Cinemorphosis

Category: philosophy

  • The Warm Bath Illusion: Why Pleasure Culture Kills Relationships

    The Warm Bath Illusion: Why Pleasure Culture Kills Relationships

    When you’re married, you’ve closed the deal. You’ve made your public and private commitment to another person. Yet, as Phil Stutz points out in Lessons for Living, this loyalty oath collides with a culture that insists there’s always a better deal waiting. It’s our supposed “divine right” to find that deal, to “look outside ourselves for more.” In other words, FOMO infects the way we relate to our spouses. Stutz writes: “The result is a frenzy of activity, powered by the fear of missing something, which exhausts us emotionally and leaves us spiritually empty.”

    As a therapist to Hollywood’s wealthy actors and producers, Stutz sees people in perpetual pursuit of “bigger and better”—newer houses, flashier careers, younger spouses once they’ve “made it.” They want to “trade up,” convinced they deserve it. But what they crave isn’t a flesh-and-blood partner. It’s a “fantasy companion,” a frozen image of perfection that bears no resemblance to real life. As Stutz notes of one patient, a successful actor: “What he was really looking for was someone with the magical ability to change the nature of reality.”

    Why do so many of us want to change reality? Because reality is messy, uncertain, painful, and demands labor of mind and spirit. Consumer culture promises to scrub away that mess and deliver a “frictionless” existence. It sells us the Warm Bath: a world of perpetual pleasure and no conflict. But the Warm Bath is an adolescent fantasy—an illusion that reality will mold itself to our most immature notions of happiness.

    This fantasy always collapses. No “fantasy companion” exists, and even if one did, the Warm Bath curdles into hell. Experiences flatten, pleasures dull, the hedonic treadmill spins us into numbness, and from numbness we fall into rage—blaming the fantasy companion for failing to save us.

    Stutz argues we must abandon the fantasy of love—a stagnant “perfect” photograph—for the messier, real version: alive, unpredictable, and demanding effort. “To put it simply,” he writes, “love is a process. All processes require endless work because perfection is never achieved. Accepting this fact is not thrilling, but it is the first step to happiness. You can work on finding satisfaction in your relationship the same way you’d work on your piano playing or your garden.”

    So if you spend your days marinating in salacious fantasies and stoking your FOMO with consumer culture, you’re killing reality while feeding fantasy. And because you’re putting no work into your relationship, entropy sets in. Bonds fray, affection curdles, and instead of taking responsibility, you blame your partner and draft your exit strategy.

    To keep his patients from falling into this trap, Stutz prescribes three tools.

    The first is Fantasy Control. Fantasies, he warns, can grow “long and involved” until they compete with real relationships. Steely Dan’s “Deacon Blues” comes to mind. Its narrator is a suburban mediocrity who dreams himself into an edgy artist and seducer of women. Fans saw themselves in him, but the song is ironic: a portrait of a fallen man propping up a drab life with self-mythology. Such fantasies, Stutz says, “hold a tremendous amount of emotional energy.” The more energy you pour into a phantom partner, the less you have for your real one. When fantasies become sexual, the drain is worse. Stutz insists that when fantasies consume you, you must learn to interrupt them. “You’ll resent this at first,” he writes, “but each time you come down to earth you’re telling yourself that you are a committed adult who is strong enough to face reality. This will make you more satisfied with yourself, a precondition to becoming satisfied with any partner.”

    If you’re a boomer like me, this may sound like heresy. Raised in the 60s and 70s, we were taught to unleash the Id, to celebrate fantasies as expressions of the “true self.” The musical Hair didn’t just glorify wild locks but turned them into a metaphor of rebellion against authority. Hugh Hefner and Xaviera Hollander gave us ribald lifestyles to envy. Thomas Harris’s I’m Okay, You’re Okay blessed us with permission to indulge. And the cultural mantra was simple: “Let it all hang out!”

    But Stutz, a boomer himself, has watched fantasies devour his patients. His conclusion is blunt: curbing sexual fantasy is a crucial step toward adulthood and a stronger bond with one’s partner.

    The second tool is Judgment. Fixate on a fantasy partner and you suspend critical thought, surrendering to false perfection. You also sharpen your critique of your real partner until both fantasy and reality are grotesquely warped. To break free, Stutz says, you must recognize this distortion and choose a loving path over a fantasy path. “The process of loving requires that you catch yourself having these negative thoughts and dissolve them from your mind, replacing them with positive ones. You must actively construct thoughts about their good attributes, and let these thoughts renew feelings of attraction toward them.” This habit builds gratitude, restores attraction, and replaces helplessness with control.

    Reflecting on this, I recall Tim Parks’s essay “Adultery,” in which he describes a friend’s affair that destroyed his marriage. Parks likens sexual passion to a raging river that demolishes everything in its path, while domestic life is the quieter work of nest-building. The two impulses are locked in eternal conflict. Some people cannot resist hurling themselves into the river, even knowing it will consume them.

    To pull people out of that river, Stutz prescribes his third tool: Emotional Expression. Here self-expression works in reverse. Just as smiling can make you happier, acts of tenderness can make you feel tender. Stutz advises: when you’re alone with your partner, speak and touch them as if they are desirable. Do this consistently and not only will you find them more attractive, they’ll begin to find you more attractive too.

