On February 24th, 2020, before COVID-19 was officially acknowledged as a pandemic, I experienced something very strange on the street. As I was walking, a man with a heavy Eastern European accent, a shaved head, and dressed in a white shirt and beige suit approached me. He politely greeted me and then disclosed that he had just been released from a mental institution. He proceeded to ask me what day it was, and when I responded that it was Monday, he corrected me and asked for the date. I had to take a moment to recall the date, but I eventually responded that it was February 24th. He thanked me and then left, bowing politely.

What made this encounter particularly eerie was that earlier that same morning, I had been reading about time travel, mental institutions, viral pandemics, La Jetee, 12 Monkeys, and other related topics. And to add to the strangeness, right after the encounter, or maybe at the same time, I received a text message from a friend who had been in Vegas over the weekend, canceling our meeting scheduled for later that day at 5 pm, saying that he was sick as a dog and joking that he had COVID-19. The coincidence of these events left me feeling bewildered and spooked.

Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher, proposed three different syntheses of time in his book “Difference and Repetition”. These syntheses are the passive synthesis of the living present, the passive synthesis of the pure past, and the static synthesis of the future.

The passive synthesis of the living present is the synthesis that allows us to perceive the world around us in the present moment. It involves the synthesis of various sensory perceptions, which creates our experience of the present. This synthesis is passive because it happens automatically, without any conscious effort on our part.

The passive synthesis of the pure past, on the other hand, involves the recall of past experiences and memories. This synthesis is also passive, as it happens automatically when we are reminded of past experiences. However, it differs from the first synthesis in that it is not directly related to the present moment. Instead, it involves a kind of mental time travel, where we relive past experiences in our minds.

Finally, the static synthesis of the future is the synthesis that allows us to imagine and plan for the future. Unlike the other two syntheses, the static synthesis of the future is active, as it requires conscious effort to imagine and plan for future possibilities. It involves the synthesis of various possibilities and choices, which we use to make decisions about the future.

Together, these three syntheses of time show how our perception of time is not just a linear progression of past, present, and future, but rather a complex and dynamic interplay of different temporal modes.

In regards to the prevalence of online analysis and criticism, it can be argued that it has become so widespread that it has taken over the very thing it aims to critique. We live in a world where people feel compelled to blog, journal, podcast, write newsletters, and engage in online writing about everything, including their own analysis and judgments of various topics. This endless cycle of analysis and critique has led to a distortion of our understanding of the world around us, leaving us unable to map or make sense of it beyond the confines of our own writings.

Furthermore, this constant need to analyze and critique has created a feedback loop, where we are only able to understand the world through the lens of our own analysis and criticism. This can lead to a myopic view of the world, where we are unable to see beyond our own perspective, and where our understanding of reality is distorted by the very act of analyzing it.

One of the consequences of this digital boom is that the very act of analyzing and judging has taken over the thing being analyzed and judged. For example, a book or movie is no longer just a book or movie; it becomes the subject of countless blog posts, podcast episodes, and social media discussions. The focus shifts from the thing itself to the analysis of the thing, and as a result, we become more interested in the opinions of others than in the thing itself.

In some cases, this can lead to a culture of cynicism and negativity, where criticism and snarky comments are more valued than thoughtful analysis or constructive feedback. Online platforms can also create echo chambers, where people only engage with content that confirms their existing beliefs, leading to an intellectual stagnation and lack of growth.

Furthermore, the constant stream of content being produced can make it difficult to keep up and make sense of it all. We are bombarded with information from all sides, and it can be challenging to filter out the noise and find what is truly valuable. As a result, we may end up consuming content without truly engaging with it or thinking critically about it.

Moreover, the pressure to constantly produce content can lead to a lack of depth in analysis and a focus on quantity over quality. In the pursuit of likes, shares, and clicks, creators may prioritize sensationalism and controversy over thoughtful, nuanced commentary.

Jean Baudrillard, a French philosopher and cultural theorist, was known for his views on the impact of media and technology on society. He would likely have a critical perspective on the over-reliance on criticism, blogging, journaling, newslettering, podcasting, and online writing.

Baudrillard believed that modern society was increasingly becoming dominated by simulations and hyperreality, in which the lines between the real and the simulated were blurred. He argued that media and technology were responsible for creating this hyperreality, which led to a loss of meaning and a sense of detachment from reality.

