But Love is Blind, and Lovers Cannot See the Pretty Follies that themselves Commit!

How far that little candle throws his beams! So shine a good deed in a naughty World. Some scientists suggest that the tasks for the behavioural sciences is to make humans productive, well-behaved, and so forth, it is obvious that they are making a choice. One might have chosen to make humans submissive, dependent, and gregarious, for example. Yet by this stated objective of some scientists in another being’s capacity to choose, one freedom to select one’s course and to initiate action—these powers do not exist in the scientific picture of humans. Here is, I believe, the deep-seated contradiction, or paradox. Let me spell it out as clearly as I can. Science, to be sure, rests on the assumption that behaviour is caused—that a specified event is followed by a consequent event. Hence all is determined, nothing is free, choice is impossible. However, we must recall that science itself, and each specific scientific endeavour, each change of course in a scientific research, each interpretation of the meaning of a scientific finding and each decision as to how the finding shall be applied, rests upon a personal subjective choice. Thus science in general exists in the same paradoxical situation as do many scientists. A personal subjective choice made by humans that there can be no such thing as a personal subjective choice. I shall make some comments about this continuing paradox at a later point. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

I stressed the fact that each of these choices initiating or furthering the scientific venture, is a value choice. The scientist investigates this rather than that, because one feels the first investigation has more value for one. One chooses one method for one’s study rather than another because one values it more highly. One interprets one’s findings in one way rather than another because one believes the first way is closer to the truth, or more valid—in other words that it is closer to a criterion which one values. Now these value choices are never a part of the scientific venture itself. The value choices connected with a particular scientific enterprise always and necessarily are possessed outside of that enterprise. I wish to make it clear that I am not saying that values cannot be included as a subject of science. It is not true that science deals only with certain classes of facts and that these classes do not include values. It is a bit more complex than that, as a simple illustration or two may make clear. If I value knows of the “three R’s” (reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmetic) as a goal of education, the methods of science can give me increasingly accurate information as to how this goal may be achieved. If I value problem-solving ability as a goal of education, the scientific method can give me the same kind of help. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

Now if I wish to determine whether problem-solving ability is “better” than knowledge of the three R’s, then scientific method can also study those two values, but only—and this is very important—only in term of some other value which I have subjectively chosen. I may value college success. Then I can determine whether problem-solving ability or knowledge of the three R’s is most closely associated with that value. I may value personal integration or vocational success or responsible citizenship. I may value personal integration or vocational success or responsible citizenship. I can determine whether problem-solving ability or knowledge of the three R’s is “better” for achieving any one of these values. However, the value or purpose which gives meaning to a particular scientific endeavour must always be possessed outside of the endeavour. Though our concern in these lectures is largely with applied science what I have been saying seems equally true of so-called pure science. In pure science the usual prior subjective value choice, and science can never say whether it is the best choice, save in the light of some other value. Geneticists in Russian, for example, had to make a subjective choice of whether it was better to pursue truth, or to discover facts which upheld strict and rigid government doctrines. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

Which choice is “better”? We could make a scientific investigation of those alternatives, but only in the light of some other subjectively chosen value. If, for example, we value the survival of a culture then we could begin to investigate with the methods of science the question as to whether pursuit of truth or support of governmental dogma is most closely associated with cultural survival. Any scientific endeavour, pure or applied, is carried on in the pursuit of a purpose or value which is subjectively chosen by persons. It is important that this choice be made explicit, since the particular value which is being sought can never be tested or evaluated, confirmed or denied, by the scientific endeavour to which it gives birth and meaning. The initial purpose or value always and necessarily is possessed outside the scope of the scientific effort which it sets in motion. Among other things this means that if we choose some particular goal or series of goals for human beings, and then set out on a large scale to control human behaviour to the end of achieving those goals, we are locked in the rigidity of our initial choice, because such a scientific endeavour can never transcend itself to select new goals. Only subjective human persons can do that. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

Thus if we choose as our goal the state of happiness for human beings (a goal deservedly ridiculed by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World), and if we involved all of society in a successful scientific program by which people become happy, we would be locked in a colossal rigidity in which no one would be free to question this goal, because our scientific operations could not transcend themselves to question their guiding purposes. And without labouring this point, I would remark that colossal rigidity, whether in dinosaurs or dictatorships, has a very poor record of evolutionary survival. If, however, a part of our scheme is to set free some “planners” who do not have to be happy, who are not controlled, and who are therefore free to choose other values, his has several meanings. It means that the purpose we have chosen as our goal is not a sufficient and satisfying one for human beings, but must be supplemented. It also means that if it is necessary to set up an elite group which is free, then this shows all too clearly that the great majority are only the slaves—no matter by what high-sounding name we call them—of those who select the goals. Perhaps, however, the thought is that a continuing scientific endeavour will evolve its own goals; that the initial findings will alter the directions, and subsequent findings will alter them still further and that science somehow develops its own purposes. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

