Cinemorphosis

Category: philosophy

  • Why I Refuse to Journal Like a Good Little Introvert

    Why I Refuse to Journal Like a Good Little Introvert

    One of my most cherished moments of accidental transcendence happened somewhere between the cow-scented fields of Bakersfield and the fog-choked sprawl of San Francisco in the spring of 1990. I was climbing the Altamont Pass in a battered 1982 Toyota Tercel that handled like a shopping cart when The Sundays’ “Here’s Where the Story Ends” crackled to life on the radio. Harriet Wheeler’s voice—equal parts cathedral and confession booth—floated through the speakers, and suddenly I wasn’t commuting through California; I was levitating above it. I wasn’t driving—I was ascending. In that moment, I stumbled into something bigger than myself, gifted by two Brits, David Gavurin and his partner Wheeler, who recorded their luminous dispatches, then vanished from the stage like saints escaping the tabloid apocalypse.

    They made beauty, and then they walked away. No farewell tour, no social media mea culpas, no sad attempts at reinvention. Just a few perfect songs and the audacity to say, that’s enough. They’re my heroes—not for what they did, but for what they didn’t do. They resisted the narcotic of attention. They said no to the stage and yes to obscurity, which in our fame-gluttonous culture is the moral equivalent of monkhood.

    I, by contrast, never quite shut up.

    I’ve been peddling stories since high school, where I’d hold court at lunch tables, unspooling feverish tales of misadventure like a cracked-out bard. At 63, I still haven’t kicked the habit. But unlike the craven influencer class, I hope I’m not just hustling dopamine hits. I tell stories because I need to make sense of this deranged carnival we call modern life. It’s an instinct, like blinking or checking the fridge when you’re not even hungry.

    Some stories are survival tools disguised as art. Viktor Frankl wrote to preserve his sanity in a death camp. Phil Stutz prescribes narrative like medicine. And when I hear a brilliant podcaster dissect the absurdity of daily life, it feels like eavesdropping on salvation. It’s not just performance—it’s connection. Human beings, after all, are just gossiping apes trying to explain why the hell we’re here.

    Storytelling is the futile, glorious act of forcing chaos into coherence. It’s pinning butterflies to corkboard. Life is all noise—emails, funerals, fast food, missed calls—and stories give it a beat, a structure, a moral, even if it’s just “don’t marry a narcissist” or “never trust a man who wears sandals to a job interview.”

    So why not keep it to myself? Why not scribble in a journal and hide it in the sock drawer next to my failed dreams and mismatched batteries? Because I find journaling about as appealing as listening to my own Spotify playlist on repeat in a sensory deprivation tank. No thanks. I don’t want to be alone with my curated echo chamber. I want a café. A digital one, maybe, with only a few scattered patrons. But still—voices, questions, and the hum of others trying to make sense of it all.

    I’ll never be famous. I’ll never go viral. But if someone reads my ramblings and thinks, me too—then that’s enough. I’m not trying to be an algorithm’s golden child. I’m just trying to find some order in the mess. Just like I always have.

  • New Yorker’s Remorse Syndrome

    New Yorker’s Remorse Syndrome

    It’s a charming form of cosplay, really — striding around as a “well-informed citizen” while sinking ungodly hours into consumer research. Watches, radios, headphones, laptops, Chromebooks, mechanical keyboards, high-end sweatshirts, orthopedic luxury sneakers, protein powders, protein bars, athletic-grade water bottles — an entire temple of optimized living, curated with clerical devotion.

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, society is fraying like an ancient flag in a hurricane. Yeats’ prophecy is no longer a chilling warning — it’s a project status update.
    The center isn’t holding. The center left the chat months ago.
    But instead of reckoning with the slow dissolve of civil society, it’s so much easier, so much kinder to the blood pressure, to compare toaster ovens with touchless air fryer settings.

    Yes, yes, I know — one must be informed. George Carlin gave us front-row tickets to the Freak Show. We owe it to the species, or at least to our own dim dignity, to bear witness.
    But honestly? Some days, it feels like sanity demands partial withdrawal. A news podcast here. A curated briefing there. Enough to feign civic engagement at parties without having to call a therapist immediately afterward.

    This brings me to the shrine of guilt at the center of my living room: the great, unread New Yorker stack.
    I have subscribed since 1985, back when Reagan was doing his best kingly impression and nobody had heard of an iPhone.
    The stack now functions less as reading material and more as a kind of grim altar — a silent accusation in glossy print.
    Friends glance at it and nod approvingly, as if my very possession of these magazines implies moral seriousness.
    I let them believe.
    Inside, I know better.
    I know that I am a fallen monk, a heretic of intellectual duty, choosing the velvet lure of consumer escapism over the weighty gospels of sociopolitical collapse.