    It may sound counterintuitive. Who “works” for attraction? But that is Stutz’s point: love is work. Excessive fantasy, meanwhile, is infidelity—not only to your spouse, but to your adult self. Stay shackled to your adolescent hedonist, and like Lot’s wife, you’ll turn into a pillar of salt.

  • The Infinite Hole: Addiction, Part X, and the Fight for the Higher Channel

    The Infinite Hole: Addiction, Part X, and the Fight for the Higher Channel

    A friend once told me that when he was nine, hanging out after school, some boys insisted they had to walk across the neighborhood to watch “a girl fight.” He assumed the girls were older, maybe middle schoolers. The boys were giddy: they claimed clothes would rip, and they’d get the thrill of seeing girls half-dressed.

    My friend refused to join them. He didn’t want to see a fight. But in that moment he was struck by a recurring fantasy: the wish to be invisible, to slip into girls’ rooms and spy. That impulse stayed with him for years.

    Decades later, YouTube would grant him such invisibility. Millions of young women had become willing exhibitionists. He became addicted. The voyeurism consumed him, draining his time, corroding his relationships, creating a double life thick with shame and self-loathing. He even dreamed of damnation, his soul circling a pit dug by his own compulsions.

    Addiction ruins us because it hijacks our agency. Urges swell until they dictate every move. Writing about this in Lessons for Living, Phil Stutz explains: “When you behave as if there are no consequences, you’ve lost your sense of the future. Immediate pleasure is all there is. Without a future, life becomes meaningless.”

    Stutz names the inner saboteur “Part X.” This demon convinces us that we can’t survive without indulging our urges. But Part X is a liar.

    Why do we fall for it? Stutz argues that it’s simple: “It’s human nature to want a reward for our pain and effort.” We grow restless waiting for pleasure to arrive. Faith and patience feel intolerable. Part X whispers that we are special, entitled to gratification now, free from universal law. Faith is unnecessary.

    And so the cycle begins. Faith collapses, the urges tighten, and soon we are hooked, yoked to Part X. Stutz warns:

    “Unstopped, this force turns your impulses into addictions. Every lower-channel impulse takes you outside yourself for gratification. But we are spiritual beings, and the only real satisfaction comes from connecting to higher forces. What you call these forces—God or flow or the unconscious—doesn’t matter. These are infinite forces, found only inside ourselves. The more you go out into the material world, the further you get from these forces and the emptier you feel. To one degree or another, we all feel this inner emptiness, this hole inside. Part X lies, telling us to go outside ourselves for one more joint or piece of cake or outburst of rage—this will finally fill up the hole. Then we take ourselves even further from the inner forces that could actually satisfy the emptiness. It’s an escalating cycle. The more we act out our impulse, the bigger the hole gets.”

    This is addiction’s essence: trying to fill an infinite hole with finite scraps.

    Freedom doesn’t come cheap. Stutz insists that change is brutal because deprivation feels unbearable. Part X insists suffering is intolerable. The only way forward is to flip the script: to see deprivation itself as reward. To starve the demon is to grow strong. As he puts it, “Each time you retrain your impulses, you close off the lower channel. A dynamic inversion occurs—when you curb the impulse you invert its energy, holding it inside yourself. This energy gets transformed and then emerges in a more powerful form through the higher channel.”

    The difference is palpable. In the lower channel, you rot in a swamp of shame, fatigue, and alienation. In the higher channel, you live with integrity, vitality, and connection. One road leads to corrosion, the other to grace.

    To walk the higher path requires humility: admit your condition, seek higher forces—God, Flow, your own language for the divine—and retrain your impulses. The more you resist, the stronger you become. Each act of resistance is an investment in yourself, a deposit of energy and purpose.

    The strategy includes visualization. Stutz recommends imagining not only your degraded state after indulgence—the lizard eyes in the mirror, the soul hollowed by shame—but also your rescue: “Imagine that a host of spiritual guides descend to lift you out of the lower channel. I see them in white robes; you can use any image that works. If the concept of guides bothers you, think of them as pure forces from out of your own unconscious. Finally, imagine yourself walking out into the world with these guiding figures. Your purpose is to be of service to the world. Again, teach yourself to quickly create this feeling of being of service. Service is the most direct way to open the higher channel.”

    This is Stutz’s religion: service as salvation, energy as grace, the higher channel as the place of renewal. It mirrors Judeo-Christian patterns of death and rebirth: die to the old self, be born into the new. Paul himself would likely reject it as a man-made scheme, but the parallels are striking.

    Whether believer or skeptic, the conclusion remains: renounce the lower channel, resist Part X, and live in the higher one. Only then can you taste true courage, creativity, and purpose.

  • From Dopamine to Divinity: The Case for Transmutational Motivation

    From Dopamine to Divinity: The Case for Transmutational Motivation

    In Lessons for Living, Phil Stutz recounts his refusal to prescribe Prozac to a patient. The patient wanted the pill as he wanted everything else—romance, fame, applause, alcohol: all shortcuts to happiness. Stutz wasn’t buying it. He writes:

    “Believing that things outside you will make you happy is a false hope. The Greeks considered it the ‘doubtful gift from the gods.’ In reality, there can only be two outcomes. Either the hoped-for thing does not happen, or it does and its effect quickly wears off. Either way, you are worse off than before because you have trained yourself to fixate on outer results.”

