Cinemorphosis

Category: religion

  • Precision Displacement: When the Bezel Replaces the Mirror

    Precision Displacement: When the Bezel Replaces the Mirror

    You know, at least in theory, that the soul deserves more attention than the watch box. But theory is one thing; the comfort of brushed titanium is another. The soul is abstract, unruly, and resistant to instruction. There is no manual, no torque specification, no authorized service interval. A watch, by contrast, behaves. It offers dimensions, tolerances, finishes, and measurable improvements. You can change a strap and feel progress. You can regulate a movement and feel control. The inner life asks unsettling questions; the outer object gives reassuring answers. And so, without ever making a formal decision, you begin treating the collection while postponing the treatment of yourself. The watches become a buffer—a polished, luminous perimeter against the vague anxiety of being a finite creature with unfinished business.

    This drift has a name: Precision Displacement Syndrome—the habit of redirecting emotional or spiritual uncertainty into domains that reward technical exactness. Instead of confronting meaning, identity, or mortality, you refine alignment, accuracy, and material quality. The language shifts accordingly. You stop asking whether your life is coherent and start asking whether the bezel action is crisp. The psyche seeks certainty wherever it can find it, and mechanics provide something the soul does not: compliance.

    Over time, this pattern produces a strange and impressive asymmetry. The collection improves. It becomes curated, rationalized, and narrated with the solemnity of a museum catalog. Meanwhile, the interior landscape narrows. Complexity is replaced by control; vulnerability by optimization. This is Gollumification—the quiet contraction of the inner life alongside the expansion of horological expertise. Faced with the untidy work of self-examination, the enthusiast retreats into the clean world of case thickness, lume performance, crown feel, and strap chemistry, where every unease can be translated into a specification and every mood can be managed with a purchase.

    The final transformation is subtle but unmistakable. Precision Displacement Syndrome does the thinking for you. Instead of asking, Who am I becoming? you ask, Is this the correct lug width? The watches grow more refined, more intentional, more spiritually justified. The wearer grows more guarded, more dependent, more quietly organized around objects that stabilize his emotional climate. Like Tolkien’s cave-dweller, he becomes pale but authoritative, whispering “my precious” over a perfectly regulated timepiece—externally upgraded, internally undernourished, and increasingly persuaded that mastery of the mechanism is a close enough substitute for mastery of his life.

  • Horological Deconversion: When the Romance Finally Breaks

    Horological Deconversion: When the Romance Finally Breaks

    I recently wrote an essay arguing that pursuing mechanical watches in a digital world is a kind of elegant absurdity—an expensive devotion to obsolete technology while the rest of civilization marches toward sensors, satellites, and software. My proposed remedy was simple and slightly heretical: sell the mechanicals and replace them with an atomic or Bluetooth G-Shock. Accuracy, durability, zero drama. Efficiency instead of romance. Sanity instead of ritual.

    The piece was meant to provoke. Not just readers—me. Writing, after all, is less self-expression than self-interrogation. As Kafka put it, it’s the axe for the frozen sea. Sometimes the ice you crack belongs to your own illusions.

    What began as a tongue-in-cheek thought experiment turned into something less comfortable. It forced me to examine the possibility that my love for mechanical watches isn’t love at all—it’s theology.

    Over the years I refined my taste, sold the excess, and curated a tight collection of mechanical divers. Vintage aesthetic. Tool-watch credibility. A faint whiff of James Bond climbing out of the ocean with a harpoon gun and moral certainty. I told myself this evolution reflected discernment, maturity, identity.

    But the thought experiment raised a harder question: Did I discover my taste—or manufacture it?

    Human beings have a habit of building sacred spaces inside a profane world. Perhaps my watches became sacred cows—objects elevated not because they were necessary, but because I needed something to stand against modern life. Mechanical time as resistance. Analog as virtue. Nostalgia as courage.

    In this story, I cast myself as a quiet rebel.

    But what if the story is fiction?

    What if I’m not resisting anything at all? What if I’ve simply joined a small tribe of aging enthusiasts who reassure each other that spending thousands on obsolete machines is an act of character rather than consumerism?

    At that point, the romance starts to look like cosplay.

