Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a feeling that you've somewhat missed the author's intended point. Or, I don't think the two of you are in disagreement on the fundamentals, but you haven't noticed some of the intended nuance, which I think is where the intended message lies. > the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me Technically, the author didn't say this, but rather pointed out some criticis…
Let me see if I can address or clarify a few of these points: >> the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me > Technically, the author didn't say this, but rather pointed out some criticisms (holistic shortcomings) of the manner in which it has been deployed in corporations, specifically: I concede that the author did not say this directly but did seem to imply that this…
> Here I think you've mischaracterized my argument or I've been unclear.
I will excerpt the part that where I think you and he differ:
>> Q: I'm interested in something you've written about the larger issue. Your suggestion is that mindfulness has been cut loose from its moral moorings and that without some kind of principled anchor, it becomes this renegade technology that helps people rationalize unethical conduct. I'd like to hear more about that moral underpinning. What are some of the principles that have to accompany mindfulness training?
>> A: If we go back to how mindfulness was situated within a religious tradition, namely Buddhism, there was a classic differentiation between what they called "right mindfulness" and "wrong mindfulness." There was actually a very clear distinction between those two. So there was a cognitive dimension of mindfulness involving discernment. This whole focus on ethics and morality is missing from a lot of modern forms of mindfulness. That's what's turned it into a technique and not a way of life. Mindfulness has been seen as a means to an end. When you separate that out, you've made a Faustian bargain. Yes you can turn it into a nice therapeutic technique that can develop a sense of quiet and calm. But then it could be used for nefarious purposes.
Now, you don't have to agree with him that mindfulness practitioners or teachers should/must bring the traditional ethics/morality part of it along for the ride, but I believe a fair argument can be made that if you detach the two, it becomes plausibly possible to use mindfulness for nefarious means, whereas inclusion of the ethics part would tend to make that more difficult, as well as facilitate a number of other beneficial outcomes in the world, so the theory goes whether one believes that sort of thing or not - I happen to, but it's a matter of opinion of course.
> I'm describing (a perspective on) what mindfulness is rather than how it's portrayed or described. Mindfulness is not a magical stress switch, it's an attention technique that often has the effect of lowering stress. Your follow up that it often described as such does not disagree with my assertion of what it actually is. It seems that we are agreed that a lot of what is being described and sold as mindfulness really isn't or isn't mindfulness taught well.
I don't think we really disagree. If one "effectively" practices mindfulness, it generally has the side effect of lowering stress throughout the day, which while beneficial, one could also argue addressing the root cause should be given some attention as well.
> Right, this statement was meant to be my answer to that assertion by the author that the problem is that mindfulness is taught out of context. At this moment, and I may be wrong, I don't believe that the problem is the lack of training in morality or other Buddhist-style principles as the author asserts. Instead, I think that mindfulness itself is taught without proper nuance or depth.
These are two distinct problems, both of which are valid. I think that's the source of confusion here?
I very much agree with your finishing points.....it's complex.
Thanks for the enjoyable conversation!