The Mandalorian Music

One approach that could be considered is to use a musical palette similar to that of the legendary composer Ennio Morricone, particularly as seen in his collaborations with director Sergio Leone. Known for his work on spaghetti westerns like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Morricone’s music often incorporated unconventional instruments such as the melodica, tubular bells, and aeoliphone to create an eerie, atmospheric sound.

Leone and Morricone incorporated unconventional instruments and techniques into their music, which helped to create an eerie and atmospheric sound that perfectly complemented the director’s gritty, violent vision. Some of the instruments that they innovated with include:

  1. Melodica: The melodica is a small keyboard instrument that is played by blowing air through a mouthpiece. It has a distinct sound that is often used in Morricone’s music, particularly in the famous theme from “Once Upon a Time in the West.”
  2. Aeoliphone: The aeoliphone is an instrument that produces sound through the use of air. It is similar to a harmonica or a concertina, and it has a haunting, ethereal sound that is perfect for creating an eerie atmosphere.
  3. Electric guitar: While electric guitars were not a new instrument when Leone and Morricone started using them in their scores, they were not commonly used in Westerns at the time. The use of electric guitar in Morricone’s music helped to create a modern, edgy sound that was a departure from traditional orchestral scores.
  4. Whistle: The use of a simple tune whistle was also a hallmark of Morricone’s music. It has a simple, almost childlike sound that creates a sense of innocence and vulnerability in contrast to the violent imagery on screen.
  5. Human voices: In addition to traditional choral arrangements, Morricone also used human voices in unconventional ways. For example, in “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” the choir sings nonsense syllables instead of words, creating a unique vocal texture.

These are just a few examples of the instruments that Leone and Morricone innovated with in their music. By incorporating these unconventional sounds into their scores, they were able to create a unique sonic identity that set their films apart from traditional Hollywood Westerns.

By incorporating these instruments into the score of a show like The Mandalorian, the tone could be shifted towards something more unsettling and otherworldly. It would also serve to differentiate the show from other Star Wars media, which has often relied on John Williams’ traditional orchestral style.

That being said, it would be remiss not to include some of Williams’ iconic melodies in such a score. The “Imperial March,” in particular, is synonymous with the Star Wars franchise and is instantly recognizable to fans. However, by incorporating it into a Morricone-inspired score, the theme could be transformed into something new and exciting. Picture a version of the “Imperial March” played on a haunting tune whistle, creating an eerie and unsettling feeling in the viewer.

In addition to the use of unconventional instruments, a Morricone-inspired score could also incorporate some of the composer’s signature techniques, such as the use of repetition and variations on a central theme. This would serve to create a cohesive musical identity for The Mandalorian while also adding depth and complexity to the overall sound.

In conclusion, while John Williams’ work is undoubtedly iconic and integral to the Star Wars franchise, there is an argument to be made for utilizing a different musical palette in shows like The Mandalorian. By incorporating Ennio Morricone’s unique soundscapes and techniques, the tone could be shifted towards something more eerie and atmospheric, while still retaining the classic melodies that have made the Star Wars franchise so beloved.

Technical Vs Adaptive

As a society, we tend to view problems as technical issues that can be solved with technological solutions. We believe that we can overcome our challenges by inventing new machines or creating new algorithms. However, the reality is that many of the problems we face are not technical in nature. Instead, they are adaptive challenges that require us to change our behaviors and attitudes.

Adaptive challenges are problems that require us to adapt our behavior and thinking to new circumstances. These challenges are not easily solved with technical solutions because they require us to change our habits, beliefs, and values. For example, climate change is an adaptive challenge that requires us to change our behavior to reduce our carbon footprint. It cannot be solved by simply inventing a new technology to reduce emissions. It requires us to change the way we live and work.

Another example of an adaptive challenge is inequality. Inequality is not a technical problem that can be solved with a single policy or program. It is a systemic issue that requires us to address our values and attitudes about wealth and opportunity. We cannot simply create new programs to reduce inequality without addressing the underlying issues of privilege and bias that perpetuate it.

To solve adaptive challenges, we must be willing to change ourselves. We must be willing to question our assumptions and beliefs and be open to new perspectives. We must be willing to adapt our behavior to new circumstances and be willing to work with others to find solutions. This requires us to be humble and collaborative, to listen to the voices of those who are affected by the problem, and to work together to create change.

The solutions to our problems are not technical but adaptive. To solve the complex challenges facing our society, we must be willing to change our behavior and thinking. We must be open to new perspectives and be willing to work with others to find solutions. We must be humble and collaborative and be willing to listen to the voices of those who are affected by the problem. Only then can we create a better future for ourselves and future generations.

