Cinemorphosis

Category: philosophy

  • Kierkegaard Goes Watch Shopping

    Kierkegaard Goes Watch Shopping

    I love well-crafted objects that combine form and function to the point that my excessive love for these things often pushes me to the brink of madness. I love the new G-Shock Frogman with its sapphire crystal and combi composite bracelet. It’s my perfect watch. I love my quiet Mac Mini connected to two 4K monitors for optimum productivity. I love premium 14-inch Chromebooks, soon to come out under the Googlebook banner, with 2.8K displays and overpowered Ultra 7 chips with 32GB of RAM. 

    The problem is that I love these things too much, well beyond my needs. The philosopher Kierkegaard warned us about “the aesthetic life”: becoming intoxicated by the pursuit of pleasure, novelty, beauty, and experience. For Kierkegaard, the aesthetic life means allowing art, technology, beauty, entertainment, and pleasure to become the governing principles of existence. An aesthetic life doesn’t make us healthy or whole. A committed life does. Commitment to something higher than our appetites is the only antidote to the misery of wanting more than we could possibly own.

    And there is the Frogman GWF-D1000BC-1JF, staring me in the face, daring me not to want it.

  • The Waiting List for Napkin Folders

    The Waiting List for Napkin Folders

    One of the most valuable ideas in Steve Lopez’s retirement memoir Independence Day is that a meditation on retirement eventually becomes a meditation on something much larger: What does it mean to remain fully alive?

    Lopez keeps circling back to an answer that complicates the conventional retirement fantasy. Being fully alive is intimately connected to being useful to someone other than yourself. We don’t flourish merely because we possess freedom, comfort, entertainment, or an empty calendar. We need some evidence that our presence in the world matters.

    Call this the Useful-Self Principle: Human beings have a deep psychological need to exercise their abilities in ways that benefit others. Our inherent worth does not depend upon our productivity, but our sense of vitality often depends upon knowing that something is better because we showed up.

    Lopez considers this idea through the extraordinary example of Hedda Bolgar, a psychologist who continued working until she was 102. She told him, “What I grew up with was, if there’s an unmet need in this world, you try to meet it, and if there’s a problem, you try to solve it.”

    There is an entire philosophy of life packed into those two sentences.

    Bolgar didn’t regard the world as a giant resort constructed for her personal gratification. She looked outward. Where is the need? Where is the problem? What can I do about it?

    Seen this way, retirement is a fairly narrow administrative concept. You retire from a job. You leave the classroom, hospital, office, factory, courtroom, newsroom, or whatever institution employed you for thirty or forty years. You surrender the title, paycheck, meetings, deadlines, performance evaluations, and passwords you can never remember.

    But you don’t retire from the human condition.

    The deeper obligation remains: escape the gravitational pull of narcissistic indifference, discover what you’re capable of doing, and connect those abilities to something the world needs.

    Bolgar died at 103. Her longevity is remarkable, but the number isn’t the most interesting thing about her life. More important was the fact that she remained engaged with other people almost until the end. Her usefulness gave her an identity that survived the conventional expiration date of a career. She had somewhere to direct herself.

    I think about my grandfather.

    He had been politically active throughout his life. He marched with longshoremen in San Pedro in defense of union rights and participated in similar forms of activism. He had spent decades believing that citizenship required more than sitting in a chair and complaining about the government.

    Then, at eighty, he fell.

    His body never completely recovered. Eventually he entered a senior-care home in Palos Verdes. I visited him at least once a week until he died at eighty-five.

    What tormented him wasn’t merely physical decline.

    He hated feeling useless.

    He looked around at the other residents and recognized the same despair in them. Their meals arrived. Their medications arrived. Their laundry was done. People cleaned their rooms, changed their sheets, pushed their wheelchairs, organized their activities, and watched over them.

    Everything was being done for them.

    That sounds like care, and of course it was. But there was another side to dependency that became increasingly visible to my grandfather: almost nothing was being asked of them.

    Then he discovered a job.

    The cafeteria needed residents to fold napkins for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

    Napkins.

    Of all the grand human enterprises—building bridges, teaching children, performing surgery, defending workers, composing symphonies—we are talking about folding pieces of cloth before somebody eats meatloaf.

    And there was a waiting list.

    That waiting list has stayed with me because it reveals the Useful-Self Principle in its most concentrated form. Those residents weren’t desperate for napkins. They were desperate to be needed.

    Give me something to do.

    Let somebody depend upon me.

    Let there be one small corner of this institution that functions differently because I am here.

    When opportunities for usefulness become scarce, even folding a napkin can acquire dignity.

    I remember another moment in that cafeteria. A woman in a wheelchair who appeared to have dementia saw me and suddenly began shouting. She wanted me to rescue her. Take me out of here. Get me away from this godforsaken place.

    I looked at her and tried to reassure her. I told her everything would be okay.

    She knew I was lying.

    She was trapped, and some part of her understood it. What frightened her wasn’t simply the building. Her world had contracted. Other people determined where she lived, when she ate, where she went, and what happened next. She had become dependent upon strangers for the ordinary machinery of existence.

    I don’t know what remained intact inside her mind, and I don’t want to romanticize dementia or pretend that usefulness could have rescued her from neurological decline. But the memory has always represented something larger to me: the terror of becoming entirely acted upon rather than retaining the ability to act upon the world.

    That distinction becomes increasingly important as we age.

    The Useful-Self Principle should never be confused with the cruel proposition that human beings earn their worth through productivity. A bedridden person has no less value than a surgeon. A person with dementia does not become less human because she can no longer contribute as she once did.

    Human worth is unconditional.

    But the experience of usefulness is something different. It is one of the ways we feel our connection to other people. We teach. We repair. We cook. We listen. We volunteer. We write. We mentor. We drive someone to an appointment. We watch a grandchild. We call a lonely friend. We fold the napkins.

    This is why usefulness should not be treated as the broccoli of life—the dreary obligation we endure before finally earning the cheesecake of retirement.

    Usefulness is not the broccoli.

    It is part of the feast.

    The great opportunity of retirement isn’t merely that nobody tells you what to do anymore. It is that you can finally ask a better question:

    What needs doing that I am still capable of doing?

    Hedda Bolgar kept answering that question until she was 102.

    My grandfather understood its importance when he watched elderly people compete for the privilege of folding napkins.

