Mind is like an ocean. The surface layers of the mind function actively while the deeper levels remain silent. When, in group narcissism, the object is not the individual but the group to which one belongs, the individual can be fully aware of it, and express it without any restrictions. The assertion that “my country” (or nation, or religion) is the most wonderful, the most cultured, the most powerful, the most cultured, the most powerful, the most peace-loving, et cetera, does not sound crazy at all; on the contrary, it sounds like the expression of patriotism, faith, and loyalty. It also appears to be a realistic and rational value judgment because it is shared by many members of the same group. This consensus succeeds in transforming the phantasy into reality, since for most people reality is constituted by general consensus and not based on reason or critical examination. Sometimes the consensus even of a small group suffices to create reality—in the most extreme cases even the consensus of two (folie a deux). Group narcissism has important functions. In the first place, it furthers the solidarity and cohesion of the group, and makes manipulation easier by appealing to narcissistic prejudices. Secondly, it is extremely important as an element giving satisfaction to the members of the group and particularly to those who have few other reasons to feel proud and worthwhile. #RandolphHarris 1 of 24

Even if one is the most miserable, the least affluent, the least respected member of a group, there is compensation for one’s miserable condition in feeling “I am a part of the most wonderful group in the World. I, who in reality am a worm, become a giant through belonging to the group.” Consequently, the degree of group narcissism is commensurate with the lack of real satisfaction in life. Those social classes which enjoy life more are less fanatical (fanaticism is a characteristic quality of group narcissism) than those which, like the lower middle classes, suffer from scarcity in all material and cultural areas and lead a life of unmitigated boredom. At the same time, fostering group narcissism is very inexpensive from the standpoint of the social budget; in fact, it costs practically nothing compared with the social expense required to raise the standard of living. Society has only to pay ideologists who formulate the slogans that generate social narcissism; indeed, many social functionaries, like school teachers, journalists, ministers, and professors, participate even without being paid, at least with money. They receive their reward from feeling proud and satisfied to be serving such a worthy cause—and through enhanced prestige and promotion. #RandolphHarris 2 of 24

Those whose narcissism refers to their group rather than to themselves as individuals are as sensitive as the individual narcissists, and they react with rage to any wound, real or imaginary, inflicted upon their group. If anything, they react more intensely and certainly more consciously. An individual, unless one is mentally very sick, may have at least some doubts about one’s personal narcissistic image. The member of the group has none, since one’s narcissism is shared by the majority. In case of conflict between groups that challenge each other’s collective narcissism, this very challenge arouses intense hostility in each of them. The narcissistic image of one’s own group is raised to its highest point, while the devaluation of the opposing group sinks to the lowest. One’s own group becomes a defender of human dignity, decency, morality, and right. Devilish qualities are ascribed to the other group; it is treacherous, ruthless, cruel, and basically inhuman. The violation of one of the symbols of group narcissism—such as the flag, or the person of the emperor, the president, or an ambassador—is reacted to with intense fury and aggression by the people that they are even willing to support their leaders in a policy of war. #RandolphHarris 3 of 24

Group narcissism is one of the most important sources of human aggression, and yet this, like all other forms of defensive aggression, is a reaction to an attack on vital interests. It differs from other forms of defensive aggression in that intense narcissism in itself is a semipathological phenomenon. In considering the causes and the functions of Moslems at the time of the partition of India or recently between Bengali Moslems and their Pakistani rulers, group narcissism certainly plays a considerable role; if we appreciate the fact that we are dealing here with virtually the most least affluent and most miserable populations anywhere in the World, this is not surprising. However, certainly narcissism is not the only cause of these phenomena. Aristotle remarks that it is a peculiarity of humans that they possess a sense of the just and the unjust and that their sharing a common understand of justice makes a polis. Analogously one might say, in view of our discussion, that a common understanding of justice as fairness makes a constitutional democracy. The basic liberties of a democratic regime, the idea that citizens are free and equal and that society should be fair, are most firmly secured by this conception of justice. #RandolphHarris 4 of 24

The principles of justice, the moral obligation to act on the basis of fair adjudication between competing claims, which are linked to fairness, entitlement and equality, fit our considered judgments and they also provide the strongest arguments for freedom. By contrast teleological principles permit at best uncertain grounds for liberty, or at least for equal liberty. And liberty of conscience and freedom of thought should not be founded on philosophical or ethical skepticism, nor on indifference to religious and moral interests. And since the theory of justice relies upon weak and widely held presumptions, it may win quite general acceptance. If they can agree to anything at all, surely our liberties are most firmly based when they are derived from principles that persons fairly situated with respect to one another can agree to. Yet, there are several priorities to be distinguished. By the priority of liberty, I mean the precedence of the principle of equal liberty over the second principle of justice. The principle of equal liberty states that each person has a congruent right to the most extensive freedoms compatible with similar authorizations for all. The second principle of justice states that social and economic positions are to be to everyone’s advantage and open to all. #RandolphHarris 5 of 24

