Tag: Time

Lu-Tze and the Tao of Non-Engagement

Leave a comment

A Radical Simplicity

Terry Pratchett’s Lu-Tze, the humble sweeper-monk, embodies a philosophy that transcends the binaries of control and chaos, order and entropy. His approach echoes the Taoist principle of wu wei—effortless action—where effectiveness arises not from force or rigid doctrine, but from alignment with the natural flow of things. In a world where systems demand either compliance or rebellion, Lu-Tze’s quiet labor becomes a subversion of both. He sweeps floors, tends gardens, and occasionally nudges history with a well-timed proverb, all while maintaining an almost Zen-like detachment. This isn’t apathy; it’s a deliberate refusal to be ensnared by the narratives that trap others.

Where Jeremy Clockson is a being of precision, of engineered inevitability, Lu-Tze is improvisation wearing a broom. He acts, but never hurries. He intervenes, but rarely directly. He knows when to do nothing—not out of laziness, but because doing nothing is sometimes the most powerful move on the board. This is wu wei: not passivity, but attunement. Not resistance, but redirection.

Lu-Tze’s true rebellion is his refusal to play the game on the game’s terms. In a monastery of time-obsessed monks and obsessive administrators, he becomes a kind of counter-temporal agent. His toolkit isn’t quantum precision—it’s tea, footnotes, and aphorisms. He smuggles agency into a world obsessed with schedules. He practices radical patience in an age of urgency.

Importantly, wu wei does not mean disengagement from the world. On the contrary: it demands deep presence. But presence without domination. Lu-Tze notices—and this makes him dangerous. He is underestimated precisely because he refuses to self-mythologize. He does not posture. He sweeps. And in that sweeping, he rewrites the future.

Lu-Tze’s simplicity isn’t just spiritual—it’s political. In a world increasingly obsessed with spectacle and optimization, he embodies a slow refusal. His sweeping is a practice of soft power, a kind of monkish mutual aid. It doesn’t scale. It doesn’t trend. But it works. And that’s why the Auditors hate him. He cannot be predicted. He cannot be optimized. He is the chaotic good of quiet maintenance.

And while characters like Lobsang enact the tension between order and soul, Lu-Tze offers a third path: the invisible art of keeping things just functional enough not to collapse. He’s not the hero. He’s the janitor of the sacred. The clock ticks because he keeps the dust off the gears.

In terms of art and meaning-making, Lu-Tze is the analog craftsperson in the back room. The slow artist who whittles spoons. The poet who doesn’t publish. He doesn’t need applause. He just needs the floor to be clean.

Marx, Zen, and the Clock as Capital

When the Abbot instructs Lu‑Tze to “stop the clock,” the order resonates beyond plot. The clock—especially the perfect one Jeremy Clockson builds under the Auditors’ influence—isn’t just a timepiece; it’s the fantasy of total control. In Marxist terms, it’s capital’s dream object: pure quantification, the commodification of time itself. No deviation, no subjective experience, just value measured in ticks and tocks.

Lu‑Tze is the anti-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic Zen Marxist janitor. He doesn’t wage war against the machine—he sweeps around it, confounds it, slips through its gears. His proverbs, riddles, and broom are more subversive than any manifesto. Like a Zen koan, he can’t be neatly interpreted, and that’s the point. He’s not here to solve the system; he’s here to remind us it was never sacred to begin with.

Marx wrote that under capitalism, even time becomes alienated—we no longer live in it, we sell it. Lu‑Tze refuses that paradigm. Ask his job, and he says, “I’m just the sweeper.” Which is to say: I exist outside your categories. He’s the embodiment of kairos—opportune time—against the capitalist worship of chronos—measurable time.

Lobsang and the Split Self

Lobsang Ludd, apprentice monk and living incarnation of Time itself, is where the grand cosmic argument becomes achingly personal. His story is not just the tension between past and future, or between chaos and order—it’s the fracture at the heart of the modern self. Lobsang is a contradiction made flesh: half-human, half-myth, half-clock. His very existence is a split screen—on one side, the warm, impulsive, half-smiling boy who steals apples and tells jokes; on the other, Jeremy Clockson, the ultra-competent craftsman of inevitability, built to measure, built to obey.

