I walked slowly down the steps, and through the smart, glittering art deco lobby with its magazine-page glamour. How good it felt to be moving like a mortal, to open the doors, to wander out into the fresh air. I headed north along the sidewalk among the evening strollers, eyes drifting naturally over the newly refurbished hotels and their little cafes. I reflected on Mercedes telling me how her mother actually had saved her when she was a little girl—she had been the provider for the family when her real father had left. Hence, she was very loyal to her mother. Consequently, Mercedes felt that in therapy she got the permission without condemnation to express her struggle to be; she got the experience and authority from God, of her own rights and her own being she had previously lacked. My giving vent to my rage was my living out my belief that she was a beautiful person with her own rights. I did not need to say it because she could see if from my actions. In our culture, physical courage takes its form chiefly from the legends of strong people, and many people in frontier times. Our prototypes have been people like Mercedes and pioneer heroes who took the law into the own hands, who survived because they were brave, self-reliant and could endure the inevitable loneliness in homesteading with the nearest neighbor twenty miles away. #RandolphHarris 1 of 15

However, the contradiction in our heritage from this frontier are immediately clear to us. Regardless of the heroism it generated in our forebears, this kind of courage has now not only lost its usefulness, but had degenerated into brutality. When I was a child in a small Bay Area town, boys were expected to fistfight. However, our mothers represented a different viewpoint, so the boys often got licked at school and then whipped for fighting when they came home. This is scarcely an effective way to build character. As a psychoanalyst, I hear time and again of beings who had been sensitive as boys and who could not learn to pound others into submission; consequently, they got through life with the conviction that they are cowards. America is among the most violent of the so-called civilized nations; our homicide rate is three to ten times higher than that of the nations of Europe. An important cause of this is the influence of that frontier brutality of which we are heirs. We need a new kind of physical courage that will neither run rampant in violence nor require our assertion of ego-centric power over other people. I propose a new form of courage of the body: the use of the body not for the development of musclemen, but for the cultivation of sensitivity. This will mean the development of the capacity to listen to with the body. #RandolphHarris 2 of 15

Learning to think with the body is a valuing of the body as the means of empathy with others, as expression of the self as a thing of beauty and as a rich source of pleasure. Such a view of the body is already emerging in American in religious doctrines and covenants teach us about the sanctity of the body. Are bodies are made in the image of God. Our bodies house our spirits. However, our bodies are also subject to pin, illness, disabilities, and temptation. However, we are willing, even eager, to accept these challenges because we know that only with spirit and element inseparably connected can we progress to become like our Heavenly Father. “For beings are spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy,” reports Doctrine and Covenants 93.33. In these traditions, the body is not condemned, but is valued as a source of justified pride. I propose this for our consideration as the kind of physical courage we will need for the new society toward which we are moving. However, the alienated attitude toward consumption not only exists in our acquisition and consumption of commodities, but it determines far beyond this the employment of leisure time. What are we to expect? #RandolphHarris 3 of 15

If a being works without genuine relatedness to what one is doing, if one buys and consumes commodities in an abstractified and alienated way, how can one make use of one’s leisure time in an active and meaningful way? One always remains the passive and alienated consumer. One consumes ball games, moving pictures, newspapers and magazines, books, lectures, natural scenery, social gatherings, in the same alienated and abstractified way in which one consumes the commodities one has bought. One does not participate actively, one wants to take in all there is to be had, and to have as much as possible of pleasure, culture and what not. Actually, one is not free to enjoy one’s leisure; one’s leisure-time consumption is determined by industry, as are the commodities one buys; one’s taste is manipulated, one wants to see and to hear that one is conditioned to want to see and to hear; entertainment is an industry like aby other, the customer is made to buy fun as one is made to buy clothes and shoes. The value of the fun is determined by its success on the market, not by the anything which could be measured in human terms. In any productive and spontaneous activity, something happens within myself while I am reading, looking at scenery, talking to friends, etcetera. I am not the same after the experience as I was before. #RandolphHarris 4 of 15

In the alienated form of pleasure nothing happens within me; I have consumed this or that; nothing is changed within myself, and all that is left are memories of what I have done. Beings are not only alienated from the work one does, and the things and pleasures one consumes, but also from social forces which determine our society and the life of everybody living in it. Our actual helplessness before the forces which govern us appears more drastically in those social catastrophes which, even though they are denounced as regrettable accidents each time, so far have never failed to happen: economic depressions and wars. These social phenomena appear as if they were natural catastrophes, rather than what they really are, occurrences made by beings, but without intention and awareness. This anonymity of the social forces is inherent in the structure of the capitalist mode of production. In contrast to most other societies in which social laws are explicit and fixed on the basis of political power or tradition—capitalism does not have such explicit laws. It is based on the principle that if only everybody strives for oneself on the market, the common good will come to it; order and not anarchy will be the result. There are, of course, economic laws which govern the market, but these laws operate behind the back of the acting individual, who is concerned only with one’s private interest. #RandolphHarris 5 of 15

