Cinemorphosis

Category: religion

  • The Afterlife My Grandmother Didn’t Need

    The Afterlife My Grandmother Didn’t Need

    When I was eight, my grandmother Mildred told me she didn’t believe in an afterlife. We were watching television in the guest room of my parents’ San Jose house when the topic of God drifted into the conversation. She said, with a calm that bordered on sorrow, “I don’t believe in heaven or hell. This is the only life we have.” There was no sermon in her tone, no attempt to recruit me into her worldview. She simply believed that convictions worth having have to be arrived at, not imposed.

    Her disbelief never softened her sense of right and wrong. She carried a moral gravity that had nothing to do with celestial rewards or punishments. She spent three decades as a social worker in Long Beach and, before that, taught in the public schools of San Pedro. Her family had fled the pogroms in Poland in the early twentieth century; she grew up in Los Angeles with the hardened clarity that comes from survival. Mildred proved, without ever saying so, that you don’t need the promise of heaven or the fear of hell to live a principled life.

    I never became as mature spiritually as my beloved grandmother. I am someone who struggles with temptation on a daily basis and need to imagine being judged for my misdeeds as an incentive to clean up my act. I think about my grandmother’s strong moral health and wonder if morality is something you’re born with. You can learn this and that lesson but the core of morality is something you either have or you don’t.

  • The Age of Kayfabe Outrage

    The Age of Kayfabe Outrage

    Writers like Robert Kaplan and Jaron Lanier have observed that society has traded analysis for outrage, swapping measured thought for emotional spectacle. I left Twitter—sorry, X—years ago to escape that hurricane of indignation, only to find the same moral theater thriving on Threads. Outrage, it turns out, is social media’s cash crop.

    This made me think of the Old and New Testaments, where prophets, Paul, and even Jesus in the temple showed no shortage of righteous fury. But their outrage was different—it was rooted in moral clarity and the courage to confront hypocrisy, not in the dopamine mechanics of public performance.

    Today’s outrage is a knockoff. It mimics the moral fire of the prophets but burns with cheaper fuel: vanity, self-branding, and the need to belong to a digital mob. It’s not the world of moral outrage we inhabit—it’s the world of fake outrage, a kind of performative fury that convinces even its actors of its authenticity. Like professional wrestlers in Vince McMahon’s ring, we’ve forgotten how to remove the mask.

    This is kayfabe morality: outrage as entertainment, conviction as cosplay. And unlike the prophetic anger of George Carlin or Isiah, which illuminated hypocrisy, ours merely monetizes it.

  • When Buying a New Computer Results in an Existential Crisis

    When Buying a New Computer Results in an Existential Crisis

    A computer is never just a computer. It’s a mirror of who you think you are — your ambitions, your identity, your delusions of purpose. If you fancy yourself a “power user” or “content creator,” you don’t want a flimsy piece of plastic gasping for air. You want a machine that hums with confidence — a gleaming altar to your productivity fantasies. You crave speed, efficiency, thermal dominance, at least 500 nits of blinding radiance, and a QHD or OLED screen that flatters your sense of destiny. The machine must look sleek and purposeful, the way a surgeon’s scalpel looks purposeful, even if it’s mostly used to slice digital cheesecake.

    That’s the mythology of computing. Now let’s talk about me. I’m 64, a man whose “power user” moments consist of reading an online article on one screen while taking notes on the other — a thrilling simulation of intellectual heroism. In these moments, I feel like an epidemiologist drafting a breakthrough paper on respiratory viruses, when in truth I’m analyzing a 900-word essay about AI in education or the psychological toll of protein shakes. I could do this work on a Chromebook, but that would insult my inner Corvette driver — the middle-aged man who insists on 400 horsepower for a trip to the grocery store, just to know it’s there.

    My setup hasn’t changed in seven years: an Acer Predator Triton 500 with an RTX 2080 (a $3,200 review model, not my dime), an Asus 4K monitor, and a mechanical keyboard that clicks like an old newsroom. The system runs flawlessly. Which is precisely the problem. Not needing a new computer makes me feel irrelevant — like a man whose life has plateaued. Buying one, however, rekindles the illusion that I’m still scaling great heights, performing tasks of vast cosmic significance rather than grading freshman essays about screen addiction.

