Don't feed both sides of yourself equally. The spirit and the body carry different loads and require different attention. Don't make the body do what the spirit does best, and don't put a big load on the spirit that the body could easily carry. — Jalāl ad-Dīn Rūmī, Masnavi
On Soul, Friction & the Unnameable Hunger
On manufactured reality, the friction that makes us human, the wars that break through the dream, and why the West keeps losing conflicts it cannot price.
Rumi offers an image that is so precise it is almost uncomfortable. The body, he writes, is a horse. This lower world is its stable. The food the horse eats is not the food of the rider. You are the rider — you have your own sleeping, your own eating, your own mode of nourishment. But the animal has the upper hand. And so you lag behind in the stable, eating the horse's food, living by the horse's schedule, subject to its rule. You cannot be found among the ranks of those who have actually lived. Your heart is elsewhere. But because the body has the upper hand, you remain its prisoner.
The image is eight hundred years old. It describes the present moment with an accuracy that no contemporary diagnosis has matched. The rider has not been defeated or expelled. The rider has simply forgotten they are the rider. This is the crucial distinction. A civilization that has been conquered knows it has been conquered. A rider who has forgotten their nature does not know they are in a stable. They experience the stable as life itself — as the only life there is — and organize their considerable intelligence around making it more comfortable.
There is a particular kind of suffering that has no name in the language of the civilization that produces it. It visits people who have enough of everything — enough food, enough entertainment, enough information, enough comfort — and it arrives as a persistent, sourceless ache. In the West, this condition generates enormous economic activity: therapy, pharmaceuticals, wellness industries, self-help literature, and the infinite scroll of content that promises resolution and delivers only continuation. The appetite is fed and remains hungry. The body is satisfied. The ache persists. The rider, in the stable, cannot name what they are missing — only that something is missing — because the stable contains no language for the open field.
This essay is an attempt to trace how this happened — through the architecture of manufactured reality, through the epistemology of distraction, through the friction that keeps us human and the frictionlessness that quietly undoes us, and through the wars that keep breaking through every manufactured dream precisely because they are grounded in something the dream cannot account for.
For Soul there is other food besides this food of sleeping and eating, but you have forgotten that other food. Night and day you nourish only your body. Now, this body is like a horse, and this lower world is its stable. The food the horse eats is not the food of the rider. You are the rider and have your own sleeping and eating, your own enjoyment. But since the animal has the upper hand, you lag behind in the horse's stable.
The Machinery of Not Asking
In the middle of the twentieth century, a public relations practitioner named Edward Bernays wrote openly about what he called the invisible government — the small number of people who understood that democratic masses could be guided not through force but through the deliberate shaping of desire and belief. He was Sigmund Freud's nephew, and he applied his uncle's insights about the unconscious to the management of publics at scale. This was not conspiracy. It was policy. It was written down.
Bernays called it "the engineering of consent" — a phrase that describes what every algorithm, every ad, every piece of content optimized for engagement has been doing ever since, at scales he never imagined.
What has happened in the century since is not that the project was abandoned. It was perfected. The tools multiplied. Television brought the manufactured image into the living room. Advertising fused product with identity. News fragmented into entertainment. Social media turned the individual into both the product and the distributor. And now artificial intelligence — trained on the accumulated output of all of it — generates content at a scale and velocity that makes earlier information environments look artisanal.
The result is a population swimming in answers. Google any question and you receive a response within milliseconds. Ask an AI and you receive an argument, fully formed, in seconds. The infrastructure for answers has never been more developed. And yet genuine inquiry — the kind that begins not with a question you already know how to phrase but with an unease you cannot yet name — has perhaps never been more difficult to sustain.