You try to guess these laws of the market as a Calvinist in Geneva tried to guess whether God had predestined one for salvation or not. However, the laws of the market, like God’s will, are beyond the reach of your will and influence. To a large extent the development of capitalism has proven that this principle works; and it is indeed a miracle that the antagonistic co-operation of self-contained economic entities should result in a blossoming and ever-expanding society. It is true that the capitalistic mode of production is conducive to political freedom, while any centrally planned social order is in danger of leading to political regimentation and eventually to dictatorship. While this is not the place to discuss the question of whether there are other alternatives than the choice between free enterprise and political regimentation, it needs to be said in this context that the very fact that we are governed by laws which we do not control, and do not even want to control, is one of the most outstanding manifestations of alienation. We are the producers of our economic and social arrangements, and at the same time we decline responsible arrangements, and enthusiastically, and await hopefully or anxiously—as the case may be—what the future will bring. #RandolphHarris 6 of 15

Our own actions are embodied in the laws which govern us, but these laws are above us, and we are their slaves. The giant state and economic system are not any more controlled by beings. They run wild, and their leaders are like a person on a runaway horse, who is proud of managing to keep in the saddle, even though one is powerless to direct the horse. For good reasons every culture clings to the belief that its own feelings and drives are the one normal experience of human nature, and psychology has not made an exception to this rule. Dr. Freud for example, concludes from his observations that woman is more jealous than man, and then tires to account for this presumably general phenomenon on biological grounds. Dr. Freud also seems to assume that all human beings experience guilt feelings concerning murder. It is an indisputable fact, however, that the greatest variations exist in the attitude toward killing. Some cultures do not feel that a murderer requires punishment. In many primitive tribes the injury done a family when one of its members is killed by an outsider may be repaired by presenting a substitute. In some cultures, the feeling of a mother whose son has been killed can be assuaged by adopting the murderer in his place. #RandolphHarris 7 of 15

Making further use of anthropological findings we must recognize that some of our conceptions about human nature are rather naïve, for example the idea that competitiveness, sibling rivalry, kinship between affection and sexuality, are trends inherent in human nature. Our conception of normality is arrived at by the approval of certain standards of behavior and feeling within certain standards of behavior and feeling within a certain group which imposes these standards upon its members. However, the standards vary with culture, period, class and gender. These considerations have more far-reaching implications for psychology than appears at first impression. The immediate consequence is a feeling of doubt about psychological omniscience. From resemblances between findings concerning our culture and those concerning other cultures we must not conclude that both are due to the same motivations. It is no longer valid to suppose that a new psychological finding reveals a universal trend inherent in human nature. The effect of all this is to confirm what some sociologist have repeatedly asserted: that there is no such thing as a normal psychology, which holds for all beings. #RandolphHarris 8 of 15

These limitations, however, are more than compensated by the opening up of new possibilities of understanding. The essential implication of these anthropological considerations is that feelings and attitudes are to an amazingly high degree molded by the conditions under which we live, both cultural and individual, inseparably interwoven. This in turns means that if we know the cultural conditions under which we live we have a good chance of gaining a much deeper understanding of the special character of normal feelings and attitudes. And inasmuch as neuroses are deviations from the normal pattern of behavior there is for them, too, a prospect of better understanding. In part, taking this way means following Dr. Freud along the path that led him ultimately to present the World with a hitherto unthought-of understanding of neuroses. While in theory Dr. Freud traced back to our peculiarities to biologically-given drives he has emphatically represented the opinion—in theory and still more practice—that we cannot understand a neurosis without a detailed knowledge of the individual’s life circumstances, particularly the molding influences of affection in early childhood. Applying the same principle to the problem of normal and neurotic structures in a given culture means that we cannot understand these structures without a detailed knowledge of the influences the particular culture exerts over the individual. #RandolphHarris 9 of 15

For the rest it means that we have to take a definite step beyond Dr. Freud, a step which is possible, though, only on the basis of Dr. Freud’s revealing discoveries. For although in one respect he is far ahead of his own time, in another—in his over-emphasis on the biological origin of mental characteristics—Dr. Freud has remained rooted in its scientific orientations. He has assumed that the instinctual drives or object relationships that are frequent in our culture are biologically determined of being’s nature or arise out of unalterable situations (biologically given pregenital stages, Oedipus complex). Dr. Freud’s disregard of cultural factors not only leads to false generalization, but to a large extent blocks an understanding of the real forces which motivate our attitude and actions. I believe that this disregard is the main reason why psychoanalysis, inasmuch as it faithfully follows the theoretical paths beaten by Dr. Freud, seems in spite of its seemingly boundless potentialities to have come into a blind alley, manifesting itself in a rank growth of abstruse theories and the use of shadowy terminology. We have seen now that a neurosis involves deviation from the normal. This criterion is very important, though it is not sufficient. #RandolphHarris 10 of 15

