Live data from Hacker News

McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

cbc.ca

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#71

Lots of the goals of mindfulness are useful, but I find the term overly reductive, and the way it's taught too abstract. Ask yourself if the more shallow goals of mindfulness make sense. For example, Thich Nhit Hanh constantly says it's about presence, peace and happiness. But you can't be happy all the time, and shouldn't be. If you're happy, can you experience the moving emotion of a really tragic movie? Can you ge…

I am (morbidly?) curious how Thich Nhat Hanh is experiencing life after a severe stroke; he is around 93 years old and has been paralyzed and unable to speak for about 4 years now; we'll never have a clear view whether a lifetime of mindfulness practice has helped him make peace with this compared to other elderly stroke sufferers, or whether the damage to his brain has changed his experience a lot. I've sometimes felt that the only way to get through a massive life upheaval is to have prepared for it in advance - in more common geeky terms, "I have already planned a secret so I can verify if I ever meet my clone" is something you can only do in advance; possibly a state of being OK with dementia or brain damage and waking every day not knowing where you are is something you can only prepare in advance while healthy, so those habits carry on after the point where you need them but no longer have the wherewithal to create them.

But you can't be happy all the time, and shouldn't be.

Dr David Burns, psychiatrist frames it to patients that people can expect 5 days of happiness and 2 crappy days in a given week, and if you don't have 5 happy days you should adjust something, but if you don't have 2 crappy days, then you're bordering on manic and should adjust something the other way. But then he considers a few minutes of feeling bad enough to count as time to take note and adjust for it.

My take on this is that "you should be happy all the time" is the wrong way to look at it, more "you shouldn't be unhappy against your will, because of negative thoughts circulating in your head which you are ignoring and hardly aware of". Being aware of your thoughts so you understand why you are unhappy and then you are informed enough to take action if you choose to; but since a lot of the reasons for unhappiness are fixations on the past and the future, on the incorrect idea of permanence of the ego or disconnection of ego from rest of world, or sadness at being imperfect, then becoming deeply aware of these thoughts implicitly involves them dissipating away as you understand how ridiculous they are; and with the sad, depressing, distorted thoughts fading away, there's room for plenty of happiness in mindful pursuit of ordinary activities. Thich Nhat Hahn uses examples like brushing your teeth or washing your food bowl - these shouldn't be hurried through so you can get to the rest of your life, these activities are your life and you should be aware of your desire to hurry through them and be elsewhere which is making these activities feel worse than they are. You need to do them, you don't need to wish-you-weren't-doing-them-and-feel-sad. They need doing, you are doing them, you may as well pay full attention to them and enjoy doing them. Alan Watts says "Zen spirituality isn't thinking about God while peeling potatoes, Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes", and "mindfulness isn't an activity to do while sitting, mindfulness is just the way a Buddha sits (and the way a Budda does everything)".

If you're happy, can you experience the moving emotion of a really tragic movie?

If you're sad about not driving a Lamborghini and your startup customers leaving and your partner being angry at you, and depressed about ageing and your joints hurting, are any of those things helping you experience the emotion of a really tragic movie? Yes I say a person who is generally happy and content with life including all its problems can still experience the emotions of a movie. (But would they want to? Can a person who is happy and content really feel angry at treading in dog poop? Maybe they can, but would they want to feel angry about such a thing?).

Thinking about the future is a great motivator, and can make us happy. Oh boy, my birthday is coming up! I almost have enough money to buy that house!

Which is fine in a measured way - but do be mindful that this happiness is a fantasy about a future which has not happened, and might not happen, and almost certainly won't happen perfectly in every way. To be excited for the future is one thing, to base your happiness on being able to buy that house is to invite suffering when you hit an unexpected bill and the house seller pulls out of the market or someone else pays more, etc. Mindfulness as "be aware of your thoughts, don't let them push you around" rather than "get rid of your thoughts"

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#72
post #8

Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherwise commercial settings are a perversion of the original teachings. While to some extent it’s true that teachings have been adapted and the adaptations are sometimes (maybe often) problematic, the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardr…

> That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions.

