Middle age is when anything new in the way you feel is most likely a symptom. Can we be really sure that humans in their relationship to other humans experience each other as cospecifics and hence react with genetically prepare behavior patterns towards cospecifics? So we not see, on the contrary, that among many primitive peoples even a human of another tribe or living in a neighbouring village some miles away is looked upon as a complete stranger or even not human, and hence there is no empathy with one? Only in the process of social and cultural evolution has the number of people who are accepted as being human increased. It seems that there are good reasons to assume that humans do not experience one’s fellow humans as members of the same species, because one’s recognition of another human is not facilitated by those instinctive or reflexlike reactions by which either smell, form, certain colours, et cetera, give immediate evidence of species identity among animals. In fact, in many animal experiments, it has been demonstrated that even the animal can be deceived or made to feel uncertain about who are one’s cospecifics. Precisely because humans have less instinctive equipment than any other animal, they do not recognize or identify cospecifics as easily as animals. #RandolphHarris 1 of 24

For humans different language, customs, dress, and other criteria perceived by the mind rather than by instincts determine who is a cospecific and who is not, and any group which is slightly different is not supposed to share in the same humanity. From this follows the paradox that humans, precisely because they lack instinctive equipment, also lack the experience of the identity of one’s species and experiences the stranger as if one belonged to another species; in other words, it is human’s humanity that makes them so inhuman. As far as interspecific aggression is concerned, the data on animals show, if anything, less evidence that such interspecific aggression is genetically programmed except in cases where the animal is threatened or among predatory animals. Could a case be made for the hypothesis that humans are the decedent of a predatory animal? Could we assume that humans, although not another person’s wolf, is another person’s sheep? Is there any evidence to suggest that human’s ancestors were predatory? The earliest hominid who may have been one of human’s ancestors is the Ramapithecus who lived in India about fourteen million year ago. The form of one’s dental arcade was similar to those of other hominids and much more humanlike than that of present-day apes; even though they may have eaten meat in addition to one’s mainly vegetable diet, it would be absurd to think of one as a predatory animal. #RandolphHarris 2 of 24

The earliest hominid fossils we know after the Ramapithecus are those of Australopithecus robusts and the more advanced Australopithecus africanus, found by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 and believed to date from almost two million years ago. Australopithecus has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. The great majority of paleoanthropologist today accept the thesis that the australopithecines were hominids, while a few investigators, such as D. R. Pilbeam and E. L. Simons (1965), assume that A. africanus is to be considered as the first appearance of Homon. In the discussion of the australopithecines, much has been made of their use of tools, in order to prove that they were human or at least human’s ancestors. Lewis Mumford, however, has convincingly pointed out that the importance of tool-making as sufficient identification of humans is misleading and rooted in the bias inherent in the current concept of technics. (L. Mumford, 1967.) Since 1924 new fossils have been discovered, but their classification is controversial, as well as the question whether Australopithecus was to any considerable extent a meat eater, hunter, or tool maker. It is very unlikely that the early and small-bodied australopithecines, who augmented their basically vegetable diet with mean, did much killing, where as the later and larger forms which probably replaced them could cope with small and/or immature animals. #RandolphHarris 3 of 24

There is no evidence to suggest that such creatures were capable of preying on the large herbivorous mammals so characteristic of the African Pleistocene. It is probably that the Australopithecines were themselves the game rather than the hunters. Later on, however, it was also suggested that the hominids, including the australopithecines might possibly have been hunters. Nevertheless, most investigators agree that A. africanus was an omnivorous animal, characterized by the flexibility of one’s diet. It is possible that the Australopithecus ate small reptiles; birds; small mammals, such as rodents; roots, and fruit. One ate such small animals as one could capture without weapons or setting traps. Hunting, on the contrary, presupposes cooperation and an adequate technique which came into existence only much later and coincides with the emergence of man in Asia around 500,000 Before Christ. Whether Australopithecus was a hunter or not, it is beyond any doubt that the hominids like their pongid ancestors were not predatory animals with the instinctual and morphological equipment which characterizes carnivorous predators such as lions and wolves. In spite of this unequivocal evidence, not only the dramatizing Ardrey, but even the serious scholar like D. Freeman has attempted to identify the Australopithecus as the paleontological “Adam” who brought the original sin of destructiveness into the human race. #RandolphHarris 4 of 24

