Hacker News Reader

Comment by orthoganol | Hacker News Reader

I was just reading through some old LessWrong articles, in particular this one about making up categories:

> ... Or you can see this in terms of the boundless human ability to make stuff up out of thin air and believe it because no one can prove it's wrong. As soon as you name the category, you can start making up stuff about it. The named thing doesn't have to be perceptible; it doesn't have to exist; it doesn't even have to be coherent. [1]

Came to mind with the way 'mindfulness' and 'concentration' were being used as 'technical' terms. It felt slightly like Deepak Chopra. Why do articles like this get respect but something like, say, continental philosophy doesn't? Is is simply because meditation is popular?

[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/nx/categorizing_has_consequences/

View on HN

Because western Buddhism has no moral commitments and that makes it a good fit for postmodern mentality, as in you can do whatever you want as long as you keep the necessary distance. It's a way to get inner peace without having to change anything about your real life behavior and beliefs, you get to have the cake and to eat it too.

You just have to see how most meditation companies sell their product, the first movement is telling you that this is a way to escape modern consumerism, the stress of modern life, a more authentic life. The second movement is telling you that with their help you will be even more productive at the consumerist game. So you get everything, you have to sacrifice nothing.

The book is explicitly aimed (or marketed, if you will) at people of all beliefs and backgrounds.

I guess the author is more concerned with teaching something that works rather than looking down on the sinful masses.

Because they are technical terms.

So what is the body of knowledge that legitimatizes them as technical terms? Or are they just 'sign posts' to things we all experience (a.k.a. same level as Tolle, Chopra, et al.)?

(Late reply since the HN mods have decided that they hate me so I was getting messages like "you're submitting too fast".)

The Pāli Canon, one of the oldest Buddhist canons. You can dismiss that if you want to, but they're not wishy-washy concepts within the study of that canon.

It's not like such a baseless accusation -- "oh, they use them as technical words, they're probably full of shit" -- deserves an answer. If you're really interested, do your own research next time. Not that you are.

Your comment falsely assumes I don't know Buddhism. Buddhist 'ontology' doesn't form a legitimate basis for talking about meditation in a scientific/ technical manner, or even in a philosophically coherent manner. It simply doesn't. I get that in the West it's primarily a utility for making people feel happy and centered, which is overall a good thing, but it's a little hypocritical of HN to dismiss someone like Eckhart Tolle or Chopra while enthusiastically 'analyzing' our cognitive reality from the standpoint of Western Buddhism... they aren't at different levels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com