Wow! As the author, that the text led you to consider teachings of the Buddha and Gramsci is extremely encouraging. Not because I believe I'm at their level, but because it's a huge challenge, and a great pleasure, to write for someone who makes that sort of connection. It seems you're one step ahead of me, we shouldn't aim for wanting "better", we should aim for not "wanting". It feels like the philosophical shift includes the development of new concepts, and a new vocabulary, to describe a healthier society. It's like therapy, first you need to learn how to talk about your feelings before you can move towards a better way of living with them. We need new words to describe our society to learn how to better live with each other.
Thank you so much for your extremely insightful comment (maybe you should be writing a blog of your own)
Brilliantly argued, and I’d add that midlife crises, both personal and societal, are less about wanting more and more about mourning what won’t be. It’s the death we dread; it’s the slow cremation of alternate selves — the writer we never became, the startup we didn’t launch, the marriage we stayed in, the country we didn’t move to. At midlife, we meet our mortality; we meet the version of ourselves that didn’t survive the compromises.
Neoliberalism, too, is grieving its lost illusions,,not just of infinite growth, but of meaning. I liked it when you said it discovered “spirituality” in self-commodification. I’d say it’s in the throes of a full existential breakdown, not unlike a forty-something who suddenly trades Jung for ayahuasca and goes barefoot in Berlin cafés. It’s tired and it’s terrified that it no longer inspires belief. Which is deadly for an ideology.
Your suggestion that we look to the underachievers, the ones forced into humility, intimacy, and reinvention, is, in my view, the most radical proposition here. Because maybe the real winners are those who no longer play the game? Maybe the future isn’t powered by ambition, but by those who’ve stopped mistaking performance for purpose? The dropout, not the disruptor, might be our last philosopher.
Here’s to the beautifully failed, the gracefully scaled-back, and the secretly fulfilled. They may not drive Teslas, but they might just steer us out of the wreckage.
Neoliberalism flatters the fantasy of a self with no need, no limit, and no village. But a person cut loose from dependence does not become more fully human. Often, they become less so. What if the winners of the current system are often the people most deformed by its values?
There’s so much to unpack in your comment. You put it in a really interesting way. We often see neoliberalism as creating needs so we buy stuff to satisfy them. But in a sense, it also sells the fantasy that all needs can be satisfied by consuming, thus the fantasy of no needs. Thanks for opening that door in my mind!
Do you think that the system deformed their values, or that the system reflects their deformed values?
I think probably both, in a kind of vicious circle. Humans may have stumbled into this through behaviours that seemed to work, then gradually mistook them for ideals.
But once wealth reaches a certain scale, it seems to let people live outside ordinary dependence, and I do think that deforms values. Human beings are meant to rely on one another through family, community, reciprocity, exchange. At the billionaire level, a person can begin to live outside that ecosystem. They can buy help instead of needing it.
What troubles me is that this gets sold back to the rest of us as freedom, even though it may be profoundly anti-human. The fantasy of total independence starts to look like the highest good, when really it strips away something essential.
And yes, I’ll definitely give that a read. Really good writing, man.
"Humans may have stumbled into this through behaviours that seemed to work, then gradually mistook them for ideals."
That's brilliant! I wonder how much ideology emerges this way. It seems more plausible than some "great thinker" coming up with ideas.
The post I shared with you is exactly about what you commented on it being sold back to the rest of us as freedom. We have all the freedom in the world, as long as we don't question the type of freedom we're allowed to have. Which isn't freedom at all.
But, I don't want to bog you down with a bunch of my own work. Is there anything in particular you've been writing that you want to share? It sounds like we're thinking about a lot of the same things. Maybe we should collaborate on something...
I’d definitely like to read the other two when I get a proper stretch of time. I have a two year old, so my reading life is a bit more piecemeal than my ambitions for it.
But I can already feel the overlap. We do seem to be circling some of the same questions, even if from different registers.
If you think it'd be worth putting forces together, let me know. And if there is something of yours you'd like me to read, I'd love the recommendation.
As someone in my early 40s, this felt uncomfortably accurate. I'm often accused (in a playful way) of sounding like a broken record, always rambling on about presence, simplicity, and wanting better instead of more. Turns out that might be the point. The idea of scaling down as growth, not failure, really resonates with what I’ve been reflecting on in my own writing around parenting and everyday life. Thanks for putting language to this so clearly!