Freeman speaks of the australopithecines as a “carnivorous adaptation,” having “predatory, murderous and cannibalistic predilections. Thus paleoanthropology has, during the last decade revealed a phylogenetic basis for the conclusion about human aggression which have been reached by psychoanalytic research into human’s nature.” He summarizes: “In broad anthropological perspective then, it may be argued that human’s nature and skills and, ultimately, human civilization, owe their existence to the kind of predatory adaptation first achieved by the carnivorous Australopithecinae on the grasslands of southern African in the Lower Pleistocene.” (D. Freeman, 1964.) In the discussion following the presentation on this paper, Freeman does not seem to be so convinced: “So, in the light of recent paleoethological discoveries the hypothesis has now been advanced that certain aspects of human nature (including possibly aggressivity and cruelty) may well be connected with the special predatory and carnivorous adaptations which were so basic to hominid evolution during the Pleistocene period. This, in my view, is a hypothesis that deserves to be investigated scientifically and dispassionately, for it concerns matters about which we are present most ignorant.” (D. Freeman 1964.) #RandolphHarris 5 of 24

What, in the paper, was the fact that paleoanthropology revealed conclusions about human aggression has become, in the discussion, a hypothesis that “deserves to be investigated.” Such investigation is obscured by a confusion to be found in Freeman—as well as the works of a number of other authors—among “predatory,” “carnivorous,” and “hunting.” Zoologically, predatory animals are clearly defined. They are the families of cats, hyenas, dogs, and bears, and they are characterized as having toes with claws, and sharp canines. The predatory animal finds one’s food by attacking and killing other animals. This behaviour is genetically programmed, with only a marginal element of learning, and furthermore, as has been mentioned before, predatory aggression has a neurologically different basis from aggression as a defense reaction. One cannot even call the predatory animal a particularly aggressive animal, for in its relations with its cospecifics it is sociable even amiable, as is shown, for instance, by the behaviour of wolves. Predatory animals (with the exception of bears that are mainly vegetable feeders and quite unfitted from the chase) are exclusively meat eaters. #RandolphHarris 6 of 24

However, not all meat-eating animals are predatory. The omnivorous animals that eat vegetables and meat do not for the reason belong to the order of the Carnivora. Freeman is aware that “the term ‘carnivorous’ when it is used to refer to the behaviour of the Hominidae has to have a meaning quite distinct from that which it has when applied to species within the order Carnivora.” (J.D. Carthy, F. J. Ebling, 1964). However, why then called hominids carnivorous, instead of omnivorous? The resulting confusion only helps to establish the following equation in the mind of the reader: meat eater = carnivorous = predatory, ergo, man’s hominid ancestor was a predatory animal equipped with the instinct to attack other animals, including other men; ergo, man’s destructiveness is innate, and Dr. Freud is right. Quod erat demonstrandum! All we may conclude about A. africanus is that he was an omnivorous animal in whose diet meat played a more or less important role and that he killed animals as a source of food if they were small enough. A diet of meat does not transform the hominid into a predator animal. Furthermore, it is by now a widely accepted fact, expressed by Sir Julian Huxley and others, that diet—vegetable or meat—has nothing to do with generating aggressiveness. #RandolphHarris 7 of 24

Nothing justified the assumption that Australopithecus had the instincts of a predatory animal which, provided “he” was man’s ancestor, could be made responsible for “predatory” genes in man. Given the right conditions, sensations lead on to apprehensions. Parental nurture provides such facilitating conditions. However, the reception of nurture may be severely blocked or confused. Unable to make sufficient use of nurture, the child remains in, or regressed to, a sensation-dominated state. Why should this be? According to my observations, a very common precipitating infantile situation is one in which a particularly vulnerable child experiences a series of shocks at a time when one’s neuro-mental apparatus is not sufficiently developed to stand the strain. When autistic children first began to be distinguished from other disabled children, psychologically-minded people tend to see the mothers as responsible for their children’s condition: they were described as cold and emotionally ungiving. On the other hand, physiologically-minded people tend to see the cause as neurological and unavoidable. The truth seems to me to be at once more hopeful and more tragic. The mothers are not at fault: anyone can have an autistic child. #RandolphHarris 8 of 24