Xerox Past and Present, Sell it as a Reduced Mark and Call it the Future

Xeroxing the past and present, selling it as a reduced mark, and dubbing it the future – this concept poses an intriguing enigma, a puzzle to untangle. It touches upon the intricacies of our relationship with history, advancement, and novelty.

We are witness to the ever-present recycling and re-packaging of old ideas, technologies, and approaches. Companies strive to capitalize on the latest trends, repurposing and rebranding them as cutting-edge innovations, driven by a commercial impetus to stay relevant in the marketplace.

But this process of recycling and repackaging the past and the present may lead us down the path of complacency and inertia, limiting our potential to attain something entirely new and revolutionary. How can we reconcile these conflicting impulses and find a balance between them?

One approach is to approach history and innovation critically, questioning and probing the latest trends and technologies. We must delve deeper, exploring what these innovations offer and what they may conceal or neglect. We can find inspiration and guidance in history, learning from the past, but not merely copying or imitating it.

Collaboration and community are also essential. When we come together, drawing on our diverse experiences and perspectives, we can generate groundbreaking and transformative ideas. By merging the insights of the present with the wisdom of the past, we can create something new, something that has the potential to shape the future in remarkable ways.

“Non Essential” Readings

Writers are a curious bunch, with a voracious appetite for knowledge and a deep desire to explore the world around them. They are constantly seeking new ideas, perspectives, and insights that will help them better understand the human experience and the world we inhabit. One of the ways in which they do this is by reading widely across canons and disciplines.

The term “canon” refers to a set of works that are considered to be essential or fundamental to a particular field of study or cultural tradition. For example, the Western canon includes works by Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe, while the scientific canon includes works by Darwin, Newton, and Einstein. While these works are certainly important and worthy of study, they are often not enough to fully capture the complexity and richness of the human experience.

This is where so-called “non-essential readings” come into play. These are the works that are not part of the canon, but which still have the potential to offer valuable insights and perspectives. They may be works of popular fiction, poetry, or philosophy, or they may be obscure texts from lesser-known authors or traditions. Whatever their form, these works can provide a window into the human experience that is often missing from more canonical texts.

As a writer, I have found that some of the most valuable insights and inspirations come from these non-essential readings. By exploring texts from a wide range of disciplines and traditions, I am able to gain a deeper understanding of the world around me and the complexities of the human experience. I am able to see things from new perspectives, challenge my own assumptions and biases, and gain a broader sense of what it means to be human.

Of course, reading widely is not enough in and of itself. As writers, we must also be willing to engage with the material we are reading, to question it, and to push back against it when necessary. We must be willing to take risks, to challenge ourselves, and to explore new ideas and perspectives. Only by doing so can we truly expand our horizons and deepen our understanding of the world.

In conclusion, writers read across canons and disciplines because they understand that the best stuff often comes downstream from so-called non-essential readings. By exploring a wide range of texts and perspectives, writers are able to gain a deeper understanding of the human experience and the world we inhabit. While canonical texts are certainly important, they are often not enough to fully capture the complexity and richness of the world we inhabit. Non-essential readings provide a valuable supplement to these texts, offering new insights and perspectives that can help writers to better understand themselves, others, and the world around them.

Aphantasia in Reverse: The Thermostat Effect

The thermostat is a common household device that controls temperature and stabilizes the conditions in a living space. Similarly, Jacques Vallee suggests that UFOs may function as a mechanism for stabilizing the relationship between human consciousness and the complexities of the world we inhabit. As phenomenologists, we must suspend judgement regarding the reality of UFO sightings and focus on understanding the ways in which people respond to stress in these situations.

Vallee’s theory is grounded in the idea that our evolving understanding of the world necessitates a control system that can stabilize our consciousness needs in the face of an increasingly complex and changing environment. UFO sightings, according to Vallee, may serve this function by controlling human beliefs and our relationship to physical reality. The fact that the sightings often take on the form of “little grey men” is unimportant, as it is merely a representation of a deeper underlying control system.

In a sense, this idea is akin to reverse Aphantasia, where individuals are unable to generate mental images in their mind’s eye. In the case of UFO sightings, people cannot generate a clear image of what they are seeing, but they are able to “copy and paste” something from their genetic memory that approximates the sighting and makes sense of it. This may help to explain why the forms and descriptions of UFO sightings are so varied and often contradictory.

While the reality of UFO sightings remains uncertain, it is clear that the phenomenon is real in its consequences. The fact that people continue to report sightings and experiences suggests that there is something significant at play. By understanding the ways in which people respond to these sightings, we may gain a deeper understanding of human consciousness and our relationship to the world around us.