This is not accidental. A population that asks genuine questions is epistemologically inconvenient. Genuine questions do not resolve cleanly into consumer choices. They generate more questions. They produce uncertainty rather than brand loyalty. They lead, sometimes, to the most inconvenient question of all: what is this all actually for. Every system that benefits from managed human behavior — political, commercial, or cultural — benefits from that question remaining unasked. The proliferation of answers is the most elegant possible mechanism for preventing genuine inquiry. When everything already has an answer, the habit of questioning atrophies. And the soul's hunger — which is fundamentally the hunger to know, genuinely, what is real — goes unrecognized beneath the noise of having been told.
A population that asks genuine questions is epistemologically inconvenient. Genuine questions generate more questions. The proliferation of answers is the most elegant mechanism for preventing genuine inquiry.
Friction Is Not the Problem
There is a comparison available to anyone who has lived in both a high-friction and a low-friction environment, and it is instructive in ways that neither side of the comparison finds comfortable to acknowledge.
In a city like Cairo, or a village in any country that has not yet been fully absorbed into the frictionless economy, daily life involves negotiation with genuine resistance. The bus may not come. The bureaucracy is labyrinthine and requires persistence. The market requires conversation rather than a tap on a screen. Other people are unavoidable, genuinely other, bringing their complications into contact with yours. The obstacle course is high. Nothing is seamless. And this difficulty, which appears from the outside as a problem to be solved — as underdevelopment, as inefficiency — is from the inside something else entirely: a daily reminder that reality is real, that effort produces outcomes, and that other people exist.
Compare this to the experience of moving through a car-dependent American suburb. You wake in a controlled climate. You drive in a sealed vehicle from controlled private space to controlled private space. Your food arrives at a door. Your entertainment is curated to your preferences. You can navigate an entire day without meaningful encounter with anyone whose life differs substantially from yours. Every friction point has been engineered away. The result is efficient. It is also, experienced over years, a specific kind of impoverishment — a progressive thinning of the felt texture of being alive among other people.
The Netherlands, as a middle case, is instructive. A bike culture means weather, other cyclists, the physical fact of your body. A farmers market means a conversation with the person who grew the food — a transaction that carries relationship and therefore accountability. Public transport means shared space with people you did not choose. These are not inefficiencies. They are the structure through which human beings have always encountered one another, been reminded of their interdependence, and had their models of reality corrected by contact with lives unlike their own.
Friction, in this sense, is not the enemy of the good life. It is the medium through which the good life becomes legible. The person who grew up navigating genuine daily difficulty does not have a harder relationship with reality than the person for whom difficulty has been engineered away. They have a more honest one. The obstacle course that costs you something real gives you the felt sense of having accomplished something real. The seamless achievement — the delivered package, the instant answer, the experience curated precisely to your preferences — satisfies without teaching. And a life organized around satisfaction without teaching is a life in which the capacity for genuine understanding quietly disappears.
Don't feed both sides of yourself equally. The spirit and the body carry different loads and require different attention. Don't make the body do what the spirit does best, and don't put a big load on the spirit that the body could easily carry.
Rumi understood that difficulty is not opposed to development — it is the mechanism of it. But more than that, he understood that the kind of load matters as much as the load itself. A life that places all its weight on the body's mode of knowing — comfort, efficiency, sensation, ease — while asking nothing of the spirit's capacity, does not produce a whole person. It produces half a person who has never noticed the missing half.
Why Americans Only Revolt at the Pump
There is a revealing pattern in the political behavior of populations that have been most thoroughly insulated from the consequences of their own systems. In the United States, the threshold for genuine civic unrest has a remarkably consistent trigger: the price of gasoline. Wars can be waged in distant countries for decades without producing sustained revolt. Institutions can decay, wages can stagnate, communities can hollow out, and the manufactured explanation for each of these events arrives before the reality has been fully absorbed. But when the cost of filling the tank rises sharply enough to interfere with getting to work — that abstraction fails. It cannot be narrativized away. It is immediate, personal, and connects directly to survival in a way that the mechanism of abstract politics does not.
