There are no secretes to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure. The confusion of power and force have prevented a meaningful doctrine of power, especially in the social and political fields. Our understanding of power and the power of being is the first step in removing this inhibition. However, more is needed, because the disturbing question must be answered whether there is power without force and compulsion. If this question had to be answered negatively, would that not mean that the equation of power with compulsions is not confusion but realism? The term “force” points both to the strength a thing has in itself and to the way in which it has effect on other things. It forces them into a movement of behaviour without using their own active support. Of course, no thing can be forced into something which contradicts its nature. If this is attempted, the thing in question is destroyed and, perhaps, remade into something else. In this sense there is an ultimate limit to any application of force. That which is forced must preserve its identity. Otherwise it is not forced but destroyed. In the realm of physics things are forced to move or to behave in a way which is determined by their own potentialities and by force effective upon them. The result is calculable and represents a balance of the different powers which are working in the direction of the result. #RandolphHarris 1 of 16

In the realm of living beings, the same possibilities and the same limits of force are given. However, there is a difference from the inorganic realm. As long as a living being is not transformed into a mechanism it reacts spontaneously, supporting or resisting the forces working on it. And one cannot transform a living being into a complete mechanism, without removing its centre and this means without destroying it as a living unity. One can mechanize most of its reactions, but there are always sub-centers which react spontaneously as long as the being is alive and not transferred into the realm of merely chemical process as they occur in dead bodies. Spontaneity means that a reaction is elicited but not forced by a stimulus and consequently that it is not calculable. For a “holistic” reaction always works through the centre, which is not calculable, because it is indivisible, constituting an individual being. To the degree to which force in living beings needs the support of spontaneity, one could speak more adequately of compulsion or coercion. This is certainly necessary in the encounters between human beings. For these words, “compulsion” or “coercion,” a psychological resistance is indicated which must be overcome. And if dealing with humans, this is what power has to do. #RandolphHarris 2 of 16

Power actualizes itself through force and compulsion. However, power is neither the one nor the other. It is being, actualizing itself over against the threat of non-being. It uses and abuses force in order to overcome this threat. It uses and abuses force in order to actualize itself. However, it is neither the one nor the other. Therefore the question of power and compulsion must be answered in the following way: Power needs compulsion. However, its use of compulsion is only effective if it is an expression of the actual power relation. If compulsion trespasses this limit it becomes self-denying and undercuts the power which it is supposed to preserve. It is not compulsion which is bad, but a compulsion which does not express the power of being in the name of which it is applied. Power needs compulsion, but compulsion needs the criterion which is implied in the actual power relation.  An “open,” “flat,” or barefaced lie may be defined as one for which there can be unquestionable evidence that the teller knew he or she lied and willfully did so. A claim to have been at a particular place at a particular time, when this was not the case is an example. (Some kinds of impersonations, but not all, involved such lies, and many such lies do not involve impersonation.) RandolphHarris 3 of 16

Those caught in the act of telling barefaced lies not only lose face during the interaction but may have their face destroyed, for it is felt by many audiences that if an individual can once bring oneself to tell such a lie, one ought never again to be fully trusted. However, there are many “white lies,” told by doctors, potential guests, and others, presumably to save the feelings of the audience that is lied to, and these kings of untruths are not thought to be horrendous. Further, in everyday life it is usually possible for the performer to create intentionally almost any kind of false impression without putting oneself in the indefensible position of having told a clear-cut lie. Communication techniques such as innuendo, strategic ambiguity, and crucial omissions allow the misinformer to profit from lies without, technically, telling any. The mass media have their own versions of this and demonstrate that by judicious camera angles and editing, a trickle of response to a celebrity can be transformed into a wild stream. Formal recognition has been given to the shadings between lies and truths and to the embarrassing difficulties caused by this continuum. Organizations such as real estate boards develop explicit codes specifying the degree to which doubtful impressions can be given by overstatement, understatement, and omission. #RandolphHarris 4 of 16