From Baudrillard’s perspective, the proliferation of criticism, blogging, journaling, newslettering, podcasting, and online writing would be seen as a symptom of this hyperreality. He would argue that the constant analysis and judgment of everything in our lives was a form of simulation, in which we were creating a hyperreal world of our own making.

Baudrillard would also argue that this hyperreality was a form of control, in which we were being manipulated by media and technology to think and act in certain ways. He believed that the constant need for analysis and judgment was a way of maintaining this control, by keeping us distracted and focused on the surface level of things, rather than delving deeper into the meaning and significance of our experiences.

Ultimately, Baudrillard would see the dominance of criticism, blogging, journaling, newslettering, podcasting, and online writing as a symptom of a larger problem in society, one in which the real had been replaced by the hyperreal. He would argue that we need to move beyond these simulations and reconnect with reality in order to find meaning and purpose in our lives.

We are free only so long as we don’t fix our state of reality.

Freedom is a cherished value in modern societies, often considered a fundamental human right. However, the nature of freedom is complex and multifaceted. Many philosophers have debated the meaning of freedom and its relationship with reality. In this essay, I will explore the idea that we are free only so long as we don’t fix our state of reality.

First, it’s important to define what we mean by “fixing our state of reality.” To fix our state of reality means to adopt a rigid and unchanging perspective on ourselves and the world around us. This could include beliefs about our identity, our abilities, our relationships, and the nature of the universe. When we fix our state of reality, we limit ourselves to a narrow set of possibilities and shut ourselves off from new experiences and perspectives.

At the heart of this idea is the notion that freedom requires a certain degree of openness and flexibility. If we are too attached to our preconceived notions and beliefs, we become trapped in a mental prison that limits our choices and constrains our behavior. We lose the ability to see the world in new ways and to make choices that are truly our own.

For example, imagine a person who has always believed that they are not creative. They may have internalized this belief from a young age, perhaps due to a critical parent or teacher who told them they were not artistic. If this person accepts this belief as an unchanging truth about themselves, they may never attempt to pursue creative endeavors like painting, writing, or music. They may even avoid situations where they might be called upon to express themselves creatively. In this way, their belief has limited their freedom and their ability to explore new possibilities.

On the other hand, if this person is open to the idea that their beliefs about themselves are not set in stone, they may be more willing to experiment with new activities and explore their creative side. By letting go of their fixed state of reality, they open up new avenues for self-expression and personal growth. This is a more expansive and liberating way to live.

It’s worth noting that fixing our state of reality is not always a conscious choice. Many of our beliefs and assumptions about ourselves and the world are deeply ingrained and may be difficult to recognize, much less change. It takes effort and self-reflection to identify our fixed beliefs and to challenge them.

One way to cultivate greater freedom is to practice mindfulness. Mindfulness involves paying attention to the present moment without judgment. By becoming more aware of our thoughts, emotions, and sensations, we can begin to recognize patterns of thinking and behavior that may be limiting us. With practice, we can learn to let go of fixed beliefs and open ourselves up to new possibilities.

In conclusion, freedom is not just a matter of external circumstances or political rights. It is also a state of mind that depends on our ability to remain open and flexible in our beliefs and attitudes. When we fix our state of reality, we limit our freedom and our potential for growth and self-discovery. By cultivating mindfulness and letting go of fixed beliefs, we can expand our horizons and experience a more liberated way of being.

The Renaissance was a period of great intellectual and artistic achievement in Europe that spanned from the 14th to the 17th century. One of the most important developments during this time was the discovery of perspective, which allowed artists to depict the three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional surface. This breakthrough transformed the way people viewed the world around them, and it marked a significant shift in human consciousness.

The achievement of perspective was not just a technical advancement in art. It reflected a new way of thinking about space and our relationship to it. Prior to the Renaissance, people viewed space as a static and fixed backdrop to human action. Perspective, on the other hand, showed that space was dynamic and could be manipulated to create a sense of depth and distance. This discovery led to a new awareness of space and our place within it.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and we are experiencing another shift in consciousness. The new consciousness is “a-perspectival,” meaning that it goes beyond the limitations of traditional perspectives and acknowledges the importance of time as a fourth dimension. This idea is supported by modern physics, where time is considered an integral part of the universe, and by developments in the visual arts and literature.