    I have a diagnosis: New Yorker’s Remorse Syndrome — a condition in which one publicly performs allegiance to Enlightenment values while privately seeking refuge among comparison charts and Amazon star ratings.
    The mind knows what it ought to do.
    The heart, however, prefers shopping for the perfect water bottle while Rome burns quietly in the background.

  • Writing a Blog in the Performative Hangover Era

    Writing a Blog in the Performative Hangover Era

    For over a decade, I ran a YouTube channel — a modest operation born in my late forties. Calling it a channel might be too grand: there were no edits, no soundtracks, no backgrounds, no clever image inserts. Just me, my watches, and a stubborn refusal to pretend I knew anything about video production. It was, in essence, a podcast that forgot it was supposed to be seen.

    I built a small but loyal audience — over 10,000 subscribers, steady commenters, familiar names. Within the narrow but fervent watch community, I was a known entity: a man chronicling the eternal scuffle with watch addiction.

    But now, staring down my sixty-fourth birthday this October, I’m stepping away — and not with a heavy heart, but with something closer to relief.

    First, I have no desire to become an influencer. The idea of monetizing my channel, hawking brands I barely tolerate, feels as alien as joining a boy band at my age. Second, I have zero interest in learning the sacred arts of Final Cut Pro wizardry. The polished, professional YouTuber life was never my ambition. Third — and most importantly — the fire that once drove me is gone. And good riddance. Fire, in my case, has always been another word for addiction — the old need for validation, the parasocial buzz of comment sections and endless watch chatter. I don’t want the fire back. I want peace.

    Does this retreat from YouTube mean a pivot to podcasting?
    No.
    I’m not looking for a new mirror in which to admire or define myself. I don’t need the hustle of relevance, or the 3 a.m. panic about subscriber counts. A podcast requires not just a theme but conviction — a genuine need to say something the world hasn’t already heard. Right now, my life is full of smaller, quieter things: amateur piano practice, kettlebell workouts in my garage, a general interest in health and fitness. None of these scream “launch a weekly show.”

    Sure, I could bang out a fitness video for people over fifty — it would take thirty seconds: Stay active, love people, eat real food, prioritize protein, lay off the booze. There, fitness empire built.
    But combing through the absurdly granular debates of the diet-industrial complex? No thanks.

    Truthfully, most social media feels unbearable to me now — bloated with performative sincerity, vibrating with empty gestures. I’m done performing. Like many, I have full-blown social media fatigue.

    And then there’s the nagging ghost of my old literary ambitions — the dream of publishing memoir, fiction, or some slippery hybrid of the two, the sort of “autofiction” the novelist Emmanuel Carrère perfected. That ghost finds me now, not on YouTube, not on a podcast, but on my blog.

    The blog is where I now quietly reign.
    Not as a digital emperor counting clicks, but as a stubborn craftsman hacking away at the weeds of complacency. I don’t know if my writing will “take off” or “storm the world.” I only know it helps me process the madness, fight entropy, and stay alert to the real battle — the one against mindless consumerism and numbing repetition.

    So here I am, in what I suppose I could call the next chapter.
    The Performative Hangover Years.
    The Post-COVID Malaise.
    The Be Brave in Your Sixties Project.

    I’ll get back to you with the final title once I’ve lived it a little longer.

  • Velvet Fists: Sentimentality, Violence, and the Lie of the Crappy Love Song

    Velvet Fists: Sentimentality, Violence, and the Lie of the Crappy Love Song

    In the early ’90s, screenwriter Dennis Potter—whose haunting 1980 film Blade on a Feather once grabbed my imagination by the throat—sat across from Charlie Rose, passionately defending one of humanity’s most derided cultural artifacts: the “crappy love song.”

    Potter’s argument was simple and oddly noble:
    In a world where we grovel like pigs at the trough of materialism, even the cheesiest love ballad points, however clumsily, toward something higher—a yearning for transformative love, the kind that rattles the soul and redeems our miserable existence.
    And that, Potter insisted, should be celebrated, not sneered at.

    I see his point.
    But I can’t quite choke it down.

    What happens when the music is even crasser than life itself?
    Forgive the offense, but Kenny G springs to mind—a man whose saxophone emits what can only be described as the ambient soundtrack of lobotomized love.
    Millions swoon to his treacly squeals, convinced they’re tasting transcendence.
    But what they’re really swallowing is sentimentality in its most lethal form: syrupy, infantilizing, and vaguely unhinged.