The Civil Service in Britain apparently operates on a similar understanding: The rules here (as regards “statements which are intended or are likely to become public”) is simple. Nothing may be said which is not true: but it is as unnecessary as it is sometimes undesirable, even in the public interest, to say everything relevant which is true; and the facts given may be arranged in any convenient order. It is wonderful what can be done within these limits by a skillful draftsman. It might be said, cynically, but with some measure of truth, that the perfect replay to an embarrassing question in the House of Commons is one that is brief, appears to answer the question completely, if challenged can be proved to be accurate in every word, gives no opening for awkward “supplementaries,” and discloses really noting. The law crosscuts many ordinary social niceties by introducing one of its own. In American law, intent, negligence, and strict liability are distinguished; misrepresentation is held to be an intentional act, but one that can arise through word or deed, ambiguous statement or misleading literal truth, non-disclosure, or prevention of discovery. Culpable non-disclosure is held to vary, depending on the area of life, there being one standard for the advertising business and another standard for professional counselors. #RandolphHarris 5 of 16

Further, the law tends to hold that: A representation made wit an honest belief in its truth may still be negligent, because of lack of reasonable care in ascertaining the facts, or in the manner of expression, or absence of the skill and competence required by a particular business or profession. The fact that the defendant was disinterested, that one had the best motives, and that one thought one was doing the plaintiff a kindness, will not absolve one from a liability so long as one did in fact intend to mislead. When we turn from outright impersonations and barefaced lies to other types of misrepresentation, the commonsense distinction between true and false impression becomes even less tenable. Charlatan professional activity of one decade sometimes becomes an acceptable legitimate occupation in the next. We find that activities which are thought to be legitimate by some audiences in our society are thought to be rackets by others. More important, we find that there is hardly a legitimate everyday vocation or relationship whose performers do not engage in concealed practices which are incompatible with fostered impressions. Although particular performances, and even particular parts or routines, may pace a performer in a position of having nothing to hide, somewhere in the full round of one’s activities there will be something one cannot treat openly. #RandolphHarris 6 of 16

The larger the number of matters and the lager the number of acting parts which fall within the domain of the role or relationship, the more likelihood, it would seem, for points of secrecy to exist. Thus in well-adjusted marriages, we expect that each partner may keep from the other secrets having to do with financial matters, past experiences, current flirtations, indulgencies in “bad” or expensive habits, personal aspirations and worries, actions of children, true opinions held about relatives or mutual friends, excreta. With such strategically located points of reticence, it is possible to maintain a desirable status quo in the relationship without having to carry out rigidly the implications of this arrangement in all areas of life. Perhaps most important of all, we must note that a false impression maintained by an individual in any one of one’s routines may be a threat to the whole relationship or role of which the routine is only one part, for a discreditable disclosure in one area of an individual’s activity will throw doubt on the many area of activity in which one may have nothing to conceal. Similarly, if the individual has only one thing to conceal during a performance, and even if the likelihood of disclosure occurs only at a particular turn or phase in the performance, the performer’s anxiety may well extend to the whole performance. #RandolphHarris 7 of 16

Some general characteristics of performance suggest: activity oriented towards work-tasks tends to be converted into activity oriented towards communication; the front behind which the routine is presented is also likely to be suitable for other, somewhat different routines and so is likely not to fit completely any particular routine; sufficient self-control is exerted so as to maintain a working consensus; an idealized impression is offered by accentuating certain facts and concealing others; expressive coherence is maintained by the performer taking more care to guard against minor disharmonies than the stated purpose of the performance might lead the audience to think was warranted. All of these general characteristics of performances can be seen as interaction constraints which play upon the individual and transform one’s activities into performances. Instead of merely doing one’s task and giving vent to one’s feelings, one will express the doing of one’s task and acceptably convey one’s feelings. In general, then, the representation of an activity will vary in some degree from the activity itself and therefore inevitably misrepresent it. And since the individual will be required to rely on signs in order to construct, however faithful to the facts, will be subject to all the disruptions that impressions are subject to. #RandolphHarris 8 of 16

