5 ms·

Mindfulness was a major step forward in the exploration of the self, at least for western culture. I see this criticism as the next step forward. I too have fel

Mindfulness was a major step forward in the exploration of the self, at least for western culture. I see this criticism as the next step forward. I too have felt some ambiguous disconnect between mindfulness and experience that this essay does a good job capturing. The goal of mindfulness is to make you realize you don't exist, and to try to reach a state where you don't exist, and teach you that your thoughts aren't your own and you have no free will. That was a step forward in breaking down the self, and this next step is to unify these ideas with the self and existence.

virtualwhys 7y ago
> and to try to reach a state where you don't exist, and teach you that your thoughts aren't your own and you have no free will. There's a lot going on here. So, I don't exist, and yet an effort to reach the state of non-existence needs to be made (sounds like some faith/belief is required here to even begin). And, thoughts are without a self, which follows from the non-self notion. That all makes sense within this philosophy, but what about free will? It sounds like the state of non-self would be the essence of freedom, and therefore, choice, and not a fixed universe in which everything is preordained.
gridlockd 7y ago
> The goal of mindfulness is to make you realize you don't exist, and to try to reach a state where you don't exist, and teach you that your thoughts aren't your own and you have no free will. You have spent billions of years not existing, you will spend billions of years not existing, yet you also want to achieve this state of not existing within your comparatively short actual lifetime? What a waste.
- hooch 7y ago
  This brings to mind an illustrative example made by the Buddhist teacher Alexander Berzin: “You’re driving down the road, and another driver is doing something crazy, swerving about and you almost have an accident, and you think what an asshole! Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first obscuration that prevents omniscience. Believing this thought to be true is the second obscuration (paraphrased) that cements the prevention of omniscience.” It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first obscuration that prevents omniscience You know what else prevents omniscience? The second law of thermodynamics. So what? > It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality. Again, so what? Even the simplest biochemical processes inside my body are so complex and astounding, I have no hope of ever truly understanding even a tiny part of them. I have no issue with this. I have no issue with not truly knowing "reality", or with the prospect that understanding it is literally impossible.
    - zzzeek 7y ago
      So...it might help you to realize that other people who you would normally think are "assholes", people who you don't know yet hate nonetheless, are nothing like that, and maybe you've been making all kinds of judgments about people that aren't really true, and that in fact, reality calls for a vastly larger degree of love and compassion for others, even people who cut you off on the road. You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. No biggie, so what!
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything. For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into a virtue. > You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything. It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the Japanese commit all those atrocities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature. Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
calais 7y ago
Metzinger, Being No One (2004) may be just the step forward to which you refer. The prereflexive sense of self (as, say, a point-source of will and identity) is empirically inaccurate and faulty, and Metzinger attacks philosophy grounded in this untranscendable experience. But, unlike many philosophers, European or Buddhist, who satisfy to negate the ontological status of the self, Metzinger develops a theory of the self which is conceptually constrained by clinical medicine's empirical totality. Two warnings about Metzinger, though: (1) a mood leaks through his writing, a sort of nihilistic determinism that his rigorous philosophy relentlessly evokes, but which his assertions do not imply; and (2) it is quite difficult reading, like a new Kant, lucid yet dense, requiring of a layman to assiduously infer and integrate the language of cognitive science.

virtualwhys 7y ago

> and to try to reach a state where you don't exist, and teach you that your thoughts aren't your own and you have no free will. There's a lot going on here. So, I don't exist, and yet an effort to reach the state of non-existence needs to be made (sounds like some faith/belief is required here to even begin). And, thoughts are without a self, which follows from the non-self notion. That all makes sense within this philosophy, but what about free will? It sounds like the state of non-self would be the essence of freedom, and therefore, choice, and not a fixed universe in which everything is preordained.

gridlockd 7y ago

> The goal of mindfulness is to make you realize you don't exist, and to try to reach a state where you don't exist, and teach you that your thoughts aren't your own and you have no free will. You have spent billions of years not existing, you will spend billions of years not existing, yet you also want to achieve this state of not existing within your comparatively short actual lifetime? What a waste.

hooch 7y ago
This brings to mind an illustrative example made by the Buddhist teacher Alexander Berzin: “You’re driving down the road, and another driver is doing something crazy, swerving about and you almost have an accident, and you think what an asshole! Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first obscuration that prevents omniscience. Believing this thought to be true is the second obscuration (paraphrased) that cements the prevention of omniscience.” It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Having the thought that the other driver is an asshole is the first obscuration that prevents omniscience You know what else prevents omniscience? The second law of thermodynamics. So what? > It’s not that “you” don’t exist. It’s that the conditioned and conventionally accepted ways that we think we exist (and by extension the ways that we project that others exist) are ultimately false and don’t correspond to reality. Again, so what? Even the simplest biochemical processes inside my body are so complex and astounding, I have no hope of ever truly understanding even a tiny part of them. I have no issue with this. I have no issue with not truly knowing "reality", or with the prospect that understanding it is literally impossible.
  - zzzeek 7y ago
    So...it might help you to realize that other people who you would normally think are "assholes", people who you don't know yet hate nonetheless, are nothing like that, and maybe you've been making all kinds of judgments about people that aren't really true, and that in fact, reality calls for a vastly larger degree of love and compassion for others, even people who cut you off on the road. You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. No biggie, so what!
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      I don't hate anybody, I didn't need some crank who talks about omniscience to help me realize that. From a cosmological standpoint, of course one can argue that nobody has a free will and that nobody is ultimately responsible for anything. For practical purposes, this is a pretty useless insight. In practical terms, the people that cut you off in traffic for no good reason are what we humans call "assholes" (or similar). We sanction this behavior so that we can work better as a society. There's a purpose for you to get upset about such behavior. It is directly connected to your instinct for survival, your will to live. Yes, sometimes your will to live makes you suffer. That doesn't mean killing off that will is "enlightened", or that the people who "tune out" are to be revered for it. You're rebranding a thinly veiled "sour grapes attitude" into a virtue. > You treat people completely differently, you become kinder, more courteous, less hateful, and more patient, at larger scale animosity and hostility between peoples decreases to zero and world / universal peace is achieved. This is a foolish belief. If there is no such thing as an "asshole", there is no such thing as "murderer". Remember, nobody is responsible for anything. It's all just part of the cosmic ballet! That's how Zen Buddhism helped the Japanese commit all those atrocities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War Remember, not everyone actually buys into this philosophy, by their nature. Your brand of philosophy is one of weakness, of little resistance. It doesn't have the "tools" for survival on its own and it's easily exploited.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

calais 7y ago

Metzinger, Being No One (2004) may be just the step forward to which you refer. The prereflexive sense of self (as, say, a point-source of will and identity) is empirically inaccurate and faulty, and Metzinger attacks philosophy grounded in this untranscendable experience. But, unlike many philosophers, European or Buddhist, who satisfy to negate the ontological status of the self, Metzinger develops a theory of the self which is conceptually constrained by clinical medicine's empirical totality. Two warnings about Metzinger, though: (1) a mood leaks through his writing, a sort of nihilistic determinism that his rigorous philosophy relentlessly evokes, but which his assertions do not imply; and (2) it is quite difficult reading, like a new Kant, lucid yet dense, requiring of a layman to assiduously infer and integrate the language of cognitive science.