This is not stupidity. It is the rational behavior of a population that has been very effectively managed into a particular relationship with political reality. Byung-Chul Han, in his analysis of what he calls the achievement society, identified the mechanism precisely: the contemporary system does not govern through prohibition and fear, as older disciplinary systems did. It governs through positivity — through opportunity, optimization, and the internalization of the system's demands as personal ambition. You are not forbidden from questioning. You are too busy optimizing yourself to bother. You have absorbed the logic of the market so completely that external coercion has become unnecessary. You police yourself. You burn out on your own freedom.
In this environment, the question of who is actually making the decisions that shape your life — who sets the conditions, who manufactures the options among which you choose, who builds the reality you navigate — is very difficult to ask. Not because it is forbidden but because it does not arise. The system is designed to feel like weather: ambient, pre-political, simply the way things are. Economics is made to seem technical, requiring expertise you were not given. The law is made to feel impenetrable. The workings of power are made to appear inevitable. And having been given no tools to see the architecture, most people locate their political energies in the one domain where cause and effect remains visible and immediate: the price of things.
The Stories That Hold Us and the Void They Leave
Yuval Noah Harari's most important insight is not about AI or about the future of humanity. It is the observation that human civilization has always been held together not by material reality but by shared fictions — collectively maintained stories that make large-scale cooperation possible. Nations, currencies, corporations, human rights, religious institutions: none of these exist in the physical world. They exist because enough people act as though they do. The story is the infrastructure.
What happens when the stories lose credibility is therefore not a political problem that can be solved by better messaging. It is an existential crisis. When the nation no longer feels like a meaningful container, when institutions no longer feel legitimate, when the story of progress no longer maps onto the lived experience of most people — human beings do not become rational actors, calmly updating their beliefs and making optimal choices. They become desperate for replacement stories. The replacement stories on offer are the strongman who names the enemy simply and promises restoration. The conspiracy that at least provides a coherent narrative of cause and effect. The influencer who performs an identity coherent enough to borrow. The doomscroll, which provides not meaning but at least the feeling of being informed — of monitoring a situation, even if no action is possible.
Han adds the economic mechanism underneath Harari's cultural observation. Neoliberalism did not merely produce inequality. It actively dissolved the institutions of collectivity — unions, public spaces, civic identity, shared infrastructure — because collectivity was friction against the market. Everything that could not be priced was suspect. Everything that resisted quantification was inefficient. And having systematically dismantled the structures through which people experienced themselves as part of something larger than the individual, it then expressed puzzlement that people were isolated, anxious, tribal, and increasingly drawn to movements that offered, however crudely, a sense of belonging.
This dissolution was not incidental. The atomized individual is, from the perspective of managed power, a far more tractable unit than the collective. A union can negotiate. A community can resist. A neighborhood with shared memory and mutual accountability can recognize when it is being harmed and respond collectively. But a population of individuals — each sealed in their private optimization, each convinced that their situation is personal rather than structural, each competing against every other individual for the same scarce resources — has no such capacity. The genius of the system is that it did not need to suppress collective action. It simply needed to make individualism feel like freedom. And it succeeded so completely that the people most damaged by the arrangement became its most passionate defenders, because the only story available to them was the one the system provided: that their condition was the result of their own choices, their own failures, their own insufficient optimization of the self.
The narcissism that Han diagnoses as the characteristic pathology of the achievement society is not a character failure. It is the rational adaptation of a self that has been told, for two generations, that it is the only unit that matters. When there is no commons, when there is no shared story, when the public sphere has been colonized by performance and the private sphere by productivity — the self expands to fill the vacuum, not from pride but from necessity. And a self that has expanded that far has lost the capacity for genuine encounter. It sees in every other person either a mirror or a threat.
The narcissism is not a character failure. It is the rational adaptation of a self that has been told, for two generations, that it is the only unit that matters.