This isn’t just narrative cleverness—it’s a diagnosis. Lobsang is the embodiment of the contemporary condition: a being caught between the speed of machines and the slowness of meaning. Between the spreadsheet and the dream. He is what happens when the soul tries to survive under metrics. When intuition is pressed into a uniform and told to meet deadlines.

Lu-Tze, the sweeper monk, sees this. And crucially, he doesn’t try to resolve it with doctrine or logic. He doesn’t lecture. He doesn’t offer a syllabus. Instead, he teaches Lobsang with confusion. With humor. With badly-timed jokes and inexplicable errands. His method is methodlessness: pedagogy by surprise. He introduces Lobsang to the art of the sidelong glance, the subtextual lesson, the broomstroke that changes history.

This is not revolution in the industrial sense—there are no manifestos, no barricades. It’s resistance by living otherwise. To take joy in something unmeasurable. To make tea slowly. To laugh at a pun. These are not small things. In a world obsessed with precision, a bowl of noodles can be an act of defiance. A quiet joke can derail a deterministic future.

Lu-Tze teaches Lobsang that time is not a prison to be maintained but a river to be floated on, or sometimes stepped out of entirely. In doing so, he reframes the problem. The question is no longer how to perfect time, but how to inhabit it. How to dwell in it, care for it, misuse it even—and in doing so, reclaim it.

Lobsang’s journey, then, is not to choose between Jeremy and himself, but to integrate the two. To become both clock and cloud. Both structure and soul. This synthesis—impossible, absurd, necessary—is the real victory. Because the enemy is not order, nor even chaos, but the idea that one must erase the other to function.

In a culture that demands specialization and speed, Lobsang learns instead to be whole. Not perfect, not optimized—just whole. That, in the end, is what saves the world: not stopping time, not preserving it, but allowing it to contain multitudes.

Stopping the clock isn’t about breaking time—it’s about restoring it. Thief of Time argues that history isn’t a riddle to be solved or a path to be completed. It’s a garden. Messy, uneven, and alive. And someone, quietly, has to sweep the paths.

THE AUDITORS

The Auditors in Thief of Time are terrifying from central casting not because they’re evil in the traditional sense, but because they’re pure function. They’re obsessed with eliminating chaos, optimizing everything, and making the universe neat, clean, and predictable. In that way, they’re like a cosmic version of the “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment—an AI that pursues its goal with such blind efficiency that it destroys everything else in the process.

They don’t hate humanity. They just see people as messy. Irrational. Inefficient. Too unpredictable to fit into a perfectly ordered system. So their solution is to remove the mess entirely—by removing us.

This is what makes them funny. They’re not monsters in jackboots. They’re not driven by hatred. They’re driven by logic—cold, bloodless logic. They’re what happens when you take the tools of technocratic liberalism—optimization, system design, rational planning—and strip away any empathy, humility, or tolerance for contradiction. What’s left is a mindset that wants the world to be smooth, silent, and sterile.

In that sense, the Auditors are like the evil twin of the liberal world order: not violent tyrants, but clean managers of doom. They don’t scream. They just delete.

Now contrast that with the monks. They’re flawed, yes—but they still tolerate mess. They try to keep time flowing properly, understanding it’s a balancing act, not a solved equation. They’re like caretakers of a delicate ecosystem rather than engineers of a perfect machine.

But even they fall short. Because they, too, come from a worldview that believes in managing history—as if history were something you could balance forever. And when time begins to break apart, their calm detachment becomes paralysis.

Only Lu-Tze can respond—not because he’s stronger, but because he’s freer. He doesn’t buy into the idea that the world can be perfected. He doesn’t try to control history. He just shows up, broom in hand, and starts sweeping. He accepts the chaos. He works within it. He does the job, with humility and humor.

In an age where both authoritarian systems and well-meaning managerial ones are failing—where optimization itself becomes a form of violence—Lu-Tze represents something radically different. Not a new system. Not a better theory. Just a person doing honest work without illusions of control.

