A new Salon article laments how Eastern spirituality, in this case, mindfulness meditation, has been hypercapitalized. A similar article, a year ago, had Buddhists worrying about this.
Actually, this isn't new. Either monetary greed or other forms of it were affecting Eastern traditions when imported to the west 40 years ago.
At the same time, to riff on the second article, let's not put Eastern ideas — or their environments — on a pedestal. Yes, China has done ethnic repainting (no, not quite ethnic cleansing) in Tibet. But, pre-1959, Tibet was a feudal theocracy ruled by its lamas. And, monks were the only Buddhists doing meditation. They were the only ones who had the luxury, especially in more "primitive" places, because, just like many a Catholic monastery in feudal, semi-theocratic medieval Europe, Buddhist monasteries have traditionally been heavily dependent on lay support.
The first story, speaking of this, notes that mindfulness godfather Jon Kabat-Zinn noted that Buddhism's backgrounding of meditation might itself be a problem. So, he worked to de-Buddhist it. And, at the same time, started Ye Olde BuJew Movement, still alive and kicking, as recent nonsense from Dan Harris and Sam Harris clearly attest. (Slamming Sammy and Kabat-Zinn both say, in different ways, they never really were Jewish. Both have clearly borrowed from Stephen Batchelor in their attempts to de-Buddhist meditation; he was just as wrong himself when he tried to strip Buddhism of any and all metaphysical overtones.)
That, in turn, allowed it to get a purchase in the corporate world. Enter Steve Jobs, who surprisingly did not invent a mindfulness app before dying.
And, from there, the corporate world saw "increased productivity" and ran with it. Dan Harris' book reflects the Taylorite angle in its title by claiming to quantify just how much happier meditation made him.
The second article is kind of funny.
Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek calls this adulturation "Western Buddhism." In turn, he calls that ... well, he calls it the new opiate of the masses. The article also notes that the Dalai Lama, while claiming to be a Marxist, is plenty ready to bed down with capitalists. (See paragraph the third, on Tibet's pre-1959 history.)
And also per that third paragraph, all too often, Buddhism has been its own opiate of the masses back in its Eastern homelands, though it, like Christianity, has often had exceptions, too.
Showing posts with label mindfulness meditation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mindfulness meditation. Show all posts
May 27, 2008
Mindfulness meditation empirically empty
As the New York Times story notes, mindfulness meditation has been the hot stock in psychotherapy. But, that hype may be nothing more than, well, hype:
First, the research is too sketchy. Second, results that we do have so far say it could help depression, for example — or could worsen it.
To me, the first point reflects a larger problem with brain sciences in general.
Two many newspaper reporters write stories — and too many researchers phrase their comments in the same way — about how “fMRI shows depression does this to your brain,” or claims that go far beyond even that.
No, all fMRI does is show increased blood activity and oxygenation in a certain part of the brain. Even with that, it measures more of input into a brain area than output from it.
As Wikipedia notes, fMRI also has temporal resolution problems, doesn’t do much in the way of measuring distributed brain function across neural networks, and says nothing about the “how” or “why” of brain function, just the “that/where.”
And, while a network of companies called Big MedTech doesn’t trip off the tongue like Big Pharma, nonetheless, companies have big money invested in selling fMRI machines.
So far, the evidence that mindfulness meditation helps relieve psychiatric symptoms is thin, and in some cases, it may make people worse, some studies suggest. Many researchers now worry that the enthusiasm for Buddhist practice will run so far ahead of the science that this promising psychological tool could turn into another fad.
“I’m very open to the possibility that this approach could be effective, and it certainly should be studied,” said Scott Lilienfeld, a psychology professor at Emory. “What concerns me is the hype, the talk about changing the world, this allure of the guru that the field of psychotherapy has a tendency to cultivate.”
First, the research is too sketchy. Second, results that we do have so far say it could help depression, for example — or could worsen it.
To me, the first point reflects a larger problem with brain sciences in general.
Two many newspaper reporters write stories — and too many researchers phrase their comments in the same way — about how “fMRI shows depression does this to your brain,” or claims that go far beyond even that.
No, all fMRI does is show increased blood activity and oxygenation in a certain part of the brain. Even with that, it measures more of input into a brain area than output from it.
As Wikipedia notes, fMRI also has temporal resolution problems, doesn’t do much in the way of measuring distributed brain function across neural networks, and says nothing about the “how” or “why” of brain function, just the “that/where.”
And, while a network of companies called Big MedTech doesn’t trip off the tongue like Big Pharma, nonetheless, companies have big money invested in selling fMRI machines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)