    When the outer world filters through imagination, it becomes a chimera. We don’t pursue things for what they are, but for what we fantasize they’ll be. I feel this pull myself: I’m nearly sixty-four, inching toward retirement, and browsing real estate in Orlando—dreaming of a second life in a faux-tropical paradise. A $600K “mansion” with a community pool, an hour from the beach, safe from hurricanes (mostly). Yet what I imagine as paradise may in fact be a barcalounger-sized sarcophagus—3,000 square feet of embalmed leisure.

    Stutz warns against such chimeras. They must be replaced by action—behavior that connects us to our true nature: the spiritual self. He writes:

    “We are spiritual beings and can be emotionally healthy only when we are in touch with a higher world. We need higher forces just as we need air. This is not an abstract philosophy, it is a description of our nature.”

    But here’s the rub: staying in touch with higher forces requires constant work, and it’s in our nature to avoid work. Life, then, is a perpetual battle with ourselves. Stutz’s description amounts to the purpose of religion: the angel conquering the demon. Yet in our therapeutic age—where religion is dismissed as a fairy tale—misalignment between spiritual thirst and materialist fixation manifests as depression. Conventional psychiatry treats depression with drugs. Stutz reframes it as a teacher, a reminder that the answer is spiritual life:

    “This awareness is the first step in overcoming depression.”

    His point calls to mind Katie Herzog’s mention of Laura Delano’s memoir Unshrunk, a story of misdiagnosis and drug therapy that deepened rather than cured suffering. It also echoes Philip Rieff’s famous distinction in The Triumph of the Therapeutic:

    “Religious man was born to be saved; psychological man is born to be pleased.”

    Stutz insists that pleasing ourselves with material trinkets is a false and destructive path. Real responsibility means behaving in ways that connect us with our spiritual core. Judaism frames this as God meeting us halfway; Pauline Christianity insists we are helpless, depraved, and must be remade entirely. I’d be curious to know where Stutz lands on this divide.

    Either way, his therapy unsettles his patients. A man clinging to Prozac, money, and fame stares at Stutz as though he’s lost his mind. Why? Because society has brainwashed us into believing happiness comes from external outcomes.

    So what’s the alternative? Relentless self-monitoring. Stutz writes:

    “Taking responsibility for how you feel isn’t an intellectual decision. It requires monitoring yourself every moment. This is the most freeing thing a person can do, but also the most tedious. Your connection to the higher world must be won in a series of small moments. Each time you become demoralized, depressed, or inert, you must counteract it right then.”

    This isn’t entirely secular advice. Proverbs tells us to hang wisdom notes around our necks. Today, that might be post-its urging us to choose virtue over distraction. Still, Paul’s lament in Romans—that his darker nature sabotages his noblest intentions—remains apt. If Paul were not a Christian convert, would he be able to successfully use Stutz’s tools to connect with his Higher Powers, or would his dark side undermine the mission over and over? 

    Stutz’s counsel is pragmatic: notice when you sever your connection to the higher world, and fight back. If I’m meant to write or practice piano but instead scroll the Internet’s dopamine-drenched rabbit holes, that’s the moment to act. As Stutz puts it:

    “If your habit is to look outside yourself for stimulation or validation, then each time you fail to get it, you’ll become depressed. But if you assume inner responsibility for your own mood and take action to connect yourself to higher forces at the moment you feel yourself going deep into a hole, you will develop habits that put you on a new level of energy and aliveness.”

    In darkness, we don’t have to surrender. The “inner tools” give us armor. Stutz writes:

    “The only way to achieve this confidence is to take a tool and actually experience how it works. Only then will you be willing to do what is required, which is to use it over and over, sometimes many times within one day.”

    One such tool is “transmutational motivation.” The exercise: picture yourself demoralized after indulging temptation. Then imagine a higher power above you. Visualize yourself taking forward motion—meditation, writing, exercise—and rising into “the jet stream.” Stutz writes:

    “Now you are going to fly straight up into this picture by feeling yourself take action and imagining this feeling causes you to ascend. Tell yourself that nothing else matters except taking the action. As you feel yourself rise, sense the world around you falls away. There is nothing except the action itself. Rise high enough to enter the picture. Once inside, tell yourself that you have a purpose. You will feel a powerful energy. To end the exercise, open your eyes and tell yourself that you are determined to take the pictured action. This time you will feel the picture above you pull you effortlessly up into itself. You will feel expanded and energized.”

    With practice, the ritual takes fifteen seconds. Done daily, it rewires despair into life force.

    But is this just Part X renamed? Steven Pressfield’s Resistance? Pauline sin? Or all of the above? Does Christianity accuse Stutz of diluting prayer into self-help? Do secularists argue his method is religion without the dogma? The questions multiply.

    Anna Lembke’s Dopamine Nation frames it as neuroscience. Charles Duhigg’s The Power of Habit frames it as cognitive-behavioral reprogramming. Stutz straddles both: science and soul. And looming above it all is the Internet—the Great Temptor of our age. A bottomless pit of pornography, consumerism, and status-chasing, piped directly into our dopamine circuits.

