Somewhere between the last cigarette of the night and the first hit of morning regret, a meme appeared—a meme that hit like a bad trip laced with too much truth. “I would go to clubs if…” it begins, and already we’re hooked, because we would. Oh, we absolutely would. Clubs, after all, are temples to our twin gods: attention and surveillance. The dancefloor is no place for freedom—it’s a marketplace of souls, a performance arena where we barter our autonomy for the sweet narcotic of being seen.
The meme lays it all out in stark, hilarious terms. The dancefloor? A Panopticon, that circular prison where every move you make is visible, every act observed, judged, cataloged. The DJ? None other than Michel Foucault, the great philosopher of power and control, standing there in his leather jacket like the grinning high priest of disciplinary pleasure. The music? “My iPhone Tracks My Every Move,” a track that isn’t just a beat to lose yourself to—it’s a hymn to our self-inflicted surveillance, a confession that the algorithm knows us better than we know ourselves. And the bouncer? A relic from the Victorian era, grim and judging, sitting in his booth like he’s guarding the gates to Hell, or worse, your search history.
It’s a joke, sure. But like all good jokes, it cuts deep because it’s true.
We don’t just tolerate surveillance—we crave it. We ache for the gaze of the all-seeing eye, for the validation it provides. You might laugh at the Panopticon dancefloor, but let’s not kid ourselves: we’re already there. Every selfie you post, every location you tag, every dopamine hit from that sweet, sweet notification is proof. The prison is not imposed upon us—we willingly step into it, strutting in time to the beat, pretending we don’t notice the cameras.
And let’s talk about that beat. In the meme, the music is a stroke of genius. “My iPhone Tracks My Every Move” isn’t a song; it’s an anthem for the age of surveillance capitalism. It’s the soundtrack of our complicity, a reminder that every swipe and scroll is another step deeper into the algorithmic quicksand. The music isn’t background noise—it’s the main event. It’s tailored to your preferences, curated from the metadata you provided so eagerly. You don’t choose the song; it chooses you. And God help you, you love it.
Then there’s Foucault, our DJ, grinning like he knows something you don’t. And he does. Foucault taught us that power isn’t just about force—it’s about visibility, about shaping behavior through the simple fact of being watched. The Panopticon doesn’t need guards because the prisoners police themselves. And isn’t that exactly what we do? Every post, every like, every performative little moment we broadcast to the void is an act of self-surveillance. We’re not dancing to escape—we’re dancing to be noticed.
The bouncer, though, is the meme’s cruelest joke. He’s a relic, a grotesque reminder that there was a time when judgment was blunt and personal. Now, the judgment is softer, subtler, but no less suffocating. The bouncer doesn’t sit in the doorway anymore; he’s in your pocket, a voice whispering in your ear every time you check your stats, your likes, your engagement. He doesn’t stop you from entering—he lets you in and makes damn sure you never leave.
The meme is funny because it exposes the lie we tell ourselves: that we fear surveillance. We don’t. We love it. We dress up for it, pose for it, curate our lives around it. We’ve turned the Panopticon into a nightclub and sold tickets at the door. We’ve made surveillance sexy, seductive, irresistible. And in doing so, we’ve revealed the ultimate truth: the watchers don’t hold the power. We do. Because we feed them. We demand their gaze. We scream into the void, “Watch me! Validate me! Tell me I matter!”
And so we dance. Under the lights of the Panopticon, to the beats of the algorithm, under the watchful eye of Foucault and his disciples. We dance, knowing full well that we’re not free. But freedom was never the point. The point was to be seen, to bask in the glow of attention, to know that even if the prison doors are open, we’ll never walk away.
So the next time you see that meme, don’t laugh too hard. You’re already in the club, my friend. And the music’s just getting started.
Non-harmonic tones don’t play by the rules. They’re outlaws, slipping through the cracks of the harmony, crashing the orderly party of the chord structure. They exist to disrupt, to stir tension, to turn the smooth flow into something jagged and alive. These are the stray dogs of the musical phrase—dirty, hungry, and essential.
They come in like hitchhikers—passing tones hitching a ride between two proper chord notes, filling the space with their restless motion. Neighbor tones are the drifters, circling back to where they started, leaving a trace of chaos in their wake. Appoggiaturas? They don’t ask permission; they leap in uninvited, all dissonance and drama, before stepping down to something that makes sense, like a con artist giving back your wallet after a good scare.
Suspensions hang there, clutching onto the last chord like they’re afraid to let go, dangling on a thread of tension until they finally give up and step down. Retardations do the opposite—they’re the stubborn ones, climbing upward when everyone expects them to sink. Anticipations? Those are the time travelers, showing up before they’re supposed to, skipping ahead to what’s next like they already know the punchline.
They’re the uninvited guests that make the whole thing worth listening to. Without them, harmony is too polite, too predictable. These tones step out of line, kick up the dust, and remind the music to keep moving, keep fighting, keep feeling.
Neighbor Tones
Neighbor tones (or auxiliary tones) are non-harmonic tones that move stepwise away from a chord tone and then return. They create a sense of motion and embellishment without disrupting the harmony. Neighbor tones can be either upper or lower, depending on the direction they move.
Passing tones are similar, but instead of returning directly to the original chord tone, they connect two consonant tones by stepwise motion, often filling in the space between them. They typically occur between chord tones in a smooth, uninterrupted line, creating a feeling of fluidity in the music.
Escape tones
An ESCAPE TONE is a Non-Chord Tone that involves both a step and a leap. From Chord 1, a voice will take one step up at the end of Chord 1 (this note will be a Non-Chord Tone of both Chord 1 and Chord 2), then leap downward to resolve to a chord tone of Chord 2. This seems like a strange sequence but it creates a lot of drama so it can be a desirable method of melodic movement. An example is a C Major chord moving to a G Major chord. The Soprano starts on “E”, moves stepwise up to “F”, and leaps down to “D” for Chord 2.
Escape Tones are always unaccented.
Appoggiatura
Appoggiaturas involve a leap to a non-harmonic tone followed by a resolution by step to a chord tone. These are typically dissonant and serve to heighten the tension before resolving to consonance. They are often used to add drama to a phrase.
Suspensions are non-harmonic tones that create a dissonance by holding over a note from the previous chord into a new one, then resolving downward by step. They create a lingering tension that feels like an anticipation of the new harmony, and their resolution provides a satisfying release.
Retardations are similar to suspensions but resolve upward by step instead of downward. They create a similar kind of tension but have a slightly different emotional quality, often providing a sense of delayed resolution.
Anticipations involve a note that is played earlier than expected, before the harmony actually changes. This creates a sense of forward motion as the listener anticipates the arrival of the new harmony. Anticipations often blur the line between harmonic and non-harmonic tones, giving the impression that the resolution is already taking place.
In a broader sense, non-harmonic tones function as tools for shaping musical expression, allowing composers to manipulate tension, create variety, and guide the listener’s emotional journey. By stepping outside of the harmonic structure, they momentarily displace the stability of the harmony, enriching the overall musical landscape before returning to a satisfying resolution.
Passing Tones
Passing tones embody the essence of transition within any dynamic system, serving as a bridge between stability and instability. They are moments of movement that seem insignificant in isolation but, within the larger structure, become essential to the flow and coherence of the whole. Their presence reflects a universal principle: change is not merely a disruption but a necessary force for connection and transformation.
In communication, passing tones represent the intermediary spaces where meaning shifts and evolves. They are the pauses and transitions that shape how messages are received, altering the tone and texture of interaction. Just as a thought moves from one idea to another, guided by an almost imperceptible thread, passing tones facilitate the movement of a melody, weaving dissonance and resolution into an intricate web of expression.
In improvisation, these tones symbolize freedom and risk, the willingness to step outside the bounds of the expected to explore new possibilities. They create tension, but that tension is temporary, resolved into a larger harmony that feels richer for having flirted with chaos. They remind us that growth often occurs in these fleeting moments of uncertainty, where boundaries are tested and redefined.
Viewed through the lens of systems, passing tones function as transitional elements that maintain balance within a larger framework. They are not the foundation but the connective tissue, allowing different parts of the system to interact seamlessly. Without these transient elements, the structure would stagnate, unable to evolve or adapt to new conditions.