In the visual arts, for example, the incorporation of time as a fourth dimension has led to new forms of expression, such as video installations and performance art. These art forms challenge traditional notions of space and encourage viewers to experience art in a more immersive way. Similarly, in literature, authors are experimenting with nonlinear narrative structures and exploring the concept of time in new and exciting ways.

The a-perspectival consciousness is not the opposite or antithesis of the perspectival consciousness. It is simply a new way of thinking that builds upon the achievements of the past while pushing beyond them. The over-emphasis on space and spatiality that has characterized the perspectival consciousness since the Renaissance has led to a hypertrophy of the “I,” or the individual self, which is in constant confrontation with the external world. This can lead to a sense of alienation and disconnection from others and from the natural world.

The a-perspectival consciousness, on the other hand, recognizes the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of time in shaping our experiences. It encourages us to move beyond the limitations of the individual self and to embrace a more holistic and inclusive worldview. This new consciousness has the potential to bring about positive change in many areas of our lives, from the way we relate to each other and the natural world to the way we approach problems and find solutions.

In conclusion, the Renaissance marked a significant shift in human consciousness with the discovery of perspective. Today, we are experiencing another shift with the a-perspectival consciousness, which goes beyond the limitations of traditional perspectives and incorporates time as a fourth dimension. This new consciousness has the potential to bring about positive change in many areas of our lives, and it encourages us to embrace a more holistic and inclusive worldview.

In the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, the concept of “flows” refers to the movement of things and ideas through time and space. For Deleuze, flows are not just physical phenomena, but also social and cultural ones, such as the movement of money, power, and information through society.

Deleuze sees flows as dynamic and complex phenomena that are constantly in motion and interaction with one another. They can be positive or negative, productive or destructive, depending on how they are channeled and organized. Deleuze argues that the dominant forces in society tend to channel flows in ways that serve their own interests, leading to the reproduction of social hierarchies and power relations.

However, Deleuze also sees the potential for flows to be liberated from these constraints and organized in new and creative ways. This can lead to the emergence of new forms of social organization and expression, such as the subcultures and countercultures that emerged in the 20th century.

Deleuze’s concept of flows is closely related to his notion of “desiring-production,” which refers to the positive and creative force of desire in society. According to Deleuze, desire is not just a psychological phenomenon, but also a social and cultural one that drives the movement of flows in society.

Deleuze/Guattari are probably the only theorists whose political-economic philosophy ascribes an enormous importance to the concept of flow, which in turn has a direct connection to Deleuze’s view of the mathematics of the differential quotient. First of all, every kind of current has a specific tempo, rhythm and directional direction, and in the course of time the material whose specific characteristics, be it rhythm, direction or tempo, change.

The decisive point is that flows do not flow along lines, but according to the criteria of n-dimensional, virtual, continuous and non-numerical manifolds, each of which has only one centre. And no matter whether we are dealing with vortices, spirals or whirlpools — it is always a matter of special shapes of the flows, which are indicated by a curved, continuous declination.

Thus, flows would be understood as directed and rhythmic, a-metric and irreversible, they can flee in all directions and, as dynamic-temporalized flows, they are in balance and imbalance at the same time, they can connect or unite, they can originate from a collision or an encounter in which a current meets a counter current and bounces off, resulting in congestion and, consequently, new localizations in an open topological space.

Pure flows have a real and at the same time ideal status. The corresponding topological space refers to a vectorial and smooth space, traversed by uncountable lines, to the unpredictable distribution of events that function without centres, even following lines that deviate from the diagonal.

It also seems possible that in the vortex several currents flow together, thus creating a figure of the manifold, in which nature and culture mix indistinguishably; there are multiple currents, whereby turbulence can arise from many eddies, up to cascades, differentiating and at the same time towering unstable eddies with blurred edges,

In fact, one can imagine an extraordinarily large number of different types of streams and rivers, which in their diversity and directionality, their counter-currents and turbulence — just think of the fluid mechanics of Lucretius — are always controlled or codified in some way or another.