    So yes, I’ll probably buy a Mac Mini M4 Pro with 48 GB of RAM and 1 TB of storage. Overkill, absolutely. “Future-proofing”? A sales pitch for gullible tech romantics. But after seven years with the Acer, I’ll have earned my delusion. The real problem is not specs — it’s time. By the time I buy a new computer, I’ll be 66, retired, and sitting before a computer whose lifespan will exceed my own. That realization turns every new purchase into an existential audit.

    I used to buy things to feel powerful; now I buy them to feel temporary. A computer, a car, a box of razors — all built to outlive their owner. The marketing says upgrade your life; the subtext whispers your warranty expires first.

    Maybe that makes me a miserabilist — a man who can turn even consumer electronics into meditations on mortality. But at least I’ll have the fastest machine in the cemetery, writing The Memoirs of a Miserabilist in 4K clarity, with perfect thermal efficiency and 500 nits of existential dread.

  • Sam Harris Has Tea with a Christian Nationalist

    Sam Harris Has Tea with a Christian Nationalist

    Sam Harris has always been a curious kind of mystic—one who believes in meditation, not miracles; consciousness, not creeds. He seeks transcendence without theology, a spiritual depth unburdened by institutional clutter. Religion, he concedes, sometimes gestures toward the same inner world he explores, but it arrives dragging a freight train of dogma, myth, and moral detritus.

    That distaste for organized faith didn’t stop Harris from sitting down with one of its most unyielding champions: Doug Wilson, a self-described “Christian nationalist” pastor out of Moscow, Idaho. Wilson is the sort of man who makes the Bible sound less like scripture and more like federal law. He calls himself a scriptural absolutist, affirms the Apostles’ Creed word for word, believes the earth is 6,000 years old, defends the Old Testament’s death penalties for Sabbath violators, and dreams of a Reformed Presbyterian theocracy—America governed by divine fiat and fossilized certainty.

    When Wilson argued that moral relativism was America’s undoing, Harris did not interrupt. The pastor warned that tolerance would rot the nation from within—imagining a slippery slope from pluralism to polygamy, from open borders to moral anarchy. Harris listened quietly, allowing Wilson to build his own cathedral of logic brick by brittle brick.

    Throughout the conversation, Harris stayed composed, probing only occasionally—asking about the justice of eternal damnation, or how exactly divine law handles marriage beyond the traditional mold. His restraint was surgical. He wasn’t there to score points; he was there to let the argument reveal itself.

    At one point, Wilson lamented that secular institutions had failed us. Oddly, Harris seemed to nod—at least internally. They shared a disappointment in modernity’s moral anemia, though their prescriptions could not be more opposed. Harris seeks meaning through reason and mindfulness; Wilson seeks it through submission and authority.

    By the end, no one converted anyone. Harris didn’t embrace theocracy, and Wilson didn’t abandon it. But something subtler occurred: civility. Wilson, almost startled, thanked Harris for his respect and good manners—an acknowledgment that such conversations usually end in shouting.

    So what did Harris accomplish? He held a mirror to theocratic ambition without breaking it. By letting Wilson speak freely, he illuminated the growing movement that longs for a Christianized state—a homegrown version of moral authoritarianism dressed as righteousness. Harris didn’t win an argument; he revealed the landscape of the battlefield.

  • The Trilemma, the Mythmaker, and the Mad Apostle

    The Trilemma, the Mythmaker, and the Mad Apostle

    C.S. Lewis is famous for the “trilemma” he poses to frame the true nature of Jesus. He argues you have three choices: Jesus is claiming to be God because he is insane. Jesus is claiming to be God but knows this claim to be untrue but says so with malevolent intent because he is devilishly dishonest. Or Jesus’ claim to be God is true. Lewis argues that the common fourth scenario is not permitted in this trilemma: You can’t say Jesus is a nice guy with wisdom that encourages all to be wise and to love each other. I call this the “Hippy Jesus” scenario. 

    While I see Lewis’ insight and honesty in not having a patronizing view of Jesus and the high-stakes claims he makes about salvation and living an abundant life, I’m not so sure the trilemma is that unique or groundbreaking. The trilemma applies to all competing religions, which make their claims to being different from their competition and the “best” of all of them. Either these religions and their advocates are crazy, cynical, or telling the truth. 

    The same goes for St. Paul. Either he was a madman, a lying cynic, or a truth-teller. 

