I am not of your World. I have spent all my life in prison when I was a child. I was an orphan and too ugly to be adopted. Now I am too beautiful to be set free. I am Earth. I am pro-eternal life and I want us all to end up in Heaven together someday. Every society faces not merely a succession of probable futures, but an array of possible futures, and a conflict over preferable futures. If both rich and poor are giving up life itself and yet both are deeply dissatisfied, even suffering, they will never feel paid enough for their lot in life: what has gone on is not a trade or exchange, but a sacrifice. Social and structural institutions including Law, economy, government/state, family, communities and community organizations, and social groups, among others, provide the space in which we institute popular, secular, religious, and personal notions of justice. Governance and Law are often bureaucracies and institutions that are formed to represent and uphold particular notions on justice. It is, therefore, not coincidental that much civil disobedience is aimed at these state institutions. Often, these institutions support, constrict, and conflict with personal ideologies about justice. Just as with ideas about political and social institutions, theorists of justice have grappled with many ways that economies both reinforce oppression and domination, as well as liberation. #RandolphHarris 1 of 24

Justice is not just the province of states or institutions or structures, but rather a feature of our everyday lives. We live with justice, and contend with the question of justice. With each act of kindness, compassion, love, caring, and empathy, we create and regenerate these in our everyday lives with others. The study of justice is misleading because rather than focusing on justice we frequent are forced to engage with the study of injustice instead. Justice is not so much a problem to be “solved” as it is a set of questions or issues that we live with and struggle with. By providing you with a vision of the World that has many intersecting, overlapping forms of domination and oppressions, we often raise more questions than we can answer, but we encourage further inquiry with the many visions of justice. It is a fact of great analytic importance that life is complicated. That life is complicated may seem a banal formulation of the obvious, but it is actually a significant theory. Dimension dealing with power relations that characterize any society are never as transparently clear as the names we give to them suggest. Power can be invisible, it can be fantastic, it can be dull and routine, it can be grand and obvious. #RandolphHarris 2 of 24

Power can reach you by a pay check being deposited in your bank account, it can speak the language of your own thoughts and desires. It can feel like a remote control, it can exhilarate like liberation. It can travel through time and it can drown you in the present. It is dense and superficial, it can cause bodily injury, and it can injury you without seemingly ever touching you. It causes dreams to live and dreams to die. It is systematic and it is particularistic. We can and must can it by names like racism, for example, but also we need to understand that power arrives in forms that can range from blatant supremacy of one’s culture, formal education, the decision to buy a home, or it can even be life being looked at without fear. Our ability to speak is just one aspect of the evolutionary drive to create a more accurate World in our heads. Being an intellectual creates a lot of questions and no answers. You can fill your life up with ideas and still go home lonely. All you really have that really matters are feelings. Complex personhood means that all people, albeit in specific forms, are beset by contradiction, remember and forget, and recognize and misrecognize themselves and others. #RandolphHarris 3 of 24

Complex personhood means that people suffer graciously and selfishly too, get stuck in what symptomizes their troubles and also transform themselves. Complex personhood means that even those who haunt the dominant society are haunted too by things they sometimes have names for and sometimes do not. Complex personhood means that groups of people will act together, that they will vehemently disagree with and sometimes harm each other, and that they do both at the same time and expect the rest of us to figure it our for ourselves, intervening and withdrawing as the situation requires. At the very least, complex personhood is about conferring the respect on others that comes from presuming that life and people’s lives are straightforward and full of enormously complex meaning. Understanding that life is complex may allow us to see deep into the heart and soul of American life and culture, to track events, stories, anonymous and history-making actions to their destiny, to the point where we might catch a glimpse of the vast networking of society and imagine otherwise. Civilization can be defined at once by the basic questions it asks and by those it does not ask. We should not give some real thought to the possibility of reforming our technology in the directions of smallness, simplicity, and nonviolence.  #RandolphHarris 4 of 24