Yet it turns out that, with patience and some very inspired guesswork which led to a deeper understanding of these children’s condition, some can be rescued from their disability and come to live satisfying adult lives well within the normal range. There may be many cause possible causes of autism. Primitive humans may have all been considered autistic. The autistic baby is born at term, apparently perfect, but with its sensory apparatus not yet ready for an out-of-womb existence. This would explain why the reception of nurture seems blocked or confused. It does look as though some of the baby’s senses are literally not yet registering properly. It is as though messages from the eyes, the ears, the taste-buds, and so on, are not leaving appropriate memory-traces in the cortex, which therefore cannot yet organize sensory input into dynamic concepts. This would account for such facts as that an autistic infant tends to have a weaker sucking reflex, to be later in opening its eyes, slower to focus and track movements with its eyes, more apt to lose the nipple, less apt to cuddle into the mother, less consolable in distress. Unready to meet the World, the autistic infant may experience as intolerable impingements what a more fortunate baby would placidly accept as the coming and going of hunger, bowel movements, dressing and undressing, bathing, feeding cuddling, and so on. #RandolphHarris 9 of 24

By the time the infant’s sensory apparatus has developed the capacity to manage these experiences, it is no longer a new-born baby in the mother’s eyes, and she does not handle it as such. Nor is it now treated like a more fortunate 4-day-old or 4-week-old child, for its plight and consequent strange unresponsiveness have not been understood. The mother, faced with such unfamiliar behaviour, has begun to feel inadequate or rejected. Perhaps especially with a longer delay, of weeks rather than days the mother’s confidence in her ability to be loved by her child may have been seriously undermined. This is a tragic thought, that the child should, so to speak, wake up to a mother who has been loving it fruitlessly and unnoticed for days and weeks, and who is now discouraged so that that child does not meet the love which ad been waiting there all along. Autism is not specifically attributed to an underdeveloped sensory apparatus, at times. However, many can understand, very sensitively, the dreadful experience which such underdeveloped infants must be undergoing when, perhaps within days and certainly within weeks, all the sensory apparatus does finally “come to term,” which is when it should have been born. So, the normal human gestation period may not be long enough for some babies. #RandolphHarris 10 of 24

That makes sense because humans are not machines and these typical mile stones are just averages, not absolutes, but the body can only handle things for a certain period of time or else it will start to malfunction. All children can experience patterns of sensations, given the appropriate stimuli. These patters are called primitive concepts or shapes. With the younger children, the shapes of sound, smell, taste and sight seem to be felt rather than heard, smelled, tasted or seen. Such children’s consciousness is very restricted because what they take in is so restricted: touch being n avenue of awareness which, in these younger autistic children, overrides other sense-perceptions. Shapes seem to be vague formations of sensations, standing out from the random flux of sensations which constitute the infant’s early sense of being. In the first place, these shapes will occur without the child’s intervention, and this makes sense snice the child is simply processing incoming stimuli. However, the child will soon learn that it can make some shapes recur by its own movements, it can reinforce the incoming stimuli and cause the sensations to prolong themselves by cortical reverberation. Thus, as well as arising spontaneously, they will become self-induced. #RandolphHarris 11 of 24

In normal development, this shape-making propensity will soon become associated with the actual shapes of objects. This will result in the formation of percepts and concepts which facilitate a working relationship with objects in the outside World which can be shared with other people. Normal sensation-shapes are the basic rudiments for emotional, aesthetic and cognitive functioning. If things go wrong here, then dire trouble is in store. That is what happened with autistic children. Shapes are an autistic version of what I called concepts. This is a telling example of the primitive experience of a shape. Try a little experiment. Forget your chair. Instead, feel your seat pressing against the seat of the chair. It will make a shape. If you wiggle, the shape will change. These shapes are entirely personal to oneself and incommunicable to others. The autistic child’s attention is on these shapes more than on the chair, which it does not experience in the same immediate way. Because of its continued reliance on touch rather than sight perceptions, the autistic child does not progress from experiencing shapes to more sophisticated impressions of the World, which would involve sight and sound and context and meaning. It does not acquire higher-order conceptual and dynamic structures. It keeps its World monotonously the same. #RandolphHarris 12 of 24

Since touch is the main sense through which experiences reach the autistic child, the mere sight of objects carries little meaning for it. The autistic child does not make much sense of the things it sees—it does not have accurate expectations as to their significance and meaning. Hence they may impinge agonizingly. If you can see the corner of the table but it means nothing to you, you may walk into it and be shocked by the pain when you do, you make even accuse the table of threatening you, when it was you whose perception was not in accordance with the situation. If the child’s sensory apparatus is not (yet) working properly, it seems tenable that for the very young infant being is a stream of sensations. Put in another way, in earliest days, the infant is the stream of sensations from which constructs emerge as nameless entities. As soon as some degree of separateness is tolerated, the infant may be said to interpret the outside World in terms of these nameless entities. The stream of sensations which the normal tiny children persists in the older autistic child. Autistic children are at times unusually interested by what is going on in pipes and tubes, those of the central heating or the plumbing for instance: here is something following and shapeless in the pipes! This may correspond to their body-image and/or self-representation. #RandolphHarris 13 of 24