 In refusing the ego’s demand to be seen, branded, optimized. He chooses simple labor over a life of performance. He holds on to his mind, even as he gives his body to the work.

Because in Lu-Tze’s quiet refusal to turn his soul into a product, there’s a radical dignity—one that many in modern, “creative” industries have traded away in exchange for LinkedIn clout or “personal branding.” In this light, sweeping isn’t just a job. It’s a form of resistance. A refusal to be consumed by the economy of self-exploitation.

This continues in a sort of, you know, Machiavellian way—like somewhere back in the boardrooms of capitalism in the 1950s, someone realized a terrible truth: if we only work them physically, they still have their minds to themselves. They can think. They can dissent. They can dream. But if we own their minds—if we capture their attention, their imagination, their very sense of self—we won’t need to police them. They’ll police themselves.

So the strategy shifts. The new labor isn’t just lifting or building; it’s aligning yourself with corporate values, being “passionate” about KPIs, injecting your personality into your emails. The worker becomes the product. The sellable thing is no longer what you do, but who you are—or at least, who you pretend to be.

And here, again, Lu-Tze sweeps in—not as a guru, but as a quiet rebuke. He sweeps the floor, not his soul. He gives the world his labor, but never his mind. In this age where rebellion looks like burnout and docility looks like ambition, the old monk with a broom might be the last revolutionary.

The strategy doesn’t just shape the workplace, it colonizes the imagination. It bleeds directly into our storytelling, especially in Hollywood and Netflix-era content, where the protagonist has subtly shifted. The old hero archetypes—the farmer called to greatness, the dreamer resisting the empire—have been replaced by agents, analysts, special forces vets, or start-up founders. These are people who already belong to systems of control. They’re not breaking out—they’re maintaining order, upholding protocol, or innovating inside frameworks that already exist.

Even when they “rebel,” it’s within limits that flatter the machine: the FBI agent who goes rogue to save the world still proves the FBI was right to hire her. The ex-military man haunted by war trauma still resolves it through more violence, but now “on his own terms.” The tech bro turned savior doesn’t overthrow the system—he just upgrades it. These characters don’t escape the algorithm—they are the algorithm’s fantasy of rebellion. Branded authenticity.

It’s all part of that same Machiavellian realization: don’t just command people—make them want it. Don’t suppress their individuality—monetize it. The contemporary protagonist is no longer a mirror to our struggles; he’s a recruiting poster. He performs freedom while embodying control. And in that sense, these narratives are the cultural arm of the same logic that gave us the corporate wellness seminar, the “personal brand,” and the company Slack channel that feels like a dystopian high school.

This is why someone like Lu-Tze matters so much. He isn’t optimized. He isn’t curated. He’s not a brand. He’s just a guy doing what needs doing, outside the spectacle. And that’s why he’s radical.

What we’re seeing is the deep saturation of ideology—not in the old sense of state propaganda or brute censorship, but in a much more insidious form: narrative capture. Capital doesn’t want to stop stories—it wants to own them. And what better way than to write the protagonist as someone whose only real power is to work better within the system?

So rebellion becomes a product feature. The hacker is now a start-up founder. The punk is an influencer. The rogue cop is the best cop. The spy questions authority, but only to save the world on its terms. It’s not that culture stopped telling stories of resistance—it’s that resistance got turned into a genre with a three-act structure and a Disney+ spin-off.

In this environment, every main character is either trauma-forged or professionally competent. They have to be broken, but in a narratively useful way. And most importantly, they must be redeemable by the system. Their inner conflict resolves when they get their badge back, their startup funded, or their team reassembled. 

Catharsis becomes compliance.

Now contrast that with Lu-Tze: the sweeper monk who doesn’t seek attention, who dodges the spotlight, who doesn’t want to be the main character. He refuses the call—not out of fear, but out of understanding. He knows that history is made by people who don’t try to control it. He sweeps. He listens. He waits. And when he acts, he does so without drama.

In a world that’s turned “authenticity” into a monetizable trait and main characters into brand extensions, Lu-Tze is dangerous. He’s not “off the grid” in a performative way—he’s simply free. Free in the oldest and strangest sense: detached, modest, impossible to incentivize. He’s immune to optimization.