    Perhaps that is one of retirement’s most important lessons. We spend decades dreaming about the day when nobody will need anything from us.

    Then the day arrives.

    And we discover how desperately we want to be needed.

  • Paradise by the Hour

    Paradise by the Hour

    It is perfectly reasonable to think more about death as you get older. I am approaching sixty-five. Mortality has stopped being an abstraction involving unfortunate people in newspaper obituaries and begun appearing in the neighborhood. Thinking about it is not necessarily morbid. The question is what those thoughts do to you.

    Ideally, thinking more about dying should make you think harder about living.

    Call this the Mortality-Vitality Paradox: as the remaining quantity of life becomes more conspicuously finite, its individual moments can acquire greater intensity. The clock doesn’t merely frighten you. Sometimes it turns up the voltage.

    What gets you out of bed? What do you still long for? What produces that surge of anticipation that makes you think, Yes, I want more of this?

    I was thinking about these questions last night while having dinner with my family, my brother, and his girlfriend at Tiki Kai, an “island-inspired” restaurant at the mouth of Pier Plaza in Hermosa Beach.

    We barely made it there.

    Parking in Hermosa on a warm Saturday evening requires either divine intervention or the predatory instincts of a great white shark. Every parking space within half a mile had been claimed. Cars circled the neighborhood with the grim determination of bombers awaiting clearance to land.

    There was a reason.

    Everyone wanted to be there.

    By six o’clock, the temperature was still around eighty degrees, softened by an ocean breeze. We sat outside drinking mocktails and eating ceviche, mahi mahi, fire shrimp, Hawaiian salad, and other foods that become considerably more expensive when served within smelling distance of the Pacific Ocean.

    Across the plaza stood Patrick Molloy’s. Twenty years ago, my wife and I used to meet her coworkers there on Fridays for fish tacos. I looked at the building and experienced one of those increasingly common late-life distortions of time. Twenty years had passed, yet some part of me expected to walk across the plaza and find our younger selves still sitting there.

    Nearby, televisions in another bar were showing Ohio State against Texas. The game was close, and every few minutes the crowd erupted. Cheers spilled into the plaza. Pedestrians streamed toward the pier. Restaurants overflowed. People were laughing, drinking, eating, flirting, watching football, pushing strollers, meeting friends.

    The entire place seemed electrically charged.

    This is what I call the Paradise-Proximity Principle: certain places make us feel that paradise, while obviously unattainable, might at least be geographically nearby.

    Southern California has been selling this proposition for more than a century.

    The evidence was all around us. Warm September air. Pacific Ocean. Palm trees. Beautiful people. Outdoor restaurants. Sunset. Young couples walking toward the beach. Middle-aged couples pretending not to notice the young couples. Retirees demonstrating through aggressively casual linen clothing that Tuesday and Saturday have become essentially the same day.

    The California Dream was operating at full voltage.

    We constantly hear about Californians fleeing for Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and other places where a modest house does not require the financial resources of a minor European principality. The migration is real. So are California’s taxes, traffic, housing costs, bureaucracy, and innumerable other aggravations.

    Yet somehow nobody sent the memo to Hermosa Beach.

    The place was packed.

    People from around the world still cram themselves into Southern California’s coastal cities because the California Dream remains one of America’s most durable fantasies. The dream promises good weather, beauty, abundance, health, youth, reinvention, and proximity to the ocean.

    In this respect, the California Dream resembles the Hawaiian Dream. Both are modern expressions of something much older: the Paradise Instinct.

    Human beings have always imagined a place where suffering recedes and abundance takes its place. Eden. Arcadia. Shangri-La. The Land of Milk and Honey. Hawaii. Southern California.

    The scenery changes. The fantasy doesn’t.

    We want to believe there is some place where the weather is warm, the fruit is ripe, the body remains healthy, the family gathers around the table, and death has temporarily misplaced our address.

    Cynics will point out that much of this paradise is manufactured.

    Of course it is.

    Tiki Kai isn’t an untouched Polynesian village mysteriously deposited at the western end of Pier Avenue. Somebody held meetings. Somebody hired designers. Somebody selected the lighting. Somebody developed the cocktail menu. Somebody decided exactly how much tropical vegetation was required before a customer would willingly pay twenty dollars for something containing ube.

    This is the Vibe Economy.

    Restaurants such as Tiki Kai aren’t merely selling food. They’re selling admission to an emotional atmosphere. The mahi mahi is real, but so is the fantasy surrounding it. For two hours you purchase temporary citizenship in an imaginary country where everyone is relaxed, the ocean breeze is permanent, and nobody has an appointment with a urologist Monday morning.

    There is a temptation to dismiss all this as superficial consumerism.

    I resist that conclusion.

    Human beings have always constructed places designed to produce particular states of mind. We built cathedrals, gardens, theaters, plazas, resorts, stadiums, restaurants. We manipulate architecture, music, light, food, landscape, and ritual because consciousness responds to surroundings.

    The fact that an experience has been designed doesn’t necessarily make the experience fraudulent.

    The Beach Boys understood this long before anybody invented the term “vibes.” They didn’t call the song “Good Rational Assessment of Objective Conditions.”

    They called it “Good Vibrations.”

    Then the bill arrived.

    With tip, dinner cost more than five hundred dollars. I paid roughly two-thirds; my brother picked up the rest.

    For a moment, the Puritan accountant who apparently lives somewhere behind my frontal lobe emerged carrying a clipboard.

    Five hundred dollars?

    For dinner?

    I asked myself how often I did something like this. Once a year? Once every two years?

    The accountant returned to his cave.

    This was not Tuesday night takeout. My family was together. My brother was there. We were sitting outside on an eighty-degree September evening near the Pacific Ocean. Twenty years of memory were standing across the plaza. Football crowds were cheering. Everyone around us seemed delighted to have secured a small piece of this particular evening.

    I looked at the other diners. Some were clearly regulars. They greeted servers by name. They laughed across tables. They leaned back into the tropical breeze with the ease of people who had performed this ritual many times before.

    They weren’t merely buying dinner.

    They were buying access to the dream.

    And perhaps retirement intensifies the Paradise Instinct rather than extinguishing it. The career begins receding. The children grow older. Time becomes more visible. You become increasingly aware that the body has terms and conditions you apparently accepted without reading.

    Yet the desire for life remains.

    Perhaps it becomes stronger.

