I enjoyed the article when it was first published on Inner Life and again enjoyed the reread today. I am very interested to read the book now. I always appreciate your posts David as they compel me to think deeply on a topic. There is a lot to chew on here. Thank you.
-- Oh, David, I love how deep reflections emerge from the contemplation of profound questions, inviting us to ponder the fundamental nature of existence, morality, and consciousness. Thank you for sharing this piece. xo.
I believe it’s your inner self that matters , your consciousness. A lot of wealthy people have to build some kind of facade around them in the outer world. God forbid anybody should see their real self. Most of world has to believe that something better is going happen to them, so they struggle or wander aimlessly in the outer. I truly like how you put yourself out there. You are always exploring and lighting the dark corners of life.
David, “Howards End” is one of my all-time favorite novels, partly because of the inner life-outer life conflict you highlight. As to your question, I’m no fan of American hyper-capitalism, and I think it’s at its most insidious with the rise of digital technology and discourse that’s algorithmically driven - that is, dumbed down by “ideas” that amount to the lowest common denominator. There are many ways that such algorithms focus on outer thinking (produce every second, capitalism is the only way, your data belongs to the machine) rather than inner life.
My question(s): How do or should creative people define their work? Personal storytelling and expression of ideas by writers is often the best route to nurturing inner life - yet writers and other artists could be accused of “workism,” too - writing becomes an identity and a hyper-focus, especially when crossed with the need to find eyeballs and to monetize (the driving “idea” of tech platforms).
Thanks for asking, David. From some perspectives Workism has always been suspect - but many people are so averse to claiming their inner house cat that they’d rather affirm their ‘work ethic’ than stop and smell the roses. But it’s an old one to recall that there’s no pockets in a shroud, which seems to be Brook’s point. As for ideas filtering downward, you’re certainly right to an extent, but it’s a mistake to privilege that as a dominant tendency. Good stuff can bubble up from the bottom, too. Note that great art more often follows that path, at least in days of yore: blues and jazz, Picasso’s blue period, numerous writers, such as Kerouac, etc. Aristocratic breeding and awareness of pursuits not-well-remunerated was perhaps a social feature more salient in Edwardian Britain than the US for most of recent history. In any case, the fellaheen didn’t wait around for the upper crust to provide cues - they just made fun with the materials at hand. (As I sink deeper into this rant I keep recalling the mordant humor of Paul Fussell’s “Class”.)
But we do seem to have entered a new era: the Influencer Age. I think nature is the best antidote. We were built to walk around in the open air. Doing as much has a reliably good effect, whatever mess we may have left behind in the house.
The Bloomsbury group has got to be kept in perspective. Their philosophic discourses were often rationalizations for their own snobbery and decadence. Keynes, for example, was not exactly the removed, dispassionate economic philosopher he is usually portrayed as. He had affairs with Lytton Strachey and Duncan Grant and after Vanessa Bell danced topless at a party, blithely had sex with her on a couch in full view of a roomful of people. After sleeping with everyone in sight, he eventually married Russian ballerina named Lydia Lopokova. Keynes, of course--uniquely for Bloomsbury--applied himself to real word issues, which set him apart. The point here is that you have to consider the source of all this deep moralizing, because it came from a group of people who thought the rules did not apply to them. They were talented and brilliant surely--some more than others--and the questions they raised are worth considering, but their treatment of all these issues has to filtered through their deep belief in their own superiority and contempt for both societal mores and ordinary people.
Another powerful piece. I just saw an article in the WSJ stating that $100 million dollar apartments in NYC will soon be sold for $200 million… I’m left wondering, Who are these people and what do they do for a living? Meanwhile the IRS pulled in 3 trillion last year. I’m curious if you have ideas to quell the financial disparities. I don’t think it’s as simple as, Tax the rich.
Meanwhile, I’m a spiritual person and am always seeking the inner life and appreciating the small and large blessings— baking challah every Friday— to family.
Whether rich or poor it’s the ego that lures one to the outer.
Alas sadly most of the world cannot ponder inner life/outer life or super capitalism or Keynes exploits as they are trying to put food on the table and keep the lights on. As I think about it..I believe I am wrong, I believe they maintain strong inner life that is spiritual and helps them survive.
I appreciate the depth of your analysis on the impact of modern American capitalism. It highlights the clash between those who can afford to prioritize the inner life and those consumed by the demands of the outer. It's true that the struggle between inner and outer life persists, but the emergence of discussions advocating for a more balanced, meaningful existence is also promising. It remains to be seen whether these discussions will indeed influence the broader trajectory of society, but acknowledging the importance of ideas in shaping our path forward is a hopeful perspective.
I think often about this and wonder if we can ever find out way out of our capitalist structure so long as we continue living w/ constant discontent. I feel like the most essential task of the inner life now is to recognize our own wholeness AS IS so we can opt out of the machine that keeps us working and consuming to feed the hungry ghost of perpetual unworthiness. We've got to replace "here's what's wrong with you; here's the solution," with... "actually, I'm fine as I am."
So glad this post first appeared on Inner Life and I commented that it defined why we began that Substack and how this essay defines why we named it "Inner Life". David writes a to-be-loved Substack, full of insights, vulnerability, and wisdom.
God I love Forster, even more as a person than a writer, perhaps. Lawrence and Hardy but especially Lawrence were also big proponents for "the inner life"...