This seems to be a view implicitly held by many scientists. It is surely a reasonable description, but it overlooks one element in this continuing development, which is that subjective personal choice enters in at every point at which the direction changes. The findings of a science, the results of an experiment, do not and never can tell us what next scientific to pursue. Even in the purest of science, the scientist must decide what the findings mean, and must subjectively choose what next step will be most profitable in the pursuit of one’s purpose. And if we are speaking of the application of scientific knowledge, then it is distressingly clear that the increasing scientific knowledge of the structure of the atom carries with it no necessary choice as to the purpose to which this knowledge will be put. This is a subjective personal choice which must be made by many individuals. Science has its meaning as the objective pursuit of a purpose which has been subjectively chosen by a person or persons. This purpose or value can never be investigated by particular scientific experiment or investigation to which it has given birth and meaning. Consequently, any discussion of the control of human beings by the behavioral sciences must first and most deeply concern itself with the subjectively chosen purposes which such an application of science is intended to implement. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

The neurotic’s fundamental attitudes toward others has acquainted us with two of the major ways in which one attempts to solve one’s conflicts or, more precisely, to dispose of them. One of these consists in repressing certain aspects of the personality and bringing their opposites to the fore; the other is to put such distance between oneself and one’s fellows that the conflicts are set out of operation. Both processes induce a feeling of unity that permits the individual to function, even if at considerable cost to oneself. A further attempt, here to be described, is the creation of an image of what the neurotic believes oneself to be, or of what at the time one feels one can or ought to be. Conscious or unconscious, the image is always in large degree removed from reality, though the influence it exerts on the person’s life is very real indeed. What is more, it is always flattering in character, as illustrated by a cartoon in the New Yorker in which a middle-aged woman, above average weight sees herself in the mirror as Paris Hilton, a slender young girl. The particular features of the image vary and are determined by the structure of the personality: beauty may be held to be outstanding, or power, intelligence, genius, saintliness, honesty, or what you will. Precisely to the extent that the image is unrealistic, it tends to make the person arrogant, in the original meaning of the words; for arrogance, though used synonymously with superciliousness, means to arrogate to oneself qualities that one does not have, or that one potentially but not factually. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

And the more unrealistic the image, the more it makes the person vulnerable and avid for outside affirmation and recognition. We do not need confirmation for qualities of which we are certain, but we will be extremely touchy when false claims are questioned. We can observe this idealized image at its most blatant in the grandiose notions of psychotics; but in principle its characteristics are the same in neurotics. It is less fantastic here, but it may be just as real to them. If we regard the degree of removal from reality as marking the difference between psychoses and neuroses, we may consider the idealized image as a bit of psychosis woven into the texture of neurosis. In all its essentials the idealized image is an unconscious phenomenon. Although one’s self-inflation may be most obvious even to an untrained observer, the neurotic is not aware that one is idealizing oneself. Nor does one know what a bizarre conglomeration of characters is assembled here. One may have a vague sense that one is making high demands upon oneself, but mistaking such perfectionist demands for genuine ideals one in no way questions their validity and is indeed rather proud of them. How can one’s creation affect one’s attitude toward oneself varies with the individual and depends largely on the focus of interest. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

If the neurotic’s interest is possessed in convincing oneself that one is one’s idealized image, one develops the belief that one is in fact the mastermind, the exquisite human being, whose very faults are divine. If the focus is on the realistic self which by comparison with the idealized image is highly despicable, self-derogatory criticism is in the foreground. Since the picture of the self that results from such disparagement is just as far removed from reality as is the idealized image, it could appropriately be called the despised image. If, finally, the focus is upon the discrepancy between the idealized image and the actual self, then all one is aware of and all we can observe are one’s incessant attempts to bridge the gap and whip oneself into perfection. In this event one keeps reiterating the word “should” with amazing frequency. One keeps telling us what one should have felt, thought, done. He is at bottom as convinced of one’s inherent perfection as the naively “narcissistic” person, and betrays it be the belief that one could be perfect if only one were more strict with oneself, more controlled, more alert, more circumspect. In contrast to authentic ideals, the idealized image has a static quality. It is not a goal toward whose attainment one strives but a fixed idea which one worships. Ideals have a dynamic quality; they arouse an incentive to approximate them; they are an indispensable and invaluable force for growth and development. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

