There something I reflect every time I read your essays about existential health and that I have not yet learned how to metabolize: the relationship with injustice. I can make amends with grief, death, uncertainty, religious deconstruction. I can recognize belonging, responsibility, love, etc. But I cannot reconcile, or accept the history of a violent, genocidal human kind as it is without experiencing deep emotions. I would love to hear your thoughts about this.
@Jim, I am still trying to understand what you mean by existential health (EH).
In this article, you say EH "asks how we inhabit meaning, identity, freedom, responsibility, uncertainty, belonging, love, grief, mortality, and reality" and you say, EH is strong when we "inhabit existence as it actually is."
These two pieces together imply to me that existence contains meaning, identity, etc. That meaning exists and we simply have to inhabit or fully live in it.
For me, a person has strong EH when s/he has done extensive deconstruction of their self concept (i.e., narrative self). This enables them to live more fully in the Here and Now - to experience life more directly. This person is largely free of inherited beliefs, should, etc. In this clear state, we don't inhabit meaning or identity. Instead, we *construct* meaning or identity - intentionally and consciously, when it is needed.
The idea that life has no meaning unless I give it meaning has been a challenge for me to embrace, but every experience of life I have - prior to the mind's interpretations - has NO meaning, only existence. The mind then generates meaning based on goals, expectations, prior experiences, and prior knowledge.
How can we inhabit meaning/identity when we must first construct it? Or, are you saying, once we consciously construct the meaning or identity, then we should fully inhabit it? Thanks for clarifying.
This is such a thoughtful question, and I think you're putting your finger on an important distinction.
When I say existential health concerns how we inhabit meaning, identity, belonging, freedom, grief, mortality, and so on, I'm not suggesting those things exist "out there" waiting to be discovered like physical objects. Nor do I mean that life arrives with inherent meaning that we simply step into.
I'm using inhabit to describe our relationship to these realities. Whether meaning is discovered, created, co-created, or continually revised, every human being ends up living within some relationship to it. The same is true of identity. We don't escape identity simply because we recognize it as constructed. We still have to live as someone.
I also agree with you that one of the great developmental tasks is deconstructing the inherited self. In my own language, that is moving from borrowed identity toward self-authorship. But I don't see deconstruction as the end of the journey. We can't remain permanently without narratives, commitments, values, or identities. We inevitably construct them again. The question becomes whether we do so consciously, provisionally, and in contact with reality, or unconsciously and defensively.
So perhaps another way I could say it is this: existential health is not about inhabiting given meaning. It is about inhabiting our relationship to meaning well. That relationship includes creating meaning, revising it when reality requires it, and refusing to mistake our constructions for reality itself.
I suspect we're actually much closer than it might first appear. Where we may differ is that I see the ongoing work not simply as constructing meaning, but as continually bringing our constructions back into honest conversation with reality. That, for me, is one of the deepest expressions of existential health.
Thank you for raising this. It's exactly the kind of question that helps me sharpen the language.
Jim, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I really appreciate the dialog.
I agree with you that the deconstruction process is not the end of the journey. I see it as an essential and profound prerequisite to the practice of living an authentic and fully embodied life.
I understand your desire to keep using inhabit but "inhabiting the relationship" doesn't clarify it for me. First, "inhabit" defines a spatial relationship between two things, for example, a person and a space or environment. It does not imply a person living in or dwelling in a mental construct (meaning, identity, mortality). Second, "relationship" defines the connection or bridge between two or more people or entities that are separate. Both words express or imply separation - something "out there" that we establish a relationship with and then inhabit. You say the out-thereness isn't the goal, but relationship strengthens that separation for me.
I love what you said about not mistaking the constructed meaning for the real experience it was intended to approximate. The map is not the terrain!
My experience of life in the here and now is not relational, but unitary and direct. Only after the mind gets involved does the duality exist - the experience gets parsed into labels and meanings, relationships, identity, and construct like life and death. These mental constructs are generally helpful and useful, but we cannot mistake these approximations or abstractions for the experience.