    You want to stay healthy. You want to remain vigorous. You want dinners with your family. You want warm evenings near the ocean. You want places that generate energy rather than drain it. You want experiences that make the remaining years feel expansive rather than diminished.

    That is the Mortality-Vitality Paradox again.

    Death enters the picture, and instead of making life smaller, its presence can make life glow.

    This doesn’t mean pretending that Southern California is paradise. Drive east on the 91 at five o’clock and the theological case collapses rapidly. Nor does it mean spending retirement in an endless procession of restaurants, resorts, cruises, and premium experiences in a desperate attempt to purchase immortality.

    It means recognizing the Paradise Instinct for what it is: an ancient human longing for abundance, health, fellowship, beauty, and peace.

    At sixty-five, I don’t feel embarrassed by that longing.

    I trust it more.

    Man does not live by bread alone. Apparently he also requires ocean breezes, family, football cheers, tropical lighting, memories of fish tacos from twenty years ago, and an occasional Ube Nada Colada costing considerably more than good judgment would recommend.

    The bill comes eventually.

    It always does.

    Until then, the dream lives.

  • You Ate the Broccoli. There Is No Cheesecake

    You Ate the Broccoli. There Is No Cheesecake

    As Steve Lopez explores the psychological terrain of retirement in Independence Day, he consults psychologist Nancy Schlossberg, who has identified six broad species of retiree. Reading through them feels a little like examining a field guide to aging mammals. You recognize several immediately. Others make you hope natural selection intervenes before you become one.

    The Continuer takes the skills accumulated over a career and redeploys them after retirement. Why dismantle a perfectly good machine? The teacher tutors, mentors, writes, or volunteers. The accountant helps a nonprofit keep its books. The journalist continues writing without having an editor texting him at 6:15 in the morning. The Continuer changes the employment arrangement without performing an unnecessary personality transplant.

    The Easy Glider has no master plan and regards your insistence upon having one as evidence that you require medication. He wakes up, drinks coffee, looks outside, and sees what happens. Perhaps he gardens. Perhaps he meets someone for lunch. Perhaps he spends forty minutes watching a hummingbird. His calendar contains vast white spaces that do not frighten him. To someone who has spent forty years organizing life around semesters, deadlines, meetings, workouts, and carefully calibrated lunch times, the Easy Glider appears to possess either profound spiritual wisdom or frontal-lobe damage.

    The Adventurer goes in the opposite direction. Retirement becomes an opportunity to blow up the laboratory. New country. New hobby. New identity. New diet. I know a former vegan who became a carnivore and hunter and now makes her own liverwurst from venison. Evidently retirement can involve discovering that the person who once regarded a chicken breast as an ethical crisis now owns sausage-making equipment.

    The Searcher approaches retirement as an existential emergency. He wants meaning. Purpose. Transcendence. He has questions about mortality, identity, God, consciousness, and what exactly he has been doing for the previous sixty-five years. Somewhere nearby rests a battered copy of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning with seventeen passages underlined. The Searcher doesn’t merely take a walk. He takes a walk while contemplating Being.

    The Involved Spectator keeps one foot in the professional world without allowing the professional world to climb back onto his chest. He attends events, advises former colleagues, mentors younger people, perhaps takes on occasional projects. He remains connected to the game but no longer has to shower afterward.

    Then there is the Retreater.

    The Retreater confronts unlimited freedom and discovers that he has absolutely no idea what to do with it. Work disappears, structure collapses, social contact diminishes, and instead of constructing a new life, he withdraws. The house becomes his habitat. The recliner develops gravitational force. Going to Costco qualifies as an expedition. Netflix asks whether he is still watching, and he considers the question unnecessarily judgmental.

    What catches Lopez’s attention, however, is not merely Schlossberg’s taxonomy. It is Schlossberg herself. She remains useful. Her decades of research have become a roadmap for other people trying to negotiate one of life’s most disorienting transitions. Whatever category describes her retirement, she has not confused freedom from employment with freedom from contribution.

    That distinction points toward something larger. Arnold Schwarzenegger states it with admirable bluntness in the title of his book Be Useful. Human beings appear to do better when somebody or something needs them. Teaching, mentoring, writing, caring, building, volunteering, creating, helping—these activities direct the self outward. A life organized exclusively around personal gratification eventually becomes a very small life, no matter how comfortable the furniture.

    Yet retirement culture frequently encourages precisely the opposite fantasy.

    Call it the Retirement Dessert Fallacy.

    The Retirement Dessert Fallacy begins with one of our culture’s most persistent stories about work. Adulthood is broccoli.

    For thirty or forty years, you sit at life’s dinner table grimly chewing the cruciferous vegetable of employment. You wake to alarms. You commute. You answer emails. You attend meetings. You endure performance evaluations. You nod solemnly while someone explains a new strategic initiative. You keep eating the broccoli because responsible adults understand that dessert must be earned.

    And somewhere in the distance waits retirement.

    Cheesecake.

    Not ordinary cheesecake. Magical cheesecake.

    At sixty-five, the universe delivers an enormous slice to your doorstep. You take a bite and discover that the missing portion immediately regenerates. You eat another. It regenerates again. For the remainder of your earthly existence, your only obligation is consumption.

    Travel.

    Golf.

    Restaurants.

    Television.

    Shopping.

    Cruises.

    A premium mattress.

    A premium automobile.

    A premium experience.

    You have eaten your broccoli. Now you are entitled to infinite cheesecake.

    The problem is that there is no cheesecake.

    More precisely, pleasure exists, and retirement should contain plenty of it. Travel somewhere beautiful. Eat something magnificent. Sleep late occasionally. Sit beside a swimming pool and do absolutely nothing. After forty years of employment, nobody needs to defend the moral legitimacy of an afternoon nap.

    The fallacy lies in imagining that gratification can provide the architecture of a life.

    It can’t.

    Pleasure works beautifully as pleasure. Ask it to provide identity, purpose, connection, usefulness, and meaning, and eventually the cheesecake begins tasting like paste. What initially feels like liberation can curdle into spiritual entropy: fewer obligations, fewer challenges, fewer people depending upon you, fewer reasons to leave the house, until freedom has quietly become disengagement.

    The original metaphor was wrong anyway.

    Work was never simply broccoli.

    Work contained aggravation, bureaucracy, exhaustion, ridiculous meetings, difficult personalities, and enough administrative nonsense to make a grown man contemplate fleeing into the mountains. But work also provided friendship, competence, challenge, contribution, recognition, structure, accomplishment, and the satisfaction of occasionally being useful to another human being.