“In the literary machine that Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” constitutes, we are struck by the fact that all the parts are produced as asymmetrical sections, paths that suddenly come to an end, hermetically sealed boxes, noncommunicating vessels, watertight compartments, in which there are gaps even between things that are contiguous, gaps that are affirmations, pieces of a puzzle belonging not to any one puzzle but to many, pieces assembled by forcing them into a certain place where they may or may not belong, their unmatched edges violently forced out of shape, forcibly made to fit together, to interlock, with a number of pieces always left over.”

Thus, there is the river and the dams or dikes that control and channel the river,

Deleuze and Guattari were critical of Freud’s concept of sublimation because they saw it as a way of reinforcing existing power structures in society. According to Freud, sublimation refers to the process by which individuals redirect their sexual or aggressive impulses into socially acceptable activities such as art, science, or intellectual pursuits.

However, Deleuze and Guattari argued that this concept of sublimation was flawed because it assumed that sexuality and aggression were inherently negative or destructive impulses that needed to be controlled or redirected. Instead, they believed that these impulses were inherently creative and productive, and that by sublimating them, individuals were limiting their creative potential.

Moreover, Deleuze and Guattari argued that Freud’s concept of sublimation was ultimately a form of social control. By encouraging individuals to redirect their impulses into socially acceptable activities, Freud’s theory served to reinforce existing social hierarchies and power structures. Instead, Deleuze and Guattari proposed the concept of “desiring-production,” which saw desire and creativity as inherently productive forces that could be harnessed to create new forms of social organization and transformation.

According to Sigmund Freud’s, the id is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs, and desires operating on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification.

“Psychoanalysis was from the start, still is, and perhaps always will be a well-constituted church and a form of treatment based on a set of beliefs that only the very faithful could adhere to, i.e., those who believe in a security that amounts to being lost in the herd and defined in terms of common and external goals”

In summary, Deleuze and Guattari opposed Freud’s concept of sublimation because they saw it as a way of limiting individual creativity and reinforcing existing power structures in society. Instead, they proposed the concept of “desiring-production” as a way of harnessing desire and creativity to create new forms of social organization and transformation.

Reframing the Oedipal complex

The “anti-” part of their critique of the Freudian Oedipal complex begins with that original model’s articulation of society based on the family triangle of father, mother and child. Criticizing psychoanalysis “familialism”, they want to show that the oedipal model of the family is a kind of organization that must colonize its members, repress their desires, and give them complexes if it is to function as an organizing principle of society.

Instead of conceiving the “family” as a sphere contained by a larger “social” sphere, Deleuze and Guattari argue that the family should be opened onto the social, as in Bergson’s conception of the Open, and that underneath the pseudo-opposition between family and social, lies the relationship between pre-individual desire and social production.

Furthermore, they argue that schizophrenia is an extreme mental state co-existent with the capitalist system itself and capitalism keeps enforcing neurosis as a way of maintaining normality.

So, this is the reason the first volume of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is titled Anti-Oedipus. To Deleuze, just as there’s no transcendent governing body that dictates the rules of ontology there’s no transcendent governing body external to you like Freud’s Oedipus that dictates what desires you feel or what connections you’re going to seek as a desiring machine.

Like their contemporary, R. D. Laing, and like Reich before them, Deleuze and Guattari make a connection between psychological repression and social oppression. This Oedipal way of looking at desire has very real consequences on the societies that believe in it. Because in these societies desire becomes something that gets turned inward, towards your immediate family, what you think of as your desires is really just you misinterpreting some a psycho-sexual framework that you don’t quite understand.

The result of this on a social level being that the vast majority of the desire of the individual gets interpreted inwardly with any excess desire that someone might have, spills over into the social and political realms always subject to their limitations which are themselves controlled by the forces of Capitalism.

Desiring-production is explosive:

“there is no desiring-machine capable of being assembled without demolishing entire sectors of society”.

The concept of desiring-production is part of Deleuze and Guattari’s more general appropriation of Friedrich Nietzsche’s formulation of the will to power. In both concepts, a pleasurable force of appropriation of what is outside oneself, incorporating into oneself what is other than oneself, characterizes the essential process of all life.

“D.H. Lawrence had the impression – that psychoanalysis was shutting sexuality up in a bizarre sort of box painted with bourgeois motifs, in a kind of rather repugnant artificial triangle, thereby stifling the whole of sexuality as a production of desire so as to recast it along entirely different lines, making of it a dirty little family secret, a private theater rather than the fantastic factory of nature and production”

As to those who refuse to be oedipalized in one form or another, at one end or the other in the treatment, the psychoanalyst is there to call the asylum or the police for help. The police on our side! — never did psychoanalysis better display its taste for supporting the movement social representations, and for participating inenthusiasm.

