Once in a person’s life, for one mortal moment, one must take a grab for immorality; if not, one has not lived. Just as the good of one person is constructed by comparison and integration of the different goods of each moment as they follow one another in time, so the universal good is constructed by the comparison and integration of the good of many different individuals. The relations of the parts to the whole and to each other are analogous in each case, being founded on the aggregative principle of utility. The principle of utility states that actions or behaviours are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. Many utilitarians believe that pleasure and pain are objective states and can be, more or less, quantified. The just saving principle for society must not, then, be affected by pure time preference, since as before the different temporal position of persons and generation does not in itself justify treating them different. If an urban individual reacted emotionally to each and every person with whom one came into contact, or cluttered one’s mind with information about them, one would be completely atomized internally and would fall into an unthinkable mental condition. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

Characteristically, urbanites meet one another in highly segmental roles. Their dependence upon others is confined to a highly fractionalized aspect of the other’s round of the total personality of every individual we meet, we necessarily maintain superficial and partial contact with someone. We are interest only in the efficiency of the shoe salesman in meeting our needs: we could not care less that his wife is an alcoholic. What this means is that we form limited involvement relationships with most of the people around us. Consciously or not, we define our relationships with most people in functional terms. So long as we do not become involved with the shoe salesman’s problems at home, or his more general hopes, dreams and frustrations, he is, for us, fully interchangeable with any other salesman with equal competence. In effect, we have applied the modular principle to human relationships. We have created the disposable person: Modular Man. Rather than entangling ourselves with the whole human, we plug into a module of one’s personality. Each personality can be imagined as a unique configuration of thousands of such modules. Thus no whole person is interchangeable with any other. However, certain modules are. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

Since we are seeking only to buy a pair of shoes, and not the friendship, love or hate of the salesman, it is not necessary for us to tap into or engage with all the other modules that form one’s personality. Our relationship is safely limited. There is limited liability on both sides. The relationship entails certain accepted forms of behaviour and communication. Both sides understand, consciously or otherwise the limitations and laws. Difficulties arise only when one or another party oversteps the tacitly understood limits, when one attempts to connect up with some module not relevant to the function at hand. Today a vast sociological and psychological literature is devoted to the alienation presumed to flow from this fragmentation of relationships. Much of the rhetoric of existentialism and the student revolt decries this fragmentation. It is said that we are not sufficiently “involved” with our fellow humans. Millions of young people go about seeking “total involvement.” Before leaping to the popular conclusion that modularization is all bad, however, it might be well to look more closely at the matter. Involve