    And here’s the meta-question: what’s the point of rewiring your habits without a greater frame of meaning? Is Stutz peddling spirituality without religion—or is he smuggling in a stripped-down religion we secretly crave? Would Sam Harris nod approvingly at this secularized toolkit? Or would Dale Allison, the careful Christian scholar, recoil and insist that while Stutz offers clever strategies for habit change, he misses the essence of true spirituality—the self-giving sacrifice patterned after Christ in Philippians?

    Unanswered questions aside, Stutz’s message is stark: life is high-stakes. We are fighting, every day, between dark and light forces. We don’t just change habits to “optimize” our brains. We change them to keep our souls alive.

  • Rising Above the Wreckage: Finding Meaning in the Broken Phase

    Rising Above the Wreckage: Finding Meaning in the Broken Phase

    For the last several years, I have been haunted by the lines of Yeats’s poem The Second Coming: “the center will not hold; anarchy is loosed upon the world.” A.I., deepfakes, the social media fever swamp, and deranged populists seem to have splattered into a chaotic universe. It’s tempting to surrender to nihilism, declare it all over, and use that declaration as an excuse to live with reckless disregard—eat chocolate cake three times a day and go completely to pot.

    But I know that impulse is folly. Viktor Frankl is right: we don’t get to choose the meaning of our lives. Life presents challenges within our particular circumstances that force us to rise up, stand to attention, and embrace the meaning laid before us. To live this way is to live in kairos—meaningful time.

    So what does it mean to rise above? What are the circumstances we now inhabit? These questions animate Alana Newhouse’s essay “Everything Is Broken.” Written ten months after the pandemic, in January 2021, Newhouse and her husband know something is wrong with their newborn son but cannot get answers from the medical establishment as they undergo what she calls a “Kafkaesque medical mystery journey.” By sheer luck, they finally discover their son’s rare disease. When they ask a family friend, physician Norman Doidge, why so many medical “experts” failed to diagnose it, he delivers the following diatribe:

    “There are still many good individuals involved in medicine, but the American medical system is profoundly broken. When you look at the rate of medical error—it’s now the third leading cause of death in the U.S.—the overmedication, creation of addiction, the quick-fix mentality, not funding the poor, quotas to admit from ERs, needless operations, the monetization of illness vs. health, the monetization of side effects, a peer review system run by journals paid for by Big Pharma, the destruction of the health of doctors and nurses themselves by administrators, who demand that they rush through 10-minute patient visits, when so often an hour or more is required, and which means that in order to be ‘successful,’ doctors must overlook complexity rather than search for it . . . Alana, the unique thing here isn’t that you fell down so many rabbit holes. What’s unique is that you found your way out at all.”

    After diagnosing the ills of medicine, Norman pivots to journalism. Aware he is speaking to two journalists, he asks: “Now, can I ask you two something? How come so much of the journalism I read seems like garbage?”

    Realizing the truth of Norman’s rant, Alana wonders if not just medicine and journalism, but everything, is broken. She resists the thought as hyperbolic, even doomsday, but after reflection she concludes: the center isn’t holding; anarchy has indeed been loosed upon the world. The institutions that once gave us sense, order, and trust are fractured.

    When did the fracturing begin? She traces it back to the 1970s, when business lowered labor costs with “labor-saving technology” and offshore jobs. The tech revolution followed, making the American Dream more precarious than ever. As workers were paid less and less, they entered what she calls a condition of flatness—a hollowed uniformity in which institutions persist yet fail in eerily similar ways.

    We now live in an age of commodified experience—flat, Uncanny Valley-like, predictable. In a state of flatness, critical thinking atrophies and people can be led to believe almost anything: that Iran is trustworthy, that there are no biological differences because gender is purely social construction, or that tech lords can transfer massive assets to themselves and polarize society without consequence. She writes, “Seduced by convenience, we end up paying for the flattening of our own lives.” Stupid ideas proliferate because flatness produces stupidity.

    Newhouse reserves most of her ire for the Woke as the source of stupidity, which to my consternation means she leaves equally idiotic Right-wing trolls comparatively unscathed. Still, her central thesis—that we are in a Broken Phase, that cycles of collapse are part of the human condition, and that our current state is not permanent—gives me a measure of comfort. It reminds me to be strong, to rise up, and to embrace a life of meaning.

  • Stepford Dreams and Other Diseases

    Stepford Dreams and Other Diseases

    “Our culture denies the nature of reality,” therapist Phil Stutz declares in one of his chapters from Lessons for Living. In denial, we drift through a fantasy world—a frictionless utopia where everything turns out perfectly with minimal effort, unpleasantness is airbrushed away, and immediate gratification flows like tap water. If you fail to thrive in this Instagram-ready Eden, well, clearly it’s your fault.

    Reading Stutz’s dissection of this mythical paradise—one that entitlement and cleverness supposedly guarantee—I’m reminded of family vacations to Hawaii. The trip’s curated perfection feels ripped straight from pop culture’s catalog of false realities. I start imagining myself as a minor Polynesian god, which makes returning home to laundry, bills, and chores feel like divine demotion.

    Stutz’s mission is to break our addiction to the idea that life is a permanent Hawaiian vacation. His blunt truth: life is pain and adversity, the future is uncertain, real accomplishments require sweat and discipline, and—brace yourself—you are not special enough to escape these rules. These principles don’t expire.