This is why Pratchett’s world hits harder now than it did when he wrote it. He saw what was coming—not just the collapse of systems, but the rise of counterfeit freedom, scripted rebellion, and algorithmic individuality. And he offered something better: humility, absurdity, action without ego.

What Pratchett sketches in Thief of Time is not just a witty fantasy about monks tinkering with clocks—it’s a profound meditation on history, time, and agency. If Fukuyama’s “End of History” imagines a world where liberal democracy and capitalism have resolved all major ideological conflicts, then time, in that schema, becomes flat and singular: we’ve arrived, the story is over, and all that remains is management.

This is the world the Auditors dream of. They abhor the messiness of human narratives and long to impose an eternal present, scrubbed clean of desire, error, and surprise. In a way, they are the spiritual children of the End of History thesis—believers in order for its own sake, where time is reduced to quantifiable ticks, a perfect loop with no deviation.

But Pratchett gives us another vision in the Monks of Time. Unlike the Auditors, the Monks understand that time is not a monolith. It is lived unevenly across the world. A grieving village needs more time. A battlefield needs to pause. A moment of epiphany must stretch beyond the confines of the clock. Their work is to redistribute time, not in the cold logic of administration, but in the spirit of care and responsiveness. They are not trying to stop history, nor complete it—they’re trying to keep it humane.

And that is why Lu‑Tze, the humble sweeper, who operates in the cracks of the grand system, understands that the world is not governed by doctrines or end-states, but by small acts of compassion, disruption, and patience. While the Abbot contemplates the eternal in infant form, Lu‑Tze walks the earth, subtly correcting course, never seeking credit. He embodies an ancient truth found in both Zen koans and Marxist critique: that true understanding isn’t about controlling history, but about living rightly within it—even if that means sweeping floors and defying fate in small, absurd, very human ways.

In this framework, Thief of Time becomes a powerful rebuttal to any notion of temporal finality. It’s not just that history hasn’t ended—it’s that history, like time itself, must remain alive, messy, and open to revision.

Seppuku Scheduling

Leave a comment

Here’s how it happens. You sketch a plan. It’s airtight, bulletproof, a Swiss watch of efficiency. You will do A and B. Maybe, just maybe, if the stars align and the traffic lights are all green, you’ll do C.

Then reality happens. You do A. You do B. And somewhere in the back of your mind, a little voice whispers, Hey, I can still squeeze in C. You reach for it. Stretch. Overextend. And then—whoops. You don’t just fail C. You fail at failing. Maybe the whole structure collapses. Maybe it doesn’t, but you still walk away feeling like a samurai who just fumbled his own ritual suicide.

Because here’s the trick: You did everything you planned. But because you thought you could do more, the entire thing now feels like a debacle. This is seppuku scheduling, where the crime isn’t failure—it’s failing to be superhuman.

It’s the productivity version of a gambler’s fallacy. You keep doubling down on your own success until one misstep wipes out the whole session. You don’t judge yourself by what you actually did, but by what you could have done. The modern calendar is an altar to infinite possibility, and when you fall short of that imaginary ideal, you kneel before it, knife in hand.

You could fix this, of course. You could build in margins. You could plan more like a human and less like an algorithm. But where’s the thrill in that? Where’s the samurai drama?

Instead, you’ll do what you always do. Make another airtight plan. Convince yourself that this time you’ll get to C. And when you don’t, you’ll shake your head and mutter about how it all went wrong.

Seppuku Scheduling and the Birth of the Tech VC

And now, instead of taking the hit like a rational adult, you do what every Silicon Valley demigod does: you outsource the blame.

You tell yourself, I did everything right, but the world failed me. A phrase forms in your head—half rationalization, half gospel: This system is broken. If only there were better tools. Smarter automation. A way to bend reality to your schedule.

Congratulations. You’re now on the path to becoming a venture capitalist.

This is how it always starts. First, you fail to execute your own airtight plan. Then, instead of adjusting your expectations like a reasonable person, you decide the universe itself needs disruption.

That missed deadline? Clearly, the productivity software industry is lagging behind.