Emergence offers another perspective: passing tones illustrate how complexity arises from simplicity. A single note added between stable pitches can alter the emotional texture of a piece, creating patterns of movement and meaning that could not exist otherwise. They highlight the interplay between the parts and the whole, demonstrating that even the smallest elements can catalyze profound transformations.
Ultimately, passing tones are more than mere adornments; they are agents of change, shaping the experience of a system, a message, or a piece of music. They embody the idea that progress is not linear but fluid, born of tension, transition, and resolution. Their significance lies not in their permanence but in their role as catalysts, reminding us that the most meaningful connections often occur in the spaces between.
Neighbor Tones
Neighbor tones are moments of close exploration, brief excursions into the immediate surroundings of stability. They step away from a core idea or structure—only to return to it, unchanged but enriched by the temporary deviation. This dynamic reveals a fundamental principle: proximity and contrast deepen our understanding of the familiar.
In communication, neighbor tones act as subtle digressions, adding depth without losing focus. They represent the side-notes, the parentheticals, the asides that enhance meaning by juxtaposing the central message with something adjacent. These small diversions create texture, emphasizing the main point when the system circles back.
In creative expression, they embody intimacy and restraint. The departure is deliberate but modest, exploring possibilities within reach rather than venturing far. By dancing close to home, they highlight the tension between movement and rest, between curiosity and resolution. The return to the original is not a retreat but a moment of affirmation, now seen in sharper relief.
Within systems, neighbor tones illustrate the balance between exploration and stability. They test boundaries without overstepping, allowing the system to flex and adapt while remaining anchored. This localized movement fosters resilience, demonstrating how small oscillations can reinforce, rather than undermine, the whole.
In emergence, neighbor tones demonstrate that transformation doesn’t always require dramatic leaps. Incremental shifts—a brief departure, a quick return—can create subtle but significant changes in perception. They reflect the fractal nature of complex systems, where even the smallest movements echo through the larger structure.
These tones remind us that close, intentional movements are as powerful as bold departures. They show how harmony is enriched through contrast, how brief moments of tension heighten resolution, and how staying near can still reveal new dimensions of the familiar. The neighbor tone, in its modest arc, embodies the delicate balance between connection and individuality, stability and motion.
Escape Tones
Escape tones can be understood as moments of divergence, where a system briefly departs from its expected trajectory. These are not mere disruptions but intentional deviations that serve a purpose: to explore new possibilities, create contrast, or heighten tension before returning to a sense of stability. They symbolize the necessity of stepping outside the framework to discover what lies beyond.
In a communicative context, they represent the unpredictable detours that redefine the meaning of a message. When a pattern breaks unexpectedly, it catches the attention, forcing an audience to reassess the flow of information. This deviation reframes the entire context, creating a sharper focus on the moment of return or resolution. Escape tones highlight the dynamic nature of interaction, where divergence enriches the larger narrative.
In improvisation, these tones embody a deliberate act of stepping away from the familiar. They create a sense of tension, not as an accident but as an exploration of what exists outside the core structure. The temporary departure invites the unexpected, drawing both performer and listener into a heightened awareness of the journey back to coherence. It is in this interplay between leaving and returning that creativity flourishes.
Within a system, such moments of divergence illustrate the importance of flexibility and experimentation. A stable system does not function in isolation; it must allow for deviations that challenge its norms, testing its capacity for adaptation. The escape tone, though fleeting, is a mechanism through which systems learn, grow, and evolve, finding equilibrium only after the tension has been resolved.
As an emergent phenomenon, the escape tone underscores how complexity arises from temporary chaos. A deliberate departure introduces contrast, creating a richer texture within the whole. These moments of instability, while brief, ripple through the system, altering perceptions and interactions. They reveal that the act of stepping away is not a failure but an integral part of the creative process, opening new pathways that would otherwise remain hidden.
Escape tones remind us that deviation is a form of exploration, a necessary part of growth and innovation. They show that stability is not static but dynamic, requiring occasional departures to maintain vitality. Whether in communication, art, or systems, these moments of escape are not just divergences—they are opportunities to transform the ordinary into something extraordinary, redefining the boundaries of what is possible.
Free Neighbor Tone
A free neighbor tone is a moment of unbound movement—an exploration that leaves the security of a core structure and returns to it, but not through a strictly adjacent path. Unlike the conventional neighbor tone, its departure and return traverse unexpected terrain, creating an air of spontaneity and freedom. It is a gesture of independence, existing within a system but not entirely constrained by its immediate rules.
In the realm of communication, the free neighbor tone is a thought that momentarily escapes the flow of a conversation, detouring into more abstract or tangential territory. Its value lies in the unpredictability of its path; while it returns to the original point, its journey reshapes the listener’s understanding, adding layers of meaning that might not have been accessible through direct progression.
In creative improvisation, it represents a willingness to test the boundaries of structure. The free neighbor tone is not tethered to the immediate surroundings; it ventures farther, creating a tension that lingers until resolution. This tension isn’t about disruption but about the contrast between freedom and inevitability, allowing the return to stability to feel richer and more earned.
In systemic terms, it illustrates the interplay between flexibility and order. The free neighbor tone serves as an outlier, testing the system’s capacity to integrate something unexpected without losing coherence. It is the momentary introduction of external energy that, rather than destabilizing the system, enhances its adaptability and depth.
From the perspective of emergence, the free neighbor tone highlights the unpredictable pathways through which complexity arises. By temporarily departing from a linear or adjacent trajectory, it reveals hidden relationships within the system, creating moments of surprise and discovery that enrich the whole. Its movement emphasizes that even apparent detours can contribute to the evolution of a pattern.
Ultimately, the free neighbor tone reflects a balance between exploration and connection. It demonstrates that freedom within boundaries—while momentarily destabilizing—can lead to greater creativity and resonance. Its arc, defined by departure and return, reminds us that the interplay between the familiar and the unexpected is where the most compelling stories are told.
Appoggiatura
The appoggiatura is a bold gesture of tension and resolution, a momentary insistence on instability before yielding to balance. It is a dissonant arrival—a deliberate interruption—that seeks to momentarily dominate the harmonic space before gracefully stepping aside. Its drama lies in its transient nature, offering both contrast and catharsis within a larger structure.
In communication, an appoggiatura represents the forceful entry of an idea that initially seems out of place or disruptive. It draws attention precisely because it doesn’t immediately fit, demanding engagement before it resolves into a natural flow. This dynamic reflects the way tension can sharpen focus, making the eventual resolution feel more significant and meaningful.
In creativity, it captures the spirit of risk and emotional immediacy. The appoggiatura doesn’t shy away from its dissonance; it embraces it as an essential part of its arc. By leaning into tension, it creates a sense of yearning or intensity that heightens the resolution. It is the essence of storytelling, where conflict enriches the ultimate harmony.
From a systemic perspective, the appoggiatura exemplifies the principle of necessary disturbance. It momentarily destabilizes a structure, challenging its balance in order to reinforce it. This brief disruption is not a failure but a crucial component of dynamic equilibrium, reminding us that harmony often emerges through the interplay of opposites.
In emergence, the appoggiatura illustrates how contrast drives evolution. Its dissonance is not an error but a feature—an event that introduces depth and movement within the system. By resolving into stability, it underscores how tension and release are interwoven in the creation of complexity and beauty.
The appoggiatura, then, is a metaphor for the cycles of disruption and resolution that define creative and systemic processes. Its insistence on being heard, followed by its willingness to dissolve into harmony, reflects the power of fleeting moments to reshape perception. It teaches us that tension is not an end in itself but a bridge to something greater—a resolution made richer by the journey through instability.
Suspension
Suspension is the art of holding onto tension, prolonging a moment of unresolved energy before finally releasing it. It captures the essence of anticipation, drawing attention to the gap between what is and what is yet to come. Unlike a fleeting dissonance, suspension lingers, demanding patience and focus, turning time into a dynamic, expressive force.