Ultimately, the idea that UFOs may serve as a control system raises important questions about our place in the universe and our evolving relationship to the complexities of the world we inhabit. While it may be tempting to dismiss UFO sightings as mere fantasy or delusion, it is important to approach the phenomenon with an open mind and a willingness to explore its deeper meaning and implications.

February 24th, 2020: 12 Monkeys Redux. Three Synthesis of Time

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.

A Newsletter Wrapped in a Podcast Inside a Youtube Channel

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.

Freedom and Fixed Realities

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.

Falsified Time

Time is a complex and multi-dimensional concept that has fascinated philosophers, scientists, and poets throughout history. Yet, as modern society continues to progress and become more technologically advanced, our understanding and relationship with time has become increasingly distorted. In particular, the idea of the present moment, or the “Now,” has been warped into a spatial concept that fails to capture the true essence of time.

Time is a fundamental aspect of our experience of the world, yet our attempts to understand it have often led us to distort its nature. One way in which time has become increasingly distorted is through our attempts to spatialize it, which has turned it into a measurable and quantifiable commodity rather than a subjective experience.

As soon as we divide time into past, present, and future, we lose sight of its original character and turn it into something measurable. By placing the Now as an “in-between” between past and future, time becomes a divider and loses its intrinsic nature. This division of time into discrete units has allowed us to measure it and quantify it, but it has also robbed it of its subjective character.

As soon as the Now is interposed as an “in-between” between the past and the future, it loses its original character as a mental modality of time and becomes a spatialized modality. This spatialization of time is a perversion of its true nature because it turns time into something that can be measured and quantified, devoid of any qualitative character. The Now becomes a divider, tearing apart past, present, and future, and creating a sense of disunity that was not present before.

Our focus on clock time, in particular, has distorted our understanding of time. The phrase “I have no time” reflects our preoccupation with clock time, but it also reflects our tendency to equate time with productivity and efficiency. We are always trying to “gain time” by increasing our productivity and filling our schedules with activities, but this only leads to an empty and fragmented experience of time.

We also tend to equate time with money, as if time were a commodity that could be bought and sold. This “falsified time” can be turned into money, but it does not have any intrinsic value of its own. Our obsession with productivity and efficiency has led us to quantify time and measure it in increasingly precise units, but this has only served to distort our experience of time.

This disunity is further perpetuated by our tendency to think of time in terms of clock time, leading to a preoccupation with the negative form of time, as expressed by the common phrase “I have no time.” This phrase is symptomatic of our time anxiety and our fixation on gaining more time. However, the time gained is often the wrong kind, transformed into a visible multiplication of spatially fragmented “activity” or wasted on killing time.

Our attempts to fill time with activities and material possessions have also contributed to the distortion of time. By treating time as a bucket to be filled, we have turned it into something empty and spatial rather than a subjective experience. This has led to an anxiety about time, as we try to arrest time and hold onto it through its materialization.

The addiction to speed is another way in which we have distorted time. Each new record is a further step towards the “killing of time,” as we prioritize speed and efficiency over the subjective experience of time. This flight into quantification has brought us closer to the death of time, rather than leading to freedom from it.

This anxiety also leads us to attempt to hold onto time and materialize it, as evidenced by the belief that time is money. However, this belief only serves to further falsify time, turning it into something that can be turned into money rather than a value in its own right. The idea of filling time as if it were an empty container also reinforces this spatialization of time, further divorcing it from its true nature.

The tragedy of our spatialization of time is that it prevents us from finding an escape from spatial captivity. By seeking to locate time “somewhere,” we lose sight of its true nature and become fixated on a distorted and false version of time. This spatial fixation is reinforced by our addiction to speed, which only serves to bring us closer to the death of time rather than leading to freedom from it.

In conclusion, our understanding of time has become increasingly distorted as we have attempted to spatialize it. The Now has become a divider rather than a unifier, and our fixation on clock time and gaining more time has only served to further distance us from the true nature of time. We must learn to appreciate time as a qualitative value in its own right rather than as a quantifiable commodity to be gained or lost. Only then can we escape from spatial captivity and truly understand the complexity and beauty of time.

In summary, our attempts to spatialize time have led us to distort its nature and turn it into a measurable and quantifiable commodity. This has robbed time of its intrinsic value and turned it into something that can be bought, sold, and manipulated. By prioritizing productivity, efficiency, and speed over the subjective experience of time, we have lost sight of the true nature of time and its importance to our lives.


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.