De Flower Generation's Deflowered

That is to say, the hippies are thoroughly f*cked, man. I'm talkin' about those who are rapidly approaching the real 60's. Their own. How can I say this? Let me count the ways.

Who are some of their political favorites? Teddy the K comes to mind; Nan the P; Babs the Box. Just about anyone who's lost their frickin' mind. Like, I'm not into sanity, man.

Sexual morés? Like, I'm not into morés, man; I'm into amoré, dig? And the moré the merrier, man.

Drugs? Like, how much, man? Like, my price range is free, man, cuz I ain't got a pit to poss in, dig?

Religious and cultural tendencies? I'm into reincarnation, man, cuz next time I'm gonna be Shirley MacLaine or Tom Cruise, man.

Role models? Besides the aforementioned Macster and Cruister, there's Babs the Strident. She's got a good voice, man, so she must know what she's talkin' about, dig? Clooney is cool, man. The babes dig 'im, so he must know sumpin' sumpin'. Just about anybody in HolyShitWood, man, cuz they're all rich, so that means they know stuff, like poetry an' sh*t, dig? Some of them have read books.

You catchin' my drift, man? It's not just the hippies, though. There is a sizable group that no longer understands which end is up, man. People who just don't get that Kurzweil's Singularity is fast (very fast) approaching, let alone what a singularity actually is. Read the CliffsNotes, man. There is more to life than what's on YouTube, dude. Remember what frequently follows the 60's, man. It's later than you think, man. Oh yea, I forgot, you're not into time.

People (and Other Work): If It Don't Compute, Reexamine the Premise

I recall a conversation I had with my Dad when I was about 11 or 12. The topic of the conversation has long been forgotten, but what I remember clearly is the remark I made in response to my father's, "I don't know why couples fight so much." I think the reason I still remember what I said is the look on my father's face when I responded, "Maybe they like it." My Dad was astounded to hear this from his young son.

Prowess and perversity are not mutually exclusive human traits, and that most certainly extends to intellectual pursuits. Though I do relate to the aphorism, "Never attribute to malice what adequately can be explained by ignorance," I have more faith in, "Never say never." Especially in intellectual discourse, where it might not be inappropriate to discount the predominance of ignorance, the latter aphorism may be more applicable than the former.

I am frequently frustrated to encounter "intellectual" positions adhered to by those I know to be intelligent (at least there is much evidence to support it), but who fail to be moved by what, to me, seems overwhelming logical reasoning to the contrary. I must try to remember, in such circumstances, that which occurred to me more than half a century before.

Good life is just a bowl of Cheerios.™ People are work.

People (and Other Work): Nice Guys Finish ...

"Nice guys finish last." It's an oft repeated aphorism, a euphemistic version, perhaps, of the adage, "There's a sucker born every minute." However it is viewed, it reflects conventional wisdom concerning the intrinsic value of honesty. So much for the ethical standards of the me first society.

Does honesty confer value to a member of society? I honestly don't know for sure. It really depends, as do so many other things, on one's personal set of values. "What does it buy you?" is a common criterion for value. Honesty buys you disdain from enemies and, perhaps, good will from family and friends. The latter is a possibility. The former is a certainty that, to be honest, may have positive value for one's self esteem.

So do nice guys finish? Ultimately it devolves to one's personal meaning of life. My own choice is to have a loving monogamous relationship in life on Earth, and strive for heavenly rewards within the fond memories of family and friends. So far so good, knock on wood.

Good life is just a bowl of Cheerios.™ People are work.

People (and Other Work): As Much As Possible, But Not Too Much!

I knew a person once whom I will refer to as the Trapster. Her social strategy was to ensnare someone into a comfort zone, based on accepted norms of social interactions. Trapster took her time to establish various parameters and boundaries so that there was no mistaking the sociological topology, the so-called rules of social engagement for the acquaintance. Then, after a lengthy period of interaction within the established zone, Trapster would precipitate a confrontation by disclaiming some well established norm of the acquaintance. Fool me once ... .

It is unpleasant to be ridiculed, but especially by subterfuge, so it is difficult, for me, to understand what motivates someone to dispense this form of social "candor." For a social personality it pays to be trusting in the presumed good will of a new acquaintance. The obvious risk, of course, is that the presumption is unwarranted. Another case of social ordering ensues. As anything else in life, one must find a suitable balance between one's tolerance for risk and one's desire for potential benefit. In this example of a risk/reward situation, however, the risk is difficult to quantify.

Good life is just a bowl of Cheerios.™ People are work.