still too broad a brush stroke. For example, the Salem trials (1692)
were viewed with near universal horror outside the immediate area, and Salem
itself publicly apologized (1696) to the victims, reversed the convictions
(1703), and paid restitution to their families (1711).

Shunning was an Anabaptist practice (Menno Simons in Germany -> Mennonites,
most famously Amish) not a Puritan practice. Most Christians, including
Edwards, have regarded shunning as a cultish aberration since it appeared on
the scene in the 1530s.

My point in saying all this: fair criticism is good, and evaluation of their
doctrine is fine. But pop culture "knowledge" on this issue is pretty wide of
the mark.

Also: I'm not a Puritan. I just like history. :-)

------
dllthomas
> thinking [...] really is the fundamental value-producing activity in
> knowledge work

I don't think that's quite right, for most kinds of knowledge work. Thinking
is an important component, but I think observing and communicating are also
part of it (with the particular mix varying greatly), and email ties into
those.

Which isn't to say the thesis is completely off-base, by any means.

~~~
Nasrudith
Yeah - ironically respected Greek philosphers who insisted upon purity of
thought as a virtue have shown that literally pure thinking on its own is
ironically useless without a reference to reality given the believed
absurdities from refusing to validate against reality.

But that is more of an indictment of purity as a notion being inherently good.
Mathematics for instance is "pure thinking" in that any system may be
described mathematically doesn't mean your model neccessarily matches or is
remotely reasonable beyond mathematical consistency. Combine it with the real
world and it certainly isn't debased but enhanced as weird new phenomena can
give rise to new theory that encompasses them.

------
girzel
This article is a bit weird in that it goes in to all this stuff about the
monks' struggle to focus, but never once talks about the practice of
meditation. Reading the first few paragraphs, I was thinking "this is
precisely what meditation is for". These are exactly the issues meditation
addresses.

"Distraction is an old problem, and so is the fantasy that it can be dodged
once and for all."

Except that that's precisely what meditation practice does.

~~~
girzel
What I probably should have added here is that Buddhist meditation practice
gives you tools for understanding _why_ distraction happens. The whole
practice is an examination of the nature of the mind and its multiplicity, and
why it is prone to distraction.

Instead of just wringing one's hands in frustration and grumbling about why
it's so hard.

~~~
mistermann
Aren't we told that one should cease thinking during meditation?

~~~
perfmode
Meditation is about awareness and deidentification

~~~
mistermann
Indeed, but anything I've read on it suggests stopping thoughts. "If you
notice yourself thinking, let it pass by and bring attention back to the
breath". This seems contrary to what is written here.

~~~
perfmode
Specifically, what part is contrary?

~~~
mistermann
From the article:

> “Their job, more than anything else, was to focus on divine communication.
> For these monks, the meditating mind _wasn’t supposed to be at ease. It was
> supposed to be energised_. Their favourite words for describing
> concentration stemmed from the Latin tenere, to hold tight to something. The
> ideal was a mens intentus, _a mind that was always and actively reaching out
> to its target._ ”

> Even the monastic renunciation of worldly goods and relationships supported
> concentration: the fewer things going on your life, they reasoned, the fewer
> things to distract you _while trying to think about God_.

What seems to be popular mainstream advice:

> "If you notice yourself thinking, let it pass by and bring attention back to
> the breath."

A fairly typical article in my experience:

[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-stop-thinking-
during-m...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-stop-thinking-during-
meditation-10-tips-to-calm-in-10-minutes_n_8995426)

> How to _Stop Thinking_ During Meditation: 10 Tips to Calm in 10 Minutes

> Have you tried meditation only to get frustrated because you _can 't stop
> thinking_ or worrying? Maybe you worry so much that you feel more stressed
> after meditation than when you began! If you struggle with _constant
> thoughts_ during meditation, don't give up yet! These tips are simple but
> powerful to get your mind _calm and clear_.

In the first example, it sounds to me like thinking is a _goal_ , something to
be pursued.

In the second example(s), it sounds to me like thinking is an undesirable
state, something to be avoided.

~~~
girzel
Yup, that's still sounding a lot like Buddhist meditation to me. There, too,
your mind isn't supposed to be quiescent, in fact one of the early pitfalls is
"dullness", or simply shutting your brain off. You're meant to remain
perfectly focused, and entirely alert. "Tenere", while probably not the way
Buddhists would describe their meditative practice, isn't at all at odds with
it.