    Reading Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, it’s clear that Maccoby sees Paul as both mad and cynical, a conniving narcissist with grand ambitions to head a religious movement regardless of how many people he has to step on. Much of Maccoby’s book is speculation and personal interpretation: Paul was not really a Pharisee. Paul remade Jesus from a champion for political liberation to an otherworldly figure. Jesus, a Pharisee himself, would have been offended by Paul’s notion of a divine Christ title when Jesus saw the Christ title to be a royal title, a “god-king,” that defined his Jewishness. Paul absolved the Romans from all blame for Jesus’ execution and placed it all on the Jews. The Pharisees had sympathy for Jesus and the Nazarenes in general and would not have persecuted them. This is an antisemitic myth in the New Testament designed to create a new religion based on misrepresentation. Paul’s rhetoric is so flawed that he is a hack whose epistles lack the trademark style of Pharisee training.

    The unity between Paul and the early Jerusalem church portrayed in Acts is a “sham.” The New Testament is made by authors who have given up on the Jews and are writing for a new audience–gentiles–therefore, the writings are aimed at “the anathematization of the Jews.” He argues that there is solid evidence of a competing Christianity in the first few centuries, that of the Ebionites, a theology free from the poison of Paul. 

    Maccoby’s critics have pointed out that much of the book is speculation and lacks conventional scholarly credibility. Additionally, they observe that Maccoby, ironically writing in a Pauline persona, has acrimony for Paul, builds a villain-like character, and then contorts and cherry-picks evidence and speculation to put flesh and bone on his character, who is more of a literary creation than a historical figure. In Maccoby’s view, Paul is not a truth-teller. In the context of the trilemma, Paul is a mix of a madman and conniving liar and mythmaker. 

    I have mixed feelings about Maccoby’s book. Part of me sees the speculation free of scholarly evidence and fictive elements in Maccoby’s writing, but one thing remains convincing: Christianity as a supercessionist religion. By replacing Judaism, Christianity must be looked at in terms of the trilemma: Either its writers are sincere albeit mad, they are fibbing and fabricating with a grand ambition in mind, or they are telling the truth. 

    To examine Paul in the context of the trilemma becomes most compelling in Maccoby’s final chapter, “The Mythmaker.” Maccoby writes that Paul is not so much a thinker whose writings give us definitive notions of free will, predestination, original sin, and the trinity; rather, Paul “had a religious imagination of the highest order” and is less a theologian and more of a “mythologist.” Consumed by his religious imagination, Paul was surely sincere in many of his writings. But of course the unconscious can play games on all of us. The unconscious has its own agenda to unfold wish fulfillment and satisfy deeply rooted needs for validation, love, and even power. 

    Whereas Maccoby sees Jesus as someone who wanted to fulfill his role in the Jewish religion, Paul saw Jesus differently: someone who conformed to the new religion that spun from Paul’s frenzied, often brilliant imagination. Just as Hamlet is a creation of Shakespeare, Jesus is a creation of Paul.  

    Paul has written a new story that the world has never seen in the form of a Pauline myth that is “the descent of the divine saviour.” Maccoby writes: “Everything in the so-called theology stems from this: for since salvation or rescue comes from above, no efficacy can be ascribed to the action or initiative of man.” We must abandon all other hope for the salvation of mankind and look only to the saviour who has descended to rescue us. 

    The Descending Saviour myth contains “narrative elements.” We live in a binary world of Above and Below, Light and Darkness. We live in a dark hellscape and must be rescued. The human condition is depraved. We are prisoners to sin and darkness and must be saved from the powers of Evil. We cannot, like Sam Harris, meditate and live a life of contemplation because such contemplation will cause us to surrender more to the evil inside of us. Harris’ solitary meditations may be a road to divinity for him, but for Paul, they pave a road to hell. 

    According to Maccoby, Paul’s myth causes the story about Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Paradise to be an extreme, binary view of sin that deviates from “its traditional Jewish exegesis.”  

    Paul’s extreme views cause him to see sex as a morbid affliction and he is incapable of celebrating sex as part of a fulfilling and healthy life and can only see sex through a prism of pinch-faced hostility and skepticism.  

    In Paul’s myth, Paul himself is a conduit for divine messages and visions and his writings are presented to us with the imprimatur of God. In contrast, the Old Testament is a downgrade: not written by God but curated by angels. In this comparison, Paul is superior to Judaism. In Maccoby’s view, Paul’s self-aggrandizement amounts “to wholesale usurpation of the Jewish religio-historical scheme.” 

