Just a thought: The modern vilification of hypocrisy strikes me as a step backward in one way - it makes people feel bad about having high ideals they can't always meet.
My favorite quote from The Diamond Age is relevant:
> You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others-after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? … Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour-you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
It also captures one of the (IMO) underappreciated elements of Stephenson: he takes up technology, but is hugely interested in how it interacts with both individuals and society at large.
'Do what I say but not what I do' isn't really missing an ideal you hold or profess, it's ignoring it. That is far closer to expecting it of others but not yourself.