The two principles are in lexical order, and therefore the claims of liberty are to be satisfied first. Until this is achieved no other principle comes into play. The priority of the right over the good, or of fair opportunity over the difference principle, is not presently our concern. As all the previous examples illustrate, the precedence of liberty means that liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty itself. These are two sorts of cases. The basic liberties may either be less extensive though still equal, or they may be unequal. If liberty is less extensive, the representative citizen must find this a gain for one’s freedom on balance; and if liberty is unequal, the freedom of those with the lesser liberty must be better secured. In both instances the justification proceeds by reference to the whole system of the equal liberties. These priority rules have already been noted on a number of occasions. There is, however, a further distinction that must be made between two kinds of circumstances that justify or excuse a restriction of liberty. First a restriction can derive from the natural limitations and accidents of human life, or from historical and social contingences. #RandolphHarris 6 of 24

The question of the justice of these constraints does no raise. For example, even in a well-ordered society under favourable circumstances, liberty of thought and conscience is subject to reasonable regulations and the principle of participation is restricted in extent. These constraints issue from the more or less permanent conditions of political life; others are adjustments to the natural features of the human situation, as with the lesser liberty of children. In these cases, the problem is to discover the just way to meet certain given limitations. In the second kind of case, injustice already exists, either in social arrangements or in the conduct of individuals. The question here is what is the just way to answer injustice. This injustice may, of course, have many explanations, and those who act unjustly often do so with the conviction that they purse a higher cause. The examples of intolerant and of rival sects illustrate this possibility. However, human’s propensity to injustice is not a permanent aspect of community life; it is greater or less depending in large part on social institutions, and in particular on whether these are just or unjust. #RandolphHarris 7 of 24

A well-ordered society tends to eliminate or at least to control human’s inclinations to injustice, and therefore warring and intolerant sects, say, are must less likely to exist, or to be a danger, once such a society is established. How justice requires us to meet injustice is a very different problem from how best to cope with the inevitable limitations and contingencies of human life. These two cases, the case of basic liberties and the case of injustice, raise several questions It will be recalled that strict compliance is one of the stipulations of the original position (that guarantees each citizen a robust package of liberal rights to such things as freedom of conscience, freedom to vote and stand in elections, and rights to due process in law, and the original position ensures fair equality of economic opportunity as well as shares of income and wealth that are maximally beneficial to people with the least amount of income and wealth); the principals of justice (the moral obligation to act on the basis of fair adjudication between competing claims, which is linked to fairness, entitlement, and equality) are chosen on the supposition that they will be generally complied with. Any failures are discounted as exceptions. #RandolphHarris 8 of 24

By putting these principles in lexical order, the parties are choosing a conception of justice suitable for favourable conditions and assuming that a just society can in due course be achieved. Arranged in this order, the principles define then a perfectly just scheme; they belong to ideal theory and set up an aim to guide the course of social reform. However, even granting the soundness of these principles for this purpose, we must still ask how well they apply to institutions under less than favourable conditions, and whether they provide any guidance for instances of justice. The principles and their lexical order were not acknowledged with these situations in mind and so it is possible that they no longer hold. The intuitive idea is to split the theory of justice into two parts. The first or ideal part assumes strict compliance and works out the principles that characterize a well-ordered society under favourable circumstances. It develops the conception of a perfectly just basic structure and the corresponding duties and obligations of persons under the fixed constraints of human life. My main concern is with this part of the theory. #RandolphHarris 9 of 24

Nonideal theory, the second part, is worked out after an ideal conception of justice has been chosen; only then do the parties ask which principles to adopt under less happy conditions. This division of theory has, as I have indicated, two rather different subparts. One consists of the principles for governing adjustments to natural limitations and historical contingencies, and the other of principles for meeting injustice. If we can, viewing the theory of justice as a whole, the ideal part presents a conception of a just society that we are to achieve. Existing institutions are to be judged in the light of this conception and held to be unjust to the extent that they depart from it without sufficient reason. The lexical ranking of the principles specifies which elements ordering suggest are to be applied to nonideal cases as well. Thus as far as circumstances permit, we have a natural duty to remove any injustices, beginning with the most grievous as identified by the extent of the deviation from perfect justice. Of course, this idea is left importantly to institution. Still our judgement is guided by the priority indicated by the lexical ordering where the principle of equal liberty over the second principle of justice. #RandolphHarris 10 of 24