I'm not an expert, but it feels to me like in both traditions the goal is to
be completely _present_ , ie all mental faculties up and running and brought
to bear. Perhaps for the Christian monks there would be an added element of
communication with God (but, perhaps, it was simply being in His presence?),
whereas for Buddhists there isn't... I don't know.

The point of Buddhist meditation isn't to somehow beat your thoughts into
submission. It's first to acknowledge them, as you say allowing them to come
and go. During the course of that you realize that they are something separate
and distinct from your self (further realizations about the self come later,
of course). Later on, as you progress, they eventually don't intrude anymore.
It's not that you've defeated them, they simply don't pop up.

~~~
mistermann
> There, too, your mind isn't supposed to be quiescent, in fact one of the
> early pitfalls is "dullness", or simply shutting your brain off. You're
> meant to remain perfectly focused, and entirely alert.

Alert to what's going on around you, or being present and not distracted by
unwanted thoughts....this is my understanding anyways.

> ie all mental faculties up and running and _brought to bear_.

"Brought to bear" on what though I think is what I'm getting at.

> Later on, as you progress, they eventually don't intrude anymore. It's not
> that you've defeated them, they simply don't pop up.

And then what is also what I'm getting that.

From the linked article:

> "A more advanced method for concentrating was to build elaborate mental
> structures in the course of reading and thinking. Nuns, monks, preachers and
> the people they educated were always encouraged to visualise the material
> they were processing. A branchy tree or a finely feathered angel – or in the
> case of Hugh of St Victor (who wrote a vivid little guide to this strategy
> in the 12th century), a multilevel ark in the heart of the cosmos – could
> become the template for dividing complex material into an ordered system.
> The images might closely correspond to the substance of an idea. Hugh, for
> example, imagined a column rising out of his ark that stood for the tree of
> life in paradise, which as it ascended linked the earth on the ark to the
> generations past, and on to the vault of the heavens. Or instead, the images
> might only be organisational placeholders, where a tree representing a text
> or topic (say, ‘Natural Law’) could have eight branches and eight fruits on
> each branch, representing 64 different ideas clustered into eight larger
> concepts."

> "The point wasn’t to paint these pictures on parchment. It was to give the
> mind something to draw, to indulge its appetite for aesthetically
> interesting forms _while sorting its ideas into some logical structure_. I
> teach medieval cognitive techniques to college freshmen, and this last one
> is by far their favourite. _Constructing complex mental apparatuses_ gives
> them a way to organise – and, in the process, analyse – material they need
> to learn for other classes. The process also keeps their minds occupied with
> something that feels palpable and riveting. Concentration and critical
> thinking, in this mode, feel less like a slog and more like a game."

"while sorting its ideas into some logical structure" and "constructing
complex mental apparatuses....process, analyse – material they need to learn"
\- might these be tasks a highly capable meditator would be perform _during_
meditation, deeply contemplating a particular topic, _as opposed to_ simply
being present with a clear mind? The article doesn't really say definitively.

A modern day example of this might be a pastor working on next Sunday's
sermon, say to deliver the ideas from scripture in a way that is relatable to
his congregation - might a deeply meditative state be highly conducive to such
complex tasks?

------
hashkb
One more perspective on a well-covered issue in our industry. The most success
I've had of reaching leadership about it is
[http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html)
and, to a lesser extent, the many articles that try to quantify the cost of
interruptions in dollars.

------
coldacid
I'm reminded of the concents in Anathem, and how much I'd rather live and work
in one of them rather than in today's society and work environments.

------
mercer
I find that a lot of my knowledge work involves a kind of thinking that
doesn't quite feel like proper _thinking_.

Adding breakpoints or log messages or refreshing constantly.

Entering search queries that are various permutations of my error message or
question, and following whatever rabbit hole it sends me down.

Reading the documentation of some API, or refreshing my knowledge of a
framework and/or what changed in the latest version.

Figuring out what part of my stack decided to misbehave and why, which I
suppose is often a variation on the previous problem.

Writing and rewriting an email or ticket not primarily to communicate what the
problem is, or how I solved it (because nobody cares), but rather to get the
resources to work on the problem or offer some vague explanation of the
solution all the while considering the 'political' context of the issue.

All of those do involve various degrees of thinking and creativity. I'd even
go as far as saying that a big part of my effectiveness as a developer over
the years is a result of getting better at those things. And it's made me
respect the role of non-devs (such as managers) quite a bit more.

But to me they're mostly draining, and feel qualitatively different from, and
