This is a work in Philosopical progress and these are the 'interesting times' RFK referred to in 1966. . .

          Always.  Constantly.  Your entire life.  Yesterday, today and especially tomorrow; you were, are, and will be talked about . . . after you walk out the door.  Also, before you arrive.  And, when you are not present.  Does this come as a surprise?  Maybe this is something you prefer not to think about?  If so, you might be someone who chooses to think that only you talk about other people candidly, without fetter, when they're out of earshot.

           You were raised by hypocrites, who were themselves reared by hypocrites.  Generations of people who thrived on gossip but shamed those who talked about them "behind their backs."  They, who filled long hours talking about those around them—but, invariably, denied (and will deny tomorrow) talking about you.  The result is a classic dichotomy:  you and your family hold two conflicting ideas in your head at the same time; you talk about everyone you know, but you don't think they talk about you the same way.  They do.  Especially if you attempt to manipulate how they should think about you when you talk to them.  To them.  Not with them.  That shit gets you judged faster than any other behavior.  Fake.  Insincere.  Shallow.  Vapid.  (Are never said to your face.)

          Decades ago, social researchers posited that the majority of adults had between five and twenty-five other adults who were members of their circle of trust.  That was before the internet; when people paid large amounts of money (relative to their income) for "long distance phone calls," and—almost exclusively—communicated by talking face-to-face and writing letters delivered by affixing inexpensive postage stamps to envelopes.  Those hippy researchers labeled our 'inner circles' as circles of intimacy (containing between zero and five people) and the third ring as our circles of associates with a maximum of 150 acquaintances and friends-of-friends.

          During these Trying Times of The Twenties™ (TToTT^®) although technology makes instant communication simple, our circles of trust have shrunk.  [I wanted to edit out these cute correlation-causations, but I like them too much:  the number of characters in your average text; the number of colors and filters in your latest insta; the number of likes; number of favs; of 🖒; of conversations (pay-to-talk helps, but doesn't count); of pills you take; of videos you watch; of ... ?] ... Do you even know how to have a conversation?  A real one?

          Today's hipster researchers have re-researched and, now, our circles of trust contain between zero and five people and our circle of intimacy now contains—on average—between zero and two people.  This deserves repeating:  your circles of intimacy and trust may be nonexistent.  Are there any people with whom you can relax and tell anything to ... ... who feel likewise about you?  Are you certain of that?

          Now, of course, you have viewers, followers, and 'facebook friends'.  Those screen-names might fit into our circles of associates, but more-than-likely they are a fourth circle:  strangers hoping you Egostroke, Entertain, or Educate for Free™ (EEE 4 Free^®).

fuck you and the horse you rode in on IRONY HURTS

          O. K.  (you say)  So . . . this is a blog post about Philosophy.  Capital P.  This is the point where you philosophize, bitch.  Impart your art!  Tell me (you demand) about some long-dead, heavily-read, thinker.  Someone who lived during the time of leeches; thrived under the threat of being spiked to a crossbeam until they asphyxiated; for whom pedophilia was routine and customary (their entire lives: catcher-to-pitcher); who practiced a rape-is-legal level of misogyny; who proudly owned slaves (but wrote thoughtfully on how to get the most out of one's chattel-born); and who only thought murder was immoral when it was done to men of his wealth, class, race, and education . . . what knowledge did he have to impart regarding how to cope with my life's difficulties (you ask).  Share the wisdom (you cajole) which might help me assuage these new hardships as I have difficulty coping with uncomfortable and unfamiliar mask-breathing and social-distancing as a modern socially distant person living without access to all the comforts and privileges I was accustomed to a couple of months ago (you say without awareness of the irony, except that I've rubbed your nose in it for a paragraph).

          Stay alert for opportunities to be able to say the sentences: "I was wrong"; "I don't know"; or "That is a new (word, idea, concept, etc) for me".   

          And, when the opportunity occurs, say those words to your viewers, screen-names, followers, and 'friends'.  Then, keep talking to them.  Ask them to explain their point of view, request they share their opinion, and maybe you could even apologize for being wrong. *shudder*  Honest.  Sincere.  Thoughtful.  Challenging.  (Said in your presence ellipsis question-mark.)  

          This mind-set is transformative.  If you are someone who never says these sentences, who never admits to any of these attributes of normal human behavior (or incessantly qualifies the rare admissions you're capable or willing to make) don't give up, you're more than half way there!  It takes more effort to frown than to smile . . . which is just a metaphor I borrowed to point out the huge wall your ego must be constantly building around you.  Justifying the biases which we all have (but which you are seemingly unaware)^🞹🞹.

          It is only an inordinate strength of intellect which recognizes it is never the strongest nor the most intelligent, can easily admit if-and-when it has misspoken, and eagerly listens with the intent to learn; which always possesses a child's openness to absorb new information (with the seasoned reasoning of a philosopher only acting as custodial-staff: stepping-in to clean up afterwards); and actively hopes-for and wants—when listening/reading—to hear anything which might improve its out-of-date, biased, confused brain with new-to-you knowledge.  Something, which another might have been carrying around in their head (and been willing to impart) for as long as you've known them.  For free.  All you had to do was ask. *gasp* 

          Normally, I'd attribute, here, which terrible human being(s) I gleaned the above advice from.  The thing is, it came from all of them and none of them.  It's not even possible to source to a single style, type, or area of philo-theosophical writing.

          A bunch of eastern and western dudes (who probably supported the burning of witches for speaking heresy—if, in no other way, than by keeping silent when their next-door neighbors did it) wrote a bunch of random ideas in letters, books, diaries, and formal speeches.  Probably a large amount of which they'd heard or read in books or libraries which were later sacked and burned, so—today—they appear to be the first to think these thoughts.  Which, let me assure you, they were not; almost everything is paraphrased.

          For years, I've put some of that shite which has been attributed to them in my head.  Then, I typed this distillation.  If this makes me a philosopher, please, know this:  I reject almost everything ever written or said, by almost anyone I've ever listened to, or read.  If pressed, I'll probably disagree with the majority of what I just wrote.  *sigh*

^🞹🞹  as to what is meant by half-way there and seemingly:  Those who are already vigilantly hyper-attentive, in order to never admit their fallibility, are unaware this always makes them appear to be trying to be someone they're not, which is all it takes to be considered untrustworthy.  Which is why their circles of intimacy and trust are small (or gone) and why they are spoken about, negatively, behind their back.  The fix sounds simple:  admit misspeaking, admit not knowing, admit learning something new.  

more on 'how to relate' (to your-2020-self and others):

uncouple here

modicum of self awareness

Neither Over nor Underwhelmed

Can You Canoe?

          Senator Robert F. "Bobby" Kennedy's full Day of Affirmation speech is linked here; I especially enjoy the following excerpts: ...The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans.  ...  "There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."  ...  Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring: those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. ...  There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort. ...

          That RFK was unwilling to attribute the new-order-of-things quote to Machiavelli, by name, gives me a tickle.  It was ballsy enough to give this speech in mid-apartheid South Africa, but to reference the guy who wrote the book on how to unseat a government by any and all means?  Priceless.        

image portions for fuck you and the horse you rode in on IRONY HURTS by:

Thierry Geoffroy

Petros Giannakouris

Mick Silos

Claire Brown