Is "woo" ever justified as enticement to more critical behavior?

leonAzul · 19th April 2010, 10:20 AM

From the LA Times:

Jail's meditation course is not a hard cell
By Robert Faturechi
Participants in the popular weekly course at L.A. County's Men's Central facility say the techniques they learn for relaxation and self-control couldn't be more useful in their environs.
http://link.latimes.com/r/6NKQ2X/2KS...GT/NJ90CG/QR/t

Besides being an interesting collection of anecdotal information, this article raises in my mind a long-standing question of the value of religious practices and other societal institutions with respect to a more critical style of living. In other words, IMHO, I still find reason to view a certain amount of ritual and what might otherwise be regarded as "wooishness" as having the potential to attract the more emotional complements of people as a way of propagating and incultating habits of good reasoning. This is based on my observation of the power of societal institutions, like religion, to establish and maintain social order.

So to put the question another way, is tolerance of these methods justified, or is the self-evident inconsistency of means versus ends intolerable, and to what extent? Are the traditional arguments that "it was good enough for my fathers" good enough when one becomes aware of more rigorously developed pedagological methods?

Loss Leader · 19th April 2010, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by leonAzul

In other words, IMHO, I still find reason to view a certain amount of ritual and what might otherwise be regarded as "wooishness" as having the potential to attract the more emotional complements of people as a way of propagating and incultating habits of good reasoning.

Is something really woo if it: 1) has a definable method; and 2) works?

This is not to say that the current rituals and institutions we have are all good just because they create some institutionalized ritualization. The Catholic church may not be the best for society even though the habit of gathering together once a week might have benefits.

leonAzul · 3rd May 2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Is something really woo if it: 1) has a definable method; and 2) works?

This is an excellent question. Frankly, I was waiting for someone better equipped than me to respond :-/

IMHO, something veers towards the Woo when claims are made that cannot be measured empirically. What tripped my wooDetector was the prominent (by placement within the first 3 paragraphs of the article) reference to the source of the training as explicitly Buddhist, and by implication religious. Following the editorial policy of this particular source, I am inclined to infer that this represents an appeal to "ancient wisdom". Perhaps it is just a "hook" to attract readership, and I ought to think no more of it, yet I thought it worthy of further discussion.

It would seem that my POV is not shared in this forum. That, in itself, is educational.

As I indicated in the OP, I do not reactively reject religious teachings ab ovum, but rather prefer to regard them as a epidemiological study, as it were, of pedagological methods -- in short, a means to inform a community of best survival practices.

The proscription against à la carte adopton of alien religious practices also makes sense, IMHO, because each belief system has its own essential assumptions which require responsible "initiation" in order to correctly apply the precepts successfully. After a [con]firm[ed] foundation in any particular system, one is then free to compare and contrast, arriving at a more critical POV.

Schrodinger's Cat · 5th May 2010, 09:59 AM

I really really do not see meditation in and of itself as "woo." It certainly CAN be woo. I have heard/read people state they can do astral projection, see their souls, commune with God etc, with meditation, and I think that in such cases you can state that it is woo.

But I think meditation as a practice is not woo when all it claims to be is a mental technique to help manage stress, anxiety, anger, etc. I work in a cancer hospital and we have a Buddhist monk who teaches secular meditation to patients as a way to deal with pain and stress of their disease and treatment. He teaches it to secular patients without a religious component, he doesn't claim to have special powers or be tapping into something mystical. He just teaches how meditation techniques can be used as cognitive therapy to help patients stay in the moment and deal with pain and stress. Many patients who use meditation report success.

I also meditate myself but I certainly don't think anything supernatural is involved. I just use it as a way to center myself, destress, and remember to stay present in the moment. To me, it's just a technique to help one organize their thoughts and make one more mindful. I don't think meditation is the only way to do this either, or that it works for everyone. But I've had some success with it and many patients have as well.

Some things can clearly be categorized as woo or non woo. But with some things, like meditation, context is everything.