worse than, the 'thinking' that I do when I'm trying to think of the best
solution to a problem, the best way to structure my project, or even the best
constructs to use in a bit of code. Or the joy of synthesizing some ideas from
one book with those of another book, sometimes complicated by having to do it
live, in conversation, while considering all the conversational rules too. Or
even the 'thinking' involved in writing and rewriting this comment, however
meaningless or pointless it is compared to, you know, all that other stuff I
do that people actually ask for and/or pay me for.

I still haven't quite figured out how to categorize these two types of
thinking (and optimize for the one I prefer).

But the closest I can get to the core difference is that the former is mostly
about rote knowledge (repeat x until I know y, read x in the API so I
understand the incantation, rewrite search query x so I get result y and
remember which y is usually valuable, remember which stakeholders care about
what things, etc.), while the latter actually feels like combining different
pieces of knowledge in (personally) novel ways. Maybe it's a bit like the
difference between high-school chemistry and mathematics?

EDIT: I'm not saying either of these types of thinking is better than the
other, btw, just that I often find myself engaging in the one that doesn't
'energize' me.

------
beat
Cal Newport on point, as usual. _Deep Work_ and _Digital Minimalism_ are
essential modern reading if you want to improve the effectiveness of your
thinking.

------
smacktoward
I feel like both this post and the _Aeon_ article it links to (which really
ought to be what HN links to, as the post just glosses over it to connect it
to the themes in Newport's book) miss something important about the medieval
monk's struggle against distraction: the underlying reasons for it were
_structural_ , not individual. The dynamics of medieval society made it
impossible for monks to just be monks.

Monastic orders would generally be founded with the intention of following
something like the ascetic lifestyle described, because it was felt that the
more ascetic a monk was the closer he was to God. But it was this perceived
closeness to God that would undo them, because it meant that prayers from a
monk close to God were seen as more powerful than prayers from your average
everyday priest.

See, it was common for rich nobles and wealthy merchants, when they
contemplated their mortality, to want to better their odds of getting into
heaven by using some of their wealth to set up endowments to pay clerics to
pray for their souls. And of course, the richest and most powerful people in
society didn't want those prayers being offered by just _anybody_. They wanted
to buy the _best_ prayers, the ones that packed the most spiritual wallop. And
that meant they wanted prayers from those ascetic monks.

The more strict a monastic order tried to be in its self-denial, the more
quickly the wealthy and powerful would beat a path to their door to dump sacks
of money onto it to buy its prayers. And once an institution starts piling up
money, it finds itself saddled with the need to figure out something to do
with it. So your spartan monastic order would slowly begin _acquiring_ things,
buildings and employees and land and so forth -- and of course all those
things require _management_ , and the more you pile up, the more management is
required. Over time, the priorities of the order slowly start to shift. Fast-
forward a hundred years, and your order of self-denying monks looks more like
a holding company, with its monks spending their time worrying over problems
of agricultural management and looking for new tax loopholes to exploit
instead of contemplating Scripture.

And eventually somebody would look at that order, and, disgusted by its
worldliness, flee into the woods to start a _new_ order -- one that would be
ascetic and self-denying and pure. And the cycle would start all over again.

Our society is very different from that of medieval Europe, but I believe we
can see these same cycles in operation in our lives as well. Just look at
Google, for instance: a company started by two academics that loudly professed
disdain for the way its main competitor, Yahoo, operated, telling everybody
that _their_ company was going to focus on Real CS Problems™ rather than
grubby things like banner ads. And then the investors showed up, and investors
demand a return, so they held their nose and dipped their toes into
enterprises like AdWords, which were ads, yes, but, they insisted, _good_ ads,
_ethical_ ads. Fast forward two decades later, and the inexorable logic of the
structures Google operates within has led them to become the world's biggest
surveillance merchant, an all-seeing eye whose unblinking gaze stares out not
just from its own products but uncountable numbers of third-party apps and
sites and nine-tenths of the world's phones -- all in the service of what has
become its one and only real business, selling ads. Google is embedded in an
economic system that can not allow things like Google-as-originally-envisioned
to exist; they must either give up their aspirations toward asceticism, or be
crushed by someone who will.

I wonder how much of the demand for this kind of lifestyle-hacking/"personal
optimization" literature derives from an unwillingness to grapple with this.
We look at the vast edifice of capitalism and, shocked by its scope, recoil
instinctively from the seemingly impossible idea of changing it. So we turn
instead to changing _ourselves_ , which at least feels like something it is
within our power to actually do.