While we could retain the common-sense notion that fostered appearances can be discredited by a discrepant reality, there is often no reason for claiming that the facts discrepant with the fostered impression are any more the real reality than is the fostered reality they embarrass. A cynical view of everyday performances can be as one-sided as the one that is sponsored by the performer. For many sociological issues it may not even be necessary to decide which is the more real, the fostered impression or the one the performer attempts to prevent the audience from receiving. The crucial sociological consideration, for this report at least, is merely that impression fostered in everyday performances are subject to disruption. We will want to know what kind of impression of reality can shatter the fostered impression of reality, and what reality really is can be left to other students. We will want to ask, “What are the ways in which a given impression can be discredited?” and this is not quite the same as asking, “What are the ways in which the given impression is false?” We come back, then, to a realization that while the performance offered by imposters and liars is quite flagrantly false and differs from this respect from ordinary performances, both are similar in the care their performers must exert in order to maintain the impression that is fostered. #RandolphHarris 9 of 16

Thus, for example, we know that the formal code of the British civil servants and of American baseball umpires obliges them not only to desist from making improper “deals” but also to desist from innocent action which might possibly give the (wrong) impression that they are making deals. Whether an honest performer wishes to convey the truth or whether a dishonest performer wishes to convey a falsehood, both must take care to enliven their performances with appropriate expressions, excluded from their performances expressions that might discredit the impressions being fostered, and take care lest the audience impute unintended meanings. Because of these shared dramatic contingencies, we can profitably study performances that are quite false in order to lean bout ones that are quite honest. If in every actualization of power compulsion is implied, how can power be untied with love? All those who want to remove power for the sake of love ask this question, implying a negative answer. If power needs force and compulsion for its actualization, does it exclude love? The ontological answer to this most urgent practical question follows from our analyses of love and power. The power of being is its possibility to affirm itself against the non-being within it and against it. The power of being is the greater the more non-being is taken into its self-affirmation. #RandolphHarris 10 of 16

The power of being is not dead identity but the dynamic process in which it separates itself from itself and returns to itself. The more conquered separation there is the more power there is. The process in which he separated is reunited is love. The more reuniting love there is, the more conquered non-being there is, the more power of being there is. Love is the foundation, not the negation, of power. Whether one says that being has non-being in itself or whether one says that being separates itself from itself and reunites itself with itself, does not make any difference. The basic formula of power and the basic formula of love are identical: Separation and Reunion of Being taking Non-Being into itself. From this ultimate unity of power and love the question can be answered: How can the compulsory element of power be united with love? Nobody felt the weight of this question more than Luther, who had to combine his highly spiritual ethics of love with his highly realistic politics of absolute power. Luther answered with the statement that compulsion is the strange work of love. Sweetness, self-surrender and mercy are, according to him, the proper work of live, bitterness, killing, and condemnation are its strange work, but both are works of love. #RandolphHarris 11 of 16

What he meant could be expressed in the statement that it is the strange work of love to destroy what is against love. This, however, presupposes the unity of love and power. Love, in order to exercise its proper works, namely charity and forgiveness, must provide for a place on which this can be done, through is strange work of judging and punishing. In order to destroy what is against love, love must be untied with power, and not only with power, but also with compulsory power. This latter demand posits a new question: If love is united with the compulsory element of power, where are the limits of this union? Where does compulsion conflict with love? It conflicts with love when it prevents the aim of love, namely the reunion of the separated. Love, through compulsory power, must destroy what is against love. However, love cannot destroy one who against love. Even when destroying one’s work it does not destroy one. It tried to save and fulfill one by destroying in one what is against love. The criterion is: Everything that makes reunion impossible is against love. We read that in the Middle Ages during the trial and execution of a mass murderer, the relatives of the murdered ones fell on their knees and prayed for his soul. The destruction of his bodily existence was not felt as a negation, but as an affirmation of love. It made the reunion of the radically separated soul of the criminal with himself and with the souls of his natural enemies possible. #RandolphHarris 12 of 16