    This is not, Stutz insists, a gospel of misery. Love, joy, surprise, transcendence, and creativity are woven into life’s fabric—but so are conflict, loss, and uncertainty.

    Why, then, do we cling to the fantasy? In part, because the media keeps showing us people who appear to have escaped reality’s terms. Movie stars and influencers are lit like Renaissance portraits, perfectly curated, radiating supreme happiness. Their romances are operatic, their sex lives cinematic. They seem universally adored and gracious enough to share the “secrets” of their bliss. They look as if they’ve broken free of pain, adversity, and doubt—and they promise we can do the same if we just buy the right products and mimic their lifestyle.

    It doesn’t matter where you sit in the social pecking order; the fantasy assures you can ascend to the influencer’s Olympus.

    This is a mass delusion. Stutz writes, “When everyone acts as if a fantasy is real, it begins to seem real.” But for you, it never arrives. Your bank account wheezes. Your waistline ignores your best intentions. Your body refuses to flatter you. Your parenting is a gamble at best. Your life often feels like it’s running you.

    Because you believe in the fantasy, you think you’re defective. You look in the mirror and mutter, “Loser.”

    That’s the invoice for believing in perfection: when it inevitably collapses, you’re left with self-loathing. Stutz warns, “The problem is that the other group has become the standard, and self-esteem starts to depend on being like them. An adverse event feels like something is happening that is not supposed to be happening. The natural experiences of living make you feel like a failure.”

    His solution? Total reorientation. Replace the static images of perfection—what I call “Magical Moments Frozen in Time”—with the truth: life is a messy, moving process. Stutz explains: “The ideal world with the superior people is like a snapshot or a postcard. A moment frozen in time that never existed. But real life is a process; it has movement and depth. The realm of illusion is an image, dead and superficial. Still, these images are tempting. There is no mess in them.”

    If media has brainwashed us into aspiring to be perfect Stepford spouses, how do we reject these static ideals and embrace life in its raw, dynamic, and inconvenient fullness? Stutz says we must accept this: “Life is made up of events. The only real way to accept life is to accept the events that comprise it. And the flow of events never stops. The driving force of the universe reveals itself via the events of our lives.”

    This flow connects us to life’s energy, making us fully alive. The downside? It leaves us feeling small, exposed, and out of control. The false paradise promises to free us from that vulnerability, but in doing so, it severs our connection to life’s current and leaves us in “spiritual death.”

    Mental health, Stutz argues, depends on accepting this unstoppable flow of events. He compares it to good parenting: “It is not good enough to just show up. You need a point of view and a set of tools. It is impossible to deal with events constructively without being prepared.” If you’re clinging to Magical Moments Frozen in Time, you’re unprepared when reality slaps you.

    The preparation, he says, is a philosophy—one that lets you redefine negative events. Stutz writes, “Preparing yourself with a philosophy enables you to change the meaning of a negative event. With a specific philosophy, you can aggressively change your perception of events.” That philosophy rests on three pillars:

    • Adverse events are supposed to happen; they don’t mean you’re broken.
    • Every negative event is a growth opportunity.
    • Spiritual strength matters more than positive outcomes.

    When you accept life as a series of crises, you stop throwing toddler-level tantrums every time something goes wrong. People addicted to Magical Moments tend to overreact to challenges—often making their reaction worse than the original problem.

    Reading this, I recall when my wife and I had twins fifteen years ago. She handled meltdowns with calm; I met a child’s tantrum with one of my own. A therapist told me, “When you get angry, you go zero to ten in under a second, and your body chemistry changes in a way that fills the room with toxic energy. That escalates your children’s tantrums. Your wife, on the other hand, stays calm. She has a calming effect on the twins. You need to learn how to calm down in a crisis.”

    Stutz is right. Being a spiritual person means maturing as a parent. Being a devotee of Magical Moments Frozen in Time means being a spoiled child yourself—an extra in Idiocracy. A society enthralled by fake perfection can’t sustain itself; it’s destined for regression, chaos, and entropy.

  • The Warm Bath and the Higher Forces

    The Warm Bath and the Higher Forces

    Therapist Phil Stutz, in Lessons for Living: What Only Adversity Can Teach You, identifies the most insidious adversity we face daily: the lure of immediate gratification. This dopamine-charged, compulsive, addictive pull consigns us, he says, to “the lower channel,” the “Warm Bath,” the comfort zone. Its source is the inner saboteur he calls Part X.

    In Steven Pressfield’s The War of Art, the same force appears as “The Resistance,” the invisible enemy that diverts us from lives of creativity and meaning. Sometimes it takes the form of “unwholesome activities”—scouring the internet for smut or indulging in materialistic temptations that pull us away from hard work. Cal Newport warns that when we return from such addictive detours, our brains are still coated in “lower channel” residue—mental detritus that dulls our clarity and compromises our work.

    Confronting Part X—or the Resistance—is not a one-time victory. We never ascend to a nirvana where the demon vanishes; it is always nearby, waiting for an opening.

    Rejecting the endless circuit of traditional talk therapy, Stutz arms his patients with Tools—practical methods to counter the bad habits born of Part X. His patients are often “either trapped in a past that no longer existed or living in fantasy about a future that hadn’t arrived yet—and might never.” The Tools, he says, “open the door to the infinite wisdom of the present.”