The Equation That Cannot Solve for Soul
The deepest and least examined assumption of the dominant civilization is ontological: that a human being is essentially a body with preferences. The body has needs that can be met. Preferences can be satisfied or frustrated. Freedom is the absence of obstacles to preference satisfaction. Meaning is what happens when you get what you want. Death is a problem. Immortality, if achievable, is obviously desirable. And any human experience that does not fit into this framework — that resists being priced, that cannot be optimized, that does not produce a measurable outcome — is either sentimental or confused.
This account is not wrong about the body. The body is real. Its needs are real. Poverty is a genuine harm. Pain is a genuine harm. The materialist tradition's insistence on attending to concrete conditions rather than consoling abstractions has been responsible for genuine advances in human welfare.
But it is catastrophically incomplete as an account of what a human being actually is. And the incompleteness is not innocent. A human being understood only as a body with preferences is a consumer. A human being understood as body and soul — with needs that money cannot satisfy and questions that no product resolves — is a much more difficult subject to govern through the market. The reduction is structurally useful. It is also, experienced from the inside over a lifetime, a kind of violence. The soul's needs do not disappear when they are denied. They resurface as the nameless ache, as the persistent hunger, as the sense that something essential is always just out of reach regardless of what is acquired.
You know the value of every article of merchandise, but if you don't know the value of your own soul, it's all foolishness.
What Rumi, and Ibn Arabi, and the Sufi tradition broadly, and Buddhism, and the deeper currents of every major wisdom tradition, understood was that the human being is not one thing with one kind of hunger. The body and the soul are different natures with different needs, different languages, different modes of satisfaction. To confuse their currencies is to impoverish both. The body fed on soul-food grows confused. The soul fed on body-food grows more insistent, louder, more desperate — and its desperation, in a culture that has no name for it, is expressed as the pathologies of a civilization that cannot explain its own unhappiness.
Alcoholics Anonymous, that most American of institutions, is interesting precisely here. It was created by people who needed the structure and function of religion but could not access it through the existing channels. The twelve steps work, to the extent they work, not through their specific theology but through what they reintroduce: surrender, community, accountability, a power larger than the self, daily practice, honesty about one's actual condition. They create, in other words, the conditions for soul-nourishment that the surrounding culture has dismantled. The secular addiction industrial complex could not achieve what a pseudo-religion achieved, because what addiction is — underneath the neuroscience — is often the soul's hunger finding the wrong food and consuming it compulsively because it is the only food available.
The suicide rates, the opioid crisis, the OnlyFans economy as a last resort for social connection and financial survival — these are not separate phenomena. They are symptoms of the same deficit. A culture that has successfully eliminated the sacred has not eliminated the need for it. It has simply left people to find substitutes without guidance, without tradition, without the accumulated wisdom of how to navigate the territory. And the substitutes available — the scroll, the drug, the parasocial relationship, the performance of self — are all characterized by the same feature: they produce the sensation without the substance.
Why the Quagmires Are Not Mysteries
The military-strategic literature on the American experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing catastrophe in Palestine, Iran reaches for tactical explanations with remarkable consistency. Wrong strategy. Insufficient troop levels. Corrupt local governments. Supply chain failures. Inadequate intelligence. Each post-mortem locates the failure within the framework of the project — as though the project itself were sound and only the execution had been flawed.
What none of these analyses can say, within their own framework, is that they were operating on an ontological misunderstanding. The populations they were attempting to subdue, pacify, or reshape were not operating on purely materialist terms. For these populations, the conflict was not only about land, resources, or political arrangements — though it was also about those things. It was connected to something that does not appear in any ledger: dignity, meaning, the accumulated weight of the dead, the sacred character of the land, a relationship to God that made suffering in its defense a source of meaning rather than a reason for surrender.
The Materialist Calculus | What It Cannot Measure
Cost of continued resistance vs. cost of surrender | The meaning that makes survival secondary to dignity
Body count, territorial control, infrastructure damage | The weight carried for the dead, which intensifies under pressure
Economic incentives for cooperation | The sacred character of the land as something other than real estate
Rational actor models, game theory | People for whom the calculation includes God
When a purely materialist power encounters people who are not operating on purely materialist terms, the confusion is structurally inevitable. Why don't they surrender when the rational thing — rational within the materialist framework — is to surrender. Because surrender means the loss of something that does not appear in the cost-benefit analysis. The side that is only calculating material outcomes is perpetually baffled by the other side's persistence, its apparent irrationality, its willingness to absorb losses that would have ended any engagement governed by pure calculation.