    Thousands spent on purchase. Thousands more on service. All to reenact a cinematic memory of youth. The whole enterprise begins to resemble those baseball fantasy camps where middle-aged men pay to take batting practice with retired heroes and pretend, for a weekend, that the dream never ended.

    The thought experiment did something dangerous: it planted a fantasy.

    Sell everything.

    Replace the collection with one or two G-Shocks.

    Start over.

    The appeal isn’t the watch. It’s the psychological reset. The possibility of closing a chapter and reclaiming the mental bandwidth the hobby quietly occupies. Change, after all, is the most intoxicating drug available to a restless mind.

    I’ve felt this kind of impulse before.

    In 2005, after three decades of gym culture, I was standing in an LA Fitness in Torrance, wiping someone else’s sweat off a treadmill while pop music pounded overhead and everyone talked about nothing. The thought hit me with sudden clarity: I need to get out of here.

    Within a week I’d left the gym, bought kettlebells, started power yoga in my garage, and never went back. At the time it felt impulsive. In hindsight, it was alignment—something deep finally overriding inertia.

    I sometimes wonder if watch collectors experience the same internal shift—the moment when accumulation feels less like passion and more like weight. The urge to take a wrecking ball to the collection. To simplify. To breathe.

    This moment has a name: Horological Deconversion—the quiet psychological turn when watches stop looking like identity and start looking like artifacts of habit, mythology, and sunk cost.

    I know someone who went through it. A serious collector. Deeply invested. One day he had the overwhelming urge to sell everything and replace the collection with a $20 Casio F-91W. Eventually he did. He told me the move saved his sanity.

    He still reads the forums. Still watches the madness unfold. But now he’s an observer, not a participant. The zoo is still interesting when you’re no longer inside the cage.

    Anyone who sells their mechanical collection, buys a single indestructible digital, and walks away lighter will have my respect. Not because minimalism is virtuous, but because exits are hard. Leaving a closed system always is.

    There’s something quietly heroic about it—the horological version of a Shawshank escape. Crawl through the tunnel. Emerge on the other side. Stand in the rain and realize the prison was partly self-built.

    And somewhere beyond the walls, there’s a small, durable watch keeping perfect time—and a life of freedom and expanding possibilities.

  • The Schwinn Airdyne and the Three Realms of Fitness

    The Schwinn Airdyne and the Three Realms of Fitness

    About fifteen years ago, the literary magazine Zyzzyva published one of my short stories, “Phittnut’s Progress.” It followed a workout addict who trained with the same manic devotion Martin Luther once applied to penance and self-flagellation. At the time, I thought I was being clever. In retrospect, I was being autobiographical.

    I’ve long understood exercise as a spiritual journey—less Peloton, more Dante. Every workout is a descent, an ascent, or, on rare days, a brief glimpse of paradise. I grasped this intuitively long before I had any formal exposure to theology.

    When I was about seven, I watched a 1960s TV show in which a man in a gorilla suit terrorized castaways on a nameless island. The production values were laughable; the fear was not. That night, the gorilla followed me to my room. I lay in bed convinced the beast was beneath my mattress, growling, reaching upward, eager to drag me into its lair.

    Sleep was impossible until I deployed my first metaphysical escape hatch. I imagined myself drifting on a raft along a calm river, safely beyond the monster’s reach. Above me stood a benevolent woman—a hybrid of the Statue of Liberty and Dante’s Beatrice—watching over my passage. Ahead was a luminous haze, the same gauzy heaven Fred Gwynne’s Patience the Guardian Angel inhabits in the 1969 film The Littlest Angel. Only then did peace return.

    This architecture still governs my workouts.

    When I’m out of shape, I’m back in the Monster’s Lair. When conditioning improves, I find myself floating along Beatrice’s River. And when I hit my goal—when effort dissolves into rhythm—I enter the Glory of Patience.

    My Schwinn Airdyne is the portal between these realms.

    Six months ago, my ambition was modest: 600 calories in 54 minutes. Respectable. Enough to keep the gorilla at bay. As fitness returned, so did ambition. A month ago, I raised the standard. To remain outside the inferno, I now needed 700 calories in roughly 55 minutes.

    Then reality intervened.

    Four days ago, after brutalizing my body with an ill-advised plumbing project, I plunged straight into the pit. Two days later, I slogged for 56 minutes and scraped together a humiliating 500 calories. Full inferno. The simian breathed hotly.