That botched rollout? Obviously, someone should have invented a better AI assistant.

That time your genius wasn’t fully recognized? The market must be inefficient.

So you do what any self-respecting seppuku scheduler does: you start throwing money at people who promise to fix it.

And that’s how you get Silicon Valley’s unique strain of messianic delusion—the kind that believes failure isn’t a lesson, but an injustice. The kind that funds ten different versions of the same app, all promising to free you from the cruel tyranny of clocks. The kind that genuinely believes “time management” is just a series of unexploited arbitrage opportunities.

None of this makes you better at managing your own life, of course. But it does buy you the illusion that failure isn’t personal—it’s systemic. And once you believe that? Well, you’ll never have to take responsibility for missing C ever again.

The Subscription Economy

The shift from acquisition to subscription models has changed more than just how we acquire goods and services—it’s reshaping our relationship with time, identity, and even culture itself.

Acquisition, traditionally seen as the ultimate form of possession, is a finite experience. You acquire something, use it, and then move on, satisfied that the need has been met. Time, in this framework, is linear. There’s a clear beginning, middle, and end: you buy something, you use it, and eventually, you move on to something else. It’s a process that allows for closure, progress, and the feeling that you’ve advanced in some way.

Subscription, however, introduces a radical shift. By design, subscription models prevent closure. They keep you tethered in a continuous loop of consumption. Instead of acquiring an item outright, you pay for access to a service or product that you never truly “own.” The expectation is that you’ll be constantly engaged, always paying for the privilege of ongoing use. In this model, time becomes cyclical, not linear. There’s no definitive start or end to your relationship with the service, no moment of satisfaction or finality. You’re perpetually involved, always consuming, always dependent on the service for fulfillment.

This shift in the way we interact with time and acquisition has profound implications for our culture. Acquisition provided a sense of resolution, a break from the past, and the space to move on. Subscription, on the other hand, anchors us in the present, preventing closure and growth. We’re stuck in an endless loop of consumption, with no true endpoint in sight.

Culturally, this has led to a kind of stasis, a regression. The subscription economy fosters a constant cycle of nostalgia, reboots, and recycling. We’re consuming the same things over and over again, trapped in a loop of the past, unable to progress to something truly new. Whether it’s music, movies, or even technology, we’re often stuck revisiting what’s already been done, rather than creating or discovering something that moves us forward.

In this sense, the subscription model doesn’t just limit our financial autonomy; it limits our cultural potential. It keeps us engaged in the present moment but prevents us from ever truly moving on or evolving. The promise of novelty, personal growth, and transformation becomes more elusive when everything is designed to keep us tethered to the present, forever engaged in a process that never reaches its conclusion.

The subscription economy, in its perpetual cycle of consumption, redefines not just how we spend money—but how we spend our time. And in doing so, it has created a culture that feels stuck, unable to break free from the never-ending loop of the same. It’s time to ask: What happens when we stop moving forward and settle into the rhythm of endless consumption? Is the price we’re paying too high?

While subscription models may offer an illusion of access, they often create a mirage of participation in the creative process. When we subscribe to a service, we’re led to believe that we have some degree of involvement in the content we consume—whether it’s through user-generated feedback, personalized recommendations, or the ability to influence trends through consumption patterns. We’re given the sense that our ongoing engagement makes us part of a larger creative ecosystem, an active participant in shaping the culture around us.

But this sense of access is, in many ways, an illusion. While we may feel empowered by the ability to choose, influence, or personalize what we consume, the reality is that we’re still following a pre-set path—curated and shaped by algorithms, market trends, and the interests of those who control the subscription model. We’re not so much contributing to the creative process as we are being shaped by it. The choices we make within a subscription economy are not free; they are influenced by external forces, designed to keep us engaged, paying, and consuming.

In this sense, the idea that subscription allows for creative participation is a facade. The subscription model isn’t designed to foster true collaboration or innovation; it’s structured to maintain a steady flow of consumption. The more we engage, the more we’re drawn into the cycle, but we’re not actually helping to create anything new. We’re merely co-opting the illusion of involvement while remaining passive recipients in a system that thrives on our dependency.