In communication, suspension represents the deliberate pause, a hesitation that holds attention in suspense. It is the unfinished sentence, the momentary silence before an answer, or the lingering note of uncertainty that sharpens awareness. By prolonging the unresolved, it amplifies the impact of what follows, transforming resolution into a deeply satisfying moment.
In creative expression, suspension embodies restraint and drama. It challenges the listener or observer to dwell in discomfort, to feel the pull of the unresolved. By delaying resolution, it creates space for reflection, heightening the emotional weight of both tension and its eventual release. It is the heartbeat of suspense, the moment where time seems to stretch infinitely before the inevitable arrival.
Within systems, suspension demonstrates the value of holding a state of imbalance. It resists immediate resolution, allowing energy to accumulate and flow into new forms. This tension, far from destabilizing, can catalyze deeper integration and understanding, showing that stability often requires a period of unresolved potential.
In emergence, suspension reveals the richness of delay. By extending the moment before change, it creates opportunities for complexity to unfold. It is in the prolonged tension that connections deepen and unexpected patterns arise, emphasizing that growth is often found not in resolution but in the process of getting there.
Suspension teaches us the power of lingering. It reminds us that tension, far from being something to avoid, is an integral part of any journey. By holding onto the unresolved, it allows time to breathe, to stretch, and to transform anticipation into a profound sense of fulfillment. It is a testament to the beauty of patience and the depth of moments that resist easy conclusions.
Retardation
Retardation is the art of delay, a deliberate holding back that postpones resolution, creating a sense of yearning and heightened expectation. Unlike suspension, which lingers in a stable dissonance, retardation is an active slowing down, stretching the tension just a little further before finally arriving at closure. It embodies resistance, drawing focus to the power of time and the inevitability of release.
In communication, retardation mirrors the strategic pause—a rhetorical device where resolution is withheld to build intensity or emotional impact. It reflects the human experience of waiting, where the delay itself becomes a crucial part of the narrative, shaping how the eventual resolution is received. The postponement is not an obstacle but a tool for deepening engagement.
In creativity, retardation is the tension of the drawn-out phrase, the lingering moment that teases the listener with the promise of resolution. It creates a dramatic arc, where the delay enriches the emotional payoff. The moment of resolution feels earned, amplified by the extended journey through dissonance.
From a systemic perspective, retardation represents the deliberate pacing of change. It slows the system’s progress, allowing tensions to build and accumulate before releasing them into a new equilibrium. This deliberate delay ensures that transitions are meaningful, emphasizing the importance of timing in the process of transformation.
In the context of emergence, retardation exemplifies how complexity grows from the interplay of delay and resolution. The extended moment before resolution allows for the development of unexpected patterns and relationships, revealing that delay can be a fertile ground for creativity and innovation. It highlights that progress is not always immediate but often requires the patience of gradual unfolding.
Retardation shows the value of resisting immediacy. It turns delay into a feature rather than a flaw, using time as an expressive tool to heighten contrast, deepen tension, and ultimately transform resolution into something far greater than the sum of its parts. It reminds us that in music, systems, and life, what we wait for is often most meaningful when the waiting itself has shaped the experience.
Anticipation
Anticipation is the art of moving ahead, a bold gesture that arrives at resolution before the rest of the system is ready. It embodies foresight and impatience, disrupting the flow by momentarily shifting time forward. This preemptive resolution creates tension in its own way, as the surrounding structure catches up, emphasizing the inevitability of connection between the present and the future.
In communication, anticipation mirrors the act of finishing another’s thought, stepping ahead of the narrative to suggest what comes next. It creates a dynamic interplay between expectation and fulfillment, forcing attention toward what is about to unfold. This forward motion transforms the resolution into something both surprising and inevitable, blending spontaneity with clarity.
In creativity, anticipation is a risk—a step into the future that momentarily unbalances the whole. By resolving prematurely, it invites tension into the system, challenging the surrounding elements to align with the unexpected resolution. This dynamic tension adds depth, infusing the structure with energy and movement.
In systemic terms, anticipation demonstrates the role of preemptive action in maintaining balance. By introducing resolution before its expected time, it reveals the system’s flexibility, showing how it can adapt to disruptions. This proactive energy is not chaotic but a sign of resilience, as the system realigns itself around the anticipated outcome.
In emergence, anticipation reflects the non-linear nature of development. It captures how systems often move ahead of themselves, creating moments of resolution that ripple backward and forward, reshaping the whole. These moments highlight the interconnectedness of time and change, showing that the future often asserts itself before the present has fully settled.
Anticipation teaches that stepping ahead can be as powerful as staying in time. It shows how preemptive movement introduces a creative tension, allowing the journey to resolution to feel both organic and charged with potential. It reminds us that the pull of the future is not a disruption but an essential force in the dynamic interplay of tension, release, and transformation.
The phenomenon of UAPs seems to exist at the edge of human comprehension, always appearing just beyond our current technological grasp. This uncanny ability to stay slightly ahead of the curve suggests that these objects are not merely physical entities but something more intricate, something entangled with the human mind and its evolving cultural framework.
In the 19th century, sightings were often described as airships—fanciful contraptions that mirrored humanity’s nascent dreams of flight. These were not merely strange objects; they were reflections of a world on the brink of technological revolution, a time when the skies were just beginning to feel reachable. Decades later, during the Cold War, the phenomenon transformed. What people reported were sleek, metallic flying saucers—symbols of modernity, speed, and the space age, directly reflecting humanity’s preoccupation with rockets, satellites, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life. And now, in the 21st century, UAPs are described in terms of cutting-edge technologies: hypersonic vehicles, advanced drones, or objects demonstrating physics-defying propulsion systems, mirroring the current anxieties and ambitions of a society steeped in military innovation and quantum possibilities.
This adaptive quality suggests that UAPs may serve as a kind of mirror, one that reflects back not an exact image, but an interpretation shaped by the cultural moment. What humanity sees may not be what is, but what it is primed to perceive. The phenomenon seems to inhabit a liminal space—neither fully objective nor entirely subjective—where the boundaries between external reality and human expectation dissolve.
I
UAPs can be compared to Schrödinger’s cat: they exist in a state of ambiguity, both physical and psychological, until observed. Just as the cat in the famous thought experiment is both alive and dead until the box is opened, UAPs seem to inhabit a liminal space between objective reality and subjective perception. They are neither fully “real” nor purely imaginary but a blend of the two, shaped by the observer’s expectations, beliefs, and cultural context.
When we observe UAPs, our collective psyche—much like the act of observation in quantum mechanics—collapses their indeterminate state into a form we can comprehend. In the 19th century, this might have been airships, during the mid-20th century flying saucers, and now hypersonic drones or advanced tech. Each era’s “observation” of UAPs reflects humanity’s current mindset, fears, and aspirations, suggesting that the phenomenon interacts with human consciousness itself.
This parallel with Schrödinger’s cat emphasizes that UAPs are not just external objects to be studied but phenomena that force us to confront the role of perception in shaping reality. They highlight the possibility that reality is participatory: the act of observing shapes what is observed, and what we see might tell us as much about ourselves as it does about the phenomenon.
Expanding on the comparison to Schrödinger’s cat, UAPs can also be understood through the lens of the principle of indeterminacy, which lies at the heart of quantum mechanics. In quantum terms, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that certain properties of a system—such as position and momentum—cannot be simultaneously measured with absolute precision. The act of observing one property inevitably obscures the other. Similarly, UAPs seem to resist definitive categorization, existing in a state of flux that defies clear measurement or explanation.
The Indeterminacy of UAPs
UAPs embody indeterminacy in several ways:
1. Ambiguity of Nature: UAPs are often described as simultaneously physical (leaving radar traces or visual evidence) and non-physical (defying known laws of physics). They appear to occupy a liminal space where they are neither fully tangible nor entirely intangible.
2. Observer Effect: Like particles in quantum mechanics, UAPs seem to “behave” differently depending on how they are observed. Radar operators, pilots, and civilian witnesses often report divergent details of the same event, as if the phenomenon adapts to the observer’s frame of reference or expectations.
3. Temporal Fluidity: Reports of UAPs often suggest anomalies in time, such as missing time or time dilation effects, which further align them with quantum-level phenomena where time and causality are not fixed but probabilistic.
