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).
I define my time writing and reading and commenting on Substack as inner life, although the result may have an outer life effect in terms of getting subscribers. As of now, I have no main purpose in getting more subscribers except to have more people read what I write. And that leads to more comments and interactions like this one. Also, to the extent that I can have more personal interactions, whether on Zoom, or in real life, to me is inner life.
But of course I watch my "stats" and that feels like outer life. I guess almost everything is a weighting between the two.
I know, David, and that weighting changes from day to day. I also find reading and commenting on Substack to be a spark for my own writing, as long as it doesn't become too much of a distraction. Figuring out how to navigate reading, writing, and conversing with others is much on my mind these days, because too much inner focus isn't always the best thing for me, either :-)
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.
Thanks Tim for the comment. You make a good point about a lot of great art bubbling up. I loved Class by Paul Fussell. I wrote a post about his essay "Thank God for the Atom Bomb."
Fussell remains a great inspiration doesn’t he? I read and liked your excellent piece on “Thank God…” I would’ve liked to have given it a similar treatment in print someday but you’ve beaten me to the punch!
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.
They were definitely snobs and not role models! But I do respect the literary quality and the ideas in Howards End. It's the old-age, unanswerable question of how much do you see a text or any art through the lens of the artist's life.
Yes, I agree that they raised interesting philosophical points. But it's important not to forget that they were loading the dice and that even what seem like objective questions are often raised in a way that served their own interests and weighted points of view. Let us not forget, for example, that even Marx admitted that the achievements of capitalism, for all its deep and abiding faults, made the pyramids look like a pimple on an elephant's ass...although I'm certain he phrased it differently. It was capitalism that broke the feudal system and created opportunity for a vast segment of society that were doomed to simply continue in glorified, estate based slavery. To be clear, I've been writing against the excesses of capitalism for years and it has grown into an Orwellian version of what it replaced, but the Bloomsbury crew were most opposed to what they saw as its social vulgarity, its corruption of those good old aristocratic values...without aristocrats. They didn't mind ridiculous wealth one bit, which makes the inside self/outside self examination take on a different tone.
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.
Vivian, you bring up an interesting angle. Spirituality is definitely inner life and is available to all and may be more essential to those less economically fortunate.
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.
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"...
Very stoic! Or, as Milton wrote, "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."
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 agree that the inner is more valuable than the outer, although necessity and temptation often lead us to neglect the inner for the outer.
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).
Martha,
I happened to read this article on Vox this morning relevant to your question.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2024/2/1/24056883/tiktok-self-promotion-artist-career-how-to-build-following
I define my time writing and reading and commenting on Substack as inner life, although the result may have an outer life effect in terms of getting subscribers. As of now, I have no main purpose in getting more subscribers except to have more people read what I write. And that leads to more comments and interactions like this one. Also, to the extent that I can have more personal interactions, whether on Zoom, or in real life, to me is inner life.
But of course I watch my "stats" and that feels like outer life. I guess almost everything is a weighting between the two.
I know, David, and that weighting changes from day to day. I also find reading and commenting on Substack to be a spark for my own writing, as long as it doesn't become too much of a distraction. Figuring out how to navigate reading, writing, and conversing with others is much on my mind these days, because too much inner focus isn't always the best thing for me, either :-)
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.
Thanks Tim for the comment. You make a good point about a lot of great art bubbling up. I loved Class by Paul Fussell. I wrote a post about his essay "Thank God for the Atom Bomb."
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/thank-god-for-the-atom-bomb
Fussell remains a great inspiration doesn’t he? I read and liked your excellent piece on “Thank God…” I would’ve liked to have given it a similar treatment in print someday but you’ve beaten me to the punch!
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.
They were definitely snobs and not role models! But I do respect the literary quality and the ideas in Howards End. It's the old-age, unanswerable question of how much do you see a text or any art through the lens of the artist's life.
Yes, I agree that they raised interesting philosophical points. But it's important not to forget that they were loading the dice and that even what seem like objective questions are often raised in a way that served their own interests and weighted points of view. Let us not forget, for example, that even Marx admitted that the achievements of capitalism, for all its deep and abiding faults, made the pyramids look like a pimple on an elephant's ass...although I'm certain he phrased it differently. It was capitalism that broke the feudal system and created opportunity for a vast segment of society that were doomed to simply continue in glorified, estate based slavery. To be clear, I've been writing against the excesses of capitalism for years and it has grown into an Orwellian version of what it replaced, but the Bloomsbury crew were most opposed to what they saw as its social vulgarity, its corruption of those good old aristocratic values...without aristocrats. They didn't mind ridiculous wealth one bit, which makes the inside self/outside self examination take on a different tone.
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.
Good Challah on Friday night is Inner Life!
I'm going to continue to examine the 0.1% and the .01% (the buyers of those apartments, for sure) in my posts.
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.
Vivian, you bring up an interesting angle. Spirituality is definitely inner life and is available to all and may be more essential to those less economically fortunate.
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.
Thanks Winston for the generous comment. As writers we tend to believe, I hope rightfully, that ideas will make a difference or even the difference.
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"...