    While I love Potter for wanting to defend the human need for transcendent emotion, I can’t ignore the underlying rot.
    These “crappy love songs,” much like Kenny G’s ambient anesthesia, often peddle not real love, but an emotionally stunted counterfeit—sentimentality, a soft mask stretched tight over something far uglier.

    Sentimentality terrifies me because it is not benign.
    It is childish emotion weaponized.
    It is the refusal to mature, to engage with the complicated ambiguities of real love, real pain, real life.
    And because these stunted feelings are defended with the ferocity of a cornered child, sentimentality often harbors its dark twin: violence.

    Saul Bellow, with his characteristic unsparing clarity in Herzog, nailed it:
    It’s the most sentimental people who are the most violent.

    Why?
    Because sentimentality is a velvet carpet stretched precariously over a tiger’s claw.
    It’s the illusion of sweetness clinging desperately to a subterranean rage—the rage of people who cannot tolerate having their fragile, maudlin dreams challenged.
    To question sentimentality is to trigger a defensive violence, a panicked fury at the idea that real adulthood demands something sterner, braver, and infinitely less sweet.

    So no, Dennis Potter, I can’t fully join you in your defense of the crappy love song.
    Because too often, beneath that soaring key change and saccharine lyric, I hear not the longing for transcendent love—
    but the faint, snarling growl of a soul that refuses to grow up.

  • The Postcard Life: Why Perfection Always Rings Hollow

    The Postcard Life: Why Perfection Always Rings Hollow

    I can’t shake an interview I heard thirty years ago—an offhand confession that stuck to me like burrs on a wool coat.
    Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python animator turned fever-dream film director, was talking with Charlie Rose. Gilliam described a moment straight from a high school dream: he was walking the Santa Monica Pier on a twilight evening, a beautiful woman on his arm, the beach shimmering under a dying sun. It was the kind of moment that screams You’ve Made It! if you’ve ever been a teenage boy with a tragic imagination.

    And yet, Gilliam said, he felt nothing. Not euphoria. Not awe. Just… flatness. Like he wasn’t even in his own life but rather trapped inside one of his own cartoons—a two-dimensional fantasy drawn by someone who had seen too many movies and lived too little.
    That was his grim epiphany: we don’t chase life—we chase the idea of it.

    Gilliam’s teenage dream had come true, but it rang hollow because it wasn’t connection he had caught. It was a postcard of connection, a lifeless image polished smooth by years of expectation.

    I’ve thought about that moment a lot, especially in the slow burns of my own life, in all the arenas where the blueprint of perfection crashed hard against the walls of reality.
    Take teaching: I’ve taught college writing for forty years. More times than I care to admit, I walked into class with what I believed was a masterstroke of a lesson plan—polished, structured, airtight. And then I delivered it like a robot with tenure. The students, bless them, tried not to visibly expire.
    Only when I threw away the script and talked to them like a breathing, flawed human being did I finally see heads lift and eyes focus.

    It’s the same poison at work: that blueprint, that false idol of how it’s supposed to be.
    Therapist Phil Stutz calls it the Magical Moment Frozen in Time—a mental snapshot of ideal beauty, love, success, whatever, that we spend our lives trying to recreate. And like the cruelest mirage, it recedes the closer we get.
    Because it’s not life.
    It’s a knockoff. A counterfeit so slick, it fools even the person living it.

    It’s sobering, humiliating even, to realize how often my life has been a performance for an audience that doesn’t exist—measuring real experiences against some fantasy standard cooked up in the caves of my mind.
    Maybe Plato had it right all along: we’re prisoners staring at shadows, mistaking flickers on the wall for the blazing, complicated, imperfect mess that is actual life.
    And every time we chase the shadow instead of the fire, we walk the Santa Monica Pier at sunset, hand in hand with a beautiful illusion, and feel… nothing.

  • Reclaiming Your Sanity May Depend on DeBrandification

    Reclaiming Your Sanity May Depend on DeBrandification

    DeBrandification is the conscious, defiant act of peeling away the curated layers of your public persona like old vinyl siding from a house that never needed a makeover in the first place. It’s the moment you look at your bio—“educator, content strategist, latte enthusiast, recovering perfectionist”—and think, Who the hell is this algorithm-optimized mannequin and what has she done with my soul? DeBrandification is not rebranding; it is anti-branding. It’s the willful act of becoming unmarketable, unpredictable, and gloriously unverified. You stop asking, Will this post get engagement? and start wondering, What would I write if no one were watching and no sponsors were lurking?