19th April 2010, 10:20 AM	#1
leonAzul Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Posts: 3,734	Is "woo" ever justified as enticement to more critical behavior? From the LA Times: Jail's meditation course is not a hard cell By Robert Faturechi Participants in the popular weekly course at L.A. County's Men's Central facility say the techniques they learn for relaxation and self-control couldn't be more useful in their environs. http://link.latimes.com/r/6NKQ2X/2KS...GT/NJ90CG/QR/t Besides being an interesting collection of anecdotal information, this article raises in my mind a long-standing question of the value of religious practices and other societal institutions with respect to a more critical style of living. In other words, IMHO, I still find reason to view a certain amount of ritual and what might otherwise be regarded as "wooishness" as having the potential to attract the more emotional complements of people as a way of propagating and incultating habits of good reasoning. This is based on my observation of the power of societal institutions, like religion, to establish and maintain social order. So to put the question another way, is tolerance of these methods justified, or is the self-evident inconsistency of means versus ends intolerable, and to what extent? Are the traditional arguments that "it was good enough for my fathers" good enough when one becomes aware of more rigorously developed pedagological methods?
	__________________ "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige

19th April 2010, 10:48 AM	#2
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by leonAzul In other words, IMHO, I still find reason to view a certain amount of ritual and what might otherwise be regarded as "wooishness" as having the potential to attract the more emotional complements of people as a way of propagating and incultating habits of good reasoning. Is something really woo if it: 1) has a definable method; and 2) works? This is not to say that the current rituals and institutions we have are all good just because they create some institutionalized ritualization. The Catholic church may not be the best for society even though the habit of gathering together once a week might have benefits.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

3rd May 2010, 03:38 PM	#3
leonAzul Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Posts: 3,734	Originally Posted by Loss Leader Is something really woo if it: 1) has a definable method; and 2) works? This is an excellent question. Frankly, I was waiting for someone better equipped than me to respond :-/ IMHO, something veers towards the Woo when claims are made that cannot be measured empirically. What tripped my wooDetector was the prominent (by placement within the first 3 paragraphs of the article) reference to the source of the training as explicitly Buddhist, and by implication religious. Following the editorial policy of this particular source, I am inclined to infer that this represents an appeal to "ancient wisdom". Perhaps it is just a "hook" to attract readership, and I ought to think no more of it, yet I thought it worthy of further discussion. It would seem that my POV is not shared in this forum. That, in itself, is educational. As I indicated in the OP, I do not reactively reject religious teachings ab ovum, but rather prefer to regard them as a epidemiological study, as it were, of pedagological methods -- in short, a means to inform a community of best survival practices. The proscription against à la carte adopton of alien religious practices also makes sense, IMHO, because each belief system has its own essential assumptions which require responsible "initiation" in order to correctly apply the precepts successfully. After a [con]firm[ed] foundation in any particular system, one is then free to compare and contrast, arriving at a more critical POV.
	__________________ "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige Last edited by leonAzul; 3rd May 2010 at 03:41 PM. Reason: Capitalization -- oh, the ignominy <lol>

5th May 2010, 09:59 AM	#4
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	I really really do not see meditation in and of itself as "woo." It certainly CAN be woo. I have heard/read people state they can do astral projection, see their souls, commune with God etc, with meditation, and I think that in such cases you can state that it is woo. But I think meditation as a practice is not woo when all it claims to be is a mental technique to help manage stress, anxiety, anger, etc. I work in a cancer hospital and we have a Buddhist monk who teaches secular meditation to patients as a way to deal with pain and stress of their disease and treatment. He teaches it to secular patients without a religious component, he doesn't claim to have special powers or be tapping into something mystical. He just teaches how meditation techniques can be used as cognitive therapy to help patients stay in the moment and deal with pain and stress. Many patients who use meditation report success. I also meditate myself but I certainly don't think anything supernatural is involved. I just use it as a way to center myself, destress, and remember to stay present in the moment. To me, it's just a technique to help one organize their thoughts and make one more mindful. I don't think meditation is the only way to do this either, or that it works for everyone. But I've had some success with it and many patients have as well. Some things can clearly be categorized as woo or non woo. But with some things, like meditation, context is everything.
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Last edited by Schrodinger's Cat; 5th May 2010 at 10:00 AM.