The understanding which I have of mindfulness of thoughts is not about undue introspection. In meditation generally, there is a focus upon breath and even emptying of the mind, which is not that easy. I am not sure that mindfulness meditation differs that much from other meditation, although it probably involves paying attention to the senses. The only actual experience I have of doing mindfulness meditation apart from following instructions in a book, was when I had some counselling from a therapist who showed me some practical ways of this meditation

The tasks which you suggest like gardening and caring for a pet aren't what I would call mindlessness, although the only one of them which I ever do is painting. I would say that painting is a form of mindfulness because it is about active attention, especially in relation to the experience of the senses. My biggest example of mindlessness would be going out and getting drunk. I have done it a few times to cope with stress and it involves blotting things out, especially emotional distress.

I am seeking to start a critical discussion about the nature of mindfulness as a state of awareness. To what extent is the idea helpful as a basis for coping with stress or as a philosophy for finding balance in life? — Jack Cummins

Good idea. But I think we must be careful not to view the practice of mindfulness as an exclusively "Buddhist" or "Eastern" phenomenon.

Techniques involving the observation of one's thoughts, emotions, and sense-perceptions have been employed in Western traditions as much as in Eastern ones. For example, the practice of stilling and centering the mind through watchfulness or watchful attention (nepsis) and interior prayer (proseuche) leading to a state of stillness or hesychia, hence the term "Hesychasm", has been central to Christianity for many centuries.

Obviously, in psychological terms, observing mental processes in a detached or "impersonal" manner automatically leads to a state of enhanced emotional calm and mental clarity, as it represents the opposite of personal identification with those processes leading to one's conscious self being overwhelmed by emotions and thoughts causing stress.

Similarly, Plato, Plotinus, and other Western philosophers emphasize the importance of detaching oneself from the physical body and mental states, and observing things with one's pure, unaffected consciousness or awareness.

Essentially, it is a question of self-identification. Human consciousness has the capacity to self-identify with different aspects or layers of experience, resulting in different degrees of involvement or detachment, and this can be mastered through regular practice and quite independently of religion and culture ....

Obviously, in psychological terms, observing mental processes in a detached or "impersonal" manner automatically leads to a state of enhanced emotional calm and mental clarity, as it represents the opposite of personal identification with those processes leading to one's conscious self being overwhelmed by emotions and thoughts causing stress. — Apollodorus

Obvious, it may be, but true, I think not. This dissociation of consciousness from feeling and mind from body is the natural response to trauma. So while it may 'work' in the sense of allowing thought to be calm, it increases the fragmentation of the self, and leaves the emotional self neglected.

There is an assumption that thought makes that thought is aware and emotion is not; that thought is important and emotion foolish and unnecessary. This is traumatised ideation. Now if mindfulness is to be therapeutic, it needs not to increase the fragmentation of the mind, but to unify it. This requires observation without detachment or separation. Observation of the whole by the whole. And that means the fragmented self seeing its fragmented state, it means reentering and reclaiming those trauma emotions from which one has dissociated.

But this is a very different approach from the mindfulness that is commonly taught and promoted as an alternative to the mind-numbing drugs that are even more commonly prescribed. It is not cheap, easy or safe.

The tasks which you suggest like gardening and caring for a pet aren't what I would call mindlessness, although the only one of them which I ever do is painting. I would say that painting is a form of mindfulness because it is about active attention, especially in relation to the experience of the senses. My biggest example of mindlessness would be going out and getting drunk. I have done it a few times to cope with stress and it involves blotting things out, especially emotional distress. — Jack Cummins

My problem with the term "mindfulness" , is that the term might be interpreted as selectively paying attention to, and thereby inadvertently feeding, preconceived cartesian notions of self/ego. To me the term intuitively implies self-monitoring, self-judgement and self-obsession, which can only feed self-consciousness, introspection and anxiety, and ultimately behavioural avoidance of anxiety provoking situations.

Of course, advocates might say "no, mindfulness is about passive observation and acceptance of the mind". But is the passive observation of the mind a valid concept? Doesn't the very act of paying attention to a thought create it? And how can one even choose to observe passively, given the fact that the very intention to be mindful is agenda-driven?