Most significantly theoretical thinking and intellectual largesse are the activities most denied to those who are powerless. Denied because the powerless are not presumed to posses the “mind” that could produce generalizable imaginations for all of us; denied because the division between mental and manual labour takes all kinds of forms, including this one; denied because this privilege belongs to those to whom the institutions of higher learning belong. The denial, in itself, would be reason enough for me to agree that, at the very least, it is an act of historical reparation to invite some folks to spend a lot of time doing what is often considered “useless” intellectual work. Of course, you see I do not think it is useless, but its economy of use is a different and not necessarily tied to immediate service work for others. One of the goals of the society I would rather live in consists in making available to all the pleasures (and challenges and the range of other emotions and outcomes) of thinking, of learning, of reading aimlessly of “wasting” your time by filling your head with “useless stuff,” as I was always described to be as a kid. Why? Because knowledge in its own right, of all kinds, is a great gift of culture and something too long hoarded and manipulated and forcibly withheld from people. #RandolphHarris 5 of 24

Giving away knowledge without having to earn it seems like a good idea to me. However, it has been frowned upon because if people do not earn the knowledge, they may misuse it. A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred people with guns. I shall think of intuitionism in a more general way than is customary: namely, as the doctrine that there is an irreducible family of first principles which have to be weighed against one another by asking ourselves which balance, in our considered judgment, is the most just. Once we reach a certain level of generality, the intuitionist maintains that there exist no higher-order constructive criteria for determining the proper emphasis for the competing principles of justice. While the complexity of the moral facts requires a number of distinct principles, there is no single standard that account for them or assigns them their weights. Intuitionist theories, then, have two features: first, they consist of a plurality of first principles which may conflict to give contrary directives in particular types of cases; and second, they include no explicit method, no priority rules, for weighing these principles against one another: we are simply to strike a balance by intuition, by what seems to us most nearly right. #RandolphHarris 6 of 24

Or if there are priority rules, these are thought to be more or less trivial and of no substantial assistance in reaching a judgement. Various other contentions are commonly associated with intuitionism, for example, that the concepts of the right and the good are unanalyzable, that moral principles when suitably formulated express self-evident propositions about legitimate moral claims, and so on. However, I shall leave these matters aside. These characteristic epistemological doctrines are not a necessary part of intuitionism as I understand it. If we were to speak of intuitionism in this broad sense as pluralism, perhaps it would be better. Still, s conception of justice can be pluralistic without requiring us to weigh its principles by intuition. It may contain the requisite priority rules. To emphasize the direct appeal to our considered judgment in the balancing of principles, it seems appropriate to think of intuitionism in this more general fashion. How far such a view is committed to certain epistemological theories is a separate question. Now so understood, there are many kinds of intuitionism. Not only are our everyday notions of this type but so perhaps are most philosophical doctrines. One way of distinguishing between intuitionist views is by the level of generality of their principles. #RandolphHarris 7 of 24

Common sense intuitionism takes the form of groups of rather specific precepts, each group applying to a particular problem of justice. There is a group of precepts which applies to the question of fair wages, another to that of taxation, still another to punishment, and so on. In arriving at the notion of a fair wage, say, we are to balance somehow various competing criteria, for example, the claims of skill, training, effort, responsibility, and hazards of the job, as well as to make some allowance for need. No one presumably would decide by any one of these precepts alone, and some compromise between them must be struck. The determination of wages by existing institutions also represents, in effect, a particular weighting of these claims. This weighting, however, is normally influenced by the demands of different social interests and so by relative positions of power and influence. It may not, therefore, conform to any one’s conception of a fair wage. This is particularly likely to be true since persons with different interests are likely to stress the criteria which advance their ends. Those with more ability and education are prone to emphasize the claims of skill and training, whereas those lacking these advantages urge the claim of need. #RandolphHarris 8 of 24