The idealized image is a decided hindrance to growth because it either denies shortcomings or merely condemns them. Genuine ideals make for humility, the idealized image for arrogance. This phenomenon—however defined—has long been recognized. It is referred to in the philosophic writings of all times. Dr. Freud introduced it into the theory of neurosis, calling it by a variety of names: ego ideal, narcissism, superego. It forms the central thesis of Adler’s psychology, descried there as a striving for superiority. It would lead us to far afield to point out in detail the differences and similarities between these concepts and my own. Briefly, all of these are concerned only with one or another aspect of the idealized image, and fail to see the phenomenon as a whole. Hence despite pertinent comment and argument not only by Dr. Freud and Dr. Adler but by many other writers as well—among them Franz Alexander, Paul Federn, Bernard Glueck, and Ernest Jones—the full significance of the phenomenon and its functions has not been reorganized. What, then, are its functions? Apparently it fulfills vital needs. No matter how the various writers account for it theoretically, they are all agreed on the one point that it constitutes a stronghold of neurosis difficult to shake or even to weaken. Dr. Freud for one regarded a deeply ingrained “narcissistic” attitude as among the most serious obstacles to therapy. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

There is instruction—verbal instruction, verbal warning. The word “instruction” literally means “to place before the mind. Often this means to confront and thus is related to the precious topic, discipline. This is precisely where the high priest Eli was such an abysmal domestic failure in raising his sons. First Samuel 3.11-13 reports to us: And the Lord said to Samuel: “See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. At that time I will carry out against Eli everything I spoke against his family—from beginning to end. For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.” The Greek word for “restrain” in the Septuagint has the same root as “instruction” in Ephesians 6.4. Eli failed to confront his boys. He failed to instruct them about their sin. And because of this, they were destroyed. Clear, forthright instruction is necessary for proper upbringing. Men, if we are to own up to our responsibilities, we must be: Involved in verbally instructing children, regularly reading them in family devotions and prayer, monitoring and being responsible along with our wives for the input that enters their impressionable minds, taking responsibility to help assure that church is a meaningful experience. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

And above all, to be responsible fathers we must make sure that the open book of our lives—our example—demonstrates the reality of our instruction, for in watching us they will learn the most. The “do’s” of fathering—tenderness, discipline, and instruction—together demand one great thing, as a certain busy doctor came to realize. He would appear at meals, pay allowances, and give advice, often without really listening to the problems of his family before he spoke. One afternoon, as he was preparing an article for a respected journal of medicine, his little son crept into the forbidden sanctuary of his father’s study. “Daddy,” he appealed. Without speaking, the doctor opened his desk drawer and handed the boy a box of candy. A few moments later the boy again said, “Daddy,” and his father absent mindedly handed him a pencil. “Daddy,” the boy persisted. The doctor responded to this with a grunt, indicating he knew the boy was there but did not want to be bothered. “Daddy!” the body called out again. Angered, the busy doctor swung around in his chair and said, “What on Earth is so important that you insist on interrupting me? Can you not see I am busy? I have given you candy and a pencil. Now what do you want?” “Daddy, I want to hang out with you.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

The “do’s” of fatherhood cannot be lived out by proxy. You need to participate in putting your little ones to bed and praying for and with them. You need to be at their plays, speeches, recitals, and sporting events. You need to schedule regular time along with each of your children. You need to take the lead in planning terrific family vacations and in celebrating and cementing family solidarity. Now in mid-life I sometimes wistfully think, “Where did the time go between the two indelible memories of the birth of my daughter and the birth of her son?” To be honest, some of the years were long and hard. I thought we would never get through many of the stresses. However, when these great events are recalled in all their colour, there seems to be no time between them. That is why, whenever I have occasion to hold a baby in my arms, I often encourage the parents to savour every moment and not to rush through the experience—the child will be grown up and gone in no time. The realization that we have only a brief time to raise our children should give us huge motivation to make the most of it and should make Scriptural advice about fathering pulse with importance for us. Men, time is the chrysalis of eternity—there is no other time but the present. I realize we all go through periods in our lives when we have little time for our families—it is part of the natural rhythm of life. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