    The Jewish way to salvation was for all of humanity to work on expunging “the evil inclination” discussed by the prophet Ezekiel. In the Pauline way, only a rescuer from above can remove this evil inclination. But Maccoby writes that the solution to sin and evil is more sophisticated and subtle than Paul can understand, perhaps because he is so absorbed by his own religious imagination. What Paul cannot understand is this: The rabbis say in the Mishnah: “Better is one hour of repentance and good works in this world than the whole life of the world to come; and better is one hour of repentance and good works in this world than the whole life of the world to come; and better is one hour of bliss in this world to come than the whole life of this world.” Such a view requires a balanced view of the human condition, but Paul, in Maccoby’s eyes, is too consumed by “adolescent despair and impatience for perfection” (Paul sounds an awful lot like me in this regard). Rabbis argue that the point of life is to struggle, and this struggle is more important than the reward. But Paul is not in this camp: “For Paul, the reward has become the indispensable substitute for the struggle, which he regards as hopeless and, therefore, pointless.”

    Maccoby rejects Paul’s salvation by faith model. You don’t just become a believer and enjoy instant salvation like Tang mixed with water. Maccoby writes: “People who are supposed to be ‘saved’ behave, unaccountably, just as badly as before they were saved, so that law has to be reintroduced to restrain them. Also, there are always logically minded people to say that if they are ‘saved,’ all behaviour that happens to appeal to them (such as sexual orgies or murder) in the confidence that nothing they do can be wrong. In other words, by being ‘saved,’ people may behave worse instead of better.” 

    According to Maccoby, Pauline’s mythmaking was born from “adolescent despair and impatience.” In his scramble to come up with a religion to satisfy his psychological needs, Paul combined Gnosticism, mystery religions of human sacrifice known as blood cults, and Judaism. These were the three major tools in Paul’s religious toolbox that he jerryrigged a new religion that would dominate the world. In borrowing from Judaism, Paul took the idea of the promises to a chosen people by making it so the Jews were no longer chosen but the gentiles. This brilliant maneuver made Christianity more appealing and marketable. 

    The most damning criticism Maccoby has of Paul’s new religion is the accusation that Paul is the chief author of antisemitism, “which eventually produced the medieval diabolization of the Jews, evinced in the stories of the ‘blood libel’ and the alleged desecration of the Host.” Paul referred to the Jews as the “sacred executioner.” He also writes that the Jews “are treated as enemies for your sake.” 

    Antisemitism is integral to the Paul’s greatest “fantasist” element of mythmaking: deifying Jesus and making his death “into a cosmic sacrifice in which the powers of evil sought to overwhelm the power of good, but, against their will, only succeeded in bringing about a salvific event. This also transforms the Jews, as Paul’s writings indicate, into the unwitting agents of salvation, whose malice in bringing about the death of Jesus is turned to good because this death is the very thing needed for the salvation of sinful mankind.” In Paul’s new religion, he showed that his mythmaking contained “an incentive to blacken the Jewish record in order to justify the Christian take-over of the Abrahamic ‘promises.’”

    Maccoby argues that Paul’s new religion has been a mixed bag: “The myth created by Paul was thus launched on its career in the world: a story that has brought mankind comfort in its despair, but has also produced plentiful evil.” 

    In this view, how do we assess the trilemma in evaluating Paul? Maccoby says Paul produced his religion out of “despair and agony,” which is to say from the torment of his inner being, a contrast to the Christian belief that Paul was animated by divine messages and visions. Paul’s “character was much more colourful than Christian piety portrays it; his real life was more like a picaresque novel than the conventional life of a saint. But out of the religious influences that jostled in his mind, he created an imaginative synthesis that, for good or ill, became the basis of Western culture.” Therefore, Paul is partly mad, a man consumed by his religious despair, and partly power-hungry, a man who seeks to create a new religion to assuage his torment and to universalize his sense of despair and salvation so the rest of the world can share in it. 

    Is Maccoby’s portrait of Paul convincing? Currently, my take is this: We have to take some of Maccoby’s judgments more seriously than others. Some narratives and psychological portrayals of Paul seem like mythmaking on Maccoby’s part. Perhaps Christianity is more complex and mysterious and less conspiratorial than Maccoby wants us to believe. But perhaps there are conflicting agendas in the making of Christianity and the Jews were unfairly portrayed. Perhaps in this regard, Maccoby is on to something and has contributed much in the way we see how religions are made and how antisemitism was born. 

