Tl;dr – My theory is that the “Hammonologues” are actually Farouk speaking to the audience. Also, while derivative, I think the lecture indicated a shift in focus for the back half of the season. Read on if you want!

I believe that Jon Hamm is Farouk. In the last episode, Farouk seemed to occupy the White World. We often only see the bad elements of perception distortion. If you recall, Farouk zipped up the astral plane into the White World. We also see David go there once.

You’re right. It was a modern interpretation of cave allegory. That allegory was then extended to what if you could move/act/behave in the world of shadows. And, because those shadows are depersonalized given that they are a shadow and you are you, our actions are harmful.

I wouldn’t say so. I think the consequences affirm the action as immoral. The history of humanity has shown that selective killing can be moral. That’s not something that I prescribe to, but it exists.

I definitely like the idea that MiB is a Host following his death at Journey Into Night. Ford fulfilling William’s death wish can be seen as a spiteful or thoughtful gesture. Likewise, immortality is a fantastic F.U. to William, especially given what we saw this episode.

¿Poopity scoop, scoopity poopity poop?

This is a Marvel comics show about mutants. Of course they have these extreme powers. I feel that if you rewatch this season you will clearly see this episode as a demonstration of his powers. You argue that David’s god powers are too much for the show, but that is the central tension between him and SK. As repeated…

Given that all branched realities were in the future, he actually was imagining in addition to the fact that they already existed.

That’s not exactly correct.

David was seeing/reliving moments of his past.

And, if she were a Host, her bullet would not have seriously injured the other human.

I actually think that the question is a step before that.

I actually think that the question is a step before that.

Generally, I am with you. This opinion piece is an extrapolation of a TED talk that is inherently light on substance and more reliant on spectacle or abstract thought. No one should watch his talk and think this it was his complete and final modus operandi.

After all this commentary you never thought to wonder if there was an actual referent? In fact, this entire opinion piece is an extrapolation of the TED Talk.

But wasn’t she using a flip phone in the film? I thought that was the tip to 2008. It doesn’t really matter, though.

I want to believe you. Do we know that Lane takes place in 2016?

But did they?

No, it’s not.

Because it’s all absurd!