However, excessive “busyness” must not be by choice—as it so often is! We must beware of packing our schedules by saying “yes” to things which mean “no” to our families. Now is the time to take time. There is no other! Will you do it? Will I? Men, we must evaluate our fatherhood. What does your heart tell you as you read these questions listed? Are you weak our strong? Do you criticize your children, or build them up? Are you overly strict, or reasonably strict—gradually granting your child greater freedom? Are you impatient and irritable, or patient and self-controlled, when dealing with your children? Are you consistent in your expectations? Have you kept you promises? Do you show favouritism? Are you tender with both your sons and daughters? Do you share in the discipline? Are you spending time with your children, as a family and individually? What awesome power we have! Our children all want the “aura and armament” of their fathers. Men, their hearts are turned to us! And our Lord wants our hearts to be turned to them. We hear this truth memorably stated by the Angel Gabriel when he announced that part of John the Baptist’s mission in making a people ready for the Lord was “to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children,” reports Luke 1.17. Now that Christ has come, this is a perpetual result of His saving work. When a man truly gives his heart to Christ, it is turned toward his children. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

Men, submit to Christ—allow Him to turn your hearts to your children. Ask the Holy Spirit for the power to practice the discipline of fatherhood. Sweat for your children’s souls. We actually cannot give God anything that He has not first given to us. David recognized this fact when the leaders of Israel gave so generously for the building of the Temple. In his prayer of praise to God he said, “But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. O Lord our God, as for all this abundance that we have provided for building you a temple for your Holy Name, it comes from your hand, and all of it belongs to you,” reports 1 Chronicles 29.14, 16. David knew he and his people had not given anything to God that was not already His. Even our service to God comes from His hand. As the prophet Isaiah said, “LORD, all that we have accomplished you have done for us,” reports Isaiah 26.12. Paul summed up the whole question of what we have given to God rather conclusively when he said, “And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all humans life and breath and everything else,” reports Acts 17.25. When every breath we breathe is a gift from God there really is noting left to give that has not been first given. Almighty and everlasting God, convert us with our whole souls to Thyself; that as Thou vouchsafest such good gifts to the undeserving, Thou mayest bestow yet greater on the devout; through Jesus Christ our Lord. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

Almighty and everlasting God, convert our minds, we beseech Thee, to deeds which shall be pleasing in Thy sight; that Thy rebuke may not prove, by our neglect, a greater cause of punishment, but, by our amendment, a Fatherly admonition; through Jesus Christ our Lord. We beseech Thee, O Lord, convert all our hearts unto Thyself, that we, abstaining from thing which offend Thee, may feel Thy mercy, and not Thy wrath; through Jesus Christ our Lord. “And now, my child, I speak onto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you. For if you have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children. And now, my child, I desire that ye should labour diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for this intent I have written this epistle,” Moroni 8.4-6. O Lord God, the first act of calling is by thy command in thy word, “Come unto me, return unto me”; the second is to let in light, so that I see that I am called particularly, and perceive the sweetness of the command as well as its truth, in regard to thy great love of the sinner, by inviting one to come, though vile, in regard to the end of the command, which is fellowship with thee, in regard to thy promise in the gospel, which is all of grace. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

Therefore, Lord, I need not search to see if I am elect, or loved, for if I turn thou wilt come to me; Christ has promised me fellowship if I take him, and the Spirit will pour himself out on me, abolishing sin and punishment, assuring me of strength to persevere. It is thy pleasure to help all that pray for grace, and come to thee for it. When my heart is unsavoury with sin, sorrow, darkness, hell only thy free grace can help me ac with deep abasement under a sense of unworthiness. Let me lament for forgetting daily to come to thee, and cleanse me from the deceit of bringing my heart to a duty because the act pleased me or appealed to reason. Grant that I may be salted with suffering, with every exactment tempered to my soul, every rod excellently filled to my back, to chastise, humble, break me. Let me not overlook the hand that holds the rod, as thou didst not let me forget the rod that fell on Christ, and drew me to him. O Eternal Father, convert our hearts unto Thyself; for nothing needful shall be lacking to those whom Thou shalt enabled to be devoted to Thy worship; through Jesus Christ our Lord. We beseech Thee, Almighty God, look not upon the multitude of our wickedness; but draw away our weakness from sin, and guide the wills of Thy servants to what is right; through Jesus Christ our Lord. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17