Schizoanalysis

“Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?”

One of the central theses of Anti-Oedipus is that libidinous and political economy are structurally one and the same thing, which means that the desire always remains a constituent part of the political-economic infrastructure of capitalism.

Deleuze/Guattari develop a sophisticated theory of the three syntheses of the libidinous and the socio-economic unconscious: while the desiring machines produce an immanent synthesis (local connections), the socio-economic machines represent transcendental syntheses (global and specific connections.

Deleuze and Guattari’s “schizoanalysis” is a militant social and political analysis that responds to what they see as the reactionary tendencies of psychoanalysis. It proposes a functional evaluation of the direct investments of desire — whether revolutionary or reactionary — in a field that is social, biological, historical, and geographical.

In contrast to the psychoanalytic conception, schizoanalysis assumes that the libido does not need to be de-sexualised, sublimated, or to go by way of metamorphoses in order to invest economic or political factors. “The truth is,” Deleuze and Guattari explain,

“sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on. […] Flags, nations, armies, banks get a lot of people aroused.”

In the terms of classical Marxism, desire is part of the economic, infrastructural “base” of society, they argue, not an ideological, subjective “superstructure.”

Unconscious libidinal investments of desire coexist without necessarily coinciding with preconscious investments made according to the needs or ideological interests of the subject (individual or collective) who desires.

Schizoanalysis seeks to show how “in the subject who desires, desire can be made to desire its own repression — whence the role of the death instinct in the circuit connecting desire to the social sphere.” Desire produces “even the most repressive and the most deadly forms of social reproduction.”

They credit capitalism with drastically improving the lives of almost everyone on the planet by abolishing the hierarchical rules and power structures of the middle ages.

“The death of a social machine has never been heralded by a disharmony or a dysfunction; on the contrary, social machines make a habit of feeding on the contradictions they give rise to, on the crises they provoke, on the anxieties they engender, and on the infernal operations they regenerate. Capitalism has learned this, and has ceased doubting itself, while even socialists have abandoned belief in the possibility of capitalism’s natural death by attrition. No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way.”

But just because somebody has the freedom to change jobs and not be subjected to the rules of a landowner does not mean that they’re free or that Capitalism as an economic system is impervious to criticism. Yes, Capitalism has deterritorialized feudalism, but then after deterritorializing these rules Capitalism then reterritorialized it with an axiomatic world of banking and finance, dictating every narrow parameter how you live your life.

In his book “Air Guitar,” cultural critic Dave Hickey made a distinction between two types of individuals in the realm of spectatorship: the Spectators and the Participants. This distinction can be applied to the world of Twitter, where the behavior of users aligns with Hickey’s characterization.

According to Hickey, Spectators tend to align themselves with authority and established norms. They do not have the time or inclination to make decisions for themselves, and instead, they seek out spaces that have been confirmed by institutional and corporate blessings. These spaces are often marked by blue checkmarks, professors, and celebrity endorsements. By associating with these sources of authority, Spectators derive a sense of sanctioned pleasure or virtue that makes them feel secure.

In contrast, Participants do not find this sense of security appealing. They do not lose interest in a topic once it has been accredited by a respected source, as they always assume there is something better out there. Participants continue searching for the next best thing that aligns with their personal agendas, even if it means rejecting established norms and authorities. They persist in their search, and are not easily swayed by corporate endorsements or blue checkmarks.

While it is possible that Participants may be wrong in their rejection of established norms and authorities, true Participants remain committed to their search. Unlike Spectators, who must be lured into following a trend, Participants actively seek out new ideas and perspectives. They are motivated by their own curiosity and desire to uncover something new and exciting.

In conclusion, Hickey’s distinction between Spectators and Participants provides an insightful lens through which to view the behavior of Twitter users. While Spectators align themselves with authority and established norms, Participants reject these sources of security and seek out new and exciting ideas. While both groups may have valid reasons for their behavior, it is the Participants who drive the conversation forward and push the boundaries of what is possible.