    Today, I clawed my way back to 603 calories in 54 minutes. Not glorious. Not close to the 810 calories I burned in 61 minutes six days ago. But it’s movement in the right direction. The river is visible again. The monster’s reach falls short.

    For now, that’s enough.

  • Always Be Closing: The Lie We Keep Buying

    Always Be Closing: The Lie We Keep Buying

    “Always be closing,” Alec Baldwin snarls in Glengarry Glen Ross, playing Blake, a blustering emissary of pure cortisol sent to terrify a roomful of salesmen into obedience. Closing, he tells them, is the only thing that matters. Not effort. Not integrity. Not sanity. Close or die. The line is famous because it taps into something already rotting inside us. We don’t just want to close deals; we want to close life. Getting married is a close. Deciding on a religion is a close. Graduating college is a close. Buying a house, buying a car, settling on a diet, hitting a goal weight—each one dangles the same promise: after this, I can rest. After this, I’ll be done.

    The culture worships closers. Closers are decisive. Closers have plans. Closers stride forward with laminated confidence. Closers collect ceremonies, milestones, certificates, and Instagram captions. Closing is marketed as maturity itself—the moment when uncertainty is evicted and order takes possession of the premises. Winners close. Losers waffle. That’s the myth.

    But closing is a con, and a lazy one at that. It sells the toddler fantasy of permanent comfort: arrive somewhere and stay arrived. Life, unfortunately, does not honor this contract. It leaks, mutates, backslides, and doubles back. I once knew a couple who were desperate to permanently break up with each other. So they got married as a strategy for divorce. They believed the divorce would provide closure—clean lines, sealed chapters, emotional foreclosure. Instead, they remarried. Then divorced again. Then they remarried. Then got another divorce. Closure didn’t show up. It never does. The story simply kept going, indifferent to their paperwork.

    The same lie infects consumer life. I know a man who believed salvation came in the shape of a Rolex Explorer. Ten thousand dollars later, he congratulated himself on having found his Exit Watch—the final piece, the closing bell. Within months, he was browsing watches that made the Rolex look like an appetizer. The watch didn’t close anything. It became a monument to the futility of the attempt.

    We love the idea of closing because we are exhausted—by the volatility of the world and the chaos inside our own skulls. “Always be closing” offers a fantasy of stillness, a promise that motion can end and anxiety can be put in storage. But it’s just another pressure pitch, no more real than the sales patter Mamet skewered. Life doesn’t close. It revises, reopens, and keeps charging interest. The only thing that truly closes is the sales pitch itself.

  • Why Men Can’t Stop Writing Manifestos

    Why Men Can’t Stop Writing Manifestos

    My wife has never been one to traffic in lazy generalizations about men and women, but a few years ago she offered one observation so sharp it lodged itself in my brain. Men, she said, have a peculiar itch that women conspicuously lack: the need to write a manifesto. Not a gentle essay about waking up early to tend tomatoes and eggplant while discovering the joys of fiber and self-care. No. A manifesto is something else entirely—a doctrinal collision, an absolutist thunderclap so brimming with rectitude, so certain of its own world-historical importance, that its author feels morally obligated to broadcast it to the four corners of the earth. Silence would be selfish. Restraint would be unethical.

    A manifesto, of course, cannot emerge from a vacuum. It requires a conversion story—preferably violent. The man was once lost, deformed, wandering in a fog of ignorance. Then something happened. The cosmos intervened. He was singled out. Enlightened. Charged with a mission. His truth, having been hard-won and privately revealed, must now be universalized. To keep it to himself would be a crime against humanity. Thus the manifesto is born: part gospel, part grievance, part personal branding exercise.

    My wife was not complimenting men. She was diagnosing a particular strain of virulent egotism—one that disguises itself as sincerity and moral urgency while quietly pursuing something else: control. To impose a worldview is to dominate. To dominate is to feel powerful. Strip away the rhetoric and you find that many manifestos are not about helping others live better lives but about arranging the world so it finally stops resisting the author’s will.

    Because many men will inevitably produce many manifestos, conflict follows. Doctrines metastasize. Defenses harden. Footnotes sprout like fortifications. Converts gather. Commentaries appear. Some commentaries become so influential they eclipse the original manifesto and establish themselves as superior, corrected versions. The ecosystem expands, competitive and self-referential, like an intellectual CrossFit gym where everyone is chasing the same leaderboard.