This is the crux of the mirage: the subscription economy offers us the appearance of access, but it does little to challenge the structures that limit our ability to truly innovate, create, or break free from the cycle of consumption. Instead of facilitating genuine participation in cultural production, it creates a feedback loop that leaves us perpetually involved, but never truly empowered.

The Library Model: Access Without Ownership or Subscription

Libraries represent a middle ground between acquisition and subscription, offering access to knowledge without the transactional or perpetual costs we associate with both models. Over the past two to three centuries, libraries have served as critical spaces for intellectual engagement, not as a form of ownership or subscription but as a space of shared, free access to ideas and resources. It’s a model that encourages both individual exploration and collective enrichment without requiring either the permanence of acquisition or the ongoing costs of subscription.

The library has long been a place where thinkers, from scientists to artists, could access a wealth of knowledge and ideas without the burden of ownership or the restrictions of subscription. The beauty of this model lies in its balance—it grants access, but not through the lens of an ongoing transaction. Unlike subscription, where access is tied to an ongoing fee and often shaped by algorithmic or corporate interests, libraries offer an open, public space where anyone can engage with materials based on their own curiosity and needs.

This access is, in a sense, free-flowing and non-permanent, but it’s not endless either. The library doesn’t claim to own your relationship with the materials, nor does it demand continuous engagement. It gives you what you need at a given time and allows for personal reflection and contemplation, without the pressure of ongoing consumption. It’s a shared, communal pool of resources that encourages deeper thought and exploration.

In libraries, knowledge is not commodified. It’s a space for exploration that allows for intellectual development and understanding without demanding ownership or a perpetual subscription. When someone borrows a book or journal from a library, they are not merely participating in a transaction or subscribing to an ongoing service. They are engaging in an active, temporary process of learning and discovery. The process is defined by exchange, not by a transactional model that asks for ongoing payment or the promise of continuous access. Knowledge is accessible in a way that doesn’t bind the individual to endless cycles or force them into passive consumption.

In this model, intellectual engagement is shaped by an ethos of shared access and collaboration, where the flow of information is reciprocal rather than transactional. It’s a profound departure from subscription models that place financial or material barriers on access to knowledge. Here, individuals can engage with ideas freely, contributing to their own personal development and to the broader cultural conversation without being tethered to a subscription fee or ownership burden. Libraries represent a collective resource, a temporary, non-committal access point that enables deep thought, creativity, and progress.

The Disconnect Between the Library and Subscription Models

The key distinction between libraries and subscription services lies in this non-transactional nature of access. In subscription models, your relationship to the service is one of continuous consumption, often shaped by algorithms or commercial interests. You pay to consume, and the system actively seeks to keep you engaged. Libraries, on the other hand, do not operate under the same financial imperatives. They do not need to generate ongoing income for access to knowledge, nor do they need to constantly draw people back with new content. They provide knowledge in an open-ended way, where ideas can be explored freely, with no obligation to return to the service or renew the relationship.

This gives the individual space to think critically, move forward, or even walk away without being tethered to a financial commitment. It allows the time and space for true intellectual freedom, unlike subscription models that often keep people in a loop of perpetual engagement.

In this sense, libraries represent an idealized version of access: one where ideas can be explored without the pressure of transactional relationships, allowing individuals to grow and evolve in their understanding without the limits imposed by ownership or subscription. It’s a space where knowledge is freely shared and meant to be used, not consumed in a transactional way. It fosters intellectual independence rather than dependence, making it a rare and valuable model of access in a world increasingly dominated by subscriptions.

Stepping Out of Time

Leave a comment

In the flickering realm of the Real, where time is a meat grinder chewing existence into homogenous mush, the true adept hacks reality. They don’t play by the clock, for the clock is a Moloch demanding sacrifice. No, the secret, as you’ve hinted, lies in a schizophrenic break from the temporal order. We are meat puppets, dancing on the strings of Chronos, the tyrannical God of linear time.