“We are all Mark Hamill” is a statement that goes beyond a mere reference to the acclaimed actor who played the role of Luke Skywalker in the original “Star Wars” trilogy. Instead, it speaks to a larger concept of interconnectedness, empathy, and the capacity for self-transformation that lies within all of us.

At the heart of this statement is the idea that we all have the potential to change and grow, to evolve and become something greater than what we are at present. Mark Hamill, himself, is a testament to this, having started his career as a relatively unknown actor and eventually rising to become a cultural icon and beloved figure to millions of fans around the world.

But more than that, the statement “we are all Mark Hamill” speaks to a deeper sense of connection that exists between all of us, regardless of our backgrounds, identities, or experiences. It reminds us that, at our core, we are all human beings with the same basic needs, desires, and emotions. We all want to be loved, to be understood, and to feel like we matter in the world.

It is true that Mark Hamill has been able to channel some of the negative energy that comes with playing villainous characters, such as his iconic portrayal of the Joker in various animated Batman series and films.

In interviews, Mark Hamill has spoken about the cathartic nature of playing the Joker, describing the character as a kind of “release valve” for the darker aspects of his personality. By inhabiting the persona of a character who is evil, unpredictable, and anarchic, he has been able to tap into a different aspect of his creativity and find a way to channel his own negative energy into his performance.

The Joker, one of the most iconic villains in popular culture, has been portrayed in a variety of ways over the years. However, one interpretation that has gained considerable traction is the idea that the Joker represents the id – the primal, instinctual part of the human psyche.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, theorized that the human psyche is composed of three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the most primitive and instinctual part of the psyche, driven by our most basic desires and impulses, while the superego represents our sense of morality and the ego mediates between the two.

When we examine the Joker’s behavior and motivations, we can see clear parallels to the concept of the id. The Joker is impulsive, unpredictable, and driven by his own desires and whims, with little regard for the consequences of his actions. He acts on his most primal urges, seeking to satisfy his own needs for power, control, and chaos without regard for the needs or well-being of others.

Moreover, the Joker is often portrayed as a force of nature, beyond the control of any one individual or group. He represents the chaotic, unpredictable aspects of life that can disrupt order and stability at any moment. This sense of unpredictability and primal power is a hallmark of the id, which is often seen as an uncontrollable force that can erupt at any time.

At the same time, the Joker’s character also embodies the concept of the shadow, another aspect of the human psyche that represents the dark and unconscious aspects of the self. Like the shadow, the Joker is often seen as a projection of the dark impulses and repressed desires that we try to keep hidden from ourselves and others.

Despite his villainous nature, however, the Joker’s character also speaks to a deeper truth about the human experience. We all have within us the potential for darkness and chaos, just as we have the capacity for goodness and compassion. The Joker represents the danger of allowing our own dark impulses and desires to run rampant, and the importance of finding ways to integrate these aspects of ourselves in a healthy and constructive way.

In this sense, the Joker can be seen as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the importance of self-awareness and the need to balance our own desires and needs with those of the world around us. By recognizing the primal, instinctual part of ourselves that the Joker represents, we can begin to take steps towards a more balanced and integrated sense of self, and a greater understanding of the complex and multifaceted nature of the human psyche.

Overall, it is clear that Mark Hamill’s ability to channel both the positive and negative aspects of his personality into his work has been a key factor in his success as an actor. However, it is also important to recognize the challenges and potential risks that come with playing complex and demanding roles, and to approach these topics with sensitivity and respect.

Furthermore, the statement challenges us to see beyond our differences and recognize the common humanity that unites us. It encourages us to practice empathy and compassion, to listen to others with an open mind and heart, and to treat everyone we encounter with the same respect and dignity that we ourselves would want.

At the same time, “we are all Mark Hamill” acknowledges the power of storytelling and the role that narrative plays in shaping our sense of self and our understanding of the world around us. It recognizes that, like the characters we see on screen, we all have our own personal narratives that shape our lives and influence the way we perceive ourselves and others.

Congratulations, you’ve reached the end of the road! It’s time to face the music and come to terms with the fact that your niche/job/gig is about to become a public good. Don’t worry, it’s not your fault, you just happen to be the victim of circumstance. But don’t worry, I’m here to help you recognize the signs.

Firstly, if you start hearing people talk about authenticity being everything, it’s time to start preparing for the worst. The more people talk about authenticity, the less authentic everything becomes. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack – impossible.

