I have been reading your posts and would say that I am not in any way trying to suggest that we should be or see ourselves as isolated beings. However, I would say that the inner life is the starting point for any connections with other people.

I would argue that if we do not understand ourselves and have a certain amount of inner harmony this will affect our relationships with others. Of course, our own conflicts may stem from damages caused in the outer world, but if nothing else, it is the one area which we can work upon, and we may even seek therapy for help. Of course, reaching out to others and taking part in life is essential, but this does involve one's mindset, which brings back the inner life as a focus point, although bodily wellbeing is part of this too?

Perhaps this implies dualistic thinking? I do advocate a holistic picture of the human being, but the the relationship between physical and mental wellbeing is complex too.

It may be that you or other people don't see that the inner life as central because you have already achieved the basis of a harmonious inner life already, but for others this is not as straightforward.

We have to internalise the outer experience to process it, in order to connect with others and relate to our surroundings. The inner world is also the source of appreciation, enjoyment and ways of engaging with other beings in a meaningful way. — Jack Cummins

w

Do we have an outer experience first and only later internalize it, or is our very access to the ‘outer’ already filtered , directed and thematized by the inner context of understanding we bring to our perceptions of things and people?

To quote Scheler and Wittgenstein:

For we certainly believe ourselves to be directly acquainted with another person's joy in his laughter, with his sorrow and pain in his tears, with his shame in his blushing, with his entreaty in his outstretched hands, with his love in his look of affection, with his rage in the gnashing of his teeth, with his threats in the clenching of his fist, and with the tenor of his thoughts in the sound of his words. If anyone tells me that this is not “perception,” for it cannot be so, in view of the fact that a perception is simply a “complex of physical sensations,” and that there is certainly no sensation of another person's mind nor any stimulus from such a source, I would beg him to turn aside from such questionable theories and address himself to the phenomenological facts. (Scheler 1973, 254 [1954, 260];


We do not see facial contortions and make the inference that he is feeling joy, grief, boredom. We describe a face immediately as sad, radiant, bored, even when we are unable to give any other description of the features. (Wittgenstein 1980)

Is there some other function the inner world serves in your opinion , other and beyond the intending of creative acts of reflective , imagination and dreaming? This is what I meant by outer. Thinking and imagining always intends beyond itself.

I don't think that it is possible to say that inner or outer experience comes first, and this is where the danger of dualism comes in because they are interrelated.

I am not sure what point you are making by your reference Sheler and Wittgenstein approaching others' emotional states on the basis of facial expressions. This aspect of life is the reading of people's emotions on the basis of non verbal signals. I would say that it does show basics of their emotional life but little about the content of the inner life. Surely, inner life cannot be reduced to emotionality alone.

Also, when you say that, 'Thinking and imagining always intends beyond itself,' this seems so vague. I do believe that most people wish to interact with other people, or certain significant others, or the environment, but there are so many possible choices that it could involve numerous aspects arising from the inner life. I would suggest that to understand the individual's inner experience we need to ask the person, in order to get an understanding of the meaning and depth of the actual experience, rather than base our view on observations.

So, when you ask what my understanding of the inner life is beyond reflection, imagination and dreaming are you asking if I am seeing these as separate from interpersonal acts? I see inner life as related to social life, but would not reduce it to this alone. One person could be in positive relationships but feel deeply depressed. Another could be deeply unhappy about relationships but be experiencing a rich inner life depending on their inner resources and imagination. I am not just thinking in terms of day to day pleasure but of creativity. Here, I would say that some of the most recognised people, including Van Gogh, Kierkergaard and Nietzsche, may not have been the most contented social beings but they were able to cultivate the rich inner lives, evident in their creative work.

I would suggest that the inner life is the most central aspect of human life — Jack Cummins

I suspect you have docked "human life" of its salient features: it occurs in a reality, and it ends in death. As such, I might express the relationship of inner and outer this way: the outer provides, the inner digests. There is the moment, and then what we may make of the moment, perhaps to inform us for future moments. Or, life is to be lived - no other option.

And history tells us there has been a general change, and implicitly warns of it. Most simply it is that for most of human history, man- and womankind have had to do, and extended reflection on the doing a luxury that most had no access to.

Now indeed through, e.g., Youtube I don't have to do anything. But I can watch just about everything and partake vicariously. The twin hazard being that I will get used to doing nothing, thinking I'm doing something, and, seeing endlessly people competent in ways I am not, I will suppose that I cannot be, and thus will not do anything, or even try. "Recourse" to the inner in this case is no recourse at all, but is instead flight, subsisting self-cannibalistically, a kind of inadvertent suicide, though one may wonder at how inadvertent.

I am not sure what point you are making by your reference Sheler and Wittgenstein approaching others' emotional states on the basis of facial expressions — Jack Cummins

I was trying to point out that the fashionable hypothesis these days in psychology is that sociality can be seen as more primitive for humankind than individuality. In other words, it is possible to conceive the relationship between two or more persons not in terms of "interacting" individuals, but of elements of an inseparable system in which the relationship precedes the individual psychologies.