Imagine, if you will, a Burroughs-esque cut-up of time. The future bleeds into the present, the past pulsates with possibility. We are not bound by the linear progression, but become nomads in the chronoscape, surfing the crests of potential moments. This is not mere futurism; it’s a detournement of time itself. Forget the past, a dead language, and the future, a shimmering mirage. We exist in the pulsating, non-linear NOW, the zone of potential. Here, with a flick of the mental switchblade, we can “cut-up” the pre-programmed narrative and forge new lines of flight.

The Time becomes a writhing tapeworm, spliced with past and future in a non-linear frenzy. The “step around it” becomes a physical act, a contortionist’s leap through a tear in the fabric of moments. Imagine Naked Lunch rewritten with temporality as the addictive meat – the protagonist ingesting seconds, snorting minutes, his body a warped chronometer. We become body without organs, a fleshy assemblage unbound by the clock’s strictures. We line-break through time, forging new connections, new becomings. The future is not a preordained script, but a chaotic rhizome waiting to be explored.

Time is the big Other, the law of the father, the enforcer of the Real into the Imaginary. Stepping around it becomes a symbolic transgression, a subversion of the Name-of-the-Father. The adept, then, is the one who rejects the symbolic order, who embraces the jouissance of the Real, the unfettered present outside of signification. They see the phallus, the signifier of time, for what it is – a flimsy construct – and step beyond it.

The Symbolic Order is the culprit. Language, the master of meaning, imprisons us in the temporal flow. Time, isn’t a rigid line but a web of interconnected moments, a chaotic yet potent network. It’s a potato, not a pearl necklace. The “secret” lies in becoming a nomad on this rhizome, constantly burrowing, connecting, and deterritorializing. We can tap into lined of escape, forge new connections, and create a present that explodes the boundaries of the past and future. But through a jouissance of the Real, a glimpse beyond the symbolic, we can glimpse the fluidity of time. The mirror stage, that moment of self-recognition, becomes a portal to a multiplicity of selves, existing across the fractured planes of time.

Think of the trap of the Imaginary. We are constantly chasing a reflected self, an idealized version projected onto the linear timeline. This pursuit of a pre-defined future or a romanticized past is what keeps us stuck. It’s here that the “Real” emerges – the unnameable, traumatic rupture in the heart and symbolic order. By confronting this Real, by stepping outside the symbolic order of time, we can access a different temporality, a jouissance beyond linear progression.

To see time coming, then, is not about prophecy, but about a paranoiac awareness of its constructed nature. We pierce the veil of the “natural” flow and see the power structures it upholds. Stepping around it is an act of resistance, a refusal to be a cog in the machine.

This is a dangerous dance, mind you. The unfettered flow of time can be a terrifying abyss. But for those with the courage to dive in, there lies the potential for a nomadic existence, a liberation from the shackles of chronology. We become time surfers, riding the waves of possibility, forever escaping the clutches of the present.

The key, then, is to cultivate a schizoid awareness. We must see the “folds” in time, the potential ruptures and slippages. We can become surfers, riding the waves of the rhizome, anticipating the folds, and performing a constant “step aside” from the pre-scripted narrative. This isn’t about escaping time, but about inhabiting it differently. It It’s about becoming a time traveler, a time-cutter, a time-dancer, perpetually negotiating the folds between the Real and the Imaginary. The adept, the one who “steps around,” is the nomad, the smooth operator who navigates the folds, exploiting the in-between spaces, the cracks in the system. They become a time-surfer, riding the currents of potential futures, choosing their own point of entry.

So, the next time you feel trapped by the relentless tick-tock of the clock, remember: it’s just a hallucination of the linear mind. Look for the cracks, the potential breaks in the time-code. Sharpen your awareness, grab your mental switchblade, and step sideways. There, in the pulsating NOW, lies the escape hatch, the doorway to a different kind of time, a time ripe for creation and transformation. This secret, then, is not about literal time travel, but about a subversion of perception. It’s about shattering the illusion of linearity, embracing the potential for multiplicity within a single moment. It’s a call to become a Deleuzian nomad, a Lacanian outlaw, a Burroughsian time-eating junkie – all rolled into one. It’s about seeing the cracks in the time-code and stepping through, into a reality where the past and future bleed into a magnificent, maddening now.