I enjoyed the article when it was first published on Inner Life and again enjoyed the reread today. I am very interested to read the book now. I always appreciate your posts David as they compel me to think deeply on a topic. There is a lot to chew on here. Thank you.
-- Oh, David, I love how deep reflections emerge from the contemplation of profound questions, inviting us to ponder the fundamental nature of existence, morality, and consciousness. Thank you for sharing this piece. xo.
I believe it’s your inner self that matters , your consciousness. A lot of wealthy people have to build some kind of facade around them in the outer world. God forbid anybody should see their real self. Most of world has to believe that something better is going happen to them, so they struggle or wander aimlessly in the outer. I truly like how you put yourself out there. You are always exploring and lighting the dark corners of life.
I’m absolutely in favor of pushing back against the acquisitiveness and consumerism of capitalism, and seek to practice this in my daily life.
David, “Howards End” is one of my all-time favorite novels, partly because of the inner life-outer life conflict you highlight. As to your question, I’m no fan of American hyper-capitalism, and I think it’s at its most insidious with the rise of digital technology and discourse that’s algorithmically driven - that is, dumbed down by “ideas” that amount to the lowest common denominator. There are many ways that such algorithms focus on outer thinking (produce every second, capitalism is the only way, your data belongs to the machine) rather than inner life.
My question(s): How do or should creative people define their work? Personal storytelling and expression of ideas by writers is often the best route to nurturing inner life - yet writers and other artists could be accused of “workism,” too - writing becomes an identity and a hyper-focus, especially when crossed with the need to find eyeballs and to monetize (the driving “idea” of tech platforms).
Thanks for asking, David. From some perspectives Workism has always been suspect - but many people are so averse to claiming their inner house cat that they’d rather affirm their ‘work ethic’ than stop and smell the roses. But it’s an old one to recall that there’s no pockets in a shroud, which seems to be Brook’s point. As for ideas filtering downward, you’re certainly right to an extent, but it’s a mistake to privilege that as a dominant tendency. Good stuff can bubble up from the bottom, too. Note that great art more often follows that path, at least in days of yore: blues and jazz, Picasso’s blue period, numerous writers, such as Kerouac, etc. Aristocratic breeding and awareness of pursuits not-well-remunerated was perhaps a social feature more salient in Edwardian Britain than the US for most of recent history. In any case, the fellaheen didn’t wait around for the upper crust to provide cues - they just made fun with the materials at hand. (As I sink deeper into this rant I keep recalling the mordant humor of Paul Fussell’s “Class”.)
But we do seem to have entered a new era: the Influencer Age. I think nature is the best antidote. We were built to walk around in the open air. Doing as much has a reliably good effect, whatever mess we may have left behind in the house.
The Bloomsbury group has got to be kept in perspective. Their philosophic discourses were often rationalizations for their own snobbery and decadence. Keynes, for example, was not exactly the removed, dispassionate economic philosopher he is usually portrayed as. He had affairs with Lytton Strachey and Duncan Grant and after Vanessa Bell danced topless at a party, blithely had sex with her on a couch in full view of a roomful of people. After sleeping with everyone in sight, he eventually married Russian ballerina named Lydia Lopokova. Keynes, of course--uniquely for Bloomsbury--applied himself to real word issues, which set him apart. The point here is that you have to consider the source of all this deep moralizing, because it came from a group of people who thought the rules did not apply to them. They were talented and brilliant surely--some more than others--and the questions they raised are worth considering, but their treatment of all these issues has to filtered through their deep belief in their own superiority and contempt for both societal mores and ordinary people.
Another powerful piece. I just saw an article in the WSJ stating that $100 million dollar apartments in NYC will soon be sold for $200 million… I’m left wondering, Who are these people and what do they do for a living? Meanwhile the IRS pulled in 3 trillion last year. I’m curious if you have ideas to quell the financial disparities. I don’t think it’s as simple as, Tax the rich.
Meanwhile, I’m a spiritual person and am always seeking the inner life and appreciating the small and large blessings— baking challah every Friday— to family.
Whether rich or poor it’s the ego that lures one to the outer.
Alas sadly most of the world cannot ponder inner life/outer life or super capitalism or Keynes exploits as they are trying to put food on the table and keep the lights on. As I think about it..I believe I am wrong, I believe they maintain strong inner life that is spiritual and helps them survive.
I appreciate the depth of your analysis on the impact of modern American capitalism. It highlights the clash between those who can afford to prioritize the inner life and those consumed by the demands of the outer. It's true that the struggle between inner and outer life persists, but the emergence of discussions advocating for a more balanced, meaningful existence is also promising. It remains to be seen whether these discussions will indeed influence the broader trajectory of society, but acknowledging the importance of ideas in shaping our path forward is a hopeful perspective.
I think often about this and wonder if we can ever find out way out of our capitalist structure so long as we continue living w/ constant discontent. I feel like the most essential task of the inner life now is to recognize our own wholeness AS IS so we can opt out of the machine that keeps us working and consuming to feed the hungry ghost of perpetual unworthiness. We've got to replace "here's what's wrong with you; here's the solution," with... "actually, I'm fine as I am."
So glad this post first appeared on Inner Life and I commented that it defined why we began that Substack and how this essay defines why we named it "Inner Life". David writes a to-be-loved Substack, full of insights, vulnerability, and wisdom.
God I love Forster, even more as a person than a writer, perhaps. Lawrence and Hardy but especially Lawrence were also big proponents for "the inner life"...