  • Against Mythmaking 

    Against Mythmaking 

    In The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Hyam Maccoby doesn’t treat Paul as a saintly architect of faith. Instead, he brands him a slick opportunist — a theological con artist who sidelined Jesus’ Jewish disciples and reinvented the movement to glorify himself. In Maccoby’s telling, Paul isn’t the earnest apostle of Sunday school murals; he’s a résumé-padding religious entrepreneur with a flair for self-promotion.

    Luke, author of Acts, doesn’t escape scrutiny either. To Maccoby, Luke plays the role of breathless publicist, polishing Paul into a heroic Hollywood lead — all charisma, no contradictions, halo firmly secured with narrative glue.

    Yet as I reread Maccoby, I can’t ignore the irony: in exposing Paul’s myth-making, Maccoby may be engaged in his own. If Luke sculpted Paul into a glowing protagonist, Maccoby chisels him into a grand villain — less apostle, more Bond antagonist with holy stationery.

    My relationship with Paul is messier than either portrait. At times he reads like a puffed-up moralist enthralled by his own authority; at other moments, he achieves startling spiritual clarity — like his definition of God as self-emptying love in Philippians. Myth-making, whether heroic or malicious, flattens figures like Paul into cardboard cutouts, sanding down the contradictions that make real people aggravating, compelling, and occasionally profound.

    So while Maccoby offers a seductive, neatly packaged explanation for Christianity’s break from Judaism — Paul scheming his way to divine stardom — it feels too tidy. Real history rarely sticks to clean villain-hero binaries. 

    My life would be defined by resolution and an ability to move on if I could see Paul that way Maccoby does, but before I can toss Paul into the narcissist bin and slam the lid, I have to admit that Maccoby — like Luke — might be seduced by narrative neatness. Paul’s letters show someone less like a cartoon schemer and more like a man painfully aware of his own weakness, insecurity, and failure. If he were a megalomaniac mastermind, he was spectacularly bad at the role: beaten, jailed, mocked, shipwrecked, chronically ill, and constantly sparring with congregations who treated him not like a guru but like the world’s most irritating substitute teacher. His theology isn’t the product of a slick PR machine; it reads like a bruised mystic wrestling with power, ego, and surrender. 

    You can see it in Paul’s grudging boasts, his trembling confessions, and his moments of ecstatic humility — that strange mix of cosmic ambition and self-annihilation that marks someone grappling with God, not angling for a corner office. 

    It may be comforting to imagine Paul as either saint or sociopath, but the textual record points to something far more inconvenient: a brilliant, exasperating, self-contradicting human being who stumbled toward transcendence while dragging his flaws behind him like rattling tin cans tied to a wedding bumper.

    In any event, I shall continue rereading Maccoby. His strident reaction to Paul continues to fascinate me.

  • Thou Shalt Not Seek Meaning Where Only Rocks Dwell

    Thou Shalt Not Seek Meaning Where Only Rocks Dwell

    I was having dinner with my father—his post-divorce steak ritual on a patio that smelled faintly of smoke, charred meat, and newfound freedom. He’d bought a barbecue, a secondhand sofa, and the kind of wine that announces you’re single again but not destitute: red zinfandel in a tumbler. He cut into his steak with the swagger of a man who believed he’d successfully rerouted his son from the city dump to the university.

    “So,” he said, spearing a chunk of meat, “what are you thinking about majoring in?”

    My conversations with Master Po had me leaning toward philosophy and religion—the twin pillars of spiritual unemployment. “I think I’ll study philosophy or religion,” I said.

    He froze mid-chew. “Why in the hell would you want to do a thing like that?”

    “To study the search for meaning.”

    He swallowed, wiped his mouth, and took a long gulp of zinfandel. “Don’t waste your time.”

    “Meaning is a waste of time?”

    He smiled the way only a man twice-divorced and freshly cynical can smile. “Let me tell you a story.”

    He launched into a parable that sounded suspiciously homemade.

    A young man goes to the beach and asks God to reveal the meaning of life. God, ever the trickster, tells him the secret is written on one of the thousands of rocks scattered across the shore. The young man groans—it could take forever. God shrugs: “That’s not my problem.”