This is not a claim about the righteousness of any particular cause. It is a structural observation about what happens when you try to solve a problem that has a soul dimension using only material tools. The tools are the wrong kind. The problem keeps reasserting itself. And the power that cannot conceive of a soul dimension experiences this not as a philosophical failure but as a mystery, an anomaly, an intelligence failure, a logistical problem — anything other than the actual thing it is.
Shared Misery as Epistemological Event
The manufactured reality requires a certain baseline of comfort and distance to maintain. When neither is available — when the abstraction of politics becomes actual bodies, when the word shortage becomes you cannot heat your home, when war arrives not as a news event but as a condition of your daily life — the interpretive layers strip back. Reality arrives without the usual processing. The dream, for a moment, breaks.
COVID was this kind of event. For a brief period — perhaps six months, perhaps a year — the manufactured pretense that death was manageable, that suffering happened to other people, that the system was basically functional, became impossible to maintain. People sat with mortality in a way that modern life is almost entirely engineered to prevent. They found, in many cases, that the enforced slowness and the stripping away of normal social performance produced something unexpected: a quality of attention that had been absent. Relationships that the velocity of normal life had reduced to transactions became, in some cases, genuinely present. The loss was enormous. But something underneath the loss was also briefly visible.
Wars, energy crises, the slow grinding reality of economic deterioration — these perform the same function at greater cost. They are not good. But they are real. And in the contact with what is real, something in the human being that has been living on the surface is briefly returned to depth. The question that always follows — and it is the crucial question — is whether anything learned in the depth survives when the emergency passes and the machinery of distraction reasserts itself.
History suggests the answer is usually: partially, and briefly, and only in those who had some prior orientation toward depth that the emergency activated rather than initiated. The traditions that prepare people to use difficulty well are therefore not escapist or consolatory. They are practical. They are the preparation for the moments when manufactured reality fails and something real has to be faced without warning.
The Smaller Circle That Is Still a Circle
There is a return happening — visible in the rise of podcasts over broadcast news, in group chats over public timelines, in intentional communities over anonymous urban atomization. People are rebuilding smaller circles, seeking in proximity and trust what the public sphere can no longer provide. This is not nothing. A friend who has skin in the game, who knows your life, who will face consequences for being wrong — this is a more reliable signal than an algorithm.
But the limitation is real and must be named honestly. If every person in that trusted circle was formed by the same media environment, shaped by the same cultural pipeline, educated by the same institutions — then the circle does not diversify the source of truth. It concentrates a shared illusion and adds the warmth of social trust to it, which makes it harder, not easier, to question. The monoculture looks lush. One disease takes the whole thing.
What the smaller circle can offer is not immunity from manufactured reality but something more modest and more valuable: a space where thinking can happen. Where a half-formed thought does not get immediately sorted into a political category and judged. Where you can say I don't know and have that honored. Where the question can live long enough to develop. In a fully surveilled, fully optimized information environment, spaces where genuine inquiry is possible — messy, incomplete, without a shareable conclusion — are rarer and more important than they appear.
The conditions for truth are not truth. But they are necessary for it. And perhaps the most important thing a person can do in the current moment is not to find better information sources but to protect and cultivate the spaces — internal and external — where genuine thinking remains possible.
On God, Dreams, and What Cannot Be Measured
There is a way of explaining the sacred to a child that is more philosophically precise than most adult theology manages. God is like dreams — you can see without eyes, hear without ears, and it is real. What this captures, in language a six-year-old can hold, is something that the entire apparatus of materialist epistemology cannot: that there are modes of experience that are genuine — that carry information, that have consequences, that matter — which are not accessible through the senses or measurable through instruments.