    What my wife was really saying, I think, is that men don’t create philosophies primarily to serve others. They create them the way athletes build muscle: to compete. A manifesto is intellectual athletics—grandstanding, bluster, and chest-thumping in paragraph form. It’s less a tool for understanding the world than a way to announce dominance within it.

    Here is my confession, one I may or may not share when my wife gets home tonight: I, too, feel the pull of the manifesto. The fantasy of a grand conversion, followed by the construction of a flawless, infallible system that explains everything, is intoxicating. But if I’m honest, what draws me to that fantasy isn’t egotism so much as fear. The world is a roiling swamp of ambiguity and uncertainty. A manifesto promises certainty on a silver platter, a pacifier for the anxious adult who wants the noise to stop.

    Perhaps my wife is right. Egotism may just be fear in a tuxedo. Men, for whatever reason—biology, culture, testosterone, self-loathing—seem especially adept at projecting their inner chaos onto the world and then mistrusting it for the mess they recognize in themselves. The manifesto becomes a coping mechanism, a way to simulate control in a reality that stubbornly refuses to cooperate.

    Women don’t write manifestos because a manifesto lectures. It talks down. It closes the case. Women talk instead. Life, as they seem to understand it, is an open court—conversation, improvisation, shared meaning, surprise, trust. Men, by contrast, barricade themselves inside doctrine, shout it through a megaphone, and grow indignant when no one salutes.

    When my wife gets home, I think I’ll abandon the manifesto project. I’ll try something riskier. I’ll start a conversation. I’ll listen.

  • No Backup World: Martin Hägglund, C.S. Lewis, and the Moral Urgency of Now

    No Backup World: Martin Hägglund, C.S. Lewis, and the Moral Urgency of Now

    Philosopher Martin Hägglund, in This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom, advances a stark and unsettling claim: genuine goodness is impossible unless we accept that death is final. There is no afterlife to balance the books, no celestial extension cord supplying meaning from beyond the grave. This life—finite, fragile, irrevocable—is all we have. Faith in eternity, Hägglund argues, is not a comfort but a distraction, a metaphysical detour that siphons urgency away from the hard, unglamorous work of building justice here and now. To make his case, he turns to an unlikely witness: C.S. Lewis. In A Grief Observed, written after the death of his wife Joy Davidman, Lewis—Christian apologist, defender of heaven—finds his theology torn open by loss. Scripture offers no shelter. Promises of eternal reunion ring thin. Lewis admits to “bitter resentment,” to madness, to a grief so absolute that it flattens piety on contact. What he wants is not God, not eternity, not consolation—but Joy. Her absence exposes a truth Lewis cannot escape: the intensity of love is inseparable from its fragility. Love hurts because it can be lost. Its power comes from time running out. Hägglund presses the implication Lewis cannot fully accept: even if eternity existed, love could not survive there. With no stakes, no risk, no irreversibility, existence would congeal into something inert—an endless, consequence-free duration. Heaven, in this view, is not fulfillment but sedation. To imagine God as a valet who merely returns our loved ones to us is, for both Lewis and Hägglund, a form of idolatry. But where Lewis is torn—desperate to hold faith and grief in the same trembling hands—Hägglund feels no such strain. For him, religion does not deepen love; it dilutes it. It shifts responsibility elsewhere. It turns this world into a waiting room and this life into a rehearsal. Secular living, by contrast, is an act of commitment without backup plans. There is no “later” to fix what we neglect now. That is precisely why what we do here matters so much.

    If you are a political-sapien, this conclusion feels not bleak but bracing. History—not heaven—is where salvation must be worked out. There is no eternal kingdom hovering offstage, no divine reset button waiting beyond the clouds. This world is the only stage, and its outcomes depend on the quality of the institutions we build and maintain. Moral authority does not descend from above; it emerges from human reason struggling, imperfectly but persistently, toward fairness. People, in this view, are not saints or sinners by nature so much as products of systems—capable of decency when the scaffolding is sound, capable of cruelty when it is not. Politics therefore becomes the highest moral labor: not a sideshow to spiritual life but the arena in which justice either materializes or fails. AI machines enter this worldview as probationary instruments. They are not saviors and not demons. They earn trust only insofar as they distribute power downward, widen access, and reduce structural inequity. If AI flattens hierarchies and democratizes opportunity, it is a tool worth refining. If it concentrates wealth, authority, and decision-making into fewer hands, it ceases to be innovation and becomes a threat—something to regulate, constrain, or dismantle in defense of the only life that counts.