    So the man begins his search. Years pass. The tide rises and falls, civilizations collapse, and still he flips rocks like a man looking for lost keys in eternity’s junk drawer. When he’s old, leathery, and alone, he looks up at the sky and cries, “God, I’ve searched my whole life and found nothing! Every rock is blank. I’ve sacrificed joy, friendship, and everything good in the name of this search!”

    God looks down and says, “That’s right, you dumb shit. Now die.”

    When my father finished, he leaned back, self-satisfied, the smoke haloing his head like the ghost of a cigar.

    “Where did you hear that story?” I asked.

    He grinned. “I just made it up.”

    “Just now?”

    “Damn right. For your benefit.”

    “My benefit? What’s the moral?”

    “One, that God doesn’t give a shit. Two, that there is no meaning. And three, that you’d better not waste your college education searching for it.”

    Later that night, lying in bed, I consulted my spiritual mentor, Master Po, the philosopher of the leaky-roof dojo.

    “Master Po,” I said, “my father believes that searching for meaning is pointless.”

    “Your father is right, Grasshopper,” he said serenely. “The Way defies all grasping. Meaning is the mirage on the horizon—pursue it, and you will die of thirst. Better to drink from the river as it passes through your hands than try to hold it. For the river flows on… to the sea.”

    I thought about this while staring at the ceiling fan spinning in lazy circles. My father had God saying, “Now die.”
    Master Po preferred rivers and metaphors.
    Somewhere between them, I decided, was college.

  • Thou Shalt Drive On–And Never Look Back at the Van

    Thou Shalt Drive On–And Never Look Back at the Van

    When I was in high school, I watched four of my friends lose their minds over a single missed opportunity—a sunburned Greek tragedy in cutoffs and tube socks. Their decline began on a blistering afternoon in 1979, somewhere along the Grapevine—the steep, snaking pass that connects Northern and Southern California, or, in their case, paradise and perdition.

    The boys were headed south from the Bay Area to see the Dodgers in the playoffs, crammed in a sun-faded Chevy with the naïve optimism only teenage men possess. As they crested the Grapevine, they saw it: an orange, rust-flaked Volkswagen van steaming on the shoulder like a dying dragon. Around it stood four women—tanned, sweat-slick, and shimmering with mischief—Grateful Dead followers on their pilgrimage from chaos to Santa Barbara.

    The women waved tie-dye bikini tops like tribal flags and laughed with the wild, lawless energy of people who had never read a syllabus. My friends, being equal parts chivalrous and hormonally desperate, pulled over to help. They poured water into the boiling radiator, wiped their hands on their jeans, and were rewarded with radiant gratitude.

    “Come to the Summer Solstice Festival in Santa Barbara,” one of the Deadheads said, her voice a siren’s hum. “We’ll dance all night.”

    But my friends were men of purpose—or so they claimed. They had Dodgers tickets. Commitments. Civic duty. They politely declined, waved farewell, and continued toward Los Angeles, confident they’d made the adult decision.

    By the time they returned north, they were inconsolable.

    For the rest of high school, they fought bitterly over who had ruined their collective destiny. One blamed the driver for not turning around. Another accused the navigator of cowardice. They’d get drunk and rant about the “Lost Women of the Grapevine,” pounding tables and recounting their tragedy like war veterans mourning the platoon they never joined.

    One night, two of them came to blows at a house party, fists flying over the ghosts of imaginary Deadheads. I stepped in to break it up, only to catch a stray right hook to the temple.

    That night, nursing my swelling head with a washcloth, I turned to Master Po for enlightenment.

    “Master,” I asked, “how can one brief encounter with beautiful women destroy the minds of four men?”

    “Ah,” he said, “let this be your lesson, Grasshopper. The past is a seductive liar. When you cling to it, you feed it power it does not deserve. You transform an ordinary disappointment into a mythological Eden from which you’ve been exiled. And soon, you worship the loss itself.”

    He stroked his beard and added, “Living in the past is the mother of depression. Living in the future is the mother of anxiety. Living in the present, Grasshopper, is the mother of peace.”

    “But Master,” I said, “what if the past is more exciting than the present? And what if I enjoy being miserable?”

    “That is two questions,” he said.

    “Sorry, Master.”