On the surface at least, mindfulness therapies, especially how they are marketed in consumerist contexts, seem to me like a denial of , or excuse to avoid, the socio-political reality that ultimately determines thought and behaviour.

Also, if a person denies the existence of the cartesian self, then what does 'mindfulness' amount to for that person with that understanding? For that person, doesn't the concept of "mindfulness" become broadened to the point of not excluding any mental or physical activity?

But is the passive observation of the mind a valid concept? Doesn't the very act of paying attention to a thought create it? And how can one even choose to observe passively, given the fact that the very intention to be mindful is agenda-driven? — sime

One should certainly be mindful of these questions! :wink:

I would like to talk this evening about the quality of the meditative mind. It may be rather complex and abstract, but if one goes into it thoroughly - not so much in detail but to discover the nature of it, the feeling of it, the essence of it - , then perhaps it will be worthwhile; then perhaps without conscious effort and deliberate purpose, we shall be able to break through the shallow mind which makes our lives so empty, so superficial and so habit-ridden.
[...]
The effort to be, to become, to deny, to resist, to cultivate virtue, to suppress, to sublimate - all that is in essence the nature of a shallow mind. Probably most people will not agree with this, but it does not matter. It seems to me an obvious psychological fact.

Now, when one realizes this, when one is aware of it, sees the truth of it actually, not verbally, not intellectually, and does not allow the mind to ask innumerable questions as to how to change it, how to get out of this shallowness - all of which implies effort - , then the mind realizes that it cannot do anything about itself. All that it can do is to perceive, to see things ruthlessly, as they are, without distortion, without bringing in opinions about the fact; merely to observe. And it is extremely difficult, merely to observe, because our minds are trained to condemn, to compare, to compete, to justify, or to identify with what is seen. So it never sees things exactly as they are. To live with a feeling as it is - whether it is jealousy, envy, greed, ambition, or what you will - , to live with it without distorting it, without having any opinion or judgment about it, requires a mind that has energy to follow all the movements of that fact. A fact is never still; it is moving, it is living. But we want to make it still by capturing it with an opinion, a judgment. — J.Krishnamurti

Public Talk 10 London, England - 23 May 1961

This dissociation of consciousness from feeling and mind from body is the natural response to trauma. So while it may 'work' in the sense of allowing thought to be calm, it increases the fragmentation of the self, and leaves the emotional self neglected. — unenlightened

Well, I think it is generally accepted that when we are overwhelmed by strong emotions, physical pain, etc., our capacity for rational thought can become impaired. In order to restore our reasoning faculty to its optimal or normal functional state, we need to release it from the grip of the factors that have caused the impairment. And this involves a degree of detachment or disengagement.

In my experience, this disengagement coupled with self-identification with the conscious background of experience leads not to fragmentation but to unification of consciousness and a sense of wholeness or "being whole again".

It is like taking an elevated position in space, where you are at once at greater distance from the objects lower down and in possession of a more comprehensive overview that places each object in the right relation to the others and to the observing subject. So long as this balance is maintained, there is no danger or even possibility of fragmentation.

Having said that, I am not familiar with the psychology of people suffering from extreme trauma (who may not be in control of their psychological processes), and I don't know to what extent "mindfulness" techniques would be helpful in their case. So I will leave that to the experts ....

Well, I think it is generally accepted that when we are overwhelmed by strong emotions, physical pain, etc., our capacity for rational thought can become impaired. In order to restore our reasoning faculty to its optimal or normal functional state, we need to release it from the grip of the factors that have caused the impairment. And this involves a degree of detachment or disengagement. — Apollodorus

I agree. That, as I said is the natural, and automatic response to trauma. The difficulty comes when the dissociated person finds that life without affect is flat and meaningless, but finds that the first feeling they come across is the same unprocessed feeling of horror or terror or agony with which they could not deal, that remains unexpressed because it has been dissociated from. That is to say, that the reasoning faculty has been maintained in a normal functional state at the cost of shutting off the feeling self. Acute anxiety has been exchanged for chronic depression.

It is probably true that the watching of thoughts is not exclusive to Buddhism. However, when such practices are done in mindfulness meditation it is has how far one should go in seeking detachment, especially with emotions. Identifying with thoughts and feelings can be problematic in some ways but it can go to other extreme whereby people seek to 'overcome' them,.