    That wasn’t broccoli.

    That was part of the meal.

    The Retirement Dessert Fallacy is therefore built upon a catastrophic piece of nutritional symbolism. We have mistaken responsibility for deprivation and consumption for reward. A consumer culture happily reinforces the mistake because a seventy-year-old convinced that happiness awaits in the next purchase is an excellent customer.

    Buy the cruise.

    Buy the watch.

    Buy the laptop.

    Buy the luxury SUV to transport yourself three miles to buy more things.

    Surely the next premium experience will produce the feeling you’ve been waiting for.

    It won’t.

    Schlossberg’s six retirees may follow radically different routes, but the healthier roads seem to share something fundamental: movement outward. Remain curious. Remain connected. Remain useful. Give somebody a reason to notice whether you showed up.

    Retirement should certainly contain dessert.

    But if dessert becomes the entire meal, eventually you aren’t retired.

    You’re just sitting at the table getting sick.

  • Father Time Would Like to See Your Receipts

    Father Time Would Like to See Your Receipts

    Retirement changes your relationship with time because retirement changes your proximity to death.

    For most of your life, mortality resembles a dark castle somewhere beyond the horizon. You know it exists. You have seen illustrations. You have read stories about people who unfortunately arrived there. But the castle remains pleasantly obscured behind enormous banks of cumulus clouds, and you have been granted the psychological luxury of assuming that several mountain ranges, a river, and perhaps a small European principality stand between you and its front gate.

    You have time.

    At thirty-five, this belief requires almost no effort. At forty-five, you may occasionally notice one of the turrets poking through the clouds, particularly when a parent becomes ill or an old friend dies. Then work intervenes. There are classes to teach, children to raise, bills to pay, meetings to attend, groceries to buy. The clouds roll back in.

    Then you retire.

    Or, more precisely, you press Submit on the retirement application.

    The clouds vanish.

    There is the castle.

    Good God.

    It’s much closer than advertised.

    This is the Castle-Proximity Principle: the closer you move toward the visible end of life, the harder it becomes to experience time as an inexhaustible resource. The castle has not suddenly moved toward you. You have simply reached the point in the journey where atmospheric conditions no longer conceal its location.

    Retirement is particularly effective at clearing the weather because work has served for decades as a kind of chronological camouflage. As long as another semester waits in the future, you remain inside the machinery of ordinary adult life. There will be another fall schedule, another spring semester, another opening-day meeting, another batch of freshman essays, another argument about Student Learning Outcomes. The repetition itself creates the illusion of permanence.

    Then you announce your final semester.

    Suddenly every event acquires the word last.

    Last fall semester.

    Last opening-day meeting.

    Last final exam.

    Last student who submits six pages of AI-generated oatmeal and looks wounded when you ask whether he participated in its manufacture.

    The castle emerges from the mist.

    And standing at the entrance is someone you recognize from childhood illustrations.

    Father Time.

    Unfortunately, he isn’t carrying a birthday cake.

    He is holding a ledger.

    This is the Kronos Audit: the late-life reckoning in which finite time forces you to examine not merely how long you have lived but what you have done with the life you were given.

    The audit is comprehensive.

    Father Time is apparently unconcerned with privacy.

    He wants the public records and the private ones. The work you completed and the work you avoided. The people you helped and the people you neglected. The books you wrote and the books you merely announced you were going to write. The hours spent exercising, creating, loving, teaching, reading, listening, and paying attention.

    He also wants the screen-time report.

    This is where things become uncomfortable.

    Psychiatrist Phil Stutz gives a name to the force that makes the Kronos Audit such an unpleasant prospect. He calls it Part X. Steven Pressfield, in The War of Art, calls a similar force Resistance. Different terminology, same infernal sales representative.

    Part X does not generally appear in your living room with horns and sulfurous breath. That would make him too easy to identify. He appears as convenience.

    Skip the workout.

    Start the writing tomorrow.

    Don’t make the telephone call.

    Stay angry.

    Buy something.

    Watch another episode.

    Scroll for twenty minutes.

    Have another snack.

    You deserve it.

    Part X specializes in transforming the squandered life into a series of perfectly reasonable afternoons.

    Resistance operates much the same way. It rarely commands you to abandon your life’s work forever. That would sound suspicious. It merely suggests that you postpone it until tomorrow, preferably after you have checked your email, researched a laptop, watched several YouTube reviews of the laptop, compared processors, investigated whether 64GB of RAM might provide useful “future-proofing,” and discovered that somehow it is lunchtime.

    No single offense looks particularly damning.

    That is the genius of the operation.

    A wasted life is rarely wasted dramatically. You don’t wake one morning and announce, “Beginning today, I shall squander my remaining years on trivia, consumerism, resentment, and short-term gratification.”

    You lose the life ten minutes at a time.

    That is why the Kronos Audit becomes more severe as the castle approaches. At twenty-five, wasting an afternoon seems almost mathematically insignificant. You possess what feels like an industrial supply of afternoons. At sixty-five, the inventory has become visible.

    You begin counting.

    How many healthy years?

    How many trips?

    How many books?

    How many summers with your family?

    How many mornings when your mind remains sufficiently sharp to write something worth reading?

    How many miles can your legs still carry you?

    The questions can become morbid if you allow them to. The objective is not to turn retirement into a death vigil in which you sit beside an hourglass watching grains of sand fall while whispering, “There goes another one.”

    The point is accountability.

    Stutz argues that Part X seduces us with the fantasy of exemption. Other people may have to obey the laws governing effort, discipline, sacrifice, consequences, aging, and time, but somehow we imagine that special accommodations have been made for us. Tomorrow will always be available. Our bodies will tolerate neglect. Relationships will survive inattention. Talent will remain indefinitely on standby until we finally decide to use it.

    Father Time has reviewed the exemption request.

    Denied.

    This is the moral force behind the Kronos Audit. Your life is not merely a possession you were issued for private amusement. Time creates responsibility precisely because it is finite. If you possess capacities for love, thought, creation, service, friendship, physical effort, curiosity, and attention, repeatedly surrendering those capacities to trivial gratification eventually becomes more than a scheduling problem.

    It becomes a way of disappearing before you are dead.