    He nodded. “The past only seems exciting because you edit it like a movie trailer. You cut out the boredom, the sweat, the traffic, and the bad sandwiches. What remains is illusion—a highlight reel of what never truly was.”

    I pressed on. “But why do I sometimes poke at my pain—like pressing a sore tooth—just to feel alive?”

    “You are impoverished,” said Po.

    “I feel empty.”

    “Then you are filled,” he replied. “The Way does not strive, yet it overcomes. You are striving too hard, Grasshopper. Let go of the Grapevine.”

    I tried, but some part of me still saw my four friends stranded forever on that California pass, staring down the road where the van once shimmered in the heat—a mirage of desire that would haunt them long after their teenage tan lines had faded.

  • Thou Shalt Remember: Swagger Fades, But Authenticity Endures

    Thou Shalt Remember: Swagger Fades, But Authenticity Endures

    In the summer of 1977, my church was Cull Canyon Lake, and tanning oil was the sacrament. Every Saturday, I’d anoint myself in Hawaiian Tropic Dark Tanning Oil—zero SPF, 100 percent hubris. It smelled of coconuts and artificial paradise. When I think back to the hormonal heat haze of youth, I can still smell it: the scent of lust, vanity, and skin damage baking in the California sun.

    That’s when I first saw him—the apostle of artificial cool. I didn’t know his name, so I christened him Camaro Frankenpimp. Late twenties, brown wavy hair, gold chain, Speedo so tight it threatened constitutional rights. His black ’76 Camaro—with its white racing stripes and glassy arrogance—glimmered in the parking lot like a totem of misplaced masculinity.

    Camaro Frankenpimp strutted across the grass in his blue briefs, boombox blaring, white Frisbee spinning in hand, Playboy cooler close behind. He had perfected his entrance and rehearsed his lines. Every Saturday, I’d hear the same monologue:

    He’d paid five hundred bucks for that custom paint job. His dad owned a chain of clothing stores in the Bay Area. He’d managed them since high school. He was waiting to hear from a Hollywood studio about a small part in a martial arts movie. And, the pièce de résistance, he owned a home in Parsons Estates. He dropped that name like a holy incantation, as though suburban real estate were the path to transcendence.

    I later realized he’d memorized his script from Eric Weber’s How to Pick Up Girls!—the ur-text of sleaze, which instructed men to approach women like sales prospects: persistence over decency, bravado over authenticity. I’d seen the book passed around my high school locker room like contraband scripture. Camaro had apparently underlined every commandment.

    He was successful, at least by his own shabby standards. Each Saturday, he had new blondes—interchangeable apostles in bikinis—tossing his Frisbee back like he was the messiah of mediocrity.

    Then came the reckoning.

    One afternoon, I watched from my towel as Camaro held court on his grassy knoll, his tanned body gleaming under the sun, boasting to two bikini-clad disciples. Suddenly, he howled like a wounded wolf.

    “You stepped on a bee!” one girl cried.

    The bee twitched in the grass, mission accomplished. Within seconds, Camaro was sweating, limping, and insisting he was fine. His skin shone like varnish; his foot ballooned to the size of a Christmas ham.

    “I’m fine,” he kept saying, though panic had already claimed his eyes.

    Moments later, he collapsed, chest heaving, mouth foaming. His body convulsed, the boombox still playing Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams” in surreal counterpoint. By the time the ambulance arrived, Camaro Frankenpimp—the self-anointed prophet of Parsons Estates—was gone.

    I went home shaken. My hero, the sun god of Cull Canyon, slain by a bee. That night, I sought counsel from Master Po.

    “Why, Master,” I asked, “did such a magnificent man die so suddenly?”

    “Choose your heroes wisely, Grasshopper,” said Po. “The man was no hero. He was a hollow idol, built of vanity and insecurity. He was all surface and no soul, all pose and no power. His death was not tragic—it was poetic. For it is written: he who cannot conquer himself will be conquered by the smallest of creatures.”

  • The Wise Man Must Polish His Soul Before Critiquing Someone Else’s Plumbing

    The Wise Man Must Polish His Soul Before Critiquing Someone Else’s Plumbing

    It was a Saturday afternoon, and I was trapped in my bedroom, waiting for the plumber to leave so I could sneak into the kitchen and make a protein shake. I could still hear him grunting and groaning under the sink like a walrus in a crawlspace. Through my bedroom window—across the little atrium separating me from the scene of domestic violation—I could see his open toolbox: a chrome battlefield of wrenches, pipes, and filthy rags sprawled across the linoleum like the aftermath of a plumbing apocalypse.