This is not surprising, since our bodies are rather like tubes through which things gurgle digestively. Not only food. Many of us have at times a sense of perceptual flow—of things coming through our eyes and ears into ourselves and out again. There are times when our sensations are not processed, not digested, not organized into meaning, not metabolized—they just flow through us as nameless entities—they are shapes. Could it be that autistic children sense, in their body-imagery, an affinity with pipes and tubes, containers of flowing things, sensing the flow of digestion from intake at the mouth to elimination at the lower end, and the flow of sight and sounds in, though, and out again? Could it even be that children who feel these affinities have already made some progress (through therapy or for other reasons) in that they are somehow able to sense what pipes and tubes are for? Have they progressed beyond the simple capacity for experiencing shapes? Are these the ones already able to conceptualize themselves as containers, holding things? Before this relatively well-organized state of mind, might there be a stage when the child has only a sense of itself as a flux, no more organized or differentiated than water streaming out of a tap or a hose? #RandolphHarris 14 of 24

The thesis which is being developed is that, at first, the “felt self” is experienced in terms of fluids and gases. This is not surprising since the newly-born infant has emerged from a fluid medium and one’s early food and excretions are associated with fluids and gas. After birth the neonate has to adjust from being a water creature to being a dweller on dry land. This is quite a big adjustment, so that it is to be expected that sensations associated with floating in a fluid medium will linger on to become part of the early body image. Birth is a trauma which upsets the equilibrium by changing the environment radically and enforcing a new form of adaptation. Objects, including the ego, begin to emerge from the mix-up of substances and from the breaking up of the harmony of the limitless expanses. The objects have—in contrast to the friendlier substances—firm contours and boundaries which must henceforth be recognised and respected. Of course it is impossible to separate love, joy, peace, faith (confidence), and hope from one another in practice. They lose their true nature wen separated. Try imagining love without joy and peace, joy without love and peace, or peace without love and joy, or any combination of them without faith and hope. #RandolphHarris 15 of 24

You will see, upon making a slight effort, that love, joy, and so on, without the others just would not be themselves. Or perhaps that we have all already seen in this World far too much “love” without joy and peace, or “peace” without love and joy, and so on. And joy without hope is one of the most exquisitely tortured blossoms of human despair, constantly cultivated by modern secularism (Thomas Hardy, Albert Camus, and on and on). Far too often, however, we find such a separation to be something religion has accomplished. And that explains why religion as commonly practices does not eliminate pride and fear, but routinely makes it worse. Pride and fear are the two roots of “the deeds of the flesh.” “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God,” reports Galatians 5.19-21. So long as the spirit (heart) is governed by sensuality and malice and trailing clouds of other poisonous feelings resulting from them, life is simply hopeless. #RandolphHarris 16 of 25

 By contrast, it is the beneficial movement int love, joy, and peace, based on faith and hope in God, that eliminates the destructive feelings or at least eliminates them as governing factors in our life. We do not go at the change the other way around, trying first to root out the destructive feelings. That is a common mistake of Worldly wisdom and of much religion on such matters. However, we know that in being with Jesus the destructive feelings, with their actions, will drop off us as we increasingly see that “with Thee is the fountain of life,” and come to realize that “in Thy light we see light,” reports Psalm 36.9. “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,” Ephesians 5.19-21. Love, joy, and peace fostered in divine fellowship simply crowd out fear, anger, unsatisfied desire, woundedness, rejection. There is no longer room for them—well, perhaps there is for a while, but increasingly less so. Belonging to Christ does not immediately eliminate bad feelings, and we must not be drawn into pretense that it does. #RandolphHarris 17 of 24

However, being drawn into Christ does crucify bad feelings. “Those who belong to Christ Jesus,” we read, “have crucified [past tense] the flesh with its passions and desires,” reports Galatians 5.24. Belonging to Christ does mean that the merely fleshly passions and desires are on the way to death and already have ceased leading a life of their own, much less, then, leading our whole life as they used to. That is how it is with all negative and destructive feelings in those who have put Christ on the throne of their life and have taken their place on the cross. The Master may add His spiritual vitality or inspiration temporarily to the disciple’s by merely wishing one well. If this is done during the Master’s prayer or meditation, the disciple’s subconscious will spontaneously pick up the telepathically projected flow and sooner or later bring it into consciousness. If, however, something more precise and more beneficial is required, one may consciously will and focus it to the disciple while both are in a state of deep prayer at the same time. The projected ideas and concentrated thoughts of a human who has made a permanent connection with God are powerful enough to affect beneficently the inner life of other people. However, even here nature requires the latter to establish their own inner connection with one in turn. #RandolphHarris 18 of 24