I had a therapist who basically told me that mindfulness means accepting harmful and immoral actions (of others). On the one hand this does make it easier to go through the day without getting caught up in q

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#73

Can someone tell me why it’s socially acceptable to have these mindfulness things in work? I’m sympathetic to the argument that religions should be largely kept out of the workplace, so this isn’t a “checkmate atheists” argument. But if some guy came into my office and started saying we’re going to recite the rosary with all the “Jesus” and “Mary” parts replaced with something generic like “the universe” I cant imagi…

This is explained in the book:

“Successful branding stories are often characterized by disruption, which turns an established industry or experience upside down. The MBSR brand is one such disruptive force, with Kabat-Zinn’s talking points including pithy quips such as: “The Buddha wasn’t a Buddhist,” or Buddhists “don’t own mindfulness” because it is “an innate, universal human capacity.” Potential customers are thereby assured that MBSR is a non-religious product, yet still offers the best bits of what the Buddha taught. In Kabat-Zinn’s words, his version of mindfulness is “a place-holder for the entire dharma.”

The Western world has co-opted an aspect of Buddhism, which works to improve productivity, and discarded the part that doesn't fit its worldview; the other pillars of Buddhism. This enables it to be sold as non-religious.

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#74
post #8

Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherwise commercial settings are a perversion of the original teachings. While to some extent it’s true that teachings have been adapted and the adaptations are sometimes (maybe often) problematic, the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardr…

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 wasn't a good use of mindfulness training or that it acted as an unhelpful smokescreen for the real problems, and I don't fully agree with that. Instead, I believe that most mindfulness programs are shallow and taught be people who aren't deeply trained and so don't convey the principles of mindfulness well. My read of the author was that the problem was that other core pieces of Buddhist practices and/or thought are missing. In my view it's that the programs themselves don't convey even the core mindfulness principles well or deeply. I think this covers your next point about whether "there's nothing wrong with that". I think I do agree with the author that these programs are often not particularly useful, but I view it as a lack of depth rather than a lack of context or ancillary teachings.

>> What we’re teaching is an awareness of what’s happening inside of experience.

> Different people teach different things, and different combinations of things. This is one of them.

Here I think you've mischaracterized my argument or I've been unclear. I'm saying that mindfulness training is teaching awareness/acceptance. I recognize that people are teaching other things and calling them mindfulness, and I agree that that is a problem. Of course there's also a split between mindful meditation and "everyday mindfulness" which is often not explained or taught well.

>> Mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch. It’s simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state.

> Here I will respectfully disagree. Indeed, the physical practice is "simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state", but "mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch" seems to be (based on my personal experience and reading of anecdotal experience) an incorrect assertion. Rather, it often (but not always) seems to be described as just that, some sort of a "magical" way to lower stress and raise consciousness, without explicitly (consciously) setting those two outcomes as goals.

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 suspect as you've alluded that I agree far more with the author than we disagree.

>> That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions.

> Again, I don't think this is what the author is saying. Rather, he seems to be saying that if you teach only the mindfulness portion of these traditional practices, they can be used to the benefit of "improper" greater causes, like individual/corporate greed. Whereas, if some of the additional teachings that have historically accompanied mindfulness are included in the package, this exploitative approach would be less successful.

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. In my own work the ability to attend intensely while also accepting deeply is a profound practice the brings one into contact with the full import of one's experience. And I agree, and I suspect the author would as well, that this depth is rarely taught. I think the author and I may draw the line differently both at what is mindfulness and what is context and also what context is necessary. The author has a stronger affiliation with Buddhism than I do, though I do have an affiliation there.

>> And to the extent that we have a large number of poorly trained teachers selling a poorly designed product AS mindfulness, THAT in my mind is the larger issue, rather than the context or clientele.

> Maybe. But maybe not. It is certainly "an" issue, but imagine a parallel universe where mindfulness along with some of the other traditional practices was adopted to the same degree that only-mindfulness has been adopted in this universe. Which scenario would have the greatest difference in positive outcome?

I would love to see it taught in different ways. I actually appreciate the steps that have been taken to pull mindfulness OUT of Buddhism. At the same time, I would love to see it in a variety of contexts so we can assess the differences. Within the Buddhist tradition, I see a lot of depth and value but also an awful lot of what I would view as baggage. And I say this as a self-professed Buddhist. I see a lot of what I would view as clinging to the packaging, and I think it's important to strip that packaging away to see which parts of it are as important as people might claim.

