Writing to a correspondent a century ago, Jack London mentioned his hope for society:
I look forward to a time when man shall progress upon something worthier and higher than his stomach, when there will be a finer incentive to impel men to action than the incentive of to-day, which is the incentive of the stomach. I retain my belief in the nobility and excellence of the human. I believe that spiritual sweetness and unselfishness will conquer the gross gluttony of to-day. (Quoted in The Life of the Creative Spirit, p.209)
Imagine a ranking of countries. Spiritual sweetness and unselfishness is at one end of the scale, and gross gluttony is at the other. Where does the U.S.A. stand?
I’m suspicious of a phrase like,”something worthier and higher than his stomach”. I think London is off track. His distinction between finer and baser incentives rings false and mis diagnoses the problem. Maybe I just don’t like his metaphor, but I think it’s more than that, I think he presents a false dichotomy that leads us astray. Spiritual sweetness and incentive of the stomach are connected - two sides of a coin. You have to embrace both.
Having said that, what London calls “the gross gluttony of to-day” does refer to a problem that is real enough. Habits of indulgence and lack of discipline probably do hamper human development.
As to the question of where the USA stands - it’s clear to me that we are number 1 in gross gluttony. I’m less sure where we stand in sweetness and unselfishness . . .
Posted by: Molly Hysell | November 08, 2005 at 10:33 AM
On dichotomies, consider this from Thich Nhat Hanh:
“Defiled or immaculate. Dirty or pure. These are concepts we form in our mind. A beautiful rose we have just cut and placed in our vase is immaculate. It smells so good, so pure, so fresh. It supports the idea of immaculatedness. The opposite is a garbage can. It smells horrible, and it is filled with rotten things.
But that is only when you look on the surface. If you look more deeply you will see that in just five or six days, the rose will become part of the garbage. And if you look into the garbage can, you see that in a few months its contents can be transformed into lovely vegetables, and even a rose. “
Posted by: Molly Hysell | November 08, 2005 at 10:41 AM
Life is only about choices, isn't it?
London's stomach/nobility metaphor for short v. long term perspectives is an old one. According to one account, Esau traded his birthright to his younger brother Jacob for a bowl of lentils -- many would say that the consequences of that choice are still playing out today.
The problem, of course, is that wisdom isn't often confered on youth. As I recall, Jack London's early life was a pretty risky affair (see Tales of the Fish Patrol, for example). It's mostly old men (and fathers) who advocate for a long term perspective. Our fascination with gusto fades.
Posted by: Mark Rasmussen | November 10, 2005 at 01:57 PM
i justed wanted to know why did Jack London end his essay "What Life's means to ME"like that.What was his point for stating what he stated???? can anybody help me?
Posted by: Muffin | October 22, 2009 at 02:23 PM
Dear Muffin,
The passage of Jack London's is not originally from an essay. It is from a letter he wrote which appears in his published letters (Stanford University Press). I took the passage out of context, capturing the part of it that does stand alone.
Posted by: The Saunterer | October 22, 2009 at 06:16 PM