3 ms·

This makes the assumption that our priority is to change/fix things. I'm usually of this mindset too, but there's something to the argument of accepting what i

by blunte 7y ago

This makes the assumption that our priority is to change/fix things. I'm usually of this mindset too, but there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment. We can't really know which approach is best, because we can't A/B test human life. Who knows... perhaps if everyone were calm and peaceful, much would change without activism.

vidarh 7y ago
If you want to change/fix things then being calm and present is a useful skill to be able to assess what the problem actually is and how to address it without being being drawn to actions that are not thought through. Mindfulness does not imply you should not get angry at injustice, for example, but that you might want to observe that emotion arising and understand what you're actually angry about and why before you act. Sometimes you'll catch yourself being manipulated, or you'll realize you're angry about the wrong thing, or lashing out at the wrong person or entity. As such I think the author would have done much better to focus on why mindfulness is not about inaction, and should not be used as an excuse for inaction. If someone wants to focus only inwards, that's got nothing to do with mindfulness, and in fact if they use mindfulness as an excuse for that, they are failing at being mindful if they're not mindful that it is just an excuse. Mindfulness certainly can make some people more ready to accept life as it is, but the point then is that suffering for the sake of suffering is pretty irrational - if you can find a way to accept your current situation, then that is good. But accepting it does not mean you can not want to change it. But you should be aware of why, not just blindly fight for something that might not make you or others any happier. I do think you're right that if everyone were calm and peaceful much would change without activism, but I also don't think mindfulness means no activism. Different activism, perhaps.
m-i-l 7y ago
"there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment" Ah, but that's what they want - something to reduce our immediate suffering and distract us with a pleasant fantasy so we can all keep slaving away at those dark satanic mills without question - "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions";-) But more seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm not wholly convinced by the article's argument. It strikes me as like saying antibiotics are bad because they don't encourage good hygiene and can be misused e.g. overuse on farm animals. Well yes those things might be true, but it isn't the antibiotics that are the problem. Its like technology, it in itself isn't good or bad, it is people and what they do with it that makes it one or the other.

by blunte 7y ago

vidarh 7y ago

If you want to change/fix things then being calm and present is a useful skill to be able to assess what the problem actually is and how to address it without being being drawn to actions that are not thought through. Mindfulness does not imply you should not get angry at injustice, for example, but that you might want to observe that emotion arising and understand what you're actually angry about and why before you act. Sometimes you'll catch yourself being manipulated, or you'll realize you're angry about the wrong thing, or lashing out at the wrong person or entity. As such I think the author would have done much better to focus on why mindfulness is not about inaction, and should not be used as an excuse for inaction. If someone wants to focus only inwards, that's got nothing to do with mindfulness, and in fact if they use mindfulness as an excuse for that, they are failing at being mindful if they're not mindful that it is just an excuse. Mindfulness certainly can make some people more ready to accept life as it is, but the point then is that suffering for the sake of suffering is pretty irrational - if you can find a way to accept your current situation, then that is good. But accepting it does not mean you can not want to change it. But you should be aware of why, not just blindly fight for something that might not make you or others any happier. I do think you're right that if everyone were calm and peaceful much would change without activism, but I also don't think mindfulness means no activism. Different activism, perhaps.

m-i-l 7y ago

"there's something to the argument of accepting what is and being calm and present to the moment" Ah, but that's what they want - something to reduce our immediate suffering and distract us with a pleasant fantasy so we can all keep slaving away at those dark satanic mills without question - "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions";-) But more seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you, and I'm not wholly convinced by the article's argument. It strikes me as like saying antibiotics are bad because they don't encourage good hygiene and can be misused e.g. overuse on farm animals. Well yes those things might be true, but it isn't the antibiotics that are the problem. Its like technology, it in itself isn't good or bad, it is people and what they do with it that makes it one or the other.