DavidM comments on Meditation, insight, and rationality. (Part 1 of 3) - Less Wrong

35 Post author: DavidM 28 April 2011 08:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (120)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DavidM 28 April 2011 10:53:43PM 4 points [-]

First of all, I don't believe I said anything about detachment from emotion.

Many Buddhist organizations see and practice meditation as a form of psychotherapy / relaxation, which is different from what I'm talking about. What they said to you seems in line with that style of practice---one that aims at not being stressed, not reacting in unhelpful ways to emotional upsets, not worrying over what one can't control, etc.

Many people seem to find that style of practice extremely helpful for themselves. For a person whose sole goal is to gain insight into the workings of their mind, I would probably not recommend it.

I wouldn't say that the group you're mentioning has "crazy ideas" or "bad communication". I'm sure they mean exactly what they say, and what they say doesn't seem especially unreasonable. Many people would benefit from being less reactive. I think it's simply a case where their goals are to become less reactive, and they practice accordingly, whereas a person who does not have that as a goal of meditation (and instead has the goal of e.g. insight into the defects of their own cognitive processes) would not meditate in a way that aims solely at cultivating that attitude. Different strokes for different folks.

Comment author: Lila 30 April 2011 10:02:06AM *  4 points [-]

First of all, I don't believe I said anything about detachment from emotion.

You used the word "attachment" a lot, as an example of something bizarre and, it seemed, negative.

What do you mean by attachment? (And why is it that this word is so often used for so many different things?)

I am looking forward to part 2 and 3, and I hope that you are planning to give full instructions on how to do the meditation.

Comment author: donjoe 04 May 2011 01:50:26PM 0 points [-]

Agreed, that's one of the main things this article leaves me hoping to see fully explained in future installments or comments: the term "attachment". Until I understand what you mean by it, I can't have a snowflake's hope in hell of determining whether it's something that afflicts me or that I might want to get rid of (by your method or by any other).

Comment author: inanytime 29 April 2011 12:18:33AM 2 points [-]

These two goals may not be as dissimilar as they seem to you. Sometimes it's best to stop and think, than to get into action right away. In fact, that may be one of the major problems of our time. People want to act, they want to contribute and do something. That explains the popularity of charities generated by large corporations that aim to perpetuate the machinery causing the problems in the first place. To overthrow an evil tyrant without stopping to think sans attachment may not get rid of the system that creates the tyrant in the first place. It may be better to stop and think and then generate a solution. I do not care about how Buddhism deals with it, but to reach a state of non-reaction may be very similar to the aim of non-attachment that you propose in your article.

Comment author: MinibearRex 29 April 2011 02:29:03AM 1 point [-]

Thanks. That pretty much answers my question.

I can see how that type of practice might help some people. Personally, I'm not all that interested, probably because I am fairly interested in saving the world.