One thing I realized last night, and I don't recall seeing in your EH white papers, is that we must stop the mind's interpretation process (perception) long enough to experience life directly *before* we can know the construction and reality are not the same. The more time we spend living life directly, the clearer this truth becomes.
So, if by existential health you mean a person knows firsthand that they construct meaning (or identity), revise meaning (or identity) as needed, and the constructed meaning (or identity) isn't reality, then I am on board.
Thanks again for this important writing. I will read White Paper 4 later today.
What a great conversation! I would (badly) paraphrase Carl Jung and say that "inhabiting" is what happens when you discover for yourself the difference between believing something and experiencing it. For me, trying to explain that difference to anyone who hasn't had it is pretty much impossible. As a matter of fact, it's hard sometimes to even "explain" it to myself. Intellectualizing it is inadequate, and the experience is too personal, or internal, to share it in a way that might be meaningful to someone else. Maybe just letting people know it's possible and well worth doing is enough.
Oooh so good, Living from borrowed meaning Is the damage that religion gives us. Also, I think the capacity to wonder is huge, and the grind of bills, chores etc in adulthood tries to kill that.
Im right there with you, Jim with the exception of number 3: No one is the author of their own existence. I’ve come to believe that we chose the conditions, if not the actual family, etc into which to be born. Seeking those exact challenges that have the means to expand our awareness or consciousness.
Why start being responsible at birth? Why not before? And, I might add, after
It’s a continuum of responsibility, before during and after. And, as they say, rinse and repeat. Over many lives….
One idea that especially stayed with me was your observation that existential health begins with our relationship to reality itself. That question lingered with me, particularly through the lens of how perception shapes our experience of existence. It inspired me to write a reflection, Can Existential Health Be Cultivated?, exploring the Shadow, the Mechanical Mind, and the Sacred Web as a Modern Vitalist response to many of the questions you raise here. Thank you for writing something that continues the conversation rather than ending it.
There something I reflect every time I read your essays about existential health and that I have not yet learned how to metabolize: the relationship with injustice. I can make amends with grief, death, uncertainty, religious deconstruction. I can recognize belonging, responsibility, love, etc. But I cannot reconcile, or accept the history of a violent, genocidal human kind as it is without experiencing deep emotions. I would love to hear your thoughts about this.
Thanks for your comment. I recently wrote an article that begins to address the connection between existential health and injustice. Emphasis on "begins"... -> https://jimpalmerauthor.substack.com/p/the-question-justice-cannot-answer?r=tokze&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Thank you. I’ll read it right now ✨
@Jim, I am still trying to understand what you mean by existential health (EH).
In this article, you say EH "asks how we inhabit meaning, identity, freedom, responsibility, uncertainty, belonging, love, grief, mortality, and reality" and you say, EH is strong when we "inhabit existence as it actually is."
These two pieces together imply to me that existence contains meaning, identity, etc. That meaning exists and we simply have to inhabit or fully live in it.
For me, a person has strong EH when s/he has done extensive deconstruction of their self concept (i.e., narrative self). This enables them to live more fully in the Here and Now - to experience life more directly. This person is largely free of inherited beliefs, should, etc. In this clear state, we don't inhabit meaning or identity. Instead, we *construct* meaning or identity - intentionally and consciously, when it is needed.
The idea that life has no meaning unless I give it meaning has been a challenge for me to embrace, but every experience of life I have - prior to the mind's interpretations - has NO meaning, only existence. The mind then generates meaning based on goals, expectations, prior experiences, and prior knowledge.
How can we inhabit meaning/identity when we must first construct it? Or, are you saying, once we consciously construct the meaning or identity, then we should fully inhabit it? Thanks for clarifying.
This is such a thoughtful question, and I think you're putting your finger on an important distinction.
When I say existential health concerns how we inhabit meaning, identity, belonging, freedom, grief, mortality, and so on, I'm not suggesting those things exist "out there" waiting to be discovered like physical objects. Nor do I mean that life arrives with inherent meaning that we simply step into.
I'm using inhabit to describe our relationship to these realities. Whether meaning is discovered, created, co-created, or continually revised, every human being ends up living within some relationship to it. The same is true of identity. We don't escape identity simply because we recognize it as constructed. We still have to live as someone.
