4 ms·

I enjoyed the article. I see mindfulness being a truly helpful tool, but I can also see it as being a bludgeon to numb people to the status quo. The closest thi

I enjoyed the article. I see mindfulness being a truly helpful tool, but I can also see it as being a bludgeon to numb people to the status quo. The closest thing that I can think of that is similar is physical exercise. Physical exercise is legitimately helpful for maintaining a healthy life for nearly all (if not all) human beings, but there is definitely an industry around getting people to buy things to get them into shape with various probabilities of success. Similar to the author’s assertion about physical exercise, there are credible factors that affect physical health outside of just physical exercise such as diet/nutrition and physical/mental stress. Dealing with these other issues that affect physical health is more difficult and particularly when food-producing industries have a vested interest in getting people to eat more, and employers have a vested interest in getting the most out of their employees. For what it is worth, The Guardian’s “the long read” section has the following in the subtitle, “The long read In-depth reporting, essays and profiles“ [0]. I think they could stand to add a bit more guidance / messaging to indicate that this piece is separate from their reporting without harming their brand or appearing to insinuate some position over another. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read

colechristensen 7y ago
Mindfulness walks you away from living on autopilot and having your thoughts driven by emotion. If it "numbs" you, I'm not sure what you're doing but it isn't anywhere near awareness. People seem to really be addicted to this emotionally driven autopilot existence and seem over and over to insist that if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. It seems to be the next wave of the attempt to reject the – what I would call – first order rationalism which builds its understanding of the world out of what easily fits into straightforward models and rejects or handwaves the existence of everything else. -- Anything remotely beneficial (any many things that aren't) will have a whole herd of self-help industrialists trying to sell it to you, they're better off ignored. Their presence really has no signal as to the legitimacy to what they're selling.
- tareqak 7y ago
  Thank you for replying 'colechristensen. The example that I would give is how someone might view homelessness in San Francisco, the first time, the next few times, and then subsequent n times. The first time a person can truly be utter shock. The next few times might remain uncomfortable, but less of a shock. In the subsequent n times, this person might stop seeing homelessness altogether except for the more gratuitous moments. I am refining my thoughts here, and the part I see at issue is not mindfulness as a whole, but its partial or selective application. The author’s point is that the parts of mindfulness industry and parts of the economy as a whole benefit from the spread and application of the self-regulation/desensitization of mindfulness and it is in their interest to stop any sort of follow through action that would disrupt the status quo. By stopping mindfulness at self-regulation and not following through with action, an outside observer would be hard pressed to find the difference between someone practicing this much mindfulness and someone who is just apathetic. I think this is where the calls to emotion that the author makes, and my use of the word “numb” comes in: it is question posed by someone else asking, “Do you not care?” In this way, I think the author is trying to argue that some of parts of this mindfulness industry is effectively selling mass-produced apathy and mass-produced self-regulation/compliance. To take this even farther, I think it would be possible to argue that this combination of desensitization and no-follow-through is basically learned helplessness [0]. To be completely honest with you, after writing all this out, I think the author could have made this point more clear. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    What you are describing just is not mindfulness as I have seen it described or taught anywhere. Mindfulness and learned helplessness are diametric opposites.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. I'd say the article is claiming one is "less likely", not incapable. > they're better off ignored. So you advocate inaction? Seems like the author may have a point :)

colechristensen 7y ago

Mindfulness walks you away from living on autopilot and having your thoughts driven by emotion. If it "numbs" you, I'm not sure what you're doing but it isn't anywhere near awareness. People seem to really be addicted to this emotionally driven autopilot existence and seem over and over to insist that if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. It seems to be the next wave of the attempt to reject the – what I would call – first order rationalism which builds its understanding of the world out of what easily fits into straightforward models and rejects or handwaves the existence of everything else. -- Anything remotely beneficial (any many things that aren't) will have a whole herd of self-help industrialists trying to sell it to you, they're better off ignored. Their presence really has no signal as to the legitimacy to what they're selling.

tareqak 7y ago
Thank you for replying 'colechristensen. The example that I would give is how someone might view homelessness in San Francisco, the first time, the next few times, and then subsequent n times. The first time a person can truly be utter shock. The next few times might remain uncomfortable, but less of a shock. In the subsequent n times, this person might stop seeing homelessness altogether except for the more gratuitous moments. I am refining my thoughts here, and the part I see at issue is not mindfulness as a whole, but its partial or selective application. The author’s point is that the parts of mindfulness industry and parts of the economy as a whole benefit from the spread and application of the self-regulation/desensitization of mindfulness and it is in their interest to stop any sort of follow through action that would disrupt the status quo. By stopping mindfulness at self-regulation and not following through with action, an outside observer would be hard pressed to find the difference between someone practicing this much mindfulness and someone who is just apathetic. I think this is where the calls to emotion that the author makes, and my use of the word “numb” comes in: it is question posed by someone else asking, “Do you not care?” In this way, I think the author is trying to argue that some of parts of this mindfulness industry is effectively selling mass-produced apathy and mass-produced self-regulation/compliance. To take this even farther, I think it would be possible to argue that this combination of desensitization and no-follow-through is basically learned helplessness [0]. To be completely honest with you, after writing all this out, I think the author could have made this point more clear. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
- colechristensen 7y ago
  What you are describing just is not mindfulness as I have seen it described or taught anywhere. Mindfulness and learned helplessness are diametric opposites.
icebraining 7y ago
> if you aren't being driven by emotion you're incapable of doing good. I'd say the article is claiming one is "less likely", not incapable. > they're better off ignored. So you advocate inaction? Seems like the author may have a point :)