Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The mindfulness conspiracy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#31

Post by AstralStorm »

rocgf wrote: post #27

This is not only ridiculous, it may actually be dangerous journalism because it hints at the fact that this may be a conspiracy by the people 'ruling the world'. And it does that with no real evidence. Anything has pros and cons, even if they are not obvious at a first glance. Doesn't mean there is an obscure element to it.

It doesn't. That's your interpretation reading between the clear lines of text. It is being promoted by high stakes journalism and corporations though. No conspiracy needed, as it brings desired results. The motive is clear and not ulterior. Companies want to keep you happy so that you can be exploited more, and if that falls they want you to internalise blame for your own mental state. If you internalise mindfulness, you might be amenable to internalising other values beneficial to the company.

Article does say that the practice can make odious status quo palatable, removing a source of discontent and thus activism.

There are comparisons between the style McD was sold and mindfulness, but nowhere do I see implication that it is some kind of conspiracy.

Article has an ethical dig at neoliberal values at the end, equating them to magical thinking.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#32

Post by m-i-l »

blunte wrote: post #10

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.

"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.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#33

Post by kaolti »

jahaja wrote: post #20
bayesian_horse wrote: post #12

I think the author doesn't understand mindfulness. Achieving mindfulness can only help you to know what exactly you want to change and what you can change. It seems to me that the author favors radical change, either in general or he assumes everybody knows what exactly must be changed and how. Which I doubt. "Capitalism" has spared the Western world increasingly more suffering, so there is no point in "going back" a…

> "Capitalism" has spared the Western world increasingly more suffering "Spared" implies that there's a clearly worse and inevitable alternative. Unless we shake off this ingrained cold-war mentality no other alternatives than status-quo will seem plausible.

Who is disputing that there are clearly worse alternatives? Pick almost any part of history.

You're talking about alternatives to the status-quo. Sure, there's lots to be improved, that's not what the disagreement is. The disagreement is whether to have a calm conversations and plan for a better future, or - like the Guardian suggests - burning it all to the ground because capitalism = bad.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#34

Post by AstralStorm »

mirkonasato wrote: post #30

As soon as I read "meditation may be the enemy of activism" the image of the Vietnamese monk Thích Quảng Đức burning himself to death in 1963 popped up in my mind. From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%9... ) "Đức calmly sat down in the traditional Buddhist meditative lotus position on the cushion. A colleague emptied the contents of the petrol container over Đức's head. Đức rota…

Buddhism is not just meditation. It is a big ethical system.

By stripping ethics from it you would stop all its activism.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#35

Post by crusso »

dev_north_east wrote: post #15

From an outsider's perspective, it just seems like a way to replicate daily prayers. I'll stick with the Rosary thanks.

Prayer is concentration. Mindfulness is not concentration.

There's a huge difference that you have to experience with practice in order to begin to appreciate. Learning how to get out of your typical all-consuming "thought loops" is a skill worth having and cultivating.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#36

Post by pjc50 »

bArray wrote: post #25
Mo3 wrote: post #17

There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Without any awareness of itself. What happens when we have nothing to think about but thoughts? We lose ourselves in the content of thought without seeing them for what they really are. Human says "my thoughts", yet believes himself to be the content of the thoughts, the seemingly very important thoughts that start with "I" an…

> There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of > mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Except, it's not labeled as opinion. At this point I just consider the entirely of The Guardian an an opinion piece.

This is the "lifeandstyle" section, as per the URL.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#37

Post by AstralStorm »

bArray wrote: post #25
Mo3 wrote: post #17

There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Without any awareness of itself. What happens when we have nothing to think about but thoughts? We lose ourselves in the content of thought without seeing them for what they really are. Human says "my thoughts", yet believes himself to be the content of the thoughts, the seemingly very important thoughts that start with "I" an…

> There we go. The authors biased and naive opinion of > mindfulness is just that. His opinion. Except, it's not labeled as opinion. At this point I just consider the entirely of The Guardian an an opinion piece.

There are a scarce few facts in there, about origins of the commercial training practice and size of the market, as well as a few companies that benefit from it. That's about it.

Opinion pieces, no matter how biased and disagreeable, are still necessary. Facts do not make one think on their own. I would like more facts in them.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#38

Post by bArray »

Just the first statement says alot about the writer:

> It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the

> ravages of capitalism, but with its inward focus, mindful

> meditation may be the enemy of activism.

Every interaction I've had with mindfulness so far hasn't been that it was "sold", it was just simply offered. It's not an organized religion or ideology, from what I've seen there doesn't appear to be a hidden agenda. I've personally found it quite interesting to reflect on the subject of mindfulness and my (current) conclusions I have regarding how to live my life - there's a lot of overlap.

It's not something that exists to "help us cope with the ravages of capitalism". Political ideology aside, it's simply there to help you think and act more freely by understanding your thinking and acting. My friend who studies mindfulness says (para-quoting): "it's about understanding your actions and why you take them, it's about separating yourself from your immediate reality". I think most people could potentially benefit from such an idea. In general I believe people should take more time to "do nothing" and reflect.

As for being "the enemy of activism", if clear thinking is the enemy of activism, I think this says more about the current state of activism than it does about mindfulness. In general, I believe we shouldn't be striving to produce a society who dedicate their lives to activism. It's perfectly okay to be an activist, but there has to be more - life is short after all.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#39

Post by AstralStorm »

ptah wrote: post #16
1penny42cents wrote: post #3

One goal of mindfulness and meditation is to reduce the amount of noise in our heads so that we can see things clearer. This allows us to take more _effective_ actions. The author seems to have a clear bias that radical == good, and this puts me off. Radical action can be good, and it can be bad. Mindfulness can help us see which case is which.

Fully agree, mindfulness can help one come up with even more radical actions. It can be a tool for activists to cope with the pressures of activism. It doesn't sound like the author has done any mindfulness practice

Does it though? Do we have any kind of data about it?

If it helps one activist and million corporate drones and people looking for status quo, the practice is not on the whole a friend of activism. So what are the numbers?

Post reply on HN