‘Attention is inescapably bound up with value – unlike what we think of as ‘cognitive functions’, which are neutral in this respect. Values enter through the way in which those functions are exercised: they can be used in different ways for different purposes to different ends. Attention, however, intrinsically is a way in which, not a thing: it is intrinsically a relationship, not a brute fact. It is a ‘howness’, a something between, an aspect of consciousness itself, not a ‘whatness’, a thing in itself, an object of consciousness. It brings into being a world and, with it, depending on its nature, a set of values.’
Attention is a ‘way in which’, it is a ‘howness’, a something between…can we say that intimate innovation and intimate leadership – in the special organisational sense we are examining – is
- away in which?
- a howness?
- a something between?
…which in turn is a way in which values enter in, become part of us and how we organise? And – fascinatingly – much of McGilchrist’s argument seems to suggest that we can see the relationship between the different types of attention as a way of providing the capacity to relate
- the macro and the micro
- the inside and the outside
- the ‘home’ (inner, private) way of organising to its context
This provides us with an evocative way of understanding priorities – what I attend to is what I value; what I value draws my attention; what I attend to are my priorities; my priorities reflect my values in the act of being attended to. Perhaps I have to modify – through attending to my intimate relation to them – my values in order to shift my priorities.