This could end up with a kind of robotic or mechanical state of being. It can be associated with the problem of ending up living in the head as opposed to the heart. It is hard to know what is the ideal balance and psychoanalysis can go too far in digging up deep traumatic emotions. It may be useful if people can experience the emotional states and, then, move on to a more detached position. It is not simple though and, perhaps, the art of mindfulness may enable a certain amount of fine tuning of it. But, it may be more of an individual journey than one which can be prescribed and it is likely that individuals will vary in terms of the states of mind which they find bearable or best for living.

It is difficult to pay attention to watch thoughts and feelings without judging them. The quote which @unenlightened points to from Krishnamurti is relevant because it is about the difficulty emotions and thoughts, and living with them. Independently of mindfulness, I am aware that I have experienced feelings and thoughts which I have considered as dark and troubling. This may be where mindfulness can be particularly useful because it can enable going beyond the point of identifying them and seeing them as aspects which just flow into consciousness, like the sea. It is hard not to feel judgemental over one's thoughts and it may be important to consider how one acts in response to the thoughts rather than the actual experience of them.

As far as mindfulness being used to deny the socio-political aspects of existence, it could go that way if people are encouraged to go into the flight as opposed to fight mode completely. I guess that what mindfulness may enable is reflective space before action rather than a permanent passivity. If anything, when I read books on mindfulness it does seem that it can seem too idealistic and 'chocolate box' like. Life and inner experience can be messy and even though navigation of the chaos may help in enabling coping it probably should not be too rigid and too dogmatic. In books, which give too many exercises, it can all become a bit too technical as well if followed too much like a textbook. Often, I skip most of the exercises, but it may be that some people gain a lot from doing them.

The concept is used in psychology and often the techniques and mindfulness meditation are seen as applicable to coping with stress. My own understanding of mindfulness is about paying attention to body, emotions and thoughts. — Jack Cummins

In philosophy, reflection (i.e. reflective inquiry and reflective practice) denotes "paying attention" by questioning your questioning / practices while you are questioning / practicing in order to make explicit to yourself – foreground – the biases, fallacies, nonsense, inadequacies, bad (maladaptive) habits at work in questioning / practices which you may then unlearn or mitigate. Daily exercises of reflection, if one persists, become hourly exercises and then, perhaps, moment-to-moment exercises, via study, dialectic and praxes. Like yoga or martial arts or cross-country running / cycling / skying ... until the endurance regimen becomes lucid relaxation. Insofar as there are "psychological benefits", they are, at best, secondary or tertiery effects of reflection, as I understand it, and not the goal. What goal is that? I'll hazard to guess: reflection is for its own sake, an end in itself, such that the longer one lives reflectively, the more effortless reflection becomes (à la wúwéi ... epochē ... moksha ... apatheia ...) "Mindfulness" seems a non-rational version of reflection which is a more accessible 'technique' and no doubt works for many, though in my experience works no better (e.g. "coping with stress") than good weed or hashish all day every day – just ask dem "I & I" Rastas, mon. Irie :fire:

That's an interesting point of view, the difference between philosophical reflection or one with it being effortless. I guess that I see mindfulness more about living with emotions and philosophy reflection as being more concerned with explanations. Prior to the a century ago philosophy and psychology were less differentiated as separate fields. Psychology and philosophy became more apart, with the 'know yourself' aspect more a concern of psychology .

The question of how mindfulness compares with the Rasta smoking weed or hashish everyday raises the question of how much is about focusing and how much is about escapism. When I smoked some strong stuff from Rastas I was sent off into another realm altogether. That is where the question of mindfulness and mindlessness becomes complex. Sometimes, when I do try practicing some techniques which I have read, especially when I am unable to sleep, it could be that I am practicing mindful worrying or rumination more than anything else.