However, not only are our everyday ideas of justice influenced by our own situation, they are also strongly coloured by custom and current expectations. And by what criteria are we to judge the justice of custom itself and the legitimacy of these expectations? To reach some measure of understanding and agreement which goes beyond a mere de facto resolution of competing interests and a reliance on existing conventions and established expectations, it is necessary to move to amore general scheme for determining the balance of precepts, or at least for confining it within narrower limits. Thus we can consider the problems of justice by reference to certain end of social policy. Yet this approach also is likely to rely on intuition, since it normally takes the form of balancing various economic and social objectives. For example, suppose that allocative efficiency, full employment, a larger national income, and its more equal distribution are accepted as social ends. Then, given the desired weighting of these aims, and the existing institutional setup, the precepts of fair wages, just taxation, and so on will receive their due emphasis. In order to achieve greater efficiency and equity, one may follow a policy which has the effect of stressing skill and effort in the payment of wages, leaving the precept of need to be handled in some other fashion, perhaps by welfare transfers. #RandolphHarris 9 of 24

An intuitionism of social ends provides a basis for deciding whether the determination of fair wages makes sense in view of the taxes to be imposed. How we weigh the precepts in one group is adjusted to how we weigh them in another. In this way we have managed to introduce a certain coherence in our judgments of justice; we have moved beyond the narrow de facto compromise of interests to a wider view. Of course we are still left with an appeal to intuition in the balancing of the higher order ends of policy themselves. Different weightings for these are not by any means trivial variations but often correspond to profoundly opposed political convictions. The principles of philosophical conceptions are of the most general kind. Not only are they intended to account for the ends of social policy, but the emphasis assigned to these principles should correspondingly determine the balance of these ends. For purposes of illustration, let us discuss a rather simply yet familiar conception based on the aggregative-distributive dichotomy. It has two principles: the basic structure of society is to be designed first to produce the most good in the sense of the greatest net balance of satisfaction, and second to distribute satisfactions equally. Both principles have, of course, ceteris paribus clauses. #RandolphHarris 10 of 24

The first principle, the principle of utility, acts in this case as a standard of efficiency, urging us to produce as large a total as we can, other things equal; whereas the second principle serves as a standard of justice constraining the pursuit of aggregate well-being and evening out of the distribution of advantages. This conception is intuitionist because no priority rule is provided for determining how these two principles are to be balanced against each other. Widely different weights are consistent with accepting these principles. No doubt it is natural to make certain assumptions about how most people would in fact balance them. For one thing, at different combinations of total satisfaction and degrees of equality, we presumably would give these principles different weights. For example, if there is a large total satisfaction but it is unequally distributed, we would probably think it more urgent to increase equality than if the large aggregate well-being were already rather evenly shared. This can be put more formally by using the economist’s device of indifference curves. #RandolphHarris 11 of 24

 Assume that we can measure the extent to which particular arrangements of the basic structure satisfy these principles; and represent total satisfaction on the positive X-axis and equality on the positive Y-axis. (The latter may be supposed to have an upper bound at perfect equality.) The extent to which an arrangement of the basic structure fulfills these principles can now be represented by a point in the plane. Now clearly a point which is northeast of another is better arrangement: it is superior on both counts. For example, the point B: is better than the point A in figure 1. Indifference curves are formed by connecting points judged equally just. Thus curve I in figure 1 consists of the points rated equally with point A which lies on that curve; curve II consists of the points ranked along with point B, and so on. We may assume that these curves slope downward to the right and also that they do not intersect, otherwise the judgment they represent would be inconsistent. The slope of the curve at any point expresses the relative weights of equality and total satisfaction at the combination the point represents; the changing slope along an indifference curve shows how the relative urgency of the principles shifts as they are more or less satisfied. #RandolphHarris 12 of 24