"The idea of scaling down as growth, not failure." That's a great line, I wish I had written that one myself. It's a huge compliment that you can connect this writing with the massive responsibility of parenting. Thank you for the careful and thoughtful read!
Interesting and insightful parallel between midlife crises and neoliberalism—once again! I truly admire your ability to draw such connections.
I agree with the call to redirect our attention toward alternative models to live a more fulfilling second half of life. However, as I read, “the way out of the crisis is… moving from wanting more to wanting better,” a few questions came to mind.
Isn’t it possible that the crisis itself feeds on our desire (wanting)—whether for “more” or even for “better”? what exactly defines this “better over more”? Isn’t the idea of “better” already deeply influenced—and constantly redefined—by the neoliberal capitalist model? Think of how concepts like mindfulness, yoga, or sustainability have been co-opted through greenwashing and commodification. Neoliberalism is incredibly agile!
On a more spiritual note -if I may -, we might even recall the Buddha’s teachings on enlightenment as the end of suffering, and how desire—wanting—is its root cause. Perhaps, as you suggest, what we truly need is a shift in the system’s philosophical mindset. One that moves us away from constantly wanting something external and toward turning inward—toward rediscovering the authentic self behind all the layers imposed by neoliberalism and patriarchy (to name just a few). Everything external already feels tainted. Anyways.. May we find patience and wisdom on this journey.
Finally, I want to share a quote from Antonio Gramsci:
“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born (yet); in this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
This quote has been always present for me, and has helped me navigating my own crises with more serenity. It reminds me that, while challenging and uncomfortable, each crisis carries within it the hope for something new and revolutionary to emerge.
Wow! As the author, that the text led you to consider teachings of the Buddha and Gramsci is extremely encouraging. Not because I believe I'm at their level, but because it's a huge challenge, and a great pleasure, to write for someone who makes that sort of connection. It seems you're one step ahead of me, we shouldn't aim for wanting "better", we should aim for not "wanting". It feels like the philosophical shift includes the development of new concepts, and a new vocabulary, to describe a healthier society. It's like therapy, first you need to learn how to talk about your feelings before you can move towards a better way of living with them. We need new words to describe our society to learn how to better live with each other.
Thank you so much for your extremely insightful comment (maybe you should be writing a blog of your own)
Brilliantly argued, and I’d add that midlife crises, both personal and societal, are less about wanting more and more about mourning what won’t be. It’s the death we dread; it’s the slow cremation of alternate selves — the writer we never became, the startup we didn’t launch, the marriage we stayed in, the country we didn’t move to. At midlife, we meet our mortality; we meet the version of ourselves that didn’t survive the compromises.
Neoliberalism, too, is grieving its lost illusions,,not just of infinite growth, but of meaning. I liked it when you said it discovered “spirituality” in self-commodification. I’d say it’s in the throes of a full existential breakdown, not unlike a forty-something who suddenly trades Jung for ayahuasca and goes barefoot in Berlin cafés. It’s tired and it’s terrified that it no longer inspires belief. Which is deadly for an ideology.
Your suggestion that we look to the underachievers, the ones forced into humility, intimacy, and reinvention, is, in my view, the most radical proposition here. Because maybe the real winners are those who no longer play the game? Maybe the future isn’t powered by ambition, but by those who’ve stopped mistaking performance for purpose? The dropout, not the disruptor, might be our last philosopher.
Here’s to the beautifully failed, the gracefully scaled-back, and the secretly fulfilled. They may not drive Teslas, but they might just steer us out of the wreckage.
Thank you for sharing this essay with me, Ramiro!
"The dropout, not the disruptor, might be our last philosopher."
Great timing on my end for choosing to be born at this moment in history.
Thanks for the read and the thoughtful feedback.
Neoliberalism flatters the fantasy of a self with no need, no limit, and no village. But a person cut loose from dependence does not become more fully human. Often, they become less so. What if the winners of the current system are often the people most deformed by its values?
There’s so much to unpack in your comment. You put it in a really interesting way. We often see neoliberalism as creating needs so we buy stuff to satisfy them. But in a sense, it also sells the fantasy that all needs can be satisfied by consuming, thus the fantasy of no needs. Thanks for opening that door in my mind!
Do you think that the system deformed their values, or that the system reflects their deformed values?
