Hey everyone,
To me (currently), the most fundamental issue when trying to define “mindfulness” once and for all is that, from a functional contextual (FC) perspective / view of the world, no such “thing” need be assumed… how, then, could a functional contextualist ever hope to come to the conclusion that they’ve defined “it” once and for all?
“Mindfulness” can be said to “exist” in different (though often related) ways within different contexts, and so any attempts to understand the processes impacted by “mindfulness” would depend on how the concept is defined and being utilized within a given context. A functional contextualist need not assume that mindfulness as utilized within different contexts (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, western science, etc.) are all pointing to the same “phenomena” called “mindfulness”. The “phenomena” we call “mindfulness” likely differs from context to context depending on how the construct is utilized within that context… and so understanding the processes at play when it comes to “mindfulness” likely depends on the context in which it is attempting to be understood. That is, one can try to understand the relevant processes / phenomena of “mindfulness” as defined, for example, by someone like Jon Kabat-Zinn and utilized within something like MBSR and/or one can try to understand the relevant processes / phenomena of “mindfulness” as defined, for example, by someone like the Buddha and utilized within something like Buddhism… but, in my view, a functional contextualist should probably not attempt to define a “thing / phenomena” called “mindfulness” that is being pointed at across all traditions that use that term.
If a modern day scientist / philosopher wanted to try to identify the relevant process / phenomena of “mindfulness” as the concept existed within a context such as Buddhism, then they therefore would naturally have to consider the phenomena within that specific context.
And that represents, in my current view, the most glaring / obvious omission from most, if not all, modern day attempts at defining the Buddhists “mindfulness”: In the Buddhist context, “mindfulness” existed as part of an inter-related / inter-connected / inter-dependent group of factors that comprised one single thing (i.e., a “path”; “the noble eightfold path”). Thus, trying to define the Buddhists “mindfulness” apart from considering “it” in relation to its interconnected elements is a flawed strategy right from the start (i.e., inherently incomplete / partial understanding, at best).
Thoughts?
Jesse
jmoreno345