Thus, moving along either of the indifference curves in figure 1, we see that as equality decreases a larger and larger increase in the sum of satisfactions is required to compensate for a further decrease in equality. Moreover, very different weightings are consistent with these principles. Let figure 2 represent the judgments of two different persons. The solid lines depict the judgments of the one who gives a relatively strong weight to total welfare. Thus while the first person ranks arrangement D equal with C, the second judges D superior. This conception of justice imposes no limitations on what are the correct weightings; and therefore it allows different persons to arrive at a different balance of principles. Nevertheless such an intuitionist conception, it is were to fit our considered judgments on reflection, would be by no means without importance. At least would single out the criteria which are significant, the apparent axes, so to speak, of our considered judgments of social justice. The intuitionists hopes that once these axes, or principles, are identified, humans will in fact balance them more or less similarly, at least when they are impartial and not moved by an excessive attention to their own interests. Or if this is not so, then at least they can agree to some scheme whereby their assignment of weights can be compromised. #RandolphHarris 13 of 24

It is essential to observe that the intuitionist does not deny that we can describe how we balance competing principles, or how any one human does so, supposing that we weigh them differently. The intuitionists grants the possibility that these weights can be depicted by indifference curves. Knowing the description of these weight, the judgments which will be made can be foreseen. In this sense these judgments have a consistent and definite structure. Of course, it may be claimed that in the assignment of weights we are guided, without being aware of it, by certain further standards or by how best to realize a certain end. Perhaps the weights we assign are those which would result if we were to apply these standards or to pursue this end. Admittedly any given balancing of principles is subjects to interpretation in this way. However, the intuitionist claims that, in fact, there is no such interpretation. One contends that there exists no expressible ethical conception which underlies these weights. A geometrical figure or a mathematical function may describe them, but there are no constructive moral criteria that establish their reasonableness. Intuitionism holds that in our judgments of socials justice we must eventually reach a plurality of first principles in regard to which we can only say that it seems to us more correct to balance them this way rather than that. #RandolphHarris 14 of 24

Now there is nothing intrinsically irrational about this intuitionist doctrine. Indeed, it may be true. We cannot take for granted that there must be a complete derivation of our judgments of social justice from recognizable ethical principles. The intuitionist believes to the contrary that the complexity of the moral facts defines our efforts to give a full account to our judgments and necessitates a plurality of competing principles. One contends that attempts to go beyond these principles either reduce to triviality, as when it is said that social justice is to give every human one’s due, or else lead to falsehood and oversimplification, as when one settles everything by the principle of utility. The only way therefore to dispute intuitionism is to set forth the recognizably ethical criteria that account for the weights which, in our considered judgments, we think appropriate to give to the plurality of principles. A refutation of intuitionism consists in presenting the short of constructive criteria that are said not to exist. To be sure, the notion of a recognizably ethical principle is vague, although it is easy to give many examples drawn from tradition and common sense. However, it is pointless to discuss this matter in the abstract. The intuitionist and one’s critic will have to settle this question once the latter has put forward one’s more systematic account. #RandolphHarris 15 of 24

It may be asked whether intuitionistic theories are teleological or deontological. They may be of either kind, and any ethical view is bound to rely on intuition to some degree at many points. For example, one could maintain, as Moore did, that personal affection and human understanding, the creation and the contemplation of beauty, and gaining and appreciation of knowledge are the chief good things, along with pleasure. And one might also maintain (as Moore did not) that these are the sole intrinsic goods. Since these values are specified independently from the right, we have a teleological theory of a perfectionist type if the right is defined as maximizing the good. Yet in estimating what yields the most good, the theory may hold that these values have to be balanced against each other by intuition: it may say that there are no substantive criteria for guidance here. Often, however, intuitionist theories are deontological. In the definitive presentation of Ross, the distribution of good things according to moral worth (distributive justice) is included among the goods to be advanced; and while the principle to produce the most good ranks as a first principle, it is but one such principle which must be balanced by intuition against the claims of the other prima facie principles. #RandolphHarris 16 of 24