And I say that as someone who's personally trying to learn it both inside and outside of it's original context myself. As a clinician rather than a Buddhist teacher, I want to be competent to help my clients as directly and efficiently as I can without sacrificing what's most important.

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#75

Can someone tell me why it’s socially acceptable to have these mindfulness things in work? I’m sympathetic to the argument that religions should be largely kept out of the workplace, so this isn’t a “checkmate atheists” argument. But if some guy came into my office and started saying we’re going to recite the rosary with all the “Jesus” and “Mary” parts replaced with something generic like “the universe” I cant imagi…

I think the main thing is that generic mindfulness exercises don't have a devotional aspect, i.e. no worship or veneration of deities, prophets, saints, spirits, or the like. A lot of people in cultures influenced by Abrahamic traditions don't think of something as "religion" unless it has devotional practice.

An important exception is that some Christian fundamentalists regard any form of magic or mysticism other than God's miracles as being inherently Satanic. This can even extend to fictional systems of magic (as in fantasy novels or RPGs), which may be regarded as an obfuscated form of the real thing.

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#76

It strikes me as odd to depict improving soldiers' performance as a distortion of mindfulness without mentioning the long history of meditation in the martial arts.

Also there is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita#Narrative

If this is not a traditional example, then what?

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#77
post #8

Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherwise commercial settings are a perversion of the original teachings. While to some extent it’s true that teachings have been adapted and the adaptations are sometimes (maybe often) problematic, the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardr…

Mindfulness is Buddhist, as Ajahn Brahm explains here: https://youtu.be/fq-nVhcn-dM?t=80

>I did hear recently [someone saying] that Buddhism doesn't own mindfulness, giving a simile, that just because Newton discovered the law of gravity, it doesn't mean that it's English. [..] not a very clever simile. Yes, Isaac Newton was English, but he was a scientist. So the law of gravity is science, in the same way that mindfulness is Buddhist.

If you want attention and acceptance training then call it that. If you want mindfulness then see it in the proper perspective, which is not ripped out of its context to serve consumerist/capitalistic goals.

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#78
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that. Mindfulness cannot fix the underlying problems that lead to mindfulness being useful to capital in the first place. Personally I’d rather my CEO make work less miserable and sleep that way (say, hire people for fewer ho…

I wholeheartedly agree, and to the extent that a program is simply soothing, then there isn’t any actual mindful attention training happening. That’s my primary point, that attention training isn’t a salve, it’s awareness building. The problem with a lot of mindfulness “training” is that it’s really just group relaxation without training the kind of awareness that should be useful in any context.

Do you recommend any books or resources that are, in your view, teaching mindfulness more effectively?

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#79

Can someone tell me why it’s socially acceptable to have these mindfulness things in work? I’m sympathetic to the argument that religions should be largely kept out of the workplace, so this isn’t a “checkmate atheists” argument. But if some guy came into my office and started saying we’re going to recite the rosary with all the “Jesus” and “Mary” parts replaced with something generic like “the universe” I cant imagi…

You're misunderstanding mindfulness as a tool or symptom of religiosity. Mindfulness, put another way by John Yates the neuroscientist-cum-Buddhist-teacher, is a poor word for peripheral awareness. That's it. No rosaries or unlimited abstractions to cloud it.

Re: McMindfulness: How mindfulness became the new capitalist spirituality

#80

Ironic that Ron Purser hijacked the term McMindfulness from Miles Neale who first wrote about it back in 2011. In fact, the opening of Neale's essay "McMindfulness and Frozen Yoga" sounds an awful lot like this post (not to mention Purser's own 2013 article "Beyond McMindfulness"). Ref: "McMindfulness and Frozen Yoga: Rediscovering the Essential Teachings of Ethics and Wisdom" (2011) https://static1.squarespace.com/s…

Purser acknowledges that Neale came up with the term in his book, and e.g. here: https://insighttimer.com/blog/ronald-purser-mcmindfulness-we... so I'm not sure that counts as hijacking. Especially as hijacking implies not retaining the original meaning of the word.
Post reply on HN