... "escapism?" ... "mindlessness?" :chin:

When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself. — Bob Marley

:fire:

... philosophy reflection as being more concerned with explanations. — Jack Cummins

Science or history provide explanations of e.g. matters of fact, whereas, for me, philosophy reflectively proposes existential, critical or speculative interpretations (i.e. clarifications) of scientific, historical, etc explanations. I think the difference between 'an explanation' and 'an interpretation of an explanation' is vitally important to keep in mind as clearly distinct otherwise philosophy falls quickly into sophistry, pseudoscience or mystagogy. :eyes:

It is probably true that the watching of thoughts is not exclusive to Buddhism. However, when such practices are done in mindfulness meditation it is has how far one should go in seeking detachment, especially with emotions. Identifying with thoughts and feelings can be problematic in some ways but it can go to other extreme whereby people seek to 'overcome' them,. — Jack Cummins

I think watching one's thoughts is something we all do to various degrees. Moreover, it isn't an activity that requires the acceptance, or even knowledge, of Buddhist (or any other) religious beliefs. If nothing else, it teaches us to think more consciously and, hopefully, to take a more critical approach to our thoughts which seems to be the beginning of philosophical and spiritual life.

As regards "overcoming" thoughts and feelings, I think this is something that simply needs to be done sometimes as part of normal daily life.

But I agree that these are individual issues that differ from person to person and cannot be prescribed as something to be followed to the letter by all and sundry. There are some basic steps that everybody can take and benefit from, but beyond that it becomes highly individual and it is something that everyone must decide for themselves.

I think psychoactive substances may lead to a state of enhanced detachment from thoughts and feelings, but the drawback to that is that the thoughts and feelings observed under their influence aren't really what you normally experience, so that the practical value of it in everyday life becomes questionable. In short, it isn't something I would personally recommend .... :smile:

It is likely that what form of meditation helps is so variable from individual to individual. Many don't meditate at all. As someone who is is a bit 'spaced out' at times, mindfulness is a way of being a bit more grounded through awareness of the senses. Buddhist teachings seem to suggest that psychoactive drugs are best avoided but many people who believe in Buddhism seem to use them. I have used them in the past and I am not sure that they helped meditation at all and I didn't even become detached on them.

Interpretations are important as well as explanations because it involves seeing why people think in certain ways and critical examination of explanations. It's a pity that 'smoking the herb' doesn't make everyone as insightful as Bob Marley. A lot of people end becoming 'paranoid' rather than self aware. It probably enhances underlying tendencies which are there in the first instance.

"Mindfulness" seems a non-rational version of reflection which is a more accessible 'technique' and no doubt works for many, though in my experience works no better (e.g. "coping with stress") than good weed or hashish all day every day ... — 180 Proof

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220302-how-mindfulness-can-make-you-a-darker-person

Caveat that's "mindfulness"-adjacent .

Thanks for linking in the article because it is really useful. A lot of the time, many people dismiss mindfulness as being just about reaching for the 'bright' side of human consciousness and nature. On the contrary, it can be about living with 'inner demons' and dark emotions. There may be a human tendency to try to avoid the darker side, while mindfulness can bring about a greater awareness of such emotions and thoughts, as opposed to trying to avoid the existence of them. It may be that such awareness and self knowledge enables people to live with these aspects of human nature rather than being driven by them unknowingly.

There may be a human tendency to try to avoid the darker side, while mindfulness can bring about a greater awareness of such emotions and thoughts, as opposed to trying to avoid the existence of them. — Jack Cummins

The article seems to me to suggest that "mindfulness" practice also tends to help people ignore the consequences (i.e. as you've said "coping with stress") of acting on "darker" "emotions and thoughts" regardless of "greater awareness" of them.

Ignoring darker aspects of the self may be by living with it as background noise. That is the way I tend to see it.

There may be a human tendency to try to avoid the darker side, while mindfulness can bring about a greater awareness of such emotions and thoughts, as opposed to trying to avoid the existence of them. — Jack Cummins

Another perspective. I rarely encounter people who only look on the bright side or avoid the darkness within - I would have thought this was almost a lost attribute. What I overwhelmingly see is people who already consider themselves to be 'evil' or 'tainted' or 'bad' people and they are overly preoccupied with failures and resentments and festering inadequacies, moral and material.

