3 ms·

I was just reading through some old LessWrong articles, in particular this one about making up categories: > ... Or you can see this in terms of the boundless

I was just reading through some old LessWrong articles, in particular this one about making up categories: > ... Or you can see this in terms of the boundless human ability to make stuff up out of thin air and believe it because no one can prove it's wrong. As soon as you name the category, you can start making up stuff about it. The named thing doesn't have to be perceptible; it doesn't have to exist; it doesn't even have to be coherent. [1] Came to mind with the way 'mindfulness' and 'concentration' were being used as 'technical' terms. It felt slightly like Deepak Chopra. Why do articles like this get respect but something like, say, continental philosophy doesn't? Is is simply because meditation is popular? [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/nx/categorizing_has_consequences/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nx/categorizing_has_consequences/

throwaway999888 11y ago
Because they are technical terms.
- orthoganol 11y ago
  So what is the body of knowledge that legitimatizes them as technical terms? Or are they just 'sign posts' to things we all experience (a.k.a. same level as Tolle, Chopra, et al.)?
  - throwaway999888 11y ago
    (Late reply since the HN mods have decided that they hate me so I was getting messages like "you're submitting too fast".) The Pāli Canon, one of the oldest Buddhist canons. You can dismiss that if you want to, but they're not wishy-washy concepts within the study of that canon. It's not like such a baseless accusation -- "oh, they use them as technical words, they're probably full of shit" -- deserves an answer. If you're really interested, do your own research next time. Not that you are.
    - orthoganol 11y ago
      Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels.
      - throwaway999888 11y ago
        > Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. It's simple to find out that the author of the book is a Buddhist monk. Of course your time is too precious for that so you'd rather blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and see if anyone takes the bait. > Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. The Buddha was hardly a philosopher. I don't know what you wish to get out of treatments on meditation, but I guess if you seek it for the mental masturbation aspect it might leave you unfulfilled. As long as such talk about the meditation practice itself in a technical -- words and terms that at least try to precisely describe such subjective experiences as meditation brings -- that's good enough for me. I don't require such an old tradition to first be scrutinised by 1,000 scientists before I try it myself. I think I can risk sitting on a cushion. > I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels. Yes, exactly. We're the uniform "HN" blob which have now revealed our hypocrisy by not condemning such "mystical" words like "mindful" and "concentration". And we're all supposed to hate people like Tolle and Chopra. Sorry bro, I guess I didn't get that memo. You've perfectly revealed our blind spot by pointing out how the author talks about words like "concentration" and "mindfulness" as if he... was at liberty to use such words in his own, precise way. That he uses "mindfulness" in a specific way, when he wrote a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". The sheer nerve. Thankfully you aren't tricked by such mumbo jumbo. I'll inform the HN hivemind of this collective transgression immediately. I don't really know anything about Chopra. All I know about Eckhart Tolle is that he is very concerned with The Now.
carapat_virulat 11y ago
Because western Buddhism has no moral commitments and that makes it a good fit for postmodern mentality, as in you can do whatever you want as long as you keep the necessary distance. It's a way to get inner peace without having to change anything about your real life behavior and beliefs, you get to have the cake and to eat it too. You just have to see how most meditation companies sell their product, the first movement is telling you that this is a way to escape modern consumerism, the stress of modern life, a more authentic life. The second movement is telling you that with their help you will be even more productive at the consumerist game. So you get everything, you have to sacrifice nothing.
- throwaway999888 11y ago
  The book is explicitly aimed (or marketed, if you will) at people of all beliefs and backgrounds. I guess the author is more concerned with teaching something that works rather than looking down on the sinful masses.

throwaway999888 11y ago

Because they are technical terms.

orthoganol 11y ago
So what is the body of knowledge that legitimatizes them as technical terms? Or are they just 'sign posts' to things we all experience (a.k.a. same level as Tolle, Chopra, et al.)?
- throwaway999888 11y ago
  (Late reply since the HN mods have decided that they hate me so I was getting messages like "you're submitting too fast".) The Pāli Canon, one of the oldest Buddhist canons. You can dismiss that if you want to, but they're not wishy-washy concepts within the study of that canon. It's not like such a baseless accusation -- "oh, they use them as technical words, they're probably full of shit" -- deserves an answer. If you're really interested, do your own research next time. Not that you are.
  - orthoganol 11y ago
    Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels.
    - throwaway999888 11y ago
      > Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. It's simple to find out that the author of the book is a Buddhist monk. Of course your time is too precious for that so you'd rather blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and see if anyone takes the bait. > Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. The Buddha was hardly a philosopher. I don't know what you wish to get out of treatments on meditation, but I guess if you seek it for the mental masturbation aspect it might leave you unfulfilled. As long as such talk about the meditation practice itself in a technical -- words and terms that at least try to precisely describe such subjective experiences as meditation brings -- that's good enough for me. I don't require such an old tradition to first be scrutinised by 1,000 scientists before I try it myself. I think I can risk sitting on a cushion. > I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels. Yes, exactly. We're the uniform "HN" blob which have now revealed our hypocrisy by not condemning such "mystical" words like "mindful" and "concentration". And we're all supposed to hate people like Tolle and Chopra. Sorry bro, I guess I didn't get that memo. You've perfectly revealed our blind spot by pointing out how the author talks about words like "concentration" and "mindfulness" as if he... was at liberty to use such words in his own, precise way. That he uses "mindfulness" in a specific way, when he wrote a book called "Mindfulness in Plain English". The sheer nerve. Thankfully you aren't tricked by such mumbo jumbo. I'll inform the HN hivemind of this collective transgression immediately. I don't really know anything about Chopra. All I know about Eckhart Tolle is that he is very concerned with The Now.

carapat_virulat 11y ago

Because western Buddhism has no moral commitments and that makes it a good fit for postmodern mentality, as in you can do whatever you want as long as you keep the necessary distance. It's a way to get inner peace without having to change anything about your real life behavior and beliefs, you get to have the cake and to eat it too. You just have to see how most meditation companies sell their product, the first movement is telling you that this is a way to escape modern consumerism, the stress of modern life, a more authentic life. The second movement is telling you that with their help you will be even more productive at the consumerist game. So you get everything, you have to sacrifice nothing.

throwaway999888 11y ago
The book is explicitly aimed (or marketed, if you will) at people of all beliefs and backgrounds. I guess the author is more concerned with teaching something that works rather than looking down on the sinful masses.