I also agree with you that one of the great developmental tasks is deconstructing the inherited self. In my own language, that is moving from borrowed identity toward self-authorship. But I don't see deconstruction as the end of the journey. We can't remain permanently without narratives, commitments, values, or identities. We inevitably construct them again. The question becomes whether we do so consciously, provisionally, and in contact with reality, or unconsciously and defensively.
So perhaps another way I could say it is this: existential health is not about inhabiting given meaning. It is about inhabiting our relationship to meaning well. That relationship includes creating meaning, revising it when reality requires it, and refusing to mistake our constructions for reality itself.
I suspect we're actually much closer than it might first appear. Where we may differ is that I see the ongoing work not simply as constructing meaning, but as continually bringing our constructions back into honest conversation with reality. That, for me, is one of the deepest expressions of existential health.
Thank you for raising this. It's exactly the kind of question that helps me sharpen the language.
Jim, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I really appreciate the dialog.
I agree with you that the deconstruction process is not the end of the journey. I see it as an essential and profound prerequisite to the practice of living an authentic and fully embodied life.
I understand your desire to keep using inhabit but "inhabiting the relationship" doesn't clarify it for me. First, "inhabit" defines a spatial relationship between two things, for example, a person and a space or environment. It does not imply a person living in or dwelling in a mental construct (meaning, identity, mortality). Second, "relationship" defines the connection or bridge between two or more people or entities that are separate. Both words express or imply separation - something "out there" that we establish a relationship with and then inhabit. You say the out-thereness isn't the goal, but relationship strengthens that separation for me.
I love what you said about not mistaking the constructed meaning for the real experience it was intended to approximate. The map is not the terrain!
My experience of life in the here and now is not relational, but unitary and direct. Only after the mind gets involved does the duality exist - the experience gets parsed into labels and meanings, relationships, identity, and construct like life and death. These mental constructs are generally helpful and useful, but we cannot mistake these approximations or abstractions for the experience.
One thing I realized last night, and I don't recall seeing in your EH white papers, is that we must stop the mind's interpretation process (perception) long enough to experience life directly *before* we can know the construction and reality are not the same. The more time we spend living life directly, the clearer this truth becomes.
So, if by existential health you mean a person knows firsthand that they construct meaning (or identity), revise meaning (or identity) as needed, and the constructed meaning (or identity) isn't reality, then I am on board.
Thanks again for this important writing. I will read White Paper 4 later today.
What a great conversation! I would (badly) paraphrase Carl Jung and say that "inhabiting" is what happens when you discover for yourself the difference between believing something and experiencing it. For me, trying to explain that difference to anyone who hasn't had it is pretty much impossible. As a matter of fact, it's hard sometimes to even "explain" it to myself. Intellectualizing it is inadequate, and the experience is too personal, or internal, to share it in a way that might be meaningful to someone else. Maybe just letting people know it's possible and well worth doing is enough.
Oooh so good, Living from borrowed meaning Is the damage that religion gives us. Also, I think the capacity to wonder is huge, and the grind of bills, chores etc in adulthood tries to kill that.
Im right there with you, Jim with the exception of number 3: No one is the author of their own existence. I’ve come to believe that we chose the conditions, if not the actual family, etc into which to be born. Seeking those exact challenges that have the means to expand our awareness or consciousness.
Why start being responsible at birth? Why not before? And, I might add, after
It’s a continuum of responsibility, before during and after. And, as they say, rinse and repeat. Over many lives….
One idea that especially stayed with me was your observation that existential health begins with our relationship to reality itself. That question lingered with me, particularly through the lens of how perception shapes our experience of existence. It inspired me to write a reflection, Can Existential Health Be Cultivated?, exploring the Shadow, the Mechanical Mind, and the Sacred Web as a Modern Vitalist response to many of the questions you raise here. Thank you for writing something that continues the conversation rather than ending it.
My reflection: https://modernvitalism.substack.com/p/can-existential-health-be-cultivated?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8pncx6