In the aspiration for healthy relationships I generally consider it high-minded to avoid conflict with others.  But competing with this positivism (which by the way pointedly has nothing to do with theism) is the natural and – dare I say it – the curmudgeonly inclination to adopt less than humanistic decisions. It is I believe more nutritious – and less ruinous – to exchange what springs from the source than from above. Nor is this a narcissistic devotion.  Very often the conviction for validity of fact is received with less than convenience or gusto. There is at least some assurance that it may not be overlooked entirely. By contrast being self-effacing seldom inspires legitimacy and may paradoxically defeat the very object of communication it was intended to inspire.

Rather than attempt to persuade you, Dear Reader, of my laborious assertion, permit me instead to ask, “Wherein lies your authenticity?” If as I assume to be the case your identity and personal strength derive from a complex of ideas and considerations both logical and authoritative then I can imagine no scheme by which it improves a substantial relationship to escape from them. The ingenuity in the discourse of that fabric may rightfully demand social calculation without compromise.

Hard words while having meaning can provoke resilience or – in the hands of the uninitiated – resiling.  One must therefore be prepared for a spring or a jump. For my part I much prefer the seeming callousness of directness albeit risky. To do otherwise is cleverly to impart a mendacity or shallowness which does nothing to heighten others or oneself. The option may however be a lack of intensity with as much magnetism as a beige wall. Not every encounter is worthy of perpetuation. Therein lies the risk of loss.

My life has been emptied enjoying both its psychic and material elements. As much as I have adored antiques from afar I have usually ended abandoning them if the clock stops working. I’m not big on used cars. Functionality not mien is the impetus. Naturally if one prefers the superlative legacy of age to the durability of properly constructed purpose, then there is no contest. The theses of argument are fundamentally divergent and therefore irrelevant. But so too are the proponents. I have little truck with extraneous or impertinent convention.