The opposite story is that of present-day totalitarian forms of the exercise of power, in which the victims are transformed into things by fatigue, drugs, and other means and nobody, not even relatives and friends, are allowed to participate in their destruction, which is intended as a destruction of their whole being without reuniting love. Perhaps there is one point which Luther has not seen clearly enough, namely that love’s strange work, the compulsory element of power, is not only the strange but also the tragic aspect of love. It represents a price which must be paid for the reunion of the separated. And beyond this, Luther certainly has not emphasized sufficiently that love’s strange work can be used by those in power as a means, not for reuniting the estranged, but for keeping themselves in power. The question, how this distortion of the doctrine of love’s strange work can be prohibited, has not been asked by him. Therefore he has often been accused of a Machiavellian cynicism with respect to power. This is certainly, subjectively speaking, wrong. However, it is not completely wrong with respect to the consequences of Luther’s doctrine. The question is: If love and power are untied and if compulsion is inescapable in every actualization of power, how can love be united with power? #RandolphHarris 13 of 16

We have discussed the term “self-love” and have suggested it complete removal. One does not speak of self-power, but one uses the term “self-control” in the sense of power over oneself. Again we ask: Does the structure of self-relatedness admit something like power of the self over the self? The question must be decided in the same way as it has been decided in the case of self-love. The term is metaphorical. There is no self which fights against another self, with which, on the other hand, it is identical. The power of the self is its self-centredness. Self-control is the preservation of this centredness against disruptive tendencies, coming from the elements which constitute the centre: One could say that a struggle is going on between these elements, each of them trying to determine the centre. However, such a struggle presupposed that there is a centred self within which the conflict of drives can occur. The centre recedes logically every element  which tries to determine it. Power over oneself is the power of the self over the forces which constitute it and each of which tries to determine it. We must, however, ask: How can a centre (a symbol take from geometry) have power besides the power of the elements of which it is the centre? #RandolphHarris 14 of 16

The answer is, that it has not such independent power but that its power is the power of a stabilized balance of the elements which are centred in it. The stabilized balance of its constitutive elements is the power of the centre. In this balance some elements prevail, others are subordinated but not ineffective. Self-control is the activity of the centred self in preserving the strengthening the established balance against disruptive tendencies. This can be done by the exclusion from the centre of many elements which are present in the self. It also can be done by a union of many elements in the centre without the exclusion of most of them. Whether self-control is exercised in the former or in the latter way decides about the ethical meaning of self-control, the former way for a more puritan, the latter for a more romantic ethics. However, the basic structure is the same in both cases: self-centredness implies the power which the self exercises through a stable balance of its constituent elements over each of these elements. In this sense every self is a power structure. “Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart,” reports 1 Nephi 2.11. #RandolphHarris 15 of 16

Let Thy perpetual mercy, O Lord, accompany Thy Church; that while it is placed among the storms of the World, it may both be refreshed with present gladness, and behold the brightness of eternal bliss; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Lord Jesus, I sin—grant that I may never cease grieving because of it, never be content with myself, never think I can reach a point of perfection. Kill my envy, command my tongue, trample down self, to copy Thy words, acts, spirit, to be transformed into Thy likeness, to be consecrated wholly to Thee, to live entirely to Thy glory. Deliver me from attachment to things unclean, from wrong associations, from the predominance of evil passions, from the sugar of sin as well as its gall, that with self-loathing, deep contrition, earnest heart searching I may come to Thee, cast myself on Thee, trust in Thee, cry to Thee, be delivered by Thee. O God, the Eternal All, help me to know that all things are shadows, but Thou art substance, all things are quicksand, but Thou art mountain, all things are shifting, but Thou art anchor, all things are ignorance, but Thou art wisdom. If my life is to be a crucible amid burning heat, so be it, but do Thou sit at the furnace mouth to watch the ore that nothing be lost. If I sin willfully, grievously, tormentedly, in grace take away my mourning and give me music; remove my sackcloth and clothe me with beauty; still my sighs and fill my mouth with song, then give me Summer weather as a Christian. #RandolphHarris 16 of 16

Success does not come to you; you go to it. We might be biased, but every side of a #MillsStation home is a good side. 😍 This Residence 1 elevation has extra-large windows to let in ALL that breathtaking natural light. ☀️ https://cresleigh.com/mills-station/residence-1/

Belief is the knowledge that we can do something. It is the inner feeling that what we understand, we can accomplish. For the most part, all of us have the ability to look at something and know whether or not we can do it. So, in belief there is power: our eyes are opened; our opportunities become plain; our visions become reality.

#CresleighRanch
#CresleighHomes