The distinctive feature, then, of intuitionistic views is not their being teleological or deontological, but the especially prominent place that they give to the appeal to our intuitive capacities unguided by constructive and recognizably ethical criteria. Intuitionism denies that there exists any useful and explicit solution to the priority problem. The full definition of the person or of human nature must then include intrinsic values, as part of human nature. If we then try to define the deepest, most authentic, most constitutionally based aspects of the real self, of the indemnity, or of the authentic person, we find that in order to be comprehensive we must include not only the person’s constitution and temperament, not only anatomy, psychology, neurology, and endocrinology, not only one’s capacities, one’s biological style, not only one’s basic instinctoid needs, but also the  B-values, which are also one’s B-values. These intrinsic values are instinctoid in nature, id est, they are needed (a) to avoid illness and (b) to achieve fullest humanness or growth. The “illnesses” resulting from deprivation of intrinsic values (metaneeds) we may call metapathologies. The “highest” values, the spiritual life, the highest aspirations of humankind are therefore proper subjects for scientific study and research. They are in the World of nature. #RandolphHarris 17 of 24

These “illnesses” (which come from deprivation of the B-values or metaneeds or B-facts) are new and have not yet been described as such id est, as pathologies, except unwittingly, or by implication, or in a very general and inclusive way, not yet teased apart into researchable form. In general they have been discussed through the centuries by religionists, historians, and philosophers under the rubric of spiritual or religious shortcomings, rather than by physicians, scientists, or psychologists under the rubric of psychiatric or psychological or biological “illnesses” or stuntings or diminutions. To some extent also there is some overlap with sociological and political disturbances, “social pathologies,” and the like. I will call these “illnesses” (or, better, diminutions of humanness) “metapathologies” and define them as the consequences of deprivation of the B-values either in general or of specific B-values. The metapathologies of the affluent and indulged young come partly from deprivation of intrinsic values, frustrated “idealism,” from disillusionment with a society they see (mistakenly) motivated only by lower or animal material needs. My hypothesis is that this behaviour can be a fusion of continued search for something to believe in, combined with anger at being disappointed. (I sometimes see in a particular young man total despair or hopelessness about even the existence of such values.) #RandolphHarris 18 of 24

Of course, this frustrated idealism and occasional hopelessness is partially due to the influence and ubiquity of stupidly limited theories of motivation all over the World. Leaving aside behaviouristic and positivistic theories—or rather non-theories—as simple refusals even to see the problem, id est, a kind of psychoanalytic denial. Then what is available to the idealistic young man and woman? Not only does the whole of official nineteenth-century science and orthodox academic psychology offer one nothing, but also the major motivation theories by which most humans live can lead one only to depression or cynicism. The Freudians, at least in their official writings (though not in good therapeutic practice), are still reductionistic about all higher human values. The deepest and most real motivations are seen to be dangerous and nasty, while the highest human values and virtues are essentially fake, being not what they seem to be, but camouflaged versions of the “deep, dark, and dirty.” Our social scientist are just as disappointing in the main. A total cultural determinism is still the official, orthodox doctrine of many or most of the sociologists and anthropologists. This doctrine not only denies intrinsic higher motivations, but comes perilously close sometimes to denying “human nature” itself. #RandolphHarris 19 of 24

The economists, not only in the West but also in the East, are essentially materialist. We must say harshly of the “science” of economics that it is generally the skilled, exact, technological application of a total false theory of human needs and values, a theory which recognizes only the existence of lower needs or material needs. How could young people not be disappointed and disillusioned? What else could be the result of getting all the material and animal gratifications and then not being happy, as they were led to expect, not only by the theorists, but also by the conventional wisdom of parents and teachers, and the insistent gray lies of the advertisers? What happens the to the “eternal verities”? to the ultimate truths? Most sections of society agree in handing them over to the churches and to dogmatic, institutionalized, conventionalized religious organizations. However, this is also a denial of high human nature! It says in effect that the youngster who is looking for something will definitely not find it in human nature itself. One must look for ultimates to a non-human, non-natural source, a source which is definitely mistrusted or rejected altogether by many intelligent young people today. #RandolphHarris 20 of 24