    And perhaps that is what makes Part X genuinely frightening. Death will eventually take your life regardless of what you do. Part X offers to take it earlier, in installments.

    An hour here.

    An afternoon there.

    A year spent waiting to begin.

    The castle will eventually receive all of us. No exercise program, spiritual practice, writing regimen, retirement strategy, or Mediterranean diet has yet defeated that particular zoning ordinance.

    But there is a considerable difference between arriving at the castle after having lived and arriving after having spent decades hiding from life in increasingly comfortable rooms.

    Which brings us, inevitably, to the eggshell-white Honda Accord Hybrid.

    Father Time opens the ledger.

    “Forty years of teaching.”

    “Yes.”

    “Writing?”

    “Every morning.”

    “Family?”

    “My center.”

    “Exercise?”

    “I suffer voluntarily on an Airdyne.”

    He nods approvingly.

    Then he turns the page.

    “Explain the new Honda.”

    “I needed better gas mileage.”

    “How far do you drive?”

    “Well, Costco is two miles away.”

    Father Time looks over his glasses.

    I clear my throat.

    “It gets almost fifty miles per gallon.”

    Silence.

    Somewhere behind me, Part X smiles.

  • I’m Going to Die, Therefore I Need 64GB of RAM

    I’m Going to Die, Therefore I Need 64GB of RAM

     Retirement presents an indignity nobody adequately warns you about: obscurity.

    For forty years, you had a schedule. People expected you somewhere. Students waited for you. Colleagues knew your name. Your calendar was crowded with obligations you routinely complained about but which nevertheless performed the useful service of confirming your existence. Then you retire, and Tuesday morning opens before you like an abandoned airport runway.

    Nobody needs you at nine.

    Nobody needs you at eleven.

    By two in the afternoon, you have completed your workout, eaten lunch, taken a restorative nap, and begun examining your navel with the concentration of an archaeologist studying the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    Worse, your professional title has vanished. You are no longer Professor. You are Jeff, some guy standing in Costco comparing two enormous packages of toilet paper. The institution that once supplied your identity has withdrawn its sponsorship. Your lower lip begins to tremble. You feel the existential weight of your own irrelevance.

    And then you remember something.

    You have money.

    More money, in fact, than you expected to have. For decades, you saved because responsible adults save. You contributed to retirement accounts, paid down debt, avoided idiotic purchases, and watched the numbers accumulate. Now you have arrived at the future you were saving for and discovered an unforeseen psychological complication.

    You are going to die.

    Suddenly, the swollen savings account looks less like prudence and more like inventory left in a warehouse scheduled for demolition.

    “It’s my money!” you shout at nobody in particular. “By God, I’m going to enjoy it before they carry me out of here!”

    This is not an ideal frame of mind in which to open a web browser.

    Within minutes, you are examining a state-of-the-art Lenovo ThinkPad. Sixty-four gigabytes of RAM. Gorgeous keyboard. Magnificent processor. Enough computational power to edit a feature film while simultaneously modeling climate change. You are not a content creator. You write essays in Google Docs. Your existing computer performs this task without detectable distress.

    No matter.

    You deserve the ThinkPad.

    Then comes the G-Shock Frogman, the Master of G watch engineered for professional divers. Sapphire crystal. Multiband 6. Depth sensor. Dive functions. A magnificent piece of Japanese overengineering designed to accompany a man into hostile underwater environments.

    You spend most afternoons on a couch reinforced with a four-inch camping mattress.

    Still, one never knows when deep-sea saturation diving might break out in Torrance.

    Then you begin pricing a loaded Honda Accord Hybrid. Heated seats. Premium audio. Wireless Apple CarPlay. Excellent fuel economy. You drive perhaps two thousand miles a year, which means the gasoline savings may become financially significant sometime during the reign of your great-grandchildren.

    You want it anyway.

    You have succumbed to the Mortality-Spending Reflex: the late-life compulsion to medicate retirement’s loss of identity, structure, and professional importance through increasingly premium consumer goods. Mortality supplies the urgency. Consumerism supplies the anesthetic.

    For forty years, the question governing an unnecessary purchase was simple: Can I afford this?

    Retirement introduces a much more dangerous question: What exactly am I saving the money for?

    This is where perfectly reasonable financial logic begins acquiring the feverish quality of a man shopping during an evacuation. You cannot take the money with you. True. You worked hard for it. True. You should enjoy some of it while you’re healthy. Absolutely true.

    Therefore you need a $1,300 dive watch capable of measuring water depth while you watch true-crime documentaries.

    The syllogism has deteriorated somewhere.

    The Mortality-Spending Reflex is particularly dangerous because it disguises itself as wisdom. It tells you that you have finally transcended your neurotic attachment to money. You are embracing life! Seizing the day! Refusing to die with a fat bank account!

    Yet Nietzsche’s Last Man is standing nearby with a shopping cart.

    He no longer has students, deadlines, professional status, or anywhere in particular to be Monday morning. But he can have 32 gigabytes of RAM, sapphire crystal, Multiband 6, heated seats, and wireless Apple CarPlay. Each purchase delivers a small electrical jolt of novelty, followed by acclimation, followed by the search for the next premium experience.

    Mortality has ceased being a philosophical problem.

    It has become a purchasing justification.

    And somewhere on the internet, another browser tab is already open.

  • The Road to Hell Has Excellent Lumbar Support

    The Road to Hell Has Excellent Lumbar Support

    Popular psychology has taken Carl Jung’s sprawling ideas about psychological development and compressed them into a tidy Four Stages of Life paradigm. The scheme is probably too neat to be Jung, but it is useful nonetheless, especially if you are approaching retirement and wondering whether the final decades of life will produce wisdom or merely better lumbar support.

    In the first stage, adolescence, you are supposedly the Athlete. You are acutely conscious of your body, appearance, appetites, and sexual power. Self-awareness remains under construction. You occupy the center of the universe and assume everyone else has been assigned supporting roles. You fantasize about dominance, dislike being challenged, and naturally prefer the company of people who recognize your magnificence. If invited to someone else’s birthday party, some primitive corner of your psyche wonders why your name isn’t on the cake. “Athlete” seems far too charitable. I prefer Imperial Narcissist.