  • AI as Tool, Toy, or Idol: A Taxonomy of Belief

    AI as Tool, Toy, or Idol: A Taxonomy of Belief

    Your attitude toward AI machines is not primarily technical; it is theological—whether you admit it or not. Long before you form an opinion about prompts, models, or productivity gains, you have already decided what you believe about human nature, meaning, and salvation. That orientation quietly determines whether AI strikes you as a tool, a toy, or a temptation. There are three dominant postures.

    If you are a political-sapien, you believe history is the only stage that matters and justice is the closest thing we have to salvation. There is no eternal kingdom waiting in the wings; this world is the whole play, and it must be repaired with human hands. Divine law holds no authority here—only reason, negotiation, and evolving ethical frameworks shaped by shared notions of fairness. Humans, you believe, are essentially good if the scaffolding is sound. Build the right systems and decency will follow. Politics is not mere governance; it is moral engineering. AI machines, from this view, are tools on probation. If they democratize power, flatten hierarchies, and distribute wealth more equitably, they are allies. If they concentrate power, automate inequality, or deepen asymmetry, they are villains in need of constraint or dismantling.

    If you are a hedonist-sapien, you turn away from society’s moral drama and toward the sovereign self. The highest goods are pleasure, freedom, and self-actualization. Politics is background noise; transcendence is unnecessary. Life is about feeling good, living well, and removing friction wherever possible. AI machines arrive not as a problem but as a gift—tools that streamline consumption, curate taste, and optimize comfort. They promise a smoother, more luxurious life with fewer obstacles and more options. Of the three orientations, the hedonist-sapien embraces AI with the least hesitation and the widest grin, welcoming it as the ultimate personal assistant in the lifelong project of maximizing pleasure and minimizing inconvenience.

    If you are a devotional-sapien, you begin with a darker diagnosis. Humanity is fallen, and no amount of policy reform, pleasure, or purchasing power can make it whole. You don’t expect salvation from governments, markets, or optimization schemes; you expect it only from your Maker. You may share the political-sapien’s concern for justice and enjoy the hedonist-sapien’s creature comforts, but you refuse to confuse either with redemption. You are not shopping for happiness; you are seeking restoration. Spiritual health—not efficiency—is the measure that matters. From this vantage, AI machines look less like neutral tools and more like idols-in-training: shiny substitutes promising mastery, insight, or transcendence without repentance or grace. Unsurprisingly, the devotional-sapien is the most skeptical of AI’s expanding role in human life.

    Because your orientation shapes what you think humans need most—justice, pleasure, or redemption—it also shapes how you use AI, how much you trust it, and what you expect it to deliver. Before asking what AI can do for you, it is worth asking a more dangerous question: what are you secretly hoping it will save you from?

  • The Doomed Defiance of the Promethean Delusion

    The Doomed Defiance of the Promethean Delusion

    Promethean Delusion
    noun

    The Promethean impulse—named for the mythic thief who stole fire from the gods—now animates the fantasy that technological optimization can transform humans into frictionless, quasi-divine beings without cost or consequence. In this delusion, machines are no longer tools that extend human capacity; they are ladders to transcendence. Power is mistaken for wisdom. Speed for meaning. Anything that resists optimization is treated as a design flaw waiting to be patched.

    Limits become intolerable. Slowness is framed as inefficiency. Mortality is treated as a bug. Kairos—the lived, sacred time through which meaning actually forms—is dismissed as waste, an obstacle to throughput. What emerges is not liberation but derangement: expanding capability paired with a shrinking sense of what a human life is for.

    So what does it mean to be human? The answer depends on which story you choose to inhabit. The Promethean tech evangelist sees the human being as an unfinished machine—upgradeable, indefinitely extendable, and perhaps immortal if the right knobs are turned. All problems reduce to engineering: tighten this screw, loosen that one, eliminate friction, repeat.

