Quality of Depth

December 24, 2023 Cognitive Insights No Comments

Most people would agree that ‘quality of depth’ is profoundly relevant to them personally. At the same time, many may disagree about what it entails. It’s a challenging concept.

It’s already challenging to grasp ‘human depth’ since subconceptual processing – therefore also the difficulty to conceptually get it – is an inextricable feature.

‘Deep’ itself as quality?

Low-quality depth may be particularly attractive but only temporarily or narrowly.

I see many drug experiences as an example. They frequently involve depth without subsequent integration in the rest of mental life — pretty dangerous, logically.

Taking a drug may be as easy as ingesting a pill. Contrary to this, meditation, for instance, can take quite some effort to attain depth. Many (including me) see precisely this effort as productive – or at least pretty helpful – for the quality.

Then what are some consequences of good quality?

People feel ‘touched at the heart.’ They feel moved and changed in a way that at least feels permanent.

They may seek out repeated experiences of the same kind without getting addicted. On the contrary, they get mentally stronger and more self-reliant through what I call Inner Strength. Also, when getting older, people tend to value mainly their past and present experiences of qualitative depth.

This can all be seen as the following:

Meaningfulness

Quality of depth and meaningfulness are deeply related. Something can only be (the cause of feeling) meaningful if there is quality of depth involved.

The present-day meaning crisis is, therefore, very much a lack-of-quality-of-depth crisis.

We should teach our children well in this regard. Unfortunately, meanwhile, well, you know.

Progress?

Cultural progress tends to forget the quality of depth that is already there. This brings tensions between those who culturally want to go forward and those who wish to conserve. Such tensions can only be resolved by giving proper attention to quality of depth. This shows, in a rapidly evolving world, what should better be kept and what needs new qualitative layers of depth.

Increasingly, in view of globally mounting complexity and factual proximity, this is becoming a necessity, and it’s not getting easier.

The near future

With growing technological capabilities, quality of depth will become increasingly important in three ways:

  • Making sure the technology is used or self-evolves in meaningful ways.
  • Enabling people to keep finding meaningfulness when many easy meaning-bringers gradually dissolve (in ‘progressive’ parts of the world).
  • The third way is not directly human-related but will become crucial soon enough. It’s about the quality of depth of super-A.I. This may be the foremost important factor shaping the future of our species.

The challenge

Quality of depth is not easily attainable. In a culture of easy fixes, that spells trouble from afar. Additionally, smart people don’t necessarily grasp it. They may be conceptually intelligent, but that is not enough. Being conceptually clever may even backfire.

It’s about wisdom and the ancient adage to ‘know thyself.’

Eventually, it’s the work of a lifetime.

But worth every bit!

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Insight is a Path

The way one reaches an insight is at least as important as the insight itself, viewed as an accomplished piece of knowledge. This is highly important in many situations. Please read [see: “Insight is Not a Supermarket“] Close to wisdom As I use the term, insight is more than just an intellectual idea. It always Read the full article…

The Poetic Brain

This view hasn’t been pretty widespread in the past. It may be so in the future. Our brains are made for poetry. The deeper one delves into neuro-brain-stuff – maps, neurons, dendrites, synapses – the more it’s at risk of becoming viewed purely materialistically. Indeed, in the end, even a painting of Goya is nothing Read the full article…

Popperian vs. Kuhnian

Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn were two heavyweights in the thinking-about-science of the 20th century. Popper saw scientific progress as a gradual drifting. Kuhn added to this a sudden shifting — as in ‘paradigm shift.’ One can broaden this dichotomy to thinking in general. Many people are continually inclined, in their thinking, to go from Read the full article…

Translate »