    Then adulthood throws you into competition. You acquire a career, make money, take action, climb hierarchies, accumulate trophies, and cultivate a reputation as “a force to be reckoned with.” Hugh Hefner supplied the operating philosophy: Work hard, play hard. You want money, sexual success, professional status, and that most intoxicating commodity of all—respect. The popular Jungian formulation calls this figure the Warrior. I prefer Status Gladiator. He experiences adulthood as an arena with an invisible scoreboard hanging over it, and he checks the standings constantly to make sure his name hasn’t slipped.

    If life goes reasonably well, however, the trophies eventually lose some of their phosphorescence. The expensive car becomes a car. The promotion becomes another job with more email. Sexual conquest begins to resemble an exhausting administrative project. You start wondering whether the purpose of existence might involve something beyond accumulating evidence that you have defeated other people. The Jungian term attributed to this stage is Statesman. I prefer The Man Tired of the Bullshit. He has not necessarily become a saint. He has simply developed enough pattern recognition to notice that status, ambition, possessions, and applause make lousy gods.

    Finally comes the stage usually called Spirit. Here you stop looking for transcendence in a Mercedes and begin looking for the genuine article: love, generosity, service, connection, perhaps God. “Spirit,” however, feels too vaporous for me. My mind goes instead to the famous 1971 “Hilltop” Coca-Cola commercial, with people from around the world standing on an Italian hillside holding bottles of Coke and singing about peace and harmony. They practically glow. This is Radiant Man. He has undergone a metamorphosis. He no longer needs to dominate the room because he is no longer terrified of disappearing inside it. His strength has become generosity. He beams outward.

    The graceful trajectory of aging, then, is to move through these stages rather than establish permanent residency in one of them. Shed the old skins. Outgrow the Imperial Narcissist. Survive the Status Gladiator. Become tired of the bullshit. With luck, arrive at retirement age radiating enough benevolence that other people do not instinctively flee when they see you approaching.

    Unfortunately, modern culture has constructed an enormous industrial complex devoted to preventing this development. It does not particularly want Radiant Man. Radiant Man is bad for business. He already has enough. He doesn’t need another trophy, another grievance, another sexual conquest, another luxury object, another algorithm telling him how important he is. Consumer culture has much greater use for the Imperial Narcissist: the adolescent who refuses to vacate adolescence and possesses enough adult money to finance the occupation.

    Such a man spends his life constructing what I call an Adolescent Fortress. Every purchase, possession, sycophant, grievance narrative, algorithm, and carefully selected media source becomes another brick in the wall protecting him from reality. Eventually he suffers from Adolescent Fortress Syndrome: the lifelong construction of a psychological kingdom into which adult correction cannot penetrate. From inside, the fortress looks like sovereignty. From outside, it looks like a sixty-five-year-old man wearing the costume of a king while hiding from anyone willing to tell him the truth.

    Jon Ronson introduces an astonishing specimen of this condition in The Castle: Adventures in a World of Unraveling Men: Christopher Mark, owner of a Gothic castle in Woodstock, Connecticut. Mark, approaching his mid-sixties, inhabits a medieval fantasy world of elaborate clothing, exotic animals, darkened rooms, and women who address him as “My lord.” His guard dog is named Cerberus, after the multiheaded hound guarding the gates of Hades. Camels wander the grounds. The drapes remain closed. Hugh Hefner is his North Star. The Playboy Mansion has been reincarnated as a Gothic fortress, as if Dracula had purchased a subscription to Maxim.

    Ronson first visits the castle after his son encounters the place under the pretense of attending a party. What they discover is considerably darker: a wealthy man in his sixties attempting to convert an adolescent harem fantasy into a reality television show called 101 Princesses. The number itself contains the pathology. Why one princess when you can have 101? And why 101 when, if the experiment somehow succeeded, the appetite would inevitably demand 1,001?

    Thomas Aquinas had a word for this: concupiscence, the disordered appetite that grows hungrier as you feed it. The promise is satisfaction; the mechanism guarantees dissatisfaction. You keep adding women, possessions, attention, status, spectacle, and power, expecting the next acquisition to fill the void. Instead, the void develops an appetite of its own. Psychiatrist Phil Stutz describes a related condition as living in the “lower channel,” where existence contracts around immediate gratification rather than purpose. Whatever terminology you prefer, the destination looks much the same: entropy. Or, to borrow Ronson’s word, unraveling.

    What makes Mark particularly useful to someone contemplating retirement is his conspicuous absence of guardrails. An heir to a fortune, he never had to build his adult life around employment. No boss expected him at nine. No colleagues depended on him. No students awaited him. No HR department required him to sit through sexual-harassment training. No professional code periodically forced his ego to accommodate the irritating existence of other people. What sounds like magnificent freedom begins to resemble the Guardrail Deficit: the absence of work, schedules, bosses, deadlines, colleagues, and professional expectations that periodically force us into contact with reality.

    We complain bitterly about these constraints while quietly benefiting from them. Work makes us shower. Deadlines make us finish things. Colleagues make us compromise. Students make us explain ourselves. Institutions routinely irritate us, but irritation is sometimes the friction that prevents psychological free fall. Remove enough guardrails and the Imperial Narcissist can drive wherever his appetites point him.

    Mark therefore embodies what I call the Never-Employed Retiree Paradox. He has reached retirement age with nothing to retire from. The ordinary retiree loses the external structures of employment at sixty-five. Mark never acquired them. In that sense, he has been retired since adolescence, with no workplace, career, professional standards, or institutional obligations separating youthful fantasy from late-life reality. He possesses radical freedom and uses it to dress like medieval royalty while planning a reality show about acquiring 101 princesses. Apparently freedom without maturation does not produce Marcus Aurelius. Sometimes it produces The Bachelor with camels.

    This brings me uncomfortably close to home.

    Most men cannot afford Gothic castles, exotic animals, and harems, but we have developed a more economical version of the Adolescent Fortress: the Man Cave. We carve out little kingdoms where reality agrees to leave us alone for a while. There is the football den with the enormous television, recliner, pizza, nachos, and master remote. On Married… with Children, Peggy Bundy understands that her husband Al’s deepest erotic fantasy is not another woman but a remote capable of controlling every television in the house. Absolute power, apparently, requires batteries.

    Watch enthusiasts have their own castles. I have spent embarrassing quantities of time watching YouTube videos in which grown men gather around expensive watches, conduct ceremonial unboxings, discuss “wrist presence,” and deliver solemn State of the Collection addresses as though NATO were awaiting their conclusions. The watch community becomes a tiny sovereign ecosystem with its own language, hierarchies, rituals, grails, and moat. The outside world may be collapsing, but inside the fortress we urgently need to determine whether forty-four millimeters is too large for a seven-and-a-quarter-inch wrist.