How this impacts on mindfulness I am unsure. In the end, for most people mindfulness (regardless of the theory) boils down to just sitting still, trying not to obsess over things and being calm and non-judgmental about self. There's no question for me that in a task obsessed, 'you have to be doing something all the time' world, this can be helpful. We have forgotten the art of sitting still, clearing the mind and doing zilch. Controversial, but I sometimes think that smoking cigarettes gave us similar micro 'meditations'. Sitting still for 3 minutes whist having a smoke was often the only time of stillness people had in busy lives.

Less remorse makes a person darker?

It is extremely hard to ignore the 'dark side' by just being aware of it because emotions play such a significant part in life. It may be the most an individual can do is live with the uncomfortable aspect rather than 'reacting' in some form. I have read one book which combines Jungian thought and Buddhism, 'The Wisdom of Im perfection: The Challenge of Individuation in Buddhist Life', by Rob Preece. The author sees the process of awareness of the dark side, called the 'shadow' as being an awareness of 'blind spots.'.

I have never smoked 'ordinary' cigarettes but did go through a phase of smoking them with cannabis, and sitting in a group doing this. The process, even the making of the 'joints', felt like a dark celebration. But, during my time of deconstructing Catholic ideas, which felt like an acceptance of human nature, rather than casting aside 'sin' was aided by caffeine tablets. It seemed to give a rational awareness of everything as opposed to being led by the emotional aspects of cultural condition. However, after the 'high' element, there was a 'coming down' and a need to rebalance and I can see why most Buddhists don't recommend psychoactive drugs or alcohol as a shortcut to achieve desired states of altered consciousness.

The point is that you can be mindful of emotions without getting caught up in them. They have as much power as you allow them. Doesn't matter whether the emotions are dark or blissful, they come and go in the same manner. Attention magnifies: A tiny thought can become a giant monster. So where you direct your attention is important. Mindfulness is turning the attention back on itself (being aware of awareness). Resting as awareness is not getting sucked into streams of thoughts or emotions, but rather observing the fact that these things (all phenomena, thoughts) rise and fall in awareness, while you (the unchanging observer of all that is changeful) remain untouched. Like clouds drifting through the sky, the sky remains unblemished. I agree it's true that alcohol or drugs hinder ones ability to be present.

If 'negative affects' are eliminated by "radical hedonic uplift", then disincentives for (i.e. intrinsic negative feedbacks of) antisocial and immoral behaviors will be, effectively, eliminated as well. — 180 Proof

Replace "radical hedonic uplift" with "mindfulness" in order to see my point. Re: ethical implications (e.g. like kamikazi pilots via Zen/Bushido) ...

@180 Proof :roll:

Better watch out @Jack Cummins

Mindfulness will turn you into a crazed suicide bomber.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220302-how-mindfulness-can-make-you-a-darker-person

Mindfulness will turn you into a crazed suicide bomber. — emancipate

Context matters, no?

Context matters, no? — 180 Proof

Not when the context is from a position of ignorance.

I guess.

Daily exercises of reflection, if one persists, become hourly exercises and then, perhaps, moment-to-moment exercises, via study, dialectic and praxes. Like yoga or martial arts or cross-country running / cycling / skying ... until the endurance regimen becomes lucid relaxation. Insofar as there are "psychological benefits", they are, at best, secondary or tertiery effects of reflection, as I understand it, and not the goal. What goal is that? I'll hazard to guess: reflection is for its own sake, an end in itself, such that the longer one lives reflectively, the more effortless reflection becomes (à la wúwéi ... epochē ... moksha ... apatheia ...) — 180 Proof

Pragmatic, not-"Ivory Tower" applications: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Thinking
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy

Reflection in relation to mindfulness has different aspects. One distinction which I came across in nursing theory, by a writer called John's, is reflection in action and after action. The perspectives may be extremely different because in the moment of experience one may 'react', which may be the adrenaline response of fight and flight. However, when experiences are seen in retrospect they may be viewed differently and this involves memory and how this impacts on the senses, as well as the way in which cognition comes into play.

The cognitive behavioral theorists emphasise thought but thought itself is not simply experience in the 'head' but in the bodily aspects of emotions. This is where it may be complex, in paying attention to the senses and thoughts and how these interact or may be disentangled psychologically and philosophically. Where do feelings end and where do ideas come into the picture of understanding?