As you recall, the principle of equal liberty states that each person has a congruent right to the most extensive freedoms compatible with similar authorizations for all. The second principle of justice states that social and economic positions are to be to everyone’s advantage and open to all. And so that is the lexical ordering we want to follow. If we have a reasonably clear picture of what is just, our considered convictions of justice may fall more closely into line even though we cannot formulate precisely how this greater convergence comes about. Thus while the principles of justice belong to the theory of an ideal state of affairs, they are generally relevant. The several parts of the nonideal theory may be illustrated by various examples, some of which we have discussed. One type of situation is that involving a less extensive liberty. Since there are no inequalities, but all are to have a narrower rather than a wider freedom, the question can be assessed from the perspective of the representative equal to each citizen. To appeal to the interests of the representative human in applying the principles of justice is to invoke the principle of the common interest. (The common good I think of as certain general conditions that are in an appropriate sense equally to everyone’s advantage.) #RandolphHarris 11 of 24

Several of the preceding examples involve a less extensive liberty: the regulation of liberty of conscience and freedom of thought in ways consistent with public order, and the limitation on the scope of majority rule belong to this category. These constraints arise from the permanent conditions of human life and therefore these cases belong to that part of nonideal theory which deals with natural limitations. The two examples of curbing the liberties of the intolerant and of restraining the violence of contending sects, since they involve injustice, belong to the partial compliance part of nonideal theory. In each of these four cases, however, the argument proceeds from the viewpoint of the representative citizen. Following the idea of the lexical ordering, the limitations upon the extent of liberty are for the sake of liberty itself and result in a lesser but still equal freedom. The second kind of case is that of an unequal liberty. If some have more votes than others, political liberty is unequal; and if the votes of some are weighted much more heavily, or if a segment of society is without the franchise altogether, the same is true. #RandolphHarris 12 of 24

Edmund Burke’s account for representation states that political representation is the representation of interest, and interest has an objective, impersonal, unattached relation, and that the entire nation should be represented by Parliament, or derivatively by each member of Parliament, and members are an elite group, discovering and enacting what is best for the nation; that activity is what representation means. Dr. Burke also hold that inequalities are natural and unavoidable in any society, that some descriptions of citizens must always be uppermost because in a well ordered society, a ruling elite group, which is a natural aristocracy is an essential integral part of any large body rightly constituted, as the mass of people are incapable of governing themselves, and were not made to think or act without guidance and direction. Furthermore, he thought that power in the bans of the multitude admits of no control, no regulation, no steady direction whatsoever. Edmund Burke’s account of representation had an element of validity in the context of eighteenth-century society. If so, it reflects that fact that the various liberties are not all on par, for while at that time unequal political liberty might conceivably have been a permissible adjustment to historical limitations, serfdom and slavery, and religious intolerance, certainly were not. #RandolphHarris 13 of 24

These constraints do not justify the loss of liberty of conscience and the rights defining the integrity of the person. The case for certain political liberties and the rights of fair equality of opportunity is less compelling. When the long-run benefits are great enough to transform a less fortunate society into one where the equal liberties can be fully enjoyed, it may be reasonable to forgo part of these freedoms. When circumstances are not conducive to the exercise of thee rights in any case, this is especially true. Under certain conditions that cannot be at present removed, the value of some liberties may not be so high as to rule out the possibility of compensation to those less fortunate. To accept the lexical ordering of the two principles we are not required to deny that the value of liberty depends upon circumstance. However, it does have to be shown that as the general conception of justice is followed social conditions are eventually brought about under which a lesser than equal liberty would no longer be accepted. Unequal liberty is then no longer justified. The lexical order is, so to speak, the inherent long-run equilibrium of a just system. If not long before, once the tendency to equality has worked itself out, the two principles are to be serially ranked. #RandolphHarris 14 of 24

Just for reference, here are the principals again. The principle of equal liberty states that each person has a congruent right to the most extensive freedoms compatible with similar authorizations for all. The second principle of justice states that social and economic positions are to be to everyone’s advantage and open to all. In these remarks I have assumed that it is always those with the lesser liberty who must be compensated. We are always to appraise the situation from their point of view (as seen from the constitutional convention or the legislature). Now it is this restriction that makes it practically certain that slavery and serfdom, in their familiar forms anyway, are tolerable only when they relieve even worse injustices. There may be transition cases where enslavement is better than current practice. For example, suppose that city-states that previously have not take prisoners of war but have always put captives to death agree by treaty to hold prisoners as slaves instead. Although we cannot allow the institution of slavery on the grounds that the greater gains of some outweigh the losses to others, it may be that under these conditions, since all run the risk of capture in war, this form of slavery is less unjust than present custom. #RandolphHarris 15 of 24