“Now after Alma had spoken these words, they are sent forth unto him desiring to know whether they could believe in one God, that they might obtain this fruit of which he had spoken, or how they should plant the seed, or the word of which he had spoken, which he said must be planted in their hearts; or in what manner they should begin to exercise their faith. And Alma said unto them: Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. However, behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; if ye supposed that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them. Do ye remember to have read what Zenos, the prophet of the old, has said concerning prayer or worship? For he said: Thou art merciful, O God, for thou hast heard my prayer, even when I was in the wilderness; yea, thou wast merciful when I prayed concerning those who were mine enemies, and thou didst turn them to me. Yea, O God, and thou wast merciful unto me when I did cry unto thee in my field; when I did cry unto thee in my prayer, and thou didst hear me. And again, O God, when I did turn to my house thou didst hear me in prayer. And when I did turn unto my closet, O Lord, and prayed unto thee, thou didst hear me. #RandolphHarris 21 of 24

“Yea, thou art merciful unto thy children when they cry unto thee, to be heard of thee and not of humans, and thou wilt hear them. Yea, O God, thou hast been merciful unto me, and heard my cries in the midst of thy congregations. Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries, and wast angry with mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger with speedy destruction. And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son. And now Alma said unto them: Do ye believe what Zenos said; for, behold he said: Thou hast turned away thy judgments because of thy Son. Now behold, my brethren, I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, how can ye disbelieve on the Son of God? For it is no written that Zenos alone spake of these things—for behold, he said: Thou angry, O Lord, with this people, because they will not understand thy mercies which though hast bestowed upon them because of thy Son. And now, my brethren, ye see that a second prophet of old has testified of the Son of God, an because the people would not understand this words they stoned him to death. #RandolphHarris 22 of 24

“However, behold, this is no all; these are not the only ones who have spoken concerning the son of God. Behold, he was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live. However, few understood the meaning of those things, and this because of the hardness of their hearts. However, there were many who were hardened that they would not look, therefore they perished. Now the reason they would not look is because they did not believe that it would heal them. O my brethren, if ye could be healed by merely casting about your eyes that ye might be healed, would ye not behold quickly, or would ye rather harden your hearts in unbelief, and be slothful, that ye would not cast about your eyes, that might perish? If so, who shall come upon you; but if not so, then cast about your eyes, and begin to believe in the Son of God, that we will come to redeem his people, and that he shall suffer and die to atone for their sins; and that he shall rise again from the dead, which shall bring to pass the resurrection, that all humans shall stand before him, to be judged at the last and judgment day, according to their works. #RandolphHarris 23 of 24

“And now, my brethren, I desire that ye shall plant this word in your hearts, and as it beginneth to swell even so nourish it by your faith. And behold, it will become a tree, springing up in you unto everlasting life. And then may God grant unto you that your burdens may be light, through the joy of his Son. And even all this can ye do if ye will. Amen,” reports Alma 33.1-23. I call to the Holy Ones with open hands asking that they come, that they grant me their presence. Mighty and Shining One, worthy of worship, I stand before you with welcoming words. Come to me that we might feast together again. With this small flame I send a message—it is my burning beacon fire. May you see it, Shining Ones, and draw near to me. Filled with holy power of God send to those they love I rise up in ecstasy, taken by them to the Land of Blessings. Fill me, carry me, lift me in glory; welcome me to your home. I pour out this libation to you, as has been done since ancient times. Come and accept your due. Can you hear my prayers as they go up in your honour? I am the one who wait for you, praising you, even in your absence. Do not withhold yourself from me, from one who brings you gifts, from one who awaits you patiently. #RandolphHarris 24 of 24

Cresleigh Homes

A view like this one is sure to Brighton your day! 😉 #BrightonStation residents enjoy fully customizable backyards so you can create the hangout of your dreams! https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/

#CresleighHomes