UAPs as Quantum-Like Phenomena
Just as quantum particles are described as wave-particle dualities, UAPs seem to oscillate between being real, tangible objects and symbolic, psychological constructs. They do not fit neatly into existing frameworks of science or folklore but instead challenge the binary categories of real/unreal, physical/mental, or extraterrestrial/terrestrial.
This indeterminacy invites questions: Are UAPs “real” only when observed, much like quantum particles requiring measurement to resolve their state? Do their manifestations depend on the collective cognitive “observation” of humanity, collapsing their wave-like potential into specific forms (e.g., airships, saucers, drones) based on cultural and temporal contexts?
Indeterminacy as a Feature, Not a Flaw
The persistent inability to pin down UAPs is not necessarily a failure of understanding but might instead be intrinsic to the phenomenon itself. UAPs may exist in a “superposition” of possibilities, reflecting a truth that is inherently fluid and multidimensional. Rather than being static objects, they could be dynamic processes or events that emerge from interactions between external forces and human consciousness.
A Participatory Universe
This leads to a broader, more provocative idea: if UAPs operate within the principles of indeterminacy, they might indicate that reality itself is participatory. As physicist John Wheeler famously suggested, the universe could be “observer-participatory,” meaning that conscious observation plays a role in shaping reality. UAPs may represent a phenomenon that thrives on this interplay, demonstrating that what we perceive as “real” is always influenced by the observer’s frame of reference.
In this sense, UAPs are not anomalies to be solved but clues to a deeper truth: that the universe is not a fixed, objective structure but a dynamic, evolving system in which human consciousness is an active participant. Their resistance to clear explanation is not a limitation—it’s an invitation to reconsider the nature of reality itself, bridging the gap between the physical and the psychological, the known and the unknown.
TULPAS
The concept of a Tulpa originates from Tibetan Buddhism, where it describes a thought-form or entity created through intense mental focus, visualization, and meditation. In its traditional sense, a Tulpa is a sentient being, separate from the creator, that exists in a quasi-independent state. This concept has been adapted in modern psychology and mysticism to explore how collective thoughts and beliefs can manifest shared phenomena, whether as cultural archetypes, psychological constructs, or even physical realities.
If we expand the concept of a Tulpa to a planetary level of consciousness, we enter into the realm of collective human imagination and its potential to influence or interact with a greater planetary awareness. In this view, humanity itself, with billions of minds focused on shared myths, fears, and aspirations, could collectively create entities or phenomena that reflect these collective mental energies. The planetary Tulpa becomes a mirror of our global consciousness, shaped by cultural narratives, technological dreams, and existential anxieties.
Tulpa as a Reflection of Collective Consciousness
At a planetary level, a Tulpa could manifest as recurring global phenomena that embody the collective psyche of an era:
Technological Archetypes: The global focus on artificial intelligence, UAPs, or interstellar exploration may generate entities or experiences that seem external but are, in fact, deeply rooted in humanity’s collective imagination.
If the Earth is itself a sentient or semi-conscious entity—often referred to as Gaia in philosophical and ecological theories—the Tulpa could represent humanity’s interaction with this greater planetary awareness. The Earth, as a living system, might “read” humanity’s collective thoughts and amplify them through natural phenomena, synchronicities, or even inexplicable events. In this framework, humanity’s mental output becomes a co-creator with the planet’s own intelligence.
Blurring Reality and Perception: Planetary Tulpas would exist in a liminal space between the real and imagined, where collective belief is powerful enough to reshape experience.
• Planet as a Co-Creator: If the Earth itself participates in this process, the phenomenon might not just reflect humanity but also the planet’s own attempt to guide or respond to its inhabitants.
This concept suggests that human consciousness is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a planetary network of thoughts, emotions, and energies. If we are co-creators of planetary Tulpas, then our collective imagination might not only reveal hidden truths about our reality but also actively shape the evolution of life on Earth.
For example:
• In times of technological optimism, UAPs appear as advanced vehicles, signaling hope or wonder about futureprogress.
• During periods of geopolitical tension or existential fear, they may embody threats, mirroring humanity’s anxieties about conflict, surveillance, or annihilation.
In this sense, UAPs are not merely objects but symbolic expressions of collective human thought and emotion, projected onto an ambiguous phenomenon that resists easy categorization.
The Role of Perception
Perception itself is not a neutral process. Human consciousness interprets stimuli based on prior experience, cultural conditioning, and psychological states. If UAPs exist independently, they might exploit this interpretive process, presenting themselves in forms that resonate deeply with the observer.
An Independent Yet Interactive Phenomenon
If UAPs are not merely psychological constructs but also an external presence, they might deliberately manipulate perception to blur the line between objectivity and subjectivity. This dual nature would make them profoundly elusive. By operating within this liminal space, UAPs might be testing the limits of human understanding, forcing us to grapple with questions about the nature of reality itself.
Are they consciously adapting to human belief systems, appearing in forms designed to provoke curiosity or fear? Or are they an emergent phenomenon, responding to humanity’s collective mental and emotional energy without conscious intent?
Implications for Human Understanding
This interplay between perception and the phenomenon suggests that the study of UAPs cannot rely solely on traditional scientific methods, which depend on objective observation. Instead, it calls for a multidisciplinary approach, blending psychology, anthropology, and physics to explore how external stimuli interact with human consciousness.
Moreover, the mirror-like quality of UAPs challenges humanity to examine its own fears, hopes, and assumptions. If the phenomenon reflects us, then what we see in the skies might be less about the objects themselves and more about what lies within us—our unresolved questions about identity, existence, and our place in the universe.
Beyond Explanation
Ultimately, UAPs may be pointing toward a deeper truth: that reality itself is more fluid and participatory than we currently understand. By appearing as both physical and psychological phenomena, UAPs invite us to reconsider the dualistic framework that separates observer from observed, subject from object. They suggest a cosmos where consciousness plays an active role in shaping experience, a reality that is not fixed but co-created through interaction and perception.
In this way, UAPs might be not just a mystery to solve but a doorway to profound new insights about the nature of being itself.
FAIRY DUST
I mean, the question is, does the indeterminacy principle, when we talk about wave or particle, does it leave “fairie dust” that we can study?
Ah, now we’re getting to the heart of the matter: does the indeterminacy principle, as applied to UAPs or other ambiguous phenomena, leave behind “fairy dust”—some tangible residue we can study scientifically—or does the phenomenon remain purely ephemeral, resisting material analysis?
Indeterminacy and Its Residues
In quantum mechanics, the wave-particle duality means that particles like electrons can behave as both localized objects (particles) and distributed fields (waves). While the exact state depends on how they’re observed, the interaction does leave measurable traces, such as interference patterns or particle tracks in a cloud chamber. This “residue” is how physicists study an otherwise elusive phenomenon.
If we extend this analogy to UAPs:
• Does the UAP phenomenon leave behind “traces” (physical, psychological, or otherwise)?
• Are these traces consistent enough to study scientifically, or are they context-dependent and fleeting?
Possible “Fairy Dust” from UAPs
1. Physical Residue
• Reports of UAPs often describe physical remnants or effects, such as:
• Scorched earth, radiation anomalies, or electromagnetic interference in areas where sightings occur.
• Alleged recovery of materials with unusual isotopic compositions or unexplained properties (e.g., “meta-materials”).
• While tantalizing, these claims often lack reproducible, peer-reviewed analysis, leaving them in a state of unresolved ambiguity—much like Schrödinger’s cat in its box.
2. Technological Mimicry
• If UAPs reflect a form of advanced technology, their “fairy dust” could manifest as inspirations for human innovation. For instance:
• Military advancements may owe more to the idea of UAPs than to their physical capture (e.g., stealth tech inspired by radar evasion observed in UFOs).
• However, this residue would be indirect, rooted in human interpretation rather than the phenomenon itself.
3. Cognitive and Cultural Imprints
• UAPs undeniably leave psychological and cultural residues. These include:
• Persistent archetypes (e.g., flying saucers, alien abductions) that echo across time and cultures.