Persons may deviate from the general pattern without having a neurosis. The artist who refused to give more time than necessary to earning money, may have a neurosis or he or she may simply be wise in not permitting oneself to be pulled into the current of competitive struggle. On the other hand, many persons may have a severe neurosis who according to surface observations are adapted to existing patterns of life. It is in such cases that the psychological or medical point of view is necessary. Curiously enough, it is anything but easy to say what constitutes a neurosis from this point of view. At any rate, as long as we study the manifest picture alone, it is difficult to find characteristics common to all neuroses. We certainly cannot use the symptoms—such as phobias, depressions, functional physical disorders—as criterion, because they may not be present. Inhibitions of some sort are always present, for reason I shall discuss later, but they may be so subtle or so well disguised as to escape surface observation. The same difficulties would arise if we should judge from the manifest picture alone the disturbances in relations with other people, including the disturbances in sexual relations. These are never missing but they may be very difficult to discern. #RandolphHarris 11 of 15

There are two characteristics, however, which one may discern in all neuroses without having an intimate knowledge of the personality structure: a certain rigidity in reaction and a discrepancy between potentialities and accomplishments. Both characteristics need further explanation. By rigidity in reactions I mean a lack of that flexibility which enables us to react differently to different situations. The normal person, for instance, is suspicious where one senses or sees reasons for being so; a neurotic person may be suspicious, regardless of the situation, al the time, whether one is aware one’s state or not. A normal person is able to discriminate between compliments meant sincerely and those of an insincere nature; the neurotic person does not differentiate between the two or may discount them altogether, under all conditions. A normal person will be spiteful if one feels an unwarranted imposition; a neurotic may react with spite to any insinuation, even if one realizes that it is in one’s own interest. A normal person may be undecided, at times, in a matter important and difficult to decide; a neurotic may be undecided at all times. #RandolphHarris 12 of 15

Rigidity, however, is indicative of a neurosis only when it deviates from the cultural patterns. A rigid suspicious of anything new or strange is a normal pattern among a large proportion of the less affluent in Western civilization; and the small bourgeois’ rigid emphasis on thrift is also an example of normal rigidity. In the same way, a discrepancy between the potentialities of a person and one’s actual achievements in life may be due on to external factors. However, it is indicative of a neurosis if in spite of gifts and favorable external possibilities for their development the person remains unproductive; or if in spite of having all the possibilities for feeling happy one cannot enjoy what one has; or if in spite of being beautiful a woman feels that she cannot attract men. In other words, the neurotic has the impression that one stands in one’s own way. Sometimes we can understand from people’s words and the look in their eyes that their soul is sunken in despair that bears down on many others, turning their course and resolution by imagined perils, as one’s own shadow turns the frightened horse. This means that some people are experiencing various levels of evil in hell, the depth of the unconscious. These types of individuals need a guide to help them through this dangerous mortal landscape they must traverse. #RandolphHarris 13 of 15

When we are alive in someone’s World, we can be a friend, an accompanying presence for the bewildered pilgrim and help them interpret these levels in hell. As a result, our presence can change the magnetic field. We are souls among souls in limbo; we are all struggling along in the spiritual condition, whether we be rich or less affluent, a student or teacher, at that particular time. We need not be too concernedabout the directive language ere. We must search continually for the inner meanings, which is that some cannot find their way alone through this misery. Beings require not only the stability of a legend, but also a legend that one can assimilate to one’s own purposes. Still, listening to someone else’s teaching, or reading it, will only be a temporary makeshift until the day when one can establish communication with one’s own intuitive self and receive from it the teaching which one, as a unique individual, needs. From no other source can one get such specially suitable instruction. All Nature shows the self-evolution which is going on. Each of us is part of it. Each of us can carry oneself further into the next phase and beyond. The Force and Intelligence are present, but the faith in them must be drawn on. Otherwise, we shall have to look outside for help, probably for someone to guide, lean, on and be carried by. However, held too long and too far, the hope proves illusory. #RandolphHarris 14 of 15

Our discover of being born out of, and still remaining rooted in, the Infinite Mind of God, is a tremendous one but it does not make one identical with God. It makes the mystic a channel only for the cosmic mind, not one with it. One touched the cosmic and does not become entirely transformed into it. Human beings can only hope to realize the Overself which is a ray or intermediary, but not the World-Mind itself. For the latter is too vast and infinite and remote. Hence when mystics talk of knowing God or feeling God, this is only partly true for they can never know of feel God in his fullness. The soul is as close as we can approach to that Mind, but surely it is enough. For it reflects something of the Mind’s nature. This is why the seers call it a spark of the One Divine Flame, and the prophets declared it to be created in the image of God. The finite minds which are the offspring of the One Mind may not hope to rise in power or understanding to its attitude. Nevertheless, because they are inseparable from it, they may find hints of both these attributes within themselves. The Divine Essence is undiscoverable by human sense and intellect but not by human intuition and insight. We may, however, attain to partial knowledge of the transcendent Absolute by and through its emanation in us, the higher self. #RandolphHarris 15 of 15