    His therapy hinges on three elements:

    1. Homework—daily exercises outside of sessions.
    2. Forward Motion—steps away from the past and repetitive stagnation toward a new life.
    3. Connection to Higher Forces—a necessary change, not an optional one, to avoid the self-destruction that leads to death.

    “We are only a tiny part of an infinite universe,” he writes. “On our own we can do nothing. But, in a silent miracle, the universe puts its energies at the service of human evolution.” Higher Forces help us escape personal hell and learned helplessness. When his patients connect with them, they find hope and the power to change—here, in the present.

    Before going further, I have to pause and unpack this. First, I believe Stutz’s framework offers a real way out of the wide path to self-destruction and onto the narrow path of meaning. Second, I can’t help but think of Christianity, Judaism, and A.A.

    In Christianity, especially Pauline theology, we are compulsive creatures, helpless before our sinful drives. Only surrendering to Higher Powers—in this case, the cosmic Christ—can break our demonic impulses. Paul spells this out in the Epistle to the Romans.

    Judaism, at least as Rabbi Hyam Maccoby describes it in The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, rejects this helplessness. We do have self-agency. When we cry to God for rescue from our self-destruction and abasement, He meets us halfway—we move toward Him, and He moves toward us.

    In A.A., the principle is stripped to its core. Comedian Marc Maron has spoken about his recovery from substance abuse: every day, he got on his knees and told a Higher Power he could not free himself from addiction alone.

    Across these three traditions, I see more similarities than differences. I’m confident that anyone who sincerely applies these principles will improve.

    But here’s the sticking point: belief in a Higher Power without religious baggage is not the same as belief in a specific deity. The Jewish God—open to debate, vague about the afterlife—is quite different from the Christian God who, under Pauline influence, recasts Judaism into a universal religion for gentiles, condemns Jews as cut off from the vine, and adopts Augustine’s stark vision of eternal paradise or eternal damnation.

    Three notions of deity—each with profound implications.

    As an addict and an agnostic, I wonder: am I letting these theological questions distract me from the urgent need to connect with Higher Powers so I can face my own demons? This question burns in me. Will these Higher Powers help me navigate my dense jungle of doubts? Will they help me find clarity?

    Stutz notes that many of his patients backslide. Why? Because they stop using the Tools. Why stop? Complacency. Or disbelief in the stakes.

    Which brings me to the core of my own struggle: faith in a doctrinal God versus a personal God without doctrine. The doctrinal God comes with teachings—eternal perdition, the Virgin Birth, a literal resurrection—that can be difficult to swallow. For a fuller exploration of the problems with doctrine, see Elizabeth Anderson’s essay “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?”

    The personal God without doctrine might be more palatable, but perhaps lacks the high-stakes edge that some people need to stay committed to their daily battle with Part X, the Resistance, or whatever name we give this destructive force.

    So what’s the path forward? Should I call life a nihilistic joke and live recklessly? Certainly not. Even with my doubts, I must press ahead, use the Tools, and seek communion with Higher Powers. I can only hope such a life will yield answers—and remind myself that giving in to immediate gratification only strengthens the lower channel, leading, inevitably, toward darkness, confusion, and death.

  • Trees Bent by the Wind

    Trees Bent by the Wind

    In An Abbreviated Life, Ariel Leve recounts the shadow her mother cast across her existence—a narcissistic, volatile presence who trailed her daughter across continents. Her mother blurred boundaries, confiding adult affairs, romantic escapades, and private fantasies to her child, then lacing those disclosures with guilt trips and psychological sabotage.

    At eleven, Ariel was told she was going blind—a lie without evidence, a mix of cruelty and madness. This was not an isolated cruelty but the common cadence of her mother’s speech. At six, Ariel’s caretaker, Kiki, died of a stroke mid-flight, with Ariel in the cabin. Ariel stopped speaking for six months; a psychiatrist prescribed Valium.

    Her mother, often wearing a nightgown even to school functions, could deliver barbed declarations without breaking her routine. “When I’m dead, you’ll be all alone because your father doesn’t want you,” she told her young daughter, pausing only to reapply makeup. “Just remember that and treat me nicely.”

    Her father, in Bangkok, refused to take her in. Ariel lived in grief that he wouldn’t rescue her from the chaos. Decades later, a therapist told her that growing up with such a mother caused neurological damage—her brain, shaped by constant stress, had developed like a tree twisted by relentless wind. Trauma was not a lightning strike; it was climate. The result: a life stripped of adventure, self-acceptance, and trust. Ariel’s default mode became hypervigilance and retreat.

    Her partner, Mario, an Italian with no literary ambitions, no awareness of New York publishing, and no taste for bagels, embodies the opposite—balanced, unselfconscious, open to life. He steadies her, if only temporarily.

    In one conversation, her father asked if she could let go of the past. Could she destroy her demons? Ariel was unsure. A novelist told her discipline could harden one’s “emotional arteries,” making childhood wounds less decisive. Ariel countered: some are “front-loaded with trauma,” not victims but soldiers—scarred, but still standing.