    And then there is my couch.

    Because the ordinary cushions proved inadequate for my 230-pound retired-linebacker chassis, I fortified the couch with a four-inch self-inflating camping mattress, stacked pillows, and a throw blanket. My daughters call it Dad’s Homeless Encampment. In the late afternoon, it exerts a gravitational pull. I lie there watching true-crime documentaries while eating red grapes, hummus, and Wheat Thins, observing homicide detectives restore order to a universe temporarily disrupted by murder.

    The documentaries are disturbing, but they are also strangely comforting. Chaos occurs. Detectives arrive. Evidence accumulates. The suspect lies. The detective catches the lie. Handcuffs appear. Order is restored. The narrative offers precisely what real life refuses to provide: control. Al Bundy has his master remote. The watch collector has his gleaming collection. The football fan has his nacho bunker. Christopher Mark has his Gothic castle and Cerberus. I have my padded couch and a homicide detective explaining why the suspect’s timeline makes no sense.

    None of these refuges is inherently pathological. Everyone needs respite. The danger begins when respite becomes habitat—when the place where you occasionally retreat from life becomes the place from which you conduct it. The fortress gets more comfortable. The moat gets wider. The drawbridge comes up more often. Eventually, freedom from irritation becomes freedom from challenge, freedom from obligation, freedom from other people, and finally freedom from reality itself.

    That is what makes Christopher Mark more than an eccentric character in someone else’s book. For a man approaching retirement, he is a warning. Employment has spent forty years dragging me out of the house, making demands upon me, exposing me to people I did not choose, and preventing my padded couch from becoming the geographical center of my existence. Soon those guardrails will disappear.

    So when late afternoon arrives and I lower myself onto four inches of premium camping foam, arrange my pillows, pull the blanket across my legs, open the Wheat Thins, and watch a homicide detective interrogate a suspect while Cerberus sleeps safely several states away, I do not feel myself approaching the incandescence of Radiant Man.

    I feel like I may already be retired.

  • Retirement. Now Nobody Can Stop You

    Retirement. Now Nobody Can Stop You

    When you retire, you are not merely leaving a job. You are being released from an institution.

    For decades, the institution surrounded you with structures you probably resented: schedules, protocols, meetings, deadlines, evaluations, committees, supervisors, colleagues, students, dress codes, parking permits, passwords that expired every ninety days, and online forms apparently designed by people who believed human suffering builds character. You dreamed of liberation.

    Then one day you get it.

    The restraints fall away. Nobody cares when you wake up. Nobody expects you anywhere at nine. Nobody notices whether you’ve showered, shaved, or spent the morning slowly merging with your bathrobe. Tuesday afternoon can be devoted to reading Dostoevsky or watching twenty-six consecutive YouTube videos comparing the Accord with the Camry even though you have no intention of buying either car. By video nineteen, you have strong opinions about rear-seat legroom.

    Welcome to freedom.

    Be careful.

    For most of your adult life, you benefited from the Institutional Guardrail Effect: the largely invisible system of expectations, routines, responsibilities, and social pressures that kept you moving down the highway like a reasonably functional adult. You may have believed that your discipline came entirely from within. Perhaps some of it did. But the institution was quietly helping. The alarm went off because you had somewhere to be. You shaved because other people had to look at you. You went to bed because tomorrow mattered.

    Then retirement removes the guardrails.

    You become unanchored.

    You become Disinhibited Man.

    Do not congratulate yourself too quickly.

    Before celebrating your radical freedom, reread Pinocchio. Not the adorable Disney version with the cricket and the catchy songs. Read Carlo Collodi’s considerably more savage story, written by a man who seemed to regard children as small criminals awaiting sufficient opportunity.

    The boys discover a paradise without adult supervision. No school. No responsibilities. No restraints. At first, it seems magnificent.

    Then they grow donkey ears.

    Human speech deteriorates into braying.

    Paradise becomes livestock management.

    Collodi understood something that retirement brochures generally omit: remove enough restraints from human beings and they don’t necessarily become Emerson at Walden Pond. Sometimes they become jackasses.

    This is Post-Institutional Disinhibition: the loosening of psychological and behavioral restraints after a person leaves the structures that previously regulated him. The danger isn’t that retirement gives you too little freedom. The danger is that it gives you enormous freedom without supplying the wisdom necessary to manage it.

    Don’t just reread Pinocchio. Read Jon Ronson’s The Castle: Adventures in a World of Unraveling Men. The book is an anthropological work of nonfiction about men severed from social structures and natural constraints. Their liberation does not produce serene philosophers strolling through gardens discussing Marcus Aurelius. It produces men increasingly beholden to the Raging Id.

    The results are not pretty.

    Freed from inconvenient restraints, these men descend into influencer-fed conspiracy theories, algorithmically amplified adolescent fantasies, white-male grievance monologues, and Ayn Rand-style declarations of heroic self-sufficiency delivered by men who probably cannot remember where they put the charger for their phone.

    Adulthood is not the featured condition.

    Regression is.

    These men don’t merely become eccentric. They begin to warp. Their personalities curl inward like fruit left too long in the sun. Grievances harden. Fantasies become philosophies. Algorithms locate every resentment and feed it weaponized testosterone.

    The results will be terrifying, especially to someone on the verge of becoming Disinhibited Man. But read Ronson’s book you must. Wielding his intellectual machete, he hacks through a thick Amazonian jungle of lost souls afflicted by curdled masculinity and Post-Institutional Disinhibition, clearing a path so the rest of us can see where unchecked freedom can lead. For that, be grateful.

    Consider The Castle required reading for a man approaching retirement. You need sobriety. You need wisdom. You need guardrails. You need to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

    Preferably before you grow donkey ears.

  • The Geekee Principle

    The Geekee Principle

    My first great love was not a person.

    It was a blanket.

    Its official name has long since been forgotten, but I christened it Geekee, a name that made perfect sense to a toddler and none whatsoever to anyone else. Geekee was once white satin. By the time I entered preschool, however, it had evolved into something that looked less like bedding than forensic evidence. It was stained, yellowed, threadbare, and perfumed with an aroma my parents described as “disgusting” and I regarded as the unmistakable scent of home.