At least the servitude envisaged is not hereditary (let us suppose) and it is accepted by the free citizens of more or less equal city-states. If slaves are not treated too severely, the arrangement seems defensible as an advance on established institutions. In time it will presumably be abandoned altogether since the exchange of prisoners of war is still a more desirable arrangement, the return of the captured members of the community being preferable to the services of slaves. But none of these considerations, however fanciful, tend in any way to justify hereditary slavery or serfdom by citing natural or historical limitations. Moreover, one cannot at this point appeal to the necessity or at least to the great advantage of these servile arrangements for the higher forms of culture. And on this point, we are in the greatest of dangers today. There are many who in effect, if not in intent, do just what Jesus said not to do. They annul the law and teach others to do the same. That ends all prospects of spiritual formation. “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven,” reports 5.19. #RandolphHarris 16 of 24

We in the New World live today in an antinomian culture. This culture in part derives from our religious and secular history, but it in turn reinforces antinomianism among professing Christians. “Antinomian” means “against the law.” It was a term coined by Martin Luther to designate some in his day (Johann Agricola and his followers) who held that God’s law was not a factor in conversation to Christ. However, the antinomian tendency is much older than Luther and possibly as old as some reactions to Paul’s gospel. It is based upon the mistaken conclusion—strongly rejected by Paul—that because we are not justified by keeping the law, but through our personal relationship of confidence in Jesus, in his death and his life, we have no essential use for the law and can simply disregard it. Does not faith in the saving merits of Christ abolish any obligation to keep the moral law, including the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ in the Gospels? We are free to hate the law, or “oppressor,” ore despise it, or regard it as at best a good thing that failed. These are common attitudes among professing Christians today—more often that not, one must admit, based on simple ignorance of Scriptures rather than on a carefully worked out understanding. #RandolphHarris 17 of 24

Detail vary from group to group down through history, but the essential point of antinomianism is that sinning or not sinning—obeying or not obeying the law—has nothing to do with being “saved” or not. Some groups have advocated extreme license, others not. God’s law is irrelevant to one’s standing before God in either case. During the Commonwealth period in England (1649-1660), antinomianism was present among high Calvinists who maintained that an elect person, being predestined to salvation, need not keep the moral law and does not even need to repent. No one should be urged to repent, therefore. Others have said “that good works hinger salvation, and that a child of God cannot sin; that the moral law is altogether abrogated as a rule of life; that no Christian believes or works any good, but that Christ only believes and works good.” Is it so unimportant to form an idea of God which shall be as near the truth as possible through containing so little error as possible? The Spirit which inspired and instructed Moses did not think so. “Thou shalt have no other God before me,” it said. #RandolphHarris 18 of 24

That is, we must not label the wrong thing with the name of God, or hold the wrong idea about Him as if it were the correct one. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images” was the next commandment. However, an idol does not necessarily have to be made of stone or metal. It can be made of an idea. If anyone wished to call World-Mind the Lord of the Universe, one will not be wrong; but then if someone else wishes to asset that the World-Mind cannot be a Personal God, neither will ne be wrong. Is there any possible reconciliation of these two views? Yes, for both cases these are only mental formulations, and it is impossible to describe God absolutely, accurately in intellectual terms. All mental concepts of God have to be discarded in the end. No strict and rigid doctrines can hold the truth as it is: we merely get from the statement something to satisfy the intellect. For the Real is ineffable, that is, undescribable and untouchable by the ordinary finite capacity of humans. However, because there is something Godlike, somewhere, in humans, intuition may reveal it. We must differentiate between the invented God of religion and the imagined God of mysticism, on the one hand, and the real God of philosophical truth, on the other. #RandolphHarris 19 of 24

The creator-God of religion is a more erroneous conception than the immanent God of mysticism, but both are alien to truth. Both have failed to fathom the Unconditioned, Nondual, and Illimitable God. There is a Universal principle of Eternal Intelligence behind all existence. If the follies of superstition and the bigotries of religion caricature it, the verities of philosophy and the insights of wisdom restore a true picture. We are not atheists. We do hold that a reality higher than the crudely material one exists. If the name of God is given to this reality, then we accept God; but we do not and will not accept the erroneous and degrading notion of Gd which most humans have. This higher concept of Gd is much more respectful and much more reverential than the old traditional one. Most of the current ideas about God are hazy, uncertain, unsettled, and even absurd. If by God you mean something higher than mere material existence, then we do not deny God. It is the false notion of God that we deny, the grotesque caricatures that appear in churches and temples and sermons and books. We look on this higher Reality as something not afar off from the essence of our own selves. #RandolphHarris 20 of 24