I also like how you put it in terms of “winners.” A while back, I wrote about how we need to pay attention to the losers if we want to get out of this mess. Maybe you’re interested in giving it a read: https://writerbytechnicality.substack.com/p/the-creative-underdogs?r=3anz55
Thanks a lot for the read and the super thoughtful comment!
I think probably both, in a kind of vicious circle. Humans may have stumbled into this through behaviours that seemed to work, then gradually mistook them for ideals.
But once wealth reaches a certain scale, it seems to let people live outside ordinary dependence, and I do think that deforms values. Human beings are meant to rely on one another through family, community, reciprocity, exchange. At the billionaire level, a person can begin to live outside that ecosystem. They can buy help instead of needing it.
What troubles me is that this gets sold back to the rest of us as freedom, even though it may be profoundly anti-human. The fantasy of total independence starts to look like the highest good, when really it strips away something essential.
And yes, I’ll definitely give that a read. Really good writing, man.
"Humans may have stumbled into this through behaviours that seemed to work, then gradually mistook them for ideals."
That's brilliant! I wonder how much ideology emerges this way. It seems more plausible than some "great thinker" coming up with ideas.
The post I shared with you is exactly about what you commented on it being sold back to the rest of us as freedom. We have all the freedom in the world, as long as we don't question the type of freedom we're allowed to have. Which isn't freedom at all.
And what you mention about community and reciprocity is something I've been writing a lot about lately. Yesterday I posted a piece on class consciousness: https://writerbytechnicality.substack.com/p/analog-closeness?r=3anz55
It's a topic I've been exploring quite a bit. I'm working on the idea of a "moral shift": https://writerbytechnicality.substack.com/p/moral-shift?r=3anz55
But, I don't want to bog you down with a bunch of my own work. Is there anything in particular you've been writing that you want to share? It sounds like we're thinking about a lot of the same things. Maybe we should collaborate on something...
I’d definitely like to read the other two when I get a proper stretch of time. I have a two year old, so my reading life is a bit more piecemeal than my ambitions for it.
But I can already feel the overlap. We do seem to be circling some of the same questions, even if from different registers.
Thank you Mercy-Luxed!
If you think it'd be worth putting forces together, let me know. And if there is something of yours you'd like me to read, I'd love the recommendation.
goddamn. +1
haha! It can be tough, but things look better at the other end of a mid-life crisis. Hang in there!
As someone in my early 40s, this felt uncomfortably accurate. I'm often accused (in a playful way) of sounding like a broken record, always rambling on about presence, simplicity, and wanting better instead of more. Turns out that might be the point. The idea of scaling down as growth, not failure, really resonates with what I’ve been reflecting on in my own writing around parenting and everyday life. Thanks for putting language to this so clearly!
"The idea of scaling down as growth, not failure." That's a great line, I wish I had written that one myself. It's a huge compliment that you can connect this writing with the massive responsibility of parenting. Thank you for the careful and thoughtful read!
Interesting and insightful parallel between midlife crises and neoliberalism—once again! I truly admire your ability to draw such connections.
I agree with the call to redirect our attention toward alternative models to live a more fulfilling second half of life. However, as I read, “the way out of the crisis is… moving from wanting more to wanting better,” a few questions came to mind.
Isn’t it possible that the crisis itself feeds on our desire (wanting)—whether for “more” or even for “better”? what exactly defines this “better over more”? Isn’t the idea of “better” already deeply influenced—and constantly redefined—by the neoliberal capitalist model? Think of how concepts like mindfulness, yoga, or sustainability have been co-opted through greenwashing and commodification. Neoliberalism is incredibly agile!
On a more spiritual note -if I may -, we might even recall the Buddha’s teachings on enlightenment as the end of suffering, and how desire—wanting—is its root cause. Perhaps, as you suggest, what we truly need is a shift in the system’s philosophical mindset. One that moves us away from constantly wanting something external and toward turning inward—toward rediscovering the authentic self behind all the layers imposed by neoliberalism and patriarchy (to name just a few). Everything external already feels tainted. Anyways.. May we find patience and wisdom on this journey.
Finally, I want to share a quote from Antonio Gramsci:
“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born (yet); in this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
This quote has been always present for me, and has helped me navigating my own crises with more serenity. It reminds me that, while challenging and uncomfortable, each crisis carries within it the hope for something new and revolutionary to emerge.