I think you may have put your comment together a bit wrongly because you have quoted me as saying a whole paragraph I did not say. I would imagine that the second paragraph is your answer, but it is rather unclear to me, as it could be a quote from someone else. Please could you clarify this.

It seems a bit simplistic to say that, 'the outer provides, the inner digests' because we are not just passive observers.

However, I would agree that it is easy for us to slip into the observer world, viewing the media, and this leading to a more interior perspective It says a lot about our culture, for better or worse. I am sure that many other cultures did not have the luxury of being able to indulge in the inner life like we can, but this could change if many people become much poorer.

I am not convinced that many people in the past or in certain parts of the world have been able to focus on the inner life in the way that we can, on our phones, reading and listening to music. So, the big question would be what will happen if we have to adapt to a much harsher existence if consumer materialist culture diminishes in the near future? Would 'the inner life' offer a means of sustenance or would most of us just lack survival skills, become unwell mentally, or find new ways of negotiating the boundaries between inner and outer?

try refreshing your browser. Meanwhile, I’ll repost my reply.

I was trying to point out that the fashionable hypothesis these days in psychology is that sociality can be seen as more primitive for humankind than individuality. In other words, it is possible to conceive the relationship between two or more persons not in terms of "interacting" individuals, but of elements of an inseparable system in which the relationship precedes the individual psychologies.

I
I have seen your reply.

The one thing that I will say I is that I have studied many aspects of psychology but don't just go by popular psychology, which you refer to. I prefer to look to psychology in its diversity, ranging from psychoanalytic, cognitive and humanistic. The way the psychosocial is viewed varies so much depending on the perspective. I have to admit that I have more of an interest in the psychoanalytic, which might explain my emphasis on the inner world, but I try to keep aware of what can be learned from other perspectives too.

Are you familiar with the work of Eugene Gendlin? He began as assistant to Carl Rogers and then established his own version of client-centered therapy using a technique he called focusing.
It argues the internal process generating meaning operates in the background implicitly, and can be referred to directly in order to think creatively.

I haven't come across Eugene Gendlin, but I will look him up. Thanks

My responses have not conveyed my intentions very well. Please pardon my penchant for aphoristic observations. I will try a different approach.

I am in full agreement with your thought that what you practice by yourself is closely involved with what may become possible for you and others around you. Disciplines are very personal in that way. The isolation I mentioned before was meant to praise a certain freedom from distraction to pay attention, to notice changes from different attempts at an event, to listen while doing things. In the texts of Zhaungzi, the butcher describing why he is so good at his craft tries to convey some of that connection as a process. On the other hand, the observation is made in the midst of a large argument about what separates maps from the territory. The Taoists opposed the certainty of the Confucians on many levels but also had enough irony to notice when they themselves were doing what they opposed. The privacy of some practices can be acted upon under conditions one does not fully understand. Or even barely at all.

So models serve different purposes. What lets me be open to something that is given if I accept it is not easily comparable to models that serve other purposes. On the other hand, the two kinds of talk must be connected in some way for it to actually bring a new condition into one's life.

Your latest response was good to read, because reading through most of the responses to my question it has appeared that the inner life is being dismissed as being of any importance at all.

It is seen more as something to be avoided altogether. It is as if we only matter as social creatures according to most of people who have looked into this thread. However, even if we are completely immersed in social life and try to avoid 'inner life' as a luxury as far as I can see we are still have an inner self, although the self can be understood as a construct and has fluidity.

I did look up Eugene Gendlin online and his ideas do seem useful, so thanks for introducing him to me. His book, 'Focusing' sounds worth reading and I will try to find it and read it. However, the whole concept of focusing seems important, because my whole emphasis on the inner world is really about the way it is a focus point for all that happens in our lives. Focus is central to interpretation and intentionality.

What I wish to argue is that the inner world is the most central aspect of life, for experiencing and discovering reality. Therefore, it is the most important area to understand and develop, especially in this time, in which for many of us, is one of social distancing. Isolation can be hard but perhaps it is a chance to know oneself. — Jack Cummins

'The kingdom of Heaven is within you.' It's an old and beautiful thought. I think of stoics, skeptics, Christians, and so on. Call it escapist or profound. It's a tempting idea.

But for me knowing oneself is dialectical. Maybe I have conversations with myself. But don't I have better conversations with myself having read some good books? Having been impacted by charismatic otherness?

The solitary self doesn't seem that interesting. A child only becomes a self proper by living in a world with others. And what do humans want? To love, to be admired, and so on. Certain thinkers come to mind who weren't understood in their day...but they looked forward in their imagination to when they would be cherished.

I still like the idea of spending a month in a mountain cabin alone if I knew that my loved ones would be happy and safe in my absence. (And I'd probably worry about being creatively productive or having something to show for the time nevertheless.)

Yes, I would agree with the idea that an entirely solitary life would be too extreme. While I moan that I have difficulty getting enough private time and space, if I was cut off from others entirely I would struggle. When alone, the thought of significant others is very important. If I think about times when I have enjoyed time alone it has been in the context of knowing that I had important connections with other human beings. I don't think I could become a hermit, living out in the mountains alone. So, the ideal of a rich inner life is probably best seen as balanced with connections and relationships with others, and reading books written by others too.