We have discovered that the common everyday life does not exhaust the alphabet of existence, that there is something sublime beyond it and yet akin to us. If you wish to call It such, we do honour and revere such a God, because we believe It t be the true God. God—a term which signifies a certain mathematical formula to some moderns and a certain mental figure to some primitives—exist all the same. We must assert that in God there is love: because love is the first movement of the will and of every appetitive faculty. For since the acts of the will and every appetitive faculty tend towards good and evil, as to their proper objects: and since good is essentially and especially the object of the will and the appetite, whereas evil is only the object secondarily and indirectly, as opposed to good; it follows that the acts of the will and appetite that regard good must naturally be prior to what is less so. Hence the intellect is first directed to universal truths; and in the second place to particular and special truth. Now there are certain acts of the will and appetite that regard good under some special condition, as joy and delight regard good present and possessed; whereas desire and hope regard good not as yet possessed. #RandolphHarris 21 of 24

Love, however, regards good universally, whether possessed or not. Hence love naturally the first act of the will and appetite; for which reason all the other appetite movements presuppose love, as their root and origin. For nobody desires anything nor rejoices in anything, except as a good that is loved: nor is anything an object of hate except as opposed to the object of love. Similarly, it is clear that sorrow, and other things like it, must be referred to love as heir first principle. Hence, in whomsoever there is will and appetite, there must also be love: since if the first is wanting, all that follows is also wanting. Now it has been shown that the will is in God and hence we must attribute love to Him. “The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Humans gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent for what they had done,” reports Revelation 16.10-11. Humans of inferior intelligence quite naturally want a God who will be attentive to their requirements, interested in their personal lives, and helpful during times of distress. That is to say, they want a human God. #RandolphHarris 22 of 24

Humans of superior intelligence come in time to consider God as an impersonal essence that is everywhere present, and consequently embodied in themselves and to be communed with interiorly too. That is to say, they recognize only a mystical God. Humans of the highest intelligence perceive that the “I” is illusory, that it is only ignorance of this fac that causes humans to regard themselves as a separate embodiment of the divine essence, and that in reality there is only this nondual nameless being. How impossible it is to get humans of inferior intelligence to worship or even to credit such an Existence which has no shape, no individuality, no thinking even! Hence such humans are given a figure after the own image a God, a deity that is a personal, human, five-sensed being. World-Mind, Lord and Creator, Maker and Ruler of all things, is not glorified aggrandized human being. Lord, when I see your face, may it be without fear, may it be without terror, may it be without panic. God, when I see your face, may it be with understanding, may it be with courage, may it be with peace. Almighty, when I see your face, may I be brought to wisdom through your loving kindness. #RandolphHarris 23 of 24

For the Lord will not cast off His people nor will He forsake His inheritance. However, God, being full of compassion, forgives iniquity, and destroys not; yea, often God turns His anger away, and does not stir up all Hi wrath. Please save us, O Lord; O King please answer us on the day that we call. Happy are they that dwell in Thy house; they will ever praise Thee. Happy is the people who thus fare; yea, happy is the people whose God is the Lord. I will extol Thee, my God, O King, and I will bless Thy name for ever and ever. Every day will I bless Thee, and I will praise Thy name for ever and ever. Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised; His greatness is unsearchable. Sometimes the starlight mist of tapestry interlaced with silver glow is nothing more than tinsel hung upon the arms of passing stars that glimmer as they god. Sometimes the wind-blown bands of emerald light that grace the northern sky are nothing more than sun-filled clouds left to linger in the night. However, when I see the diamonds of the arctic night, I know God granted me a peek through Heaven’s parted veil to a glimpse of Worlds to be. #RandolphHarris 24 of 24

Cresleigh Homes

Every space in your #Meadows home is designed for your comfort. From the kitchen’s large working island you enjoy the Great Room and a view of your backyard. The deep-set sink basin is perfect for nights with lots of dishes — and maybe bathing that Christmas puppy. 😉🐶 https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/
.

Enjoy luxury living at its finest in Meadows! Featuring exquisite single-family homes with 2-3-car garages and customizing options to create the home of your dreams for you and your family.
#CresleighHomes