Scholarlink

<p>This paper examines how we arrived at a historical moment in which contemplative practices are widely disseminated, yet collective suffering, polarization, wars and genocides, and ecological degradation persist. Thepaper aims to analyze evolutionary, psychological, cultural, and institutional barriers that constrain the cultivation and societal scaling of contemplative practices, namely mindfulness and compassion. A conceptual synthesis of theliterature across contemplative science, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, sociology, and public policy was conducted. A two axis, four quadrant structural model was developed to differentiate automatic versus deliberative processes at individual and systemic levels, identifying automatic–individual threat processes, deliberative–individual regulatory demands, automatic–systemic norm conditioning, and deliberative–systemic policy constraints. The Embodied and Embedded Mindfulness and Compassion Framework was proposed, positioned in relation to related theoretical models, and applied to map multilevel pathways for alignment across biological regulation, relationalenactment, institutional embedding, and ecological extension. The synthesis identifies four interacting barriers: automatic threat bias and attentional capture at the individual level; effortful regulatory demands and meditation challenges; automatic systemic processes such as norm internalization, moral disengagement, and compassion fade; and deliberative systemic constraints including policy design, corporate co-optation, and structural inequality. Although contemplative practices such as mindfulness and compassion demonstrate reliable individual level benefits, their broader impact is limited when institutional incentives reinforce competition, hierarchy, and fragmentation. How we got here reflects multilevel misalignment between embodied regulation, relational structures, institutional design, and ecological responsibility. Durable transformation requires embedding mindfulness and compassion across these levels, extending moral concern to both humans and nonhuman life, andaligning contemplative development with comprehensive structural reform.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How did we get here? Evolutionary, psychological, and cultural challenges in cultivating contemplative practices

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月2日

查看全文
  • Bassam Khoury

摘要

This paper examines how we arrived at a historical moment in which contemplative practices are widely disseminated, yet collective suffering, polarization, wars and genocides, and ecological degradation persist. Thepaper aims to analyze evolutionary, psychological, cultural, and institutional barriers that constrain the cultivation and societal scaling of contemplative practices, namely mindfulness and compassion. A conceptual synthesis of theliterature across contemplative science, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, sociology, and public policy was conducted. A two axis, four quadrant structural model was developed to differentiate automatic versus deliberative processes at individual and systemic levels, identifying automatic–individual threat processes, deliberative–individual regulatory demands, automatic–systemic norm conditioning, and deliberative–systemic policy constraints. The Embodied and Embedded Mindfulness and Compassion Framework was proposed, positioned in relation to related theoretical models, and applied to map multilevel pathways for alignment across biological regulation, relationalenactment, institutional embedding, and ecological extension. The synthesis identifies four interacting barriers: automatic threat bias and attentional capture at the individual level; effortful regulatory demands and meditation challenges; automatic systemic processes such as norm internalization, moral disengagement, and compassion fade; and deliberative systemic constraints including policy design, corporate co-optation, and structural inequality. Although contemplative practices such as mindfulness and compassion demonstrate reliable individual level benefits, their broader impact is limited when institutional incentives reinforce competition, hierarchy, and fragmentation. How we got here reflects multilevel misalignment between embodied regulation, relational structures, institutional design, and ecological responsibility. Durable transformation requires embedding mindfulness and compassion across these levels, extending moral concern to both humans and nonhuman life, andaligning contemplative development with comprehensive structural reform.