3 ms·

Iyer's piece is about a way of inhabiting the self, wider and more inclusive than the pinched serial thinking activity of the mind that tends to dominate. It ad

Iyer's piece is about a way of inhabiting the self, wider and more inclusive than the pinched serial thinking activity of the mind that tends to dominate. It adds a distinctive calmness, richness and capacity to the experience of living. This 'way' is commonly termed 'mindfulness' right now, but it's a perennial practise going under various guises at different times. It has little intrinsically to do with 'art' (though art can prompt of experiences providing a tantalising glimpse of that wider perspective).

jessriedel 9y ago
But he explicitly says this!: "As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is ... those moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and uplifting, we will never begin to understand." He's not just advising folks to cultivate some mental state, he's arguing for a way of attaining that mental state through the consumption of art. My point is that (1) anecdotally, this has not been successful for me, and, more importantly, (2) the proponents of mindfulness or related mental states are not convincingly pursuing a strategy for helping others to achieve it. And I think the explanation is clear: proponents of mindfulness are generally not willing to apply analytical thinking even in the service of greater mindfulness. Attempts in this direction have been made, but I have not been impressed. https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564 https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-mental-feedback-loops/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-me... (The particular examples I have are from the Buddhism-specific conception of mindfulness, but I don't think the more general conceptions you allude to have been more successful. I'd be happy to see links to the contrary.)
- dsubburam 9y ago
  If you're looking for an analytical approach for "achieving it", I can suggest advaita vedanta. Rooted in Hinduism rather than Buddhism, it's an approach that emphasizes philosophical enquiry, rather than "meditation" or "mindfulness". Not popular, semi-obscure, and wikipedia entry not great; can suggest Standing as Awareness by Greg Goode [1], who IIRC works as a programmer. [1] https://greg-goode.com/books/standing-as-awareness/ https://greg-goode.com/books/standing-as-awareness/
- crispinb 9y ago
  My reading of this is quite different from yours. To me he wants to 'share' the experience in the way he might that of a vista or a startling character. Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language. I think he's trying to pique interest or curiosity. It's up to the reader (if their curiosity is so piqued) to do their own work (whatever that may be) to see if related experiences might be relevant to them. I see nothing in this passage or in those of Iyer's works that I've read to suggest he believes anyone can attain the states he's describing simply by reading his writing. There are certainly suggestions from other quarters (Zen, Sufism) that poetry in particular can sometimes (but rarely) trigger transient states of heightened awareness. But I'm not aware of Iyer subscribing to this. As for analytical approaches to 'mindfulness', perhaps they're out there; I personally haven't done enough of a literature search to be sure. In a popular rather than academic vein, Sam Harris is probably as rigorous you'll get (he is always, at a minimum, very clear). Robert Wright (a secular Buddhist) has recently written a book whose title (Why Buddhism is True IIRC) strongly suggests persuasive (therefore analytical or at least purportedly rational?) intent, but I haven't read it. But all that's a bit beside the point for most 'proponents' of mindfulness I have come across, because they are little interested in persuasion. They're not trying to argue for a Truth in the marketplace of ideas. They're just offering practices and associated reflections that might be useful to some. A curious party can pick these up and try them, and do as they wish from there. Persuasion really has no part to play.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    > Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language. This applies to all art. Of course it cannot literally put you in someone else's shoes, but it does things like evoke an image in the viewers imagination. > It's up to the reader (if their curiosity is so piqued) to do their own work (whatever that may be) to see if related experiences might be relevant to them. I see nothing in this passage or in those of Iyer's works that I've read to suggest he believes anyone can attain the states he's describing simply by reading his writing. I never denied the importance of active engagement for the viewer of art. > They're just offering practices and associated reflections that might be useful to some. He literally wrote "I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is...". Not just something that might be useful, but the best. And he's arguing against analytical methods of accomplishing similar things. I don't think this piece can be defended by saying the author was just sorta sharing some neat stuff. He's criticizing other approaches.

jessriedel 9y ago

But he explicitly says this!: "As a writer, I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is ... those moments we all know when we sit, helpless, before ravenous flames, or sense that we can only bow before those turns along the road, harrowing and uplifting, we will never begin to understand." He's not just advising folks to cultivate some mental state, he's arguing for a way of attaining that mental state through the consumption of art. My point is that (1) anecdotally, this has not been successful for me, and, more importantly, (2) the proponents of mindfulness or related mental states are not convincingly pursuing a strategy for helping others to achieve it. And I think the explanation is clear: proponents of mindfulness are generally not willing to apply analytical thinking even in the service of greater mindfulness. Attempts in this direction have been made, but I have not been impressed. https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-Awakening/dp/1573226564 https://www.amazon.ca/Buddhism-without-Beliefs-Contemporary-... http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-mental-feedback-loops/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/20/meditative-states-as-me... (The particular examples I have are from the Buddhism-specific conception of mindfulness, but I don't think the more general conceptions you allude to have been more successful. I'd be happy to see links to the contrary.)

dsubburam 9y ago
If you're looking for an analytical approach for "achieving it", I can suggest advaita vedanta. Rooted in Hinduism rather than Buddhism, it's an approach that emphasizes philosophical enquiry, rather than "meditation" or "mindfulness". Not popular, semi-obscure, and wikipedia entry not great; can suggest Standing as Awareness by Greg Goode [1], who IIRC works as a programmer. [1] https://greg-goode.com/books/standing-as-awareness/ https://greg-goode.com/books/standing-as-awareness/
crispinb 9y ago
My reading of this is quite different from yours. To me he wants to 'share' the experience in the way he might that of a vista or a startling character. Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language. I think he's trying to pique interest or curiosity. It's up to the reader (if their curiosity is so piqued) to do their own work (whatever that may be) to see if related experiences might be relevant to them. I see nothing in this passage or in those of Iyer's works that I've read to suggest he believes anyone can attain the states he's describing simply by reading his writing. There are certainly suggestions from other quarters (Zen, Sufism) that poetry in particular can sometimes (but rarely) trigger transient states of heightened awareness. But I'm not aware of Iyer subscribing to this. As for analytical approaches to 'mindfulness', perhaps they're out there; I personally haven't done enough of a literature search to be sure. In a popular rather than academic vein, Sam Harris is probably as rigorous you'll get (he is always, at a minimum, very clear). Robert Wright (a secular Buddhist) has recently written a book whose title (Why Buddhism is True IIRC) strongly suggests persuasive (therefore analytical or at least purportedly rational?) intent, but I haven't read it. But all that's a bit beside the point for most 'proponents' of mindfulness I have come across, because they are little interested in persuasion. They're not trying to argue for a Truth in the marketplace of ideas. They're just offering practices and associated reflections that might be useful to some. A curious party can pick these up and try them, and do as they wish from there. Persuasion really has no part to play.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  > Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language. This applies to all art. Of course it cannot literally put you in someone else's shoes, but it does things like evoke an image in the viewers imagination. > It's up to the reader (if their curiosity is so piqued) to do their own work (whatever that may be) to see if related experiences might be relevant to them. I see nothing in this passage or in those of Iyer's works that I've read to suggest he believes anyone can attain the states he's describing simply by reading his writing. I never denied the importance of active engagement for the viewer of art. > They're just offering practices and associated reflections that might be useful to some. He literally wrote "I’ve come to feel that the best thing I can share with readers is...". Not just something that might be useful, but the best. And he's arguing against analytical methods of accomplishing similar things. I don't think this piece can be defended by saying the author was just sorta sharing some neat stuff. He's criticizing other approaches.