Secondly, if your portfolio is your calling card and should be continuously refined, it’s because everyone is trying to stand out. But the more people try to stand out, the more they all end up looking the same. It’s like a flock of sheep trying to be the blackest sheep in the field.

Thirdly, if no one knows what’s gonna happen and you’re responsible for identifying and learning the skills required to be better than anyone else at what you do, it’s because everyone is trying to stay ahead of the curve. But the more people try to stay ahead of the curve, the more they end up running in circles.

Fourthly, if you’re asked to take a ‘jazz’ approach, not a classical one, it’s because everyone wants to be different. But the more people try to be different, the more they end up sounding the same.

Fifthly, if you’re expected to be a clairvoyant, it’s because everyone wants to predict the future. But the more people try to predict the future, the more they end up creating it. But not in a good way

Sixthly, if you’re told to identify, build on and add to your transferable skills, it’s because everyone wants to be adaptable. But the more people try to be adaptable, the less adaptable they become.

Seventhly, if you’re asked to be a niche master, it’s because everyone wants to be an expert. But trying to be an expert in everything is like trying to be a main character with every power imaginable – you end up just being a hot mess.

Eighthly, if you’re told to wear all the hats, it’s because everyone wants to be a one-person show. But trying to be the star, the writer, the director, and the producer all at once is like trying to play a game of chess against yourself – you might win, but you’ll also look insane.

Lastly, if you’re told to embrace technology but never let technology rule, it’s because everyone wants to be the next Steve Jobs. But relying too much on technology is like “Advanced primitivism”- you’ll get lost with it, and you might even end up in a ditch.

In conclusion, if you’ve recognized any of these signs, it’s time to start thinking about the future. Your niche/job/gig may be about to become a public good, but that doesn’t mean you can’t thrive. Just remember, it’s not about being different, it’s about being you. And who knows, you might even be able to create a new trend that everyone else will follow. Or you can always try alchemy – you never know, it might just work.

The quote “As for the individual, every one is a son of his time; so philosophy also is its time apprehended in thoughts. It is just as foolish to fancy that any philosophy can transcend its present world, as that an individual could leap out of his time or jump over Rhodes” by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel highlights the idea that individuals and philosophies are products of their time and place. In this essay, we will explore this concept and its implications.

The idea that individuals are products of their time means that they are shaped by the social, cultural, and historical context in which they live. This context includes the prevailing beliefs, values, and ideas of their society, as well as the political and economic conditions that shape their lives. Individuals are not free to choose their context but are instead born into it, and it exerts a powerful influence on their lives.

Similarly, philosophies are products of their time, reflecting the prevailing ideas and beliefs of the society in which they were developed. Philosophy is not created in a vacuum but is instead a response to the cultural, social, and historical context in which it emerges. Philosophers are not free to choose their context but are instead shaped by it, and their ideas are influenced by the prevailing beliefs and values of their society.

The idea that philosophy is its time apprehended in thoughts means that philosophy reflects the ideas and beliefs of its time. Philosophy is not a timeless, universal truth but is instead a product of the specific historical and cultural context in which it was developed. Philosophers may strive for objectivity and seek to transcend the limitations of their time, but they can never entirely escape the context in which they live.

The idea that it is foolish to imagine that any philosophy can transcend its present world is related to the concept of historical relativism. This is the idea that there is no objective, timeless truth but that knowledge and truth are instead relative to the historical and cultural context in which they are developed. Philosophers may strive for objectivity, but they are always limited by their time and place, and their ideas reflect the values and beliefs of their society.

The idea that an individual could not leap out of his time or jump over Rhodes highlights the idea that individuals are not free to transcend their historical and cultural context. Just as an individual cannot escape the time and place in which he lives, neither can philosophy. Philosophy is a product of its time, and it reflects the beliefs and values of its society. Philosophers may seek to transcend their time, but they can never entirely escape it.

In conclusion, the quote by Hegel highlights the idea that individuals and philosophies are products of their time and place. Philosophy reflects the ideas and beliefs of its society and is not a timeless, universal truth. Philosophers may strive for objectivity, but they are always limited by their time and place. The idea that it is foolish to imagine that any philosophy can transcend its present world reflects the concept of historical relativism, which suggests that knowledge and truth are relative to the historical and cultural context in which they are developed.