And this inner connection can be done only by the right mental attitude of trust and devotion. Truth resides, in its primary aspect, in the intellect. Now since everything is true according as it has the form of proper nature, the intellect, in so far as it is knowing, must be true, so far as it has the likeness of the thing known, this being its form, as knowing. For this reason trust is defined by the conformity of intellect and thing; and hence to know this conformity is to know truth. However, in n way can sense know this. For although sight has the lankness of the visible thing, yet it does not know the comparison which exists between the thing seen and that which itself apprehends concerning it. However, the intellect can know its own conformity with the intelligible things; yet it does not apprehend a thing by knowing of a thing “what a thing is.” When, however, it judges that a thing corresponds to the form which it apprehends about that thing, then first it knows and expresses truth. This it does by composing and dividing: for in every proposition it either applies to, or removes from the thing signified by the subject, some form signified by the predicate: and this clearly shows the sense is true of any thing,as is also the intellect, when it knows “what a think is”; but it does not thereby know or affirm truth. This is like manner the case with complex or non-complex words. #RandolphHarris 19 of 24

Truth therefore may be in the senses, or in the intellect knowing “what a thing is,” as in anything that is true; yet not as the thing known in the knower, which is implied by the word “truth”; for the perfection of the intellect is truth as known. Therefore, properly speaking, truth resides in the intellect composing and dividing; and not in the senses; nor in the intellect knowing “what a thing is.” And thus the Objections given are solved. “And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record—for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity—and it now came to pass, if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time, the thirty and third year had passed away; and the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of the tree days over the face of land. And there began to be great doubtings and disputations among the people, notwithstanding so many signs had been given. #RandolphHarris 20 of 24

“An it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land. And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole Earth as if it was about to divide asunder. And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land. And the city of Zarahemla did take fire. And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned. And the Earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain. And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward. However, behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole Earth; and the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough. And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the Earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate. #RandolphHarris 21 of 24

“And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain. And there were some who were carried way in the whirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away. And thus the face of the whole Earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the quaking of the Earth. And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole Earth, insomuch that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land. And it came to pass that then the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the Earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that there was think darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapour of darkness. #RandolphHarris 22 of 24

“And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all; and there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither Sun, nor the Moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling and weeping among all he people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them. And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla. And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible,” reports 3 Nephi 8.1-25. #RandolphHarris 23 of 24

As a king comes into His own, entering His throne room, smiling on all who wait there; just like that shining God, please rise. You gave birth to yourself, Father Sun. Each day this great Mystery. Thou causest the wind to blow and the rain to fall. Thou sustainest the living with lovingkindness, and in great mercy callest the departed to everlasting life. Thou upholdest the falling, healest the sick, settest free those in bondage, and keepest faith with those that sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Almighty King, who decreest death and life and bringest forth salvation? Faithful art Thou to grant eternal life t the departed. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who callest the dead to life everlasting. Holy art Thou and holy is Thy name and unto Thee holy beings render praise daily. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the holy God. Thou didst chose us for Thy service from among all peoples, loving us and taking delight in us. Thou didst exalt us above all tongues by making us holy through Thy commandments. Thou hast drawn us near, O our King, unto Thy service and hast called us by Thy great and holy name. Again the yacht sails, carrying the Sun. Again the wagon rolls, carrying the Sun. Carry it well and true in its well-wort path. It is my privilege to perform my morning prayers. It is my honour to do what should be done. As I rise with the morning, fog lifting slowly from my mind, I pray not to forget these truths. #RandolphHarris 24 of 24

Cresleigh Homes

In your #BrightonStation Residence 1 ensuite you will find a spacious standing shower, soaking tub, which will make your bathroom feel like a luxury spa and there is plenty of storage for all you luxury bathroom accessories. 🛀💕

We have some Residence 1 homes available right now! Visit our website to learn more; link in bio. https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/residence-1/

Intimate and sophisticated, with superior design–Welcome to Cresleigh Homes. 

#CresleighRanch
#CresleighHomes