    Neuroscientist Martin Teicher affirmed her point: childhood abuse alters brain wiring. Adaptive coping mechanisms in childhood turn maladaptive in adulthood, creating an adult mismatched to their world. The traumatized blunt emotion not with a scalpel, but a sledgehammer—shielding themselves from joy as well as pain.

    For Ariel, this explains a life “within brackets.” She sees herself in the patterns Janet Woititz described in Adult Children of Alcoholics: mistrust, emotional volatility, self-loathing, and a skewed sense of normalcy.

    Her chosen remedy: EMDR therapy for PTSD. Nine months of “the light saber”—eyes tracking a green light, headphones delivering sound, memories replayed until they lose their grip. Sessions leave her exhausted. There is progress, measured in patience with Mario’s daughters, in small openings toward joy. But she does not present herself as cured—only as a permanent convalescent.

    Her memoir probes the ethics of trauma. How accountable are the wounded for maladaptive behavior? Can faith or philosophy save them, or does failure deepen self-blame? Are they sinners, soldiers, or something in between?

    Leve’s life raises a tension between two extremes: the nihilist’s surrender—“nothing can be done, so I’ll live recklessly”—and the motivational credo—“discipline and positivity conquer all.” The truth lies somewhere in the messy middle.

  • The French Toast Zone and Other Dangerous Places

    The French Toast Zone and Other Dangerous Places

    Recently, I watched the new King of the Hill, where the gang has aged into the gentle patina of later life. In one scene, Hank, Peggy, and Bobby are seated at the kitchen table, devouring what looked like French toast or chocolate chip pancakes—something golden, sweet, and unapologetically bad for you. It was an ordinary family breakfast, the kind you imagine smelling from three houses away. Watching it felt like slipping into a warm bath of contentment. These were normal people, enjoying themselves, at ease in the sacred space I call the French Toast Zone.

    The French Toast Zone is the place where life is easy, breakfast is decadent, and you’re at peace with your waistline, your arteries, and your eventual mortality. But step into the biomarker minefield—calories counted, protein ratios calibrated, insulin spikes plotted like military campaigns—and you’re in the Restriction Zone. The mood shifts. Every bite is an act of negotiation with your cholesterol, your bathroom scale, and the grim actuarial math of your lifespan.

    Real life, of course, is not an all-inclusive stay in either zone. Most of us shuttle back and forth—half saint, half sinner—forever bargaining between the delights of German chocolate cake and the promise of three extra years of foggy-eyed longevity. Too much denial, and you die having lived as a monk in a bakery you never entered. Too much indulgence, and you’re trapped on the hedonic treadmill, sprinting after pleasures that get smaller the closer you get.

    Some people manage this dance effortlessly. They live in homeostasis, exercising moderation as naturally as breathing. I have never been one of these blessed creatures. As a teenage bodybuilder who saw biceps as salvation from low self-esteem, I learned early that moderation was for other people. My internal wiring is a one-way circuit from obsession to burnout and back again. I am, in short, Extreme Man.

    Extreme Man has his own archetype—a tragic, sweaty figure charging at his chosen folly until he mutates into something grotesque. Then comes the epiphany, the Damascus jolt that scrambles his molecules and sends him hurtling into a new life mission. It could be religion, music, bodybuilding, stamp collecting—doesn’t matter. Once the lightning strikes, moderation becomes an obscenity. He must convert the world.

    When I was a teenage Olympic weightlifter, I preached squats with the fervor of a street-corner prophet, convinced proper form could change lives. My audience—bewildered, politely nodding—failed to share my revelation. Some Extremes get written off as harmless cranks. Others, gifted with charisma, build religions followed by millions.

    The homeostatic types are often immune to these evangelists. They are already content. But for those of us who never knew balance, the siren call of radical change is intoxicating. We cling to the hope that the right transformation will lift us out of our malaise.

    Neither camp is wholly admirable. The balanced can model moderation—or smug mediocrity. The Extremes can inspire reinvention—or display unhinged egotism. The truth is in the messy middle, where both tendencies collide, and if you’re lucky, you learn from both without being consumed by either.

  • This Is the Life You Have Chosen

    This Is the Life You Have Chosen

    I’ve never forgotten a story one of my college students told me back in the fall of 1998. She was a re-entry student—a nurse in her early forties—juggling coursework at UCLA with overnight hospital shifts. The kind of woman who sticks in your memory: short, sturdy, glasses perched low on her nose, with the weary, perceptive eyes of someone who’d seen too much and lips that knew how to pace a punchline.

    Most afternoons, after class let out, she’d linger by my desk and recount episodes from her Louisiana backwoods childhood or from the fluorescent netherworld of her hospital’s VIP wing. Her stories ricocheted between absurdity and horror—tales told with the calm authority of someone who could handle arterial spray with one hand and chart notes with the other.

    But one story gripped me by the spine and never let go. It wasn’t about dying celebrities or ER gore. It was about something far worse. A visitation. A monster.

    She and her cousin Carmen were feral children, raised in the lawless heat of rural Louisiana, where school attendance was optional and adult supervision was more myth than fact. Left to their own devices, the two girls invented what she called “mean games”—they tortured frogs, pulled wings off insects, and hinted at darker cruelties she refused to name. Lord of the Flies in sundresses.