    It begins subtly: you delete a profile picture, unpublish a blog, or (gasp) let your TikTok account die peacefully of neglect. Soon, you’re off the grid like a suburban Thoreau with Wi-Fi guilt, refusing to hashtag your lunch or quote-tag your trauma. You don’t disappear—you just stop performing. The metrics vanish, and in their place, something odd happens: your thoughts get weirder, your sentences wobblier, your voice less pleasing but more alive. DeBrandification is not career suicide. It’s self-resurrection. And if you do it right, you won’t just lose followers—you’ll lose the craving for them.

    The final scene of Black Mirror’s “Nosedive” is a textbook act of DeBrandification—messy, raw, and utterly liberating. After spending the entire episode contorting herself into a chirpy, pastel-colored caricature to boost her social rating, Lacie finally bottoms out—literally and metaphorically—in a jail cell. Stripped of her devices, her followers, and the suffocating need to be likable, she engages in a gloriously profane scream-fest with her fellow inmate, both of them hurling insults with reckless joy. It’s the first time we see her alive—flushed, furious, and unfiltered. In that moment, Lacie isn’t falling apart; she’s shedding the synthetic skin of her brand. No more forced smiles, no more filtered breakfasts, no more networking by emotional hostage. What remains is a person—not an avatar, not a score—a human being who, for the first time, doesn’t give a five-star damn.

  • A Letter from Søren Kierkegaard to Mr. Francis Sinatra, Upon Hearing “It Was a Very Good Year”

    A Letter from Søren Kierkegaard to Mr. Francis Sinatra, Upon Hearing “It Was a Very Good Year”


    Copenhagen, beneath the long shadow of time

    Dear Mr. Sinatra,

    I have listened to your song “It Was a Very Good Year,” and I confess—I wept. Not the kind of weeping that pleases the sentimentalists or flatters the romantics, but the deeper, quieter kind—the kind that arises when one hears a man sing of life not as a celebration, but as an autopsy performed with a silk glove.

    You sing of years as “vintage wine”—fine, aged, savored. And yet behind every lyric is a sigh. This is not nostalgia; it is resignation. The song begins with youth and ends in winter, as all songs must. But what strikes me most is not the inevitability of decline—it is the illusion that meaning can be harvested from pleasure, that the parade of lovers and seasons might add up to something more than passing time.

    You, sir, are not crooning. You are confessing. You thought you were merely singing of girls in small towns and blue-blooded women on leafy lanes, but what you have revealed is the terrifying symmetry of life: its seductions, its grandeur, and finally, its slow vanishing into the dusk. The “very good years” are not triumphs—they are tombstones in a vineyard.

    You have sung the melody of Either/Or: the aesthetic man, reflecting at last, asking whether the wine was ever enough. I urge you—do not be deceived by your own elegance. Beneath your tuxedo, a soul is asking what all this revelry was for. That question is not to be avoided. It is your truest note.

    Yours in dread and velvet,
    Søren Kierkegaard
    (The man your song already anticipated—though you didn’t know it at the time)

  • A Letter from S. Kierkegaard to Gilbert O’Sullivan, Upon Hearing “Alone Again (Naturally)”

    A Letter from S. Kierkegaard to Gilbert O’Sullivan, Upon Hearing “Alone Again (Naturally)”


    Copenhagen, the hour of melancholy

    Dear Mr. O’Sullivan,

    Permit me, in the solitude of this northern study, to offer you my condolences and my thanks.

    I have just listened to your song “Alone Again (Naturally),” and I must confess—I wept. Not the theatrical weeping of sentimental theatergoers or lovers of tear-stained novels, but the quiet, resigned weeping of the man who recognizes in another’s lament the echo of his own despair. You have sung, sir, what I have tried to write: the terrifying banality of abandonment, the nausea of meaninglessness, the shrill laughter of life’s cruel ironies dressed in soft melodies.

    What impresses me most is not your grief, but your refusal to disguise it. You do not rage at God with grand Nietzschean thunder. You simply say, “I expected better.” And there—there—is the true terror: not in the presence of pain, but in the unbearable silence of the heavens when one has cried out for mercy and received weather. You have given voice to the man I once called the Knight of Infinite Resignation—he who walks among others, smiling out of decorum, while his soul is collapsing inward like a dying star.

    Continue, if you can, to sing these dread lullabies. The crowd will mistake them for easy listening. But those of us who have stood at the edge of the abyss will recognize the truth behind your gentle chords. We are not soothed. We are seen.