    My mother tiptoed into my room and whispered, “It’s so nice of him to do this.”
    I frowned. “What’s that supposed to mean?”
    “He’s not charging me,” she said with the glee of someone who’d just gamed capitalism.
    “Of course he’s charging you.”
    She shook her head. “He’s a friend.”
    “You just met him.”
    “His name is Paul Bergdorf. One of my girlfriends introduced me.”
    “Mom,” I said, “this isn’t going to end well.”
    “Keep your voice down,” she hissed, which is parental shorthand for I know you’re right but don’t ruin it.

    Bergdorf shouted from the kitchen that he was finished. My mother floated toward the sound of her rescuer while I picked up my barbell and started doing reverse curls—the exercise of choice for sons on the verge of moral intervention.

    From my vantage point through the sliding glass door, I saw the man emerge from under the sink. Paul Bergdorf was a specimen of middle-aged decay: a big gut pressing against his jeans like bread dough rising from its pan, grease-slick hair combed over his scalp in defiance of reality, and a face red and puffy as if carved from boiled ham. His eyes were glazed, his nose bulbous, his stubble crawling toward his ears. The man radiated cologne, sweat, and failure.

    He wiped his hands on a rag, tested the faucet, and said proudly, “All fixed. Now before I go, I may not be the best-looking man in town, but I can make a hell of a steak. I’m talking big, thick, juicy steaks—barbecue the way it’s meant to be done.”
    “That’s nice,” my mother said, “but no thanks.”

    I continued curling, the barbell becoming heavier with every syllable of his pitch. My forearms burned, but my fury was burning hotter.

    “I’ll get the best cuts,” he said, grinning. “You’ve never had steak like mine.”
    “That’s very kind, but I’m busy.”
    “Just pick a weekend. I’ll do the rest.”

    That did it. I charged down the hallway, forearms pumped, veins bulging, looking like an interventionist deity of adolescent righteousness.

    “How many times,” I asked, “does she have to say no?”

    Bergdorf stepped back, rag in hand, suddenly less swaggering. “Hey, let’s cool it, kid. I just wanted to ask your mom out. I’ve been working on this sink all day—it’s the least you could let me do.”

    “If you want to fix sinks for free, that’s your business,” I said, “but you’re entitled to nothing—not steak, not gratitude, not my mother.”

    “I just wanted to barbecue,” he mumbled.
    “Congratulations,” I said. “You’ve told everyone within a five-mile radius that you’re a steak virtuoso. Now leave.”

    Bergdorf, perspiring and wounded, gathered his tools, slammed the toolbox shut, and stomped out to his truck. The engine roared, the tires squealed, and the house filled with the lingering scent of sweat, smoke, and Stetson cologne.

    My mother stood in the kitchen, arms crossed. “You scared him away.”
    “Damn right.”
    “The neighbors say you’re getting too big and too scary. Maybe you should cool it for a while.”
    “I’m not cooling anything.”
    “Sal Tedesco says his son sees you working out with some crazy football player.”
    “His name is John Matuszak,” I said. “And he’s not crazy.”

    I could still smell Bergdorf’s presence hanging in the air like a curse. “God, he stinks,” I said. “That smell’s never leaving this house. Just hire a plumber next time, okay?”

    I retreated to my room, slammed the door, and sat on the bed. My forearms throbbed. My conscience twitched. I turned to Master Po, my invisible therapist and ancient Chinese philosopher in exile.

    “Was I wrong to drive that man away?” I asked.
    “Your mother was managing the situation,” said Po, his voice calm as incense smoke. “You intervened because you lack patience—and because control soothes your fear.”
    “But he wouldn’t leave.”
    “Everything leaves in time,” said Po. “You must learn the difference between protecting and meddling. The sage does not seize control of others’ lives; he tidies his own.”

    He glanced around my room: dirty gym clothes strewn across the floor, cracked tiles, a broken window patched with a Cap’n Crunch cereal box.

    “Grasshopper,” he said, “before you become your mother’s moral custodian, try cleaning your own temple. It is written: the wise man polishes his soul before critiquing someone else’s plumbing.”