    Geekee accompanied me everywhere.

    At bedtime I rubbed its frayed corners against my cheek or twisted one into my mouth, reenacting the long-forgotten comfort of infancy. Modern psychologists would probably call it a transitional object. I called it civilization.

    My parents, unfortunately, belonged to the Anti-Geekee Party.

    They insisted I was too old for it.

    “It stinks.”

    “It looks terrible.”

    “People are going to think we can’t afford another blanket.”

    They saw a filthy piece of cloth.

    I saw emotional life support.

    The debate continued until we moved from Florida to California.

    Somewhere along a lonely stretch of highway, my father executed one of the cleverest confidence schemes of my childhood.

    “Look!” he shouted through the windshield. “A baby alligator!”

    Naturally, I turned to the opposite window, searching the roadside for the tiny reptile.

    That was all the opening he needed.

    With the efficiency of a seasoned CIA operative disposing of classified documents, my father snatched Geekee from my hands, rolled down his window, and launched it into history.

    By the time I turned back around, Geekee had vanished.

    I was inconsolable.

    “Stop the car!” I screamed.

    “We have to go back!”

    My father remained perfectly calm.

    “The wind took it.”

    I refused to believe him.

    Then he delivered the lie that permanently transformed the story.

    “The baby alligator found Geekee.”

    I stopped crying.

    “He doesn’t have a mother,” my father explained. “He’s cold. He needs your blanket more than you do.”

    Children possess a remarkable willingness to believe impossible things, provided those things are morally satisfying.

    The image immediately formed in my mind: a lonely baby alligator wrapped snugly inside my beloved blanket somewhere beside the road, warm because of my sacrifice.

    My grief did not disappear.

    It changed direction.

    Instead of mourning what I had lost, I found myself quietly pleased that someone else had gained it.

    Looking back, I realize my father had stumbled upon what I now call The Geekee Principle: the recognition that we surrender our deepest childhood attachments most successfully when they are absorbed into a larger story of generosity, purpose, or love. We rarely outgrow comfort by force. We outgrow it by discovering something that matters more than our comfort.

    Simply telling me to “grow up” would have failed spectacularly.

    Children rarely surrender enchantment because adults lecture them about maturity.

    They surrender one enchantment only after being offered another.

    My father understood this instinctively.

    He did not replace Geekee with logic.

    He replaced it with compassion.

    Years later, I began noticing that adults possess their own versions of Geekee.

    Some clutch prestigious careers long after those careers have become prisons.

    Others cling to collections, political identities, social status, religious certainty, resentments, old romances, or carefully curated self-images that have ceased nourishing them years earlier.

    The object changes.

    The psychology does not.

    Every Geekee whispers the same promise:

    “Without me, you won’t be safe.”

    Sometimes it is true.

    Often it is merely familiar.

    Growth begins when we discover that the thing we cannot imagine living without may actually be preventing us from becoming the person we were meant to become.

    The tragedy is that adults rarely have fathers willing to invent baby alligators for them.

    Instead, life performs the theft itself.

    A layoff.

    A divorce.

    A diagnosis.

    A death.

    A market crash.

    The prized possession disappears through the window before we have time to tighten our grip.

    Only afterward do we ask whether the loss concealed an unexpected gift.

    I never saw Geekee again.

    Perhaps it landed in a ditch.

    Perhaps another motorist found it and wondered why someone had discarded what appeared to be the world’s saddest dishrag.

    Or perhaps, somewhere in the swamps of the Deep South, there once lived an unusually well-insulated baby alligator.

    At four years old, I believed that story completely.

    At sixty-four, I find myself believing something even stranger.

    The best lies are the ones that quietly tell the truth.

  • The Character Paradox

    The Character Paradox

    If you believe that human beings are capable of genuine self-improvement, Jeffrey Rosen’s The Pursuit of Happiness is an excellent place to begin. On its opening page, Rosen quotes the Renaissance physician Paracelsus: “Even as man imagines himself to be, such he is, and he is also that which he imagines.”

    Most of us imagine ourselves becoming happier. That is hardly surprising. The more revealing question is what kind of life we imagine will make us happy.

    A little philosophy quickly dispels the fantasy that happiness can be built from immediate gratification. Pleasure is fleeting. Appetite is insatiable. Every indulgence briefly satisfies only to awaken the desire for another. The great philosophical tradition proposes a different path. Happiness is not something we consume. It is something we become.

    Rosen traces this tradition through Benjamin Franklin and ultimately back to Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations. There, Cicero argues that the soul must be “tranquilized by restraint and consistency.” The happy person is neither consumed by fear nor driven by restless ambition. He is not perpetually distressed, intoxicated by meaningless excitement, or enslaved by craving. He possesses something rarer: inner equilibrium. His happiness rests not upon favorable circumstances but upon a well-ordered character.

    Rosen summarizes the idea with admirable clarity. The pursuit of virtue is about being good, not feeling good. Feelings are unstable companions. Character endures. America’s Founders therefore understood the pursuit of happiness as a lifelong effort to cultivate virtue by using reason to govern destructive emotions, improve oneself, and become more capable of serving others.

    The argument is compelling.

    It also raises an unsettling question.

    Can moral character actually be cultivated, or is philosophy merely watering seeds that were already planted?

    Over the years I have spoken with many people whose childhoods were marked by neglect, abuse, or abandonment. A few told me they made a solemn vow that their own children would never endure what they had suffered. Their painful upbringing became a moral education. They transformed misery into compassion.

    Others traveled a different road.

    Their adult lives became faithful reproductions of the homes that had wounded them. Chaos produced more chaos. Addiction generated more addiction. Cruelty echoed across another generation.

    Why?

    Why does one person convert suffering into wisdom while another converts it into repetition?

    Were different choices responsible?

    Or were deeper differences already present long before those choices appeared?

    Perhaps character truly is destiny.

    But if so, where does character come from?

    Is it patiently built through discipline, habit, and moral instruction?

    Or does moral instruction simply awaken something that was already waiting to be awakened?

    I sometimes wonder whether the very act of picking up Rosen’s The Pursuit of Happiness hints at an answer. Perhaps people do not seek goodness by accident. Perhaps they are drawn toward it because some quiet part of them already recognizes its voice.

    That possibility reveals what I call The Character Paradox: the enduring question of whether moral character is principally cultivated through disciplined choice or gradually revealed by the dispositions already present within us.