    Yours in melancholic solidarity,
    Søren Kierkegaard
    (Author of Either/Or, The Concept of Dread, and other unpopular bangers)

  • If Paul Feuded with His Rival Apostles on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen

    If Paul Feuded with His Rival Apostles on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen

    Title: The Real Apostles of Jerusalem: Pentecost and Pettiness on Bravo

    [INT. Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen – The studio is lit like a Roman bathhouse crossed with a New York tiki bar. Andy Cohen sits gleaming between a grimacing Paul the Apostle, in an impeccably tailored robe with Roman stitching, and Peter, who looks like he’d rather be crucified upside-down again than share a couch with Paul. To the left, Bartholomew checks his cuticles while James the Lesser sips merlot like it’s judgment day.]

    ANDY COHEN
    Welcome back to Watch What Happens Live! We are blessed tonight—literally. It’s an apostolic showdown, honey. On my left, we have Peter, James, John, and the boys from Galilee. And to my right, the man who insists he’s also a real apostle—Paul of Tarsus!

    PAUL (tight smile)
    I’m not just a real apostle, Andy. I’m the apostle to the Gentiles. I practically invented the church. And yet I’m never invited to the literary salons in Antioch, never quoted at theology brunches. I wrote thirteen letters—some of which people still read. Unlike certain fishermen whose only contribution was foot-in-mouth disease.

    PETER (fuming)
    Oh give me a break, Saul—I mean Paul. You show up years after the resurrection, claim you saw a “light,” and suddenly you’re the CEO of Jesus, Inc.? The rest of us actually knew the man. We walked with Him. We ate with Him. We heard Him snore. You had a seizure on a donkey and decided you’re the oracle of salvation.

    JAMES THE LESSER (leaning in)
    Let’s be real. If Paul had a PR team any better, he’d be trending on Messianic TikTok. The man has a scroll drop every month. “To the Galatians,” “To the Ephesians,” “To My Haters.” Please.

    ANDY COHEN
    Wow, okay! So Peter, what’s your biggest gripe with Paul?

    PETER
    He’s always subtweeting us in his epistles! “Even if an angel preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed.” Oh gee, I wonder who he meant. Then he throws in a “those who seemed to be something meant nothing to me.” That’s me, Andy! He means me! I was the rock! Now I’m a footnote?

    JOHN (muttering)
    I wrote a whole gospel and he still called me “pillar adjacent.”

    PAUL (exploding)
    You accuse me of ambition, but I suffered for this calling. I was shipwrecked! Imprisoned! Bitten by snakes! You lot had fish and loaves—I had near-death experiences and unpaid missionary tours! If I boast, I boast in the Lord. And maybe also a little in my rhetorical genius.

    BARTHOLOMEW (finally speaking)
    He called himself the least of the apostles and then made himself the brand.

    PAUL
    The Spirit speaks through me!

    PETER
    The Spirit told you to call me a hypocrite in front of the Galatians?

    PAUL
    If the sandal fits.

    ANDY COHEN (grinning like a man feeding Christians to lions)
    Oof! Okay, we are flaming tonight—like the bush, not the brunch. Final thoughts? Can we bury the hatchet like it’s buried at Golgotha?

    PETER (snatching his wine glass)
    Sure. I’ll bury it right here.

    Peter hurls the wine in Paul’s face. The studio erupts. Paul stands, soaked and fuming, quoting 2 Corinthians about his sufferings while John rolls his eyes and checks his scroll for quotes about loving one another.

    ANDY COHEN (gleeful)
    Okay, that’s the gospel according to Bravo! Next week: Mary Magdalene claps back at Judas in The Real Disciples: Women Tell All! Goodnight, everybody!

    [Cue the theme song: “Turn the Other Cheek (Remix)” by DJ Pontius Pilate.]

  • If Kierkegaard Wrote a TV Review of The Pitt

    If Kierkegaard Wrote a TV Review of The Pitt

    Title: The Sickness Unto Careerism: A Review of The Pitt
    By S. Kierkegaard (translated from the dread)

    In The Pitt, we behold not a hospital, but a crucible of despair masquerading as productivity. Here, men and women do not treat illness—they perform competence. Each character is driven not by love of medicine or patient, but by the terrible fear of being unremarkable. The show is not about healing bodies; it is about sustaining the fiction of self.

    What torments the staff of The Pitt is not death, but possibility—the gnawing anxiety that their lives could be otherwise, that beneath the pager beeps and sterile monologues lies the choking truth: they have chosen incorrectly. They grasp at promotions, publications, and approval from institutions as if these might quiet the inward scream of inauthenticity. They cannot be alone, for solitude would demand an encounter with the Self, and such an encounter would destroy them.

    Thus The Pitt is not drama; it is diagnosis. Each scene is a new symptom of the despair that arises when one pursues admiration instead of inwardness, prestige instead of passion. These doctors do not fear God. They fear irrelevance. And in this, they are modern to the marrow.