The Western intellectual tradition has not so much refuted this as decided, for reasons that are not purely philosophical, to exclude it from the domain of the serious. What cannot be measured cannot be managed. What cannot be managed generates no economic activity. What generates no economic activity does not exist, for the purposes of the civilization that runs on economic activity. The exclusion is not an argument. It is a prior commitment disguised as a conclusion.
One of the marvels of the world: the sight of a soul sitting in prison with the key in its hand.
The traditions that refused this exclusion — that maintained, through every epistemological upheaval, that the human being is not reducible to the measurable — were not irrational. They were preserving access to a dimension of experience that the dominant civilization cannot price and therefore cannot see. The Sufi practice of ghaflah — the diagnosis of heedlessness, of spiritual sleep that looks exactly like normal life — is not a metaphor for something else. It is a precise description of the condition produced by a culture that has successfully colonized attention to the point where the soul's signals are drowned beneath the noise.
Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Palestine — these have not been quagmires because of intelligence failures. They have been quagmires because of a failure to recognize that human beings are not only bodies with preferences, and that a civilization governed by people who do not know the value of their own soul will keep making the same calculation error. They will keep being surprised. They will keep losing wars they believe they should be winning. And they will keep generating, at home, populations who have everything the body could want and cannot explain why nothing feels like enough.
The Decline That Cannot Name Itself
A civilization in decline rarely knows it. It experiences its own condition as a series of discrete problems — this political failure, that cultural trend, this economic disruption — each of which seems addressable in principle, none of which connects to the others in the official account. The decline announces itself instead through the symptoms: the suicide rates, the addiction epidemic, the collapse of civic participation, the inability to sustain attention, the reduction of all political questions to the question of who is louder, the replacement of shared reality with competing narratives between which no adjudication is possible.
What these symptoms share is a root that the dominant framework cannot name because naming it would require acknowledging a dimension of human need that the framework excludes. You cannot address the spiritual impoverishment of a civilization using tools designed for material management. You cannot optimize your way to meaning. You cannot solve the soul's hunger with a better product recommendation algorithm or a more sophisticated mental health app or a policy intervention, however well designed.
This does not mean nothing can be done. It means that what can be done begins at a level that the dominant culture consistently dismisses: the level of the individual and the small community, the level of daily practice, the level of the question asked seriously and held long enough to deepen. It begins with recovering the capacity to be in difficulty without immediately reaching for relief. With recovering the silence in which the soul's signals become audible again. With recovering the sense — which every serious tradition has insisted is recoverable — that the life being lived is not the whole of what is real.
Your heart is there, but since your body has the upper hand, you are subject to its rule and remain its prisoner. You cannot be found among the ranks of kings and princes in the eternal world.
The prison is real. The manufactured reality is real. The ghaflah is real. But Rumi's diagnosis is not a counsel of despair — it is the most precise possible map of the exit. The rider has not been destroyed. The rider has been forgotten. And what has been forgotten can, in principle, be remembered. The capacity to recognize what is real — to hear, with the soul's own ears, what the mind does not understand — was never actually taken away. It was only buried, temporarily, under everything that was piled on top of it.
Whether that burial is temporary or permanent is perhaps the defining question of the current moment. The answer is not decided at the level of civilization. It is decided one person at a time, in the space between the notification and the next scroll, in the moment when something real almost breaks through and you either let it or you don't.
· · ·
This essay emerged from a conversation mediated by an artificial intelligence — the very kind of tool this piece examines. The thinking was human. The dialogue was strange. It was inspired by Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, Byung-Chul Han's Psychopolitics, Yuval Noah Harari's work on shared narrative, Rumi's Masnavi, and the observation — made in conversation, not in a book — that God is like dreams: you can see without eyes, and hear without ears. The irony of the medium is not lost. It is, in fact, the point.
https://www.linkedin.com/pu...