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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#91

Post by Animats »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #24
adrianN wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is so simplified that it is more wrong than right. I don't know of any mainstream religion that encourages waiting for god to fix things.

I picked up a religious leaflet that said (this from memory, approximately) that nuclear war would have to actually start, then god would step in to sort things out. Can't remember the sect, might have been jehova's witnesses.

That's probably "dispensationalism".[1] This is tied up with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, involves Israel's role in "End Times", and is taken too seriously by parts of the US religious right. Searching for that term will lead you to some weird places.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#92

Post by mercer »

shrimpx wrote: post #90

I directly know "mindfulness" people and some TM people. They all seem to doing roughly the same thing: avoiding thoughts, or pushing thoughts out of their focus/ignoring thoughts that arise. My bystander observation is they're all developing memory problems. Obviously mentally replaying and analyzing memories strenghtens retention and these people avoid doing it. It's idiotic.

I feel there's a subtle difference between 'pushing thoughts out' or 'ignoring' them, and 'observing them (impassively)', which is what I've been taught when it comes to mindfulness/meditation/zen.

When I meditate, my impression is not that I avoid or push away thoughts. Rather, it's as if I observe them from a distance, and inspect them, smell them, turn them over, etc.

In many cases, true, these thoughts sort of dissolve of 'disappear'. But in other cases they merely change a bit in quality, or they remain with some context added.

Generally speaking it's not so much about avoiding, replaying, or analyzing memories (and strengthening retention), as it is about developing and practicing discernment as to what thoughts are worth replaying, analyzing or avoiding.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#93

Post by gbuk2013 »

CPLX wrote: post #89
gbuk2013 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the premise of Buddhism. Here is a good starting point for understanding what is: http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN074.pdf

I didn't say it is "the" premise of Buddhism. I said it is a premise of Buddhism. It is. The story of Shakyamuni Buddha achieving enlightenment after 49 days of meditation under the Bodhi tree is pretty well known. There, of course, are a lot more antecedents to contemporary Buddhist thought and ethics than that one incident, but it's fair to say it's a pretty core part of the historical tradition, and precedes essen…

Ethics affect the seeds you plant. If your seeds are bad you will not even have the opportunity to learn meditation.

Meditation is for going beyond all that.

> I am a practicing Zen Buddhist

Who?

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#94

Post by riskneutral »

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.

Agreed. The author is a profoundly unaware person. I get the sense that he tried meditation for a while, didn’t succeed (perhaps due to this angry “radical” mindset) and then decided to monetize the failure by writing a book critical of the practice. Well at least it injects some variety into the conversation. It’s not everyday that you find someone actively disparaging mindfulness.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#95

Post by thesz »

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

Author (and anyone else) don't really need that.

Good walk for two-three hours would do better than mindfullness session.

(hint: after about 25-40 minutes of intensive walking you start to burn fat primarily; this process has a side effect of endocannabinoids' release [1]; you get healthier and get high at same time; I am not including here release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor for you to discover it and effects of BDNF serum level increase on the mental state and thinking)

[1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/5/536

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#96

Post by thesz »

hkeide wrote: post #67
Rexxar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a problem here ? It's clearly indicated at the end and I see books as a natural complement to newspapers. I generally dislike advertisement but this seems to be one of the rare legitimate case.

I honestly don't know exactly why it rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe because he's railing against capitalism (I can't even count the number of assertions in the article, and very little explanation or evidence is offered) and then procedes to try to sell his book based on what I personally think is a shallow understanding of the subject matter. In general, complaining that the pop culture version of something is shall…

As I see it, he does object to narrowing the thinking which is imposed by capitalism as the one and sole viable human society operation mode.

That narrowing is induced by neoliberal ideology, as he thinks. I do too, by the way.

He even introduced me to "disimagination" neologism which I greatly admire, and I am not even done with the article.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#97

Post by partyboat1586 »

shrimpx wrote: post #90

I directly know "mindfulness" people and some TM people. They all seem to doing roughly the same thing: avoiding thoughts, or pushing thoughts out of their focus/ignoring thoughts that arise. My bystander observation is they're all developing memory problems. Obviously mentally replaying and analyzing memories strenghtens retention and these people avoid doing it. It's idiotic.

I think those people are doing it wrong but tbh you can't blame them given then quality of instruction available. Another case of knowing a little is more dangerous than knowing nothing at all.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#98

Post by partyboat1586 »

Viruptc wrote: post #21

I was in a relationship with a girl that had Borderline Personality Disorder. This totally rewired my brain and I had to go to therapy. There I was recommended mindfulness meditation. It really helped me a lot to get rid of racing thoughts and finally get some sleep and general peace of mind.

Hey, I'm glad mindfulness helped you. I think my girlfriend might have BPD and i'm not sure what to do, would you mind sharing your story? Can PM if you would prefer.

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#99

Post by Viruptc »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #98
Viruptc wrote: post #21

I was in a relationship with a girl that had Borderline Personality Disorder. This totally rewired my brain and I had to go to therapy. There I was recommended mindfulness meditation. It really helped me a lot to get rid of racing thoughts and finally get some sleep and general peace of mind.

Hey, I'm glad mindfulness helped you. I think my girlfriend might have BPD and i'm not sure what to do, would you mind sharing your story? Can PM if you would prefer.

Yes, of course. But how can I contact you?

Re: The mindfulness conspiracy

#100

Post by bayesian_horse »

coldtea wrote: post #81
bayesian_horse wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Considering the situation of Afroamericans, I think you underappreciate the amount of lynchings, violence (not just by police) and structural discrimination that took place. All of that is at a record low, if still much too high. There is still a lot of work to be done, but undoubtedly their situation has improved, long term.

> "Inequality" doesn't mean that even the poorer part of a society has slid backwards. Unfortunately it does, in two ways. One is objective, the other can be argued, but is my opinion nonetheless. 1) Inequality has seen the "poorer part of a society" slid backwards in many objectively measured standards of living, from infant mortality to overall life expectancy, to home ownership, retirement savings, and so on. Thos…

I was not talking about inequality in the specific situation of the past few decades in US history, but about inequality in general. And in general, inequality really doesn't mean that, just from a mathematical standpoint.

I can directly speak for Germany, and the points you mention just don't hold true. Our whole society improved, despite rising inequality, perceived and measured.

For the US you cite particular measures. I'm not sure those are necessarily comprehensive and even if so, it's only a very tiny backslide, and also only for a relatively tiny percentage of the population.

Also I'm looking more at the long term trends, and those are looking up, in general, all over the world. Including infant mortality (the absolute number of children dying declined for at least 50 years straight, despite more children being born up to relatively recently, see peak child phenomenon), life expectancy and absolute poverty.

Individual wealth is not about the share of the total wealth in a society. At least for me it is about suffering, and the reasons for suffering are indeed decreasing. Maybe not for any time period and any country you choose, but overall, yes.

Post reply on HN