    And then one afternoon, the visitor arrived.

    They were holed up in a decaying house, conspiring over their next cruelty, when the porch door creaked open and something stepped inside. It looked like a man. But it wasn’t. It had a tail—thick, muscled, and disturbingly animate. It moved with a will of its own, curling and flicking behind him like a fleshy metronome. His body was bristled with wiry hair. His voice? Low, hoarse, and calm in the most terrifying way. He didn’t threaten. He simply listed.

    Sitting in a rocking chair, the creature described, in brutal detail, everything the girls had done—every frog mutilated, every insect dissected. Nothing vague. He named the acts like he had them on file. And then he made his offer: Keep going, he said, and I’ll recruit you.

    He stayed for three hours. Just sat there. Breathing. Flicking that tail. Describing their path toward damnation with the steady tone of a bureaucrat explaining retirement benefits. When he finally left, dissolving into the heat shimmer of the Louisiana dusk, the girls were too stunned to move. Carmen whispered, “Did you see that?” My student just nodded.

    They never spoke of it again. But they changed. Overnight. Sunday school. Prayer. Kindness, enforced not by conscience but by fear. The kind that settles in your bones and never leaves. Whatever that thing was, it did its job.

    And this is the part that haunts me: she wasn’t a kook. She wasn’t mystical, manic, or given to exaggeration. She was a nurse—clear-eyed, grounded, more familiar with death than most people are with taxes. She wasn’t telling a ghost story. She was giving a deposition.

    To this day, I see those two girls, wide-eyed and paralyzed, staring down a thing that knew them intimately and promised them a future in hell’s apprenticeship program. Whether it was a demon, a shared psychotic break, or some mythological construct formed by childhood guilt and Southern humidity, I don’t know. But I do know what it meant.

    The creature’s message was brutal in its simplicity: Keep practicing cruelty, and you’ll lose the ability to stop. You’ll become it.

    That’s not just folklore. That’s biblical. The idea that if you repeat your wickedness long enough, God—or whatever you believe in—stops interrupting you. He doesn’t smite you. He simply steps aside and says, Go ahead. This is the life you’ve chosen.

    No wonder Kierkegaard was obsessed with working out your salvation with fear and trembling. There’s nothing more terrifying than the idea that damnation is self-inflicted, not by a thunderbolt, but by repetition. That the road to hell is paved with muscle memory.

  • Kierkegaard in a Gold’s Gym Tank Top

    Kierkegaard in a Gold’s Gym Tank Top

    During my junior year of high school, I spent a weeknight cruising East Fourteenth—the gritty artery that runs through San Leandro and Hayward—until one in the morning. I was in the passenger seat of Martino’s tomato red Ranchero, the two of us flexing imaginary muscles and real teenage bravado. Martino was my bodybuilding partner, my brother-in-biceps, and together we patrolled the boulevard like suburban centurions on a mission to kill time. And we succeeded.

    When I finally crept back into my house under the cover of darkness, I wasn’t met by a parent’s scolding. No raised voices. No lectures. Just a deafening moral hangover. A private throb of guilt that came from inside—the inner thermostat dialed to “waste detected.”

    That night, the dissonance hit me hard: I had thrown away hours of my finite life, not with rebellion or passion, but with asphalt apathy. 

    Some people never feel that throb. For them, life is a sandbox without rules. Morality is performative, calculated just enough to avoid arrest or awkward silences. These are the functional nihilists—those for whom nothing is sacred, so nothing is squandered. There are no stakes, no salvation, no damnation. No trembling because there’s nothing to tremble about.

    But Kierkegaard wouldn’t have cruised East Fourteenth. He’d have stayed home, in existential dread, kneeling before the void, trying to work out his salvation with fear and trembling. Not a metaphor. A mandate. A gun-to-the-temple kind of urgency.

    And that gun? I’ve felt it every morning. Not the literal kind, but a cold steel thought pressing behind the eyes: Work or be worthless. Create or decay. Hustle or rot. I didn’t coast through college because I loved knowledge. I ground through it because I feared poverty, failure, and the humiliation of becoming a soft tomato with four toothpicks sticking out—Kierkegaard in a Gold’s Gym tank top.

    Fear built my body. But can fear build a soul?

    That’s the hard part, isn’t it? Muscles are visible. Measurable. The soul, by contrast, is a ghost that flinches from mirrors. What makes a good soul? Is it, as philosopher Elizabeth Anderson suggests, acts of reciprocal kindness—a kind of moral evolution, godless but decent? Or do we still need to shake in our boots, to feel that Kierkegaardian quake that says tend to the soul or become monstrous?

    Then there’s modern self-care, the secular sacrament of our time. Meditation, hydration, positive affirmations—pampering routines dressed up as spiritual growth. But is self-care just aromatherapy for the abyss? What if the soul needs something harder than scented candles?

    And what of the artist, the compulsive maker? Is the act of creating a form of salvation—or just another idol, a beautiful golden calf carved in your own image?

    Forgive me. I’m in my sixties now. The questions don’t resolve; they just echo louder. I know indulgence makes me miserable and discipline brings fleeting peace. But that’s not the kind of salvation Kierkegaard meant. That’s just emotional maintenance.

    So I remain agnostic, trembling not from conviction, but from having more questions than answers.