    The Christian story is harsher and more honest. It begins with brokenness, not optimization—with mortal creatures who cannot save themselves and who long for reconciliation with their Maker. To reject this account is to rebel, to attempt demigodhood by force of will and code. As John Moriarty observed, “The story of Christianity is the story of humanity’s rebellion against God.” The dream of becoming frictionless and divine is not progress; it is a doomed defiance. It does not end in transcendence but in collapse—moral, spiritual, and eventually civilizational.

  • Flashback to Tony Banks’ “Afterglow”

    Flashback to Tony Banks’ “Afterglow”

    The podcast conversation between Andrew Sullivan and George Packer left me with a kind of Boomer melancholia: the sense that the world is shifting beneath our feet while we stand rooted in place. The young don’t believe in our institutions, our democracy, or our economic promises. We no longer share a common reality; instead, we inhabit digital bunkers curated by conspiracy brokers who can elevate grifters to national power. Boomers—myself included—feel sidelined, stunned, and a little ghostlike as a new world rises and shrugs us off. I carry that heaviness alongside the throb of my torn rotator cuff, which still jerks me awake at two in the morning. My shoulder and my generation feel similarly compromised: stiff, unreliable, and unable to perform the way they once did.

    These thoughts ambushed me this afternoon as I walked into my bedroom to grab my things before picking up my daughters from high school. Out of nowhere, a song from my teens surfaced—Genesis’s “Afterglow,” written by Tony Banks. It appears on A Trick of the Tail, but the definitive version is Phil Collins’s live performance on Seconds Out, where the ache in his voice makes the song feel like a confession. The narrator wakes from a spiritual coma to realize the world he trusted is gone and he’s broken along with it. In that ruin, he yearns to surrender himself to something higher—love, purpose, the purifying clarity of devotion. It reminded me of Nick Cave’s conversation on Josh Szeps’s Uncomfortable Conversations, where Cave describes his own devotional temperament and his hunger for transformation. “Afterglow” feels like the soundtrack to that kind of awakening.

    But not everyone hungers for that kind of epiphany. I’m not sure my heroes Larry David, George Carlin, or Fran Lebowitz would ever have an Afterglow Moment, and I don’t think they should be judged for it. Some people thrive without chasing transcendence. I know that I, like Nick Cave, feel broken in a broken world and remain open to whatever cleansing revelation might come. But I don’t mistake that for a universal template. If I ever had an Afterglow Moment and found myself at dinner with Fran Lebowitz, I’d keep the whole thing to myself. There’s no reason to evangelize the converted—or the happily unconcerned.

  • The Gospel According to Fran Lebowitz

    The Gospel According to Fran Lebowitz

    To stay young, I don’t just need a healthy body—I need a mind that isn’t turning into attic storage. My role model in this department is Fran Lebowitz, the humorist who travels the world armed with nothing but her brutally honest intelligence. Her worldview is diamond-cut: she adores New York and despises technology. She refuses to drive a car, touch a smartphone, or even acknowledge a laptop’s existence. Writer’s block? She treats it like a houseguest who overstays for a few decades. Talking is her chosen weapon, so potent that publishing books has become optional.

    Fran is an atheist—not the timid, hedging kind, but a certifiably confident one. She has no worries about the soul, no anxieties about the afterlife, no guilt about her misanthropy. Her biggest spiritual concern is locating a decent bagel.

    Her lack of religiosity hasn’t hindered her friendship with Martin Scorsese, the Catholic titan of cinema. They linger in New York together, trading stories about the old city and reveling in their shared devotion to art—and to complaining eloquently about everything else.

    My mind would be far less cluttered if I possessed Fran’s secular serenity, but I’m built more like Scorsese. I’m a tormented soul, forever plunging into questions about sacrifice, guilt, depravity, and redemption. I couldn’t live like Fran even with a decade of training. I’m hopelessly Marty. But at least I can imagine that if I ever met Fran, she wouldn’t dismiss me for my melancholic leanings. She might dismiss me for my mediocrity or any bland remark that escaped my mouth, but at least her reasons would be earthly.

    To spend an hour at dinner listening to Fran Lebowitz would be a balm—more philosophically satisfying than any bestselling thinker’s 700-page tome. It will never happen, of course. But fortunately, I can find Fran Lebowitz on YouTube.