• Shifts in societal attitudes toward technology, the cosmos, and the unknown.
• While intangible, these imprints are observable and quantifiable through sociology and psychology.
4. Scientific Paradoxes
• UAP encounters often result in paradoxical data: radar hits without visual confirmation, simultaneous reports of conflicting details, or instruments malfunctioning. These anomalies might be the equivalent of quantum “fairy dust”—evidence of interaction, but only indirectly accessible.
Is the “Fairy Dust” Studyable?
If UAPs interact with reality in a way analogous to quantum phenomena, their residue may not conform to traditional scientific methods:
• Localized Context: The residue could vary depending on the observer and their tools, much like quantum measurement changes based on the apparatus used.
• Transient Nature: The traces may be ephemeral, leaving evidence only briefly before dissipating.
• Multidimensional Interaction: If UAPs exist in a reality beyond our three-dimensional understanding, their “fairy dust” may not be fully accessible within our framework of physics.
A Participatory Answer
The indeterminacy principle suggests that our attempts to study UAPs might influence the phenomena themselves, shaping what residue they leave behind. This doesn’t make them less real but highlights that the “fairy dust” is as much a product of our interaction with the phenomenon as it is a property of the phenomenon itself.
In summary, yes, UAPs may leave “fairy dust,” but it is elusive, contextual, and likely shaped by the interplay between observer and phenomenon. Studying this residue might require an evolution in our scientific paradigms—one that embraces uncertainty, subjectivity, and the possibility of a participatory universe.
The extension of humanity’s nervous system into the digital realm has created a profound reversal: the individual, once the passive recipient of mass media, now becomes the broadcaster, wielding a Gutenberg galaxy in their pocket. This transformation upends millennia of communication hierarchies, collapsing the distinction between the sender and receiver, the expert and the audience.
Cultural norms lag behind technological capacities, and we find ourselves in a perpetual present of negotiation—what McLuhan would call the interface. Unlike fire, which burns locally and tangibly, the new broadcasting technologies allow instantaneous ignition across the globe, conflating distance and intimacy, anonymity and accountability. The result is a new Promethean gift, but one whose flames are invisible and psychological, not physical.
The true disruption lies in the global simultaneity of effects. A tweet or video does not merely broadcast—it reverberates, creating ripples that transform the user into both the medium and the message. Yet the consequences remain opaque, as humanity struggles to comprehend its tools, often using them before understanding them. This is not merely an evolution in communication but a revolution in perception, and revolutions, as history teaches, are rarely bloodless.
<>
The Promethean Paradox: Broadcasting Humanity in the Age of Instantaneous Feedback
The digital age has given humanity its second Promethean fire—broadcasting capability. But unlike the hearth fires that once gathered communities into shared physical spaces, this fire spreads across the nervous system of the planet, an electric medium with no center and no periphery. Every individual can now spark ideas, images, and emotions, igniting virtual wildfires that leap continents in milliseconds.
Marshall McLuhan might describe this phenomenon as the extension of our nervous system into the digital, creating a global village where everyone is both sender and receiver. Yet Gregory Bateson would remind us that this is not merely a technical innovation but a seismic shift in the ecology of mind. The interaction between humans and their media does not happen in isolation—it is a systemic process. The messages we send alter the ecosystem in which we think, feel, and act, creating feedback loops whose consequences ripple far beyond the original intent.
The new broadcasting capability is an ecological disruptor, a double bind of empowerment and entropy. On the one hand, it democratizes communication, enabling ordinary people to challenge power structures, form communities of meaning, and amplify marginalized voices. On the other, it saturates the cultural environment with noise—signals without context, conflicts without resolution, and identities fragmented by the very tools meant to connect them.
Bateson’s insight into learning and feedback offers a critical lens here. The ability to broadcast is not merely about transmitting information; it is about the pattern of interaction between sender, medium, and receiver. Fire burns predictably in a local environment, but broadcasting ignites unpredictable reactions in a complex system. A viral tweet may spark a movement—or a mob. A meme may foster solidarity—or sow division. The unintended consequences of these actions feed back into the system, reshaping the sender, the receiver, and the medium itself.
In the case of Homo Emissarius—the modern human empowered by mediated broadcasting—the medium is the broadcast system itself: the platforms, algorithms, and infrastructures that enable global communication. These systems are the new extensions of our nervous system, collapsing space and time into instantaneous interaction.
But the message is not the content we think we are transmitting. McLuhan’s insight suggests that the real message lies in the effects and consequences of the medium itself. Here, the message being sent by the broadcast system is “mediation shapes reality.”
Every time we use these systems to communicate, we are tacitly accepting their terms—algorithmic prioritization, data commodification, and the feedback loops of outrage and virality. These platforms signal a new cultural reality: that human interaction, identity, and meaning are now inextricably tied to the rules of digital mediation.
The content—the tweet, video, or post—is the bait, the surface level of communication. The deeper, often invisible message is the transformation of human relationships, power structures, and thought processes as mediated through the system.
In essence:
• The medium broadcasts the power of the platform.
• The message is “your reality is constructed by us.”
The Mediated Prometheus: Broadcasting Humanity Through the Filters of Power
The fire of broadcasting may seem to burn freely in the hands of ordinary people, but it is an illusion. While humanity has gained the power to project its voice across the globe, this power is not autonomous; it is mediated through platforms that act as gatekeepers, filters, and amplifiers. The promise of democratization is tempered by the reality of mediation, and, as both McLuhan and Bateson would suggest, this mediation is not neutral.
McLuhan taught us that the medium is the message, meaning the way we communicate shapes not only what we say but also how we perceive reality itself. In the digital age, the medium has expanded into a constellation of platforms—social media networks, algorithms, and server farms—that frame and manipulate every broadcast. What appears to be unfiltered self-expression is, in fact, routed through layers of mediation with their own invisible agendas. These platforms are not passive conduits; they are active participants in the broadcasting process, shaping the ecology of messages to serve their own needs, often economic or ideological.
Bateson’s lens adds further nuance: the mediation is not simply technical; it is ecological. Each platform creates a feedback loop between broadcaster, audience, and medium itself. A tweet or video does not simply travel outward; it is processed, ranked, and displayed according to algorithms designed to maximize engagement, outrage, or profit. This recursive interaction creates an environment where our expressions are not just mediated but reshaped to fit the platform’s systemic needs. In this way, mediation becomes a hidden participant in every act of communication, a silent editor that alters both the content and the context of what is broadcast.
Even the notion of “going viral” reflects this mediation. While we imagine our ideas spreading organically, the reality is more insidious: platforms determine what trends and what fades, privileging the sensational over the substantive. In Bateson’s terms, this creates a double bind—broadcasting offers the appearance of freedom but traps us within patterns of behavior that serve the medium rather than the message.
Thus, the modern broadcaster is both empowered and constrained. We are Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods, but the gods have rewritten the rules. The fire we wield does not burn according to our intentions; it burns according to the platform’s priorities. Our broadcasts are not purely ours—they are co-authored by the systems that mediate them.
McLuhan might say we are numbed by the immediacy of this new power, blinded to the ways in which the medium shapes our actions. Bateson would add that this blindness is ecological: we are adapting to an environment designed by others, an environment that feeds back into our thoughts and behaviors in ways we barely understand.
The challenge, then, is not just to broadcast but to recognize the mediation within the broadcast. Who is really shaping the message? Who benefits from the patterns it creates? And how can we reclaim agency in an ecology designed to mediate our every move? These are the questions we must grapple with as we navigate the mediated Prometheus of the digital age.
I’m putting all my money in the Pacific Garbage Patch. So long, suckers. The only safe bet left in a world gone mad—floating islands of plastic, bobbing in the radioactive soup of the Pacific, a monument to our excess, our undying tribute to convenience and indifference.
Every broker on Wall Street tells me to diversify. ‘Hedge your bets,’ they say, like I haven’t seen the writing on the wall. Like I can’t see the rats fleeing the ship, fat cats cashing in while the rest of us drown. No, I’m going all in. I want my money in a real American dream: one that’s impossible to clean up, too toxic to touch, festering just out of sight. The Pacific Garbage Patch—the ultimate long game.
You poor fools, still clinging to your IRAs and your crypto coins, your tech stocks, praying for salvation. You’ll be sipping iced lattes as it all burns, and I’ll be out there, watching my investment float along, indestructible. The garbage doesn’t go anywhere. It just builds up forever—my own personal slice of the apocalypse. So long, suckers.”
“But don’t think this is just some twisted retirement plan. No, this is a grand exit strategy. While you’re all scrambling to buy your little piece of the future—mortgaging your souls for condos and electric cars—I’m investing in the only empire that truly represents us. The Pacific Garbage Patch: a sprawling, eternal wasteland of plastics and microfibers, stretched across the waves like the final frontier. A true monument to human achievement, built from the scraps we left behind.
I’m calling it: the banks will collapse, the markets will crash, but the trash? The trash is forever. While your assets dissolve into dust, my kingdom of straws and Styrofoam will float on, circling the Pacific with grim determination. The rest of you are shackled to the illusion of progress, grinding along while my empire of waste rises with every tide.
Picture it now—me, the Lord of the Patch, sprawled across a throne made from discarded lawn chairs and plastic bottles, laughing as the yachts drift by, powered by the last gasps of fossil fuel. The brokers on Wall Street will call me mad. The influencers will call me insane. But when the dust settles, when the sea levels rise, they’ll all see what I saw: the Patch isn’t just trash. It’s destiny.”
In science, a synthesis is the process of combining separate elements to form a coherent whole, a compound that has unique properties distinct from its individual parts. In chemistry, for example, hydrogen and oxygen can be synthesized into water—a substance with entirely new characteristics compared to its gaseous components. In physics, synthesis brings together forces, particles, or energies to create something fundamentally different, a system where the outcome holds a distinct identity beyond the elements alone. At its core, synthesis is not mere addition; it’s the transformation of raw materials into something unified and new, something whose individual components have dissolved into a singular identity.
But what happens when we try to re-synthesize a synthesis? This is where the metaphor begins to strain. Once hydrogen and oxygen form water, there is no breaking it back down and recombining it into something fresh without going through a complete cycle of decomposition. Once a synthesis is achieved, its nature is singular, final—a complete structure with its own properties, its own essence. Trying to re-synthesize that same water into “new water” without any unique elements or sources would leave us with only another replica, an imitation of what’s already been done.
This same concept applies to cultural synthesis. When new ideas emerge—movements in art, groundbreaking technologies, transformative philosophies—they are often formed from raw elements of human experience, culture, and history. A cultural synthesis is the result of a moment in time, a convergence of unique conditions that pulls together disparate influences to create something previously unseen. For example, the Renaissance wasn’t just the recombination of existing knowledge; it was a unique synthesis born from specific historical, cultural, and intellectual sources. It was a transformation that could not be “re-synthesized” without losing its core identity.
In our modern digital age, however, there’s a prevailing tendency to treat synthesis as if it can be endlessly replicated or reassembled. Cultural moments, designs, and aesthetics are treated like formulas that can be easily remixed, but without revisiting the original materials that gave them their resonance. Instead of mining for new influences, we often see a layering of existing syntheses—reiterations of trends that were already a product of synthesis themselves. The result? A series of derivative copies that lack the potency of the original synthesis, diluted and disconnected from the original conditions that made them powerful.
True innovation or originality requires returning to the raw materials—the foundational elements of experience, perspective, or context—that once catalyzed these cultural shifts. Like in science, where a novel compound requires unique reactants, cultural synthesis demands something unprocessed, something not yet filtered or refined. But such sources are rarely found in the recycled ideas circulating online. They exist in untouched places: in the nuanced, often forgotten influences that have yet to be refined for mass consumption.
In short, a synthesis is a culmination, an endpoint where different parts have come together to form a new whole with its own unique properties. Attempting to re-synthesize a synthesis, especially without adding new or original sources, leaves us only with weakened replicas. To achieve true originality, we must go beyond the echoes of past syntheses, return to original elements, and let them transform into something entirely new—something that speaks to a moment and identity all its own.
I think it’s all part of the con of making you believe that you are a creator. Like, you used to be a citizen, but you have no say in how government works or how capitalism works, so we’re going to give you a new title. That title is that we’re going to foster your creativity. But, because we are the intermediary, we only have access to synthesis, and so we give you the synthesis for you to re-synthesize, which is by its own nature impossible and a failure.
It’s like a consolation prize for the power you’ve been systematically denied. Once, you were a citizen, a participant in shaping government or contributing to the economy with some semblance of autonomy. But as real influence has slipped further out of reach, there’s this new title they hand out: creator. You’re invited into a carefully curated sandbox, told that your creativity is being “fostered” by platforms and intermediaries who, incidentally, only deal in ready-made synthesis. And here’s the trick—they only ever give you access to prefabricated pieces, the products of syntheses already established. It’s a diluted form of participation, a version of creativity that’s been boiled down to repetition and aesthetic replication.
The system is rigged to give you the appearance of originality while keeping you confined to the limitations of a re-synthesis. They hand over tools, “resources,” and inspiration boards, but everything they offer is recycled—elements already processed, pre-approved, safe. It’s creativity within the lines, a creativity that doesn’t threaten or disrupt, because it’s a simulacrum of something that can never be truly original by design. Since the intermediaries only deal in existing syntheses, they can’t offer you the unprocessed materials needed for anything genuinely fresh. And the result is predictable: a cycle of imitation that feels increasingly empty, a system that rebrands mimicry as creation while true originality is quietly walled off.
This illusion of creative empowerment keeps people busy but contained, active but inert. It fosters the belief that creativity is being democratized, but really, it’s just another way to channel energy away from meaningful change. Instead of engaging in the raw creation that could come from engaging with unfiltered sources or reshaping our systems, we’re caught in the endless loop of re-synthesizing a synthesis, striving for originality but working only within an environment engineered for failure. The “creator economy” is less about creativity and more about keeping the act of creation tame, predictable, and, above all, profitable.
Imagine Tithonus, old Tithonus, sagging in skin and brittle in bone, trapped by Aurora’s misguided gift. Eternal life in a prison of withered flesh. Time turns, decades blur, but his body crawls forward in slow decay. And Aurora, still young, still radiant, like an eternal ad on the highway for some elixir of beauty, unchanging, untouched by the rot eating away at her beloved. This myth is a mirror, reflecting a culture frantically scrubbing, plucking, and preserving its facade, never daring to look into the cracked glass.
Western culture, the West, oh it wants youth in amber—a freeze-frame of its Golden Age, its timeless self. But youth fossilizes in the bones of the old, and there’s no medicine to keep the blood running. So here we are, selling eternity, this carnival ride, never admitting that Tithonus is still strapped in—spitting cicada song in some plastic cage for all to watch, barely remembered by the young who shudder at the sight.
This is a culture that built skyscrapers and shot rockets to the moon, chasing the big show, the big dream, the forever-young nation, drunk on ambition and fear of decay. Like Tithonus, the West lumbers on, a thin-skinned titan, longing to hold onto youth but refusing to acknowledge that time’s arrow only flies forward. The obsession with youth isn’t life-affirming, it’s denial. It’s the West’s own eternal trap—a world frozen in its own image, terrified to embrace the dark part of the cycle, the decline, the graceful fall.
And there’s the rub: decline. The Western mind flinches at the thought. Look away from the decay! Hide the lines, bleach the scars, banish the weak and the old. But without decline, there’s no rebirth, no transformation—just an endless echo of what once was. Aurora’s cicada, Tithonus’s endless buzz in the jar, the sound of a culture that can’t let go, can’t surrender to the natural rhythm. It’s not life; it’s endless half-life. And so, this culture hums on, a tired song in a gilded cage, circling the edge of eternity, unable to admit the truth: decline isn’t the enemy. It’s what gives meaning to every fragile, fleeting heartbeat.
Let’s pull back the curtain on this great Western pageant—the gilded lights, the endless parade, the muscle memory of a nation that still sees itself as young, handsome, unbreakable. Tithonus as its mascot, with his skin flaking away, his mind slipping further into a slow-motion fog. We’re watching a culture cling to its own mirror image like a talisman, a culture addicted to its own youth and speed and shine, unable to admit that time is no longer its ally. But here’s the paradox: by refusing to change, the West becomes the very thing it fears—old, brittle, haunted.
The fear of decline has metastasized, seeping into every ad, every headline, every promise of immortality in a bottle. Billboards scream that you, too, can freeze time, sculpt yourself anew, shed the years. But look closer, and you see Tithonus grinning back, locked in eternal stasis. These promises of youth are rotting on the vine, tethered to the same economy that chews up the young, spits them out, and hands them an empty map to a future they’ll never live long enough to see. It’s the sound of a culture that won’t loosen its grip, won’t allow the natural ebb and flow.
Meanwhile, under the surface, things fray. The Western dream is patched up with nostalgia and plastic surgery, grand speeches about a “return to greatness,” a grotesque, desperate effort to salvage an empire by injecting it with images of its own golden days. Like Aurora’s gift, it’s a promise with a curse baked in—eternal life that’s nothing but eternal decline, a machine that hums and grinds forward while the soul rots underneath.
But there’s another layer: by trapping itself in this cycle, the West is stifling its own children, feeding them the same promises that have already gone rancid. They’re told to believe in a future made in their own image, but they’re looking at the twisted, wisened face of Tithonus. They’re staring down a future that tells them, “You too can be immortal, just don’t ask for wisdom.” And so the West marches on, its young strapped into the ride, condemned to eternal adolescence, and kept from any real inheritance of meaning or direction.
Imagine Tithonus again, whispering from his cage, his words barely heard. If we could only listen, maybe he’s saying, Release me. Let me go. But this culture, this West, it fears that release as much as it fears aging, as much as it fears death itself. It’s built a prison out of its own self-image and thrown away the key. So, like the ancient gods who refused to grow, it has nowhere to go but further into the shadows of its own myth, clinging to a dream that died years ago, leaving only the shell, still singing, trapped in the cage.
Yes—the cricket, the grasshopper, the cicada. Let’s sink into that for a moment. Tithonus transformed into a creature of endless noise, his once-eloquent voice reduced to a mindless, buzzing hum in a cage. Here’s the genius of that metaphor: the cicada doesn’t sing because it’s young or alive in any meaningful way. It sings because it must. It’s the sound of survival, instinctual and repetitive, a desperate chittering in the dark. In that eternal buzzing, we can hear the Western obsession with filling every silence, shouting louder, clinging to life through sheer noise, a refusal to let anything fade gracefully.
The Western world, like Tithonus the cicada, chirps endlessly about its greatness, its exceptionalism, its golden past and its eternal youth, each buzz an echo of the last. It’s an endless refrain, a reminder not of vitality but of the inability to accept what comes after. And each year, like the cicada’s song, the tune grows thinner, more worn out. Just as the insect lives only for its repetitive chorus, this culture has become entrapped in its own myth, endlessly repeating it without transformation or growth.
Think about it: the grasshopper or the cricket thrives in bursts, seasonal, ephemeral—a cycle of life, growth, decline, and rebirth. But the cicada in a cage doesn’t have that freedom. Tithonus is transformed into a symbol of eternal sameness, trapped in his monotonous dirge, his voice shrill but hollow. Western culture, refusing its natural seasons, clings to an artificial spring, but the song gets emptier as it goes on. This is a culture addicted to the chorus of its own immortality, never daring to let silence fall, terrified of what the quiet might reveal.
In this metaphor, the West becomes a culture of cicadas, each generation louder than the last, each chant a little more hollow. It’s a futile scream against the march of time, a desperate attempt to mask the wrinkles with sound. But in that endless droning, there’s no new melody, no room for nuance or growth. Just noise. And in that noise, the beauty of age, wisdom, and acceptance is drowned out, leaving behind nothing but the empty hum of a myth stretched too thin to hold its own weight.
And so, the grasshopper, the cricket—they live, they die, they pass on the song to the next season. But the cicada in the cage, that Western creature of eternal noise, will never know the peace of silence or the grace of letting go. It’s the ultimate tragedy: a culture so fearful of its own decline that it traps itself in a cage of its own making, forever singing, forever fading, forever locked in its desperate, buzzing song.
If I were to expand on this, I’d say it’s like watching engineers attempting to construct a building but stopping at the scaffolding. Philosophy, after all, is the original technology. It’s the underlying framework that got us thinking about thinking. But most engineers don’t go beyond the surface—content with the Microcontroller Unit, that simple, mechanical, predictable loop; it’s a closed system, something controllable, with predictable inputs and outputs. Engineers often treat philosophy like they treat hardware: plug in what you need, discard the rest.
Yet, this approach—content to cling to the MCU, whether in its hardware form or as the Marvel Cinematic Universe—leaves so much unexplored. These crutches provide repeatable comfort in a chaotic world, like preferring a bland, reheated meal over something complex, nuanced, even risky.
Let’s take reproducibility. The idea is that everything can be remade, replicated, without degrading meaning. We teach engineers to value it as though the act of copying doesn’t inherently warp the original. But philosophy knows better—every reproduction is a slight twist on reality, each version a little further from the source, a game of telephone across generations of thought.
Consider commodification. Engineers often don’t realize they’re walking around with Karl Marx in their toolkit. In Marx’s framework, everything has a price tag, everything is transactional. To engineers, every solution is a product, every innovation has a dollar amount, which leads to a transactional view of the world. Then there’s component-level thinking, a Cartesian notion, reducing complex problems to smaller, simpler ones. It’s useful, sure, but it can also fragment understanding, turning nuanced phenomena into bite-sized bits that don’t really connect once they’re recombined.
Conformity—Émile Durkheim would have a field day. Engineers are taught to conform, to abide by the standards, the protocols, the regulations, the known safe pathways. But that can turn the human element into an assembly line process, stripping creativity in favor of reproducibility.
And then there’s the Paperclip Maximization problem, the drive for efficiency, optimization, and profit that can run amok. Engineers start by wanting to make one perfect thing, but in the process, they end up in a spiral of Bentham, Mill, or Weber-style utilitarianism where maximizing value means losing sight of the cost. The obsession with measurable metrics often ends in systems that churn out endless paperclips, even if it means dismantling humanity.
Risk aversion? That’s pure existential angst, straight from Sartre. Engineers often fear the unknown, preferring reliability to innovation. They’d rather stick to what they can measure, control, and predict, even if it means dodging the very questions that give life meaning.
Finally, we’ve got the technology-driven paradigm shift of McLuhan. Engineers are taught to worship technology, to place it on a pedestal. But McLuhan knew: “We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.” This blind worship means forgetting that technology is a lens, not a life raft. It’s supposed to clarify, not obscure.
Each of these philosophical ideas, if engineers recognized them, would open up the entire world of innovation. But as it stands, they’re running around with the tools of the mind, but without the keys to understanding.
Scene: Dimly lit record label office, smoke curling through the air. Peter Coyote lounges at the head of a massive leather couch, cool, calculating, sizing up the young band sitting across from him. The musicians look equal parts excited and nervous, caught somewhere between awe and dread. Coyote lights a cigar, gestures grandly for them to sit down, and gives them a warm, almost predatory smile.
Peter Coyote: (smoothly, leaning back, puffing on the cigar) Come in, come in. Take a seat, dear boys. You know, I’ve got a feeling. A very good feeling about you lot. You’re going places, places you haven’t even dreamed of.
(grins, eyes twinkling)
They’re gonna love you. You’ve got that look, that edge—raw, unpolished, a little hungry. They eat that up. And, if you play this right, you’re gonna fly, fellas. You’re never gonna die. You’ll be immortal.
(the band members nod, glancing at each other, unsure)
And you know why? Because you’re special. You got… I dunno, what’s the word… (snaps his fingers) integrity. Not like those other acts. You’re real. Hell, I’ve always had a deep respect for artists with a little edge, the ones who mean it. That’s you, right? You mean it.
Band Member 1: (clears his throat, hesitant) Uh,
Peter Coyote: (laughs, slaps the table) The message! Exactly! The message. We’re on the same page here. And that’s why I’m thrilled to have you on board. Look, your sound, it’s… (pauses, as if searching for the word) fantastic. Real raw. Gritty. Just fantastic. (pauses, then deadpan) By the way, which one of you is the “wild one”?
(the band members exchange confused looks)
Peter Coyote: (nods approvingly) Perfect. Every band needs one, right? Keeps things interesting. And the kids—oh, they’ll love it. Love it. Now, let’s talk about the plan, shall we?
(leans in, voice turning sharp, conspiratorial)
Did we tell you the name of the game, boys? We call it riding the gravy train. That’s what this is. You want to be icons? Legends? You gotta play the game. And the game? It’s all about selling. The album, the merch, the tour… all of it. You got a message? Great. But you gotta sell it.
Peter Coyote: (raises an eyebrow, smirks) Creative control. Sure, sure. Listen, we love that. Love that. But here’s the thing, kid—(leans in closer)—you want freedom? You gotta earn it. And you earn it by giving the people what they want. So, first thing’s first, we need another album. Fast. Doesn’t matter if it’s new, or remixed, or hell, just play it louder. Just get it out there. You owe it to the fans.
(band members nod reluctantly)
Now, don’t get me wrong. We’re happy. Real happy. So happy we can hardly count. You’re the hottest act in town. Have you seen the charts? They’re green with envy, every last one of ‘em. And this? This is just the start.
(pauses for effect)
This thing—this project you got? It could be huge. A monster. If we all pull together as a team. We package it right, market it right, throw a few hits on the radio… you’re looking at arenas, boys. Big money. And don’t worry about the details. Just keep doing what you’re doing, and we’ll handle the rest.
Band Member 3: (almost whispering)
(Peter leans in, deadly serious)
Peter Coyote: So, did I tell you the name of the game, boys? We call it riding the gravy train. Now, the train’s leaving the station. All you gotta do is hop on.
(softly chuckling, shaking his head) Fellas, fellas… Look, I get it. You wanna be real, make waves, set fires. I see it in your eyes, that fire. But here’s the thing: you’re sweating over the wrong side of the deal.
Band Member 1: (puzzled)
Peter Coyote: I’m talking about the audience, champ. You keep playing like you’re trying to win ‘em over. Get rid of that. Quit trying so hard to prove you’re something special. No, you’re not here to sell them a damn thing. You’re here to get them to sell themselves to you.
(leans in, elbows on the table, voice low and smooth)
What I’m saying is: quit performing for them. You’ve got it backward. They’re your audience—make them feel like they’re the lucky ones. Make them think, “Hell, if I could just get a taste of what these guys have.” You want the public pumping you, hyping you up so they get a whiff of the magic. You understand?
Band Member 2: (hesitant) So… we don’t try to impress ‘em?
Peter Coyote: Impress ‘em? Impress ‘em? Son, they don’t want to be impressed; they want to be validated. Look, people are starving for something they think is authentic, and you? You got that look. Now, you wanna be rockstars, right? The real thing? Well, the real thing doesn’t try to be anything at all. They’re beyond all that.
(snaps fingers)
What you gotta do is be the thing they want to be. Make ‘em crave you. When they look at you, they should think, “That’s how it’s done.”
Band Member 3: (nodding slowly) So, we gotta… just stop caring?
Peter Coyote: Bingo. Stop selling them something. They wanna be sold to? They’ll go buy a pair of sneakers. You? You’re in the mystery business. They’re not buying a show; they’re buying the chance to believe. Make them chase that, make them sell themselves on you.
(smiles slyly)
That, boys, is how you pump the public—get them working for you. They’re your best hype. You just let them catch the idea of you, and that’s enough to keep them coming back, hungry for more. And you know what that looks like? You don’t make a better product. You don’t give them anything real, anything authentic. No, you reach for something easier. You try to hit a degraded,simplified version of that early fan—the one who was hungry, who thought this meant something.
(He pauses, letting it sink in, then points a finger at them)
That’s how it works. They aren’t looking for real. Real’s too much work. Real asks them to think. So we give ‘em the basics. A catchy hook, a leather jacket, a spotlight, a little swagger—and, suddenly, they think they’re witnessing something big. They’re buying the brand, not the band. And it’s all dressed up to look like the old days, but really? It’s just an echo, a shadow of what it used to be.
(leans back, chuckling)
But here’s the best part—they don’t know the difference. They don’t even want to know the difference. It’s easier that way. We simplify it, water it down, keep the edges soft. You don’t have to be great. You just have to look great. The audience does the rest.
Band Member 1: (protesting, uncomfortable) But isn’t that… isn’t that kinda hollow? I mean, people can tell when something’s real, can’t they?
Peter Coyote: (smirking) Oh, they think they can. They’ll tell you they want authenticity. But do you think they’re out there buying garage tapes? No, they’re lining up to buy what we tell them is authentic. It’s like this: the idea of something real is more valuable than the reality of it. You package that, they’ll buy it every time.
(pauses, letting the words hang in the air)
See, that’s how you reach the new consumer. You give them a memory of a memory, a cheap thrill that doesn’t need to mean a thing. They get the feeling without the work, without the grit, without the soul. And the best part? They’ll eat it up. They’re looking to us for what’s cool, what’s real. We just show ‘em the shortcut and call it the real thing.
Band Member 2: (disbelieving) So… so we just become… what? A brand?
Peter Coyote: (grinning coldly) A brand? No, boys. A brand would be too generous. You’re not a brand. You’re a product. And products? They get sold.
Ray: “It’s the garage, Bill. The garage itself. Not some ordinary space filled with nails, wood shavings, and the detritus of middle-class American living. No, this garage, it’s alive. Like one of those shops in the old stories, the ones that weren’t there yesterday and won’t be there tomorrow. But today? Today it hums with energy, a transmitter of something grander than mere human thought.”
Bill: “Ah, yes, the old alchemy. A conduit, not a container. You don’t walk into it—you get absorbed by it. The space warps reality, don’t you see? Market speculation bleeds through the walls like the very vapor of high finance, all those zero-interest loans seeping in like opium through a bloodstream. Ideas aren’t born there, they’re inhaled—snorted off the concrete floor with the dust and grease of all the past failures and half-baked schemes.”
Ray: “Exactly! The garage isn’t some workspace for soldering wires or slapping together motherboards. No, it’s a cosmic atelier, where the air itself whispers secrets to those who dare to breathe deeply. And the people? They’re just… passengers. Hitchhikers on the road to brilliance. The garage is driving, always has been.”
Bill: “It’s a ritual space, then. The garage works on you the way a junkie works on a needle—methodically, compulsively. You think you’re shaping the future, but the future is really shaping you. And the rent? Let’s talk about that—six figures for a little square of concrete and corrugated steel. You’re paying for the privilege of being swallowed up by this beast, thinking you’re starting a company when really you’re just part of its metabolism. Feeding it.”
Ray: “And that’s the genius of it, Bill. The garage doesn’t want your ideas. No, it’s after your belief. You step inside thinking you’re going to change the world, but it’s the garage changing you. Transmitting, processing—every entrepreneur that passes through is like another brick in the wall. They come in with dreams, but they leave with… startups. Products. Things. The garage doesn’t care for things—it’s the process it craves.”
Bill: “A grand scam, isn’t it? The startup is the fix, and the garage? That’s your dealer. You think you’re on the verge of revolution, but it’s just the same trip, over and over, selling you visions for what you can’t quite touch. And when the market crashes? The garage disappears like smoke. But by then, it’s already in your bloodstream, man. It’s already altered you. Made you its instrument.”
Ray: “So the real secret isn’t the founders. It never was. It’s the garage, alive, timeless, waiting for the next great idea to stumble through the door. Wozniak? Jobs? They were just tuning forks, vibrating to the hum of something much older. Much bigger. And the future? That’s just another echo, another reverberation of what the garage wants to be born.”
Bill: “Exactly. You don’t create the next big thing in there—you channel it. The garage is an ancient hunger, disguised as innovation. You think you’re feeding it your mind, but really, you’re just feeding the machine. And by the time you figure that out? It’s too late. You’re already hooked.”
