A lengthy post about "Mindfulness" [View all]
NPR has a very solid program called On Being with host Krista Tippett. In broad terms, the format is a conversation between Tippett and a guest or guests discussing some aspect of spirituality and its impact upon one's worldview. The program is not preachy, and it doesn't favor one agenda over another, nor is it particularly religious in tone.
Tippett is a very good host IMO, and she makes for an engaging presentation even though spirituality itself is of no value to me, and even though I often take issue with a guest's views.
The program that I caught yesterday featured a guest who is a recognized expert on "mindfulness," having studied it for decades. I'm sorry to say that I can't recall her name, nor can I link to the On Being website from my current computer. Maybe I'll edit later.
But here's where the skeptic part comes in, and this is why I'm posting here rather than in the Religion forum.
By the end of every single discussion of "mindfulness" I have ever heard, I have the clear impression that it's a marketing scheme. In fairness, I have the same impression of all religions, but hear me out.
The guest contrasted "mindful living" (that is, the mode of thinking that she endorses) with "mindless living." She asserts that most people live "mindlessly," focusing on future worries rather than on present reality, and that this is the prime source of most/all stress. Sounds like just about every other self-help pamphlet I've ever seen. Also follows the same playbook as Postmodernism, adopting cool-sounding descriptors while assigning lame-ass descriptors to opposing views.
Note: the push to re-brand atheists as "Brights" a few years ago is exactly the same crap, because it necessarily means that non-atheists are "dim." It's a marketing tactic, rather than a rational argument.
The guest gave three examples to show the difference between "mindless" and "mindful" thinking:
1.
Target: 2.
Marketer: Are you sure?
Target: Yes.
Marketer: If you have one wad of chewing gum and you add it to another wad of chewing gum, what do you have? You have one wad.
Target: Wow!
2.
Target: What, like anyone?
Marketer: How far can a person run?
Target: I don't know. Marathons are like 25 miles, right?
Marketer: Are you sure?
Target: Sure, I guess.
Marketer Did you know that many people run ultra-marathons of 100 miles or more?
Target: Wow!
3.
Dr. Target: About a week.
Marketer: Would you believe that the proper psychological techniques can heal that finger in six days?
Dr. Target: Ok, maybe.
Marketer: Four days?
Dr. Target: Well... Possibly, I suppose.
Marketer: How about three days?
Dr. Target: No, that's too short.
Marketer: How about three days and 23 hours? Three days and 22 hours? Where do you draw the line?
Dr. Target: Wow!
I'm paraphrasing the dialog, of course, but these are the actual three examples that she gave during the segments I heard, all intended to show us how our "mindless" thinking is limiting us. Wow!
The first is a straight up fallacy of equivocation, the second is sleight-of-hand based on the target's assumptions, and the third is a simple false dichotomy. This wasn't some schlub college freshman trying to impress his friends with what he read on the back of a book about Buddhism; this is the recognized expert on "mindfulness!"
Again, I'm posting here because I don't care to be scolded for my closed-mindedness and my western-centrism, or to be told that I don't "get it."
I get it. I've heard the shtick many times over, and it has always boiled down to the same thing: fallacies and word games wrapped up in a clever marketing package.
= new reply since forum marked as read