Back when I was being miserably overpaid to abuse the minds of vulnerable and helpless youth, one of my favored tortures employed 2001, in written (Clarke) and cinema (Kubrick) versions.

Ah, the delight seeing such mongrel confusion on those dear little faces having to read, then view and discuss things unrelated to hormonal impulses and fad du jour.

I didn’t mean to hurt any of those small peeps, only bring a little miserable joy their way. Did my best.

Then a day hit when one of the mini-minds asked in bored glory, “Why does that bone turn into a spacecraft?”

Damn, why did it? The annoying question, however, brought an answer requiring an exam of my many pompous gaps.

“Why? Well, it’s the history of throwing, isn’t it? Whether we use muscles or a bow string or chemical propellants we’re still only throwing. Our species is a lot better at it, but we’re still in the throwing stage.”

I recall (indeed, how could I allow myself ever to forget) praising the student for asking this most excellent and insightful of questions.

“Bravo and applause! Among the best questions I’ve ever been asked!” I laid on heavily as layering spread for a monumental pb & j, a full multi-course meal between two slabs of bread.

My recollection is fairly solid about this because high praise, though warranted and earned, was apt to be near the last thing said student wanted to hear and thereby be taunted with for months or more to come. Maybe years. I could hope, couldn’t I?

So praise I gave loudly and warmly and repeated to ensure as much student agony as possible, such times of blessed vengeance on the dynasty of teens too rare and welcome to allow it to slip by unnoticed.

Ah, the child’s dear face wrapped in impotent chagrin at a nuisance question (typical dumb pose) turned right-‘round in its cat skin to bite the teeny in the posterior. Hah!

To those who’ve seen 2001, I suggest a revisit; as to those unfamiliar, worth a try. The movie holds up fairly well, I think. Yes. Does. Decent film.

A special treat (horror to some) is the score using so much dead, old music. But turned out outer space was a fine place, indeed, for a sappy Strauss waltz to dance among the stars and other orbiting bodies. Does it go too far to say the score and direction were inspired? Nah. I can say that. Without fear. Because for whatever fault might be found there will always (or most likely) be the response “What’s THAT doing HERE?” Exactly, eggs crackedly.

(Does it make any difference knowing what a waltz is or the Strauss family or “An der schonen blauen Donau” or what that means? It certainly helps, but if coached to see modern and progress as primary, then one might not know and thereby miss some content. Same thing recognizing I don’t know you from seeing your name.)

Not having a depth of experience is the most wonderful justification for thinking it unimportant.

Use the examples you already know of folks asserting as solid things made of makeup and fluff. Experience builds on and in us.

Say I don’t like cauliflower. Fine. No problem with that, not until I go further to list the things I find wrong with cauliflower. Does my list change anything? Not really. It still remains. Not liking cauliflower is fine. Justifying this dislike to convince you is useless except for one regard, and I bet you sense what that is, don’t you?

Then go on to say I don’t like a particular person or group. Again, as a personal position that’s OK. But, of course, an attack on cauliflower might likely follow. I don’t like person X because they cheated me of money or group X believes in semi-annual ritual consumption of human brain.

If person X forgot about a payment is that cheating? Not if a reminder sees them apologize and make good. People do forget, sometimes quite important things. That happens, so why confuse a common human failing with cheating?

I could still dislike person X, but without the baggage of cheating. On the other side, a group advocating ritual eating of human material as entry to their mysterious way forward might face a tough climb convincing me.

I can be made aware that in earlier conflict the brains came from defeated enemies. I can be told its modern progress brains consumed now come from volunteers or accident victims or fetuses or whatever. I’m not onboard.

Even if it’s one one-millionth human brain in the ritual concoction I will pass. I simply do not see a place where a tiny bit of cannibalism is acceptable.

I feel same about, say, murder. One killing is all it takes. Same with slave owning, one gets you totally through that door. And more than one spouse makes bigamy. (I personally hold one spouse plenty, in some cases too many.)

If I retreat (as those wishing this over might prefer) to the example of the forgetful cheater, we have another hu-foib (human foible) which with age one often learns from both sides.

I think of doing something and in the thought forget I didn’t do it. I’d be unmistakably wrong and in error to suggest any hint of gender bias saying that some will more readily make a mix of thinking with doing, But really, not the same things a’tall.

However, experience gone my way suggests the existence of those who hold discussion as life’s core activity. To be sure, talking and reviewing are important. But, here’s where I may get in trouble, talk isn’t performance, and simply because it felt good jabbering a topic unto death the first time doesn’t mean a second or third or more time will add anything of much use. Talking is not the same as doing.

In past when asked to be on a committee I’d ask “What’s our budget? What authority do we have?” If answer was zero and none my participation was clearly unneeded and I could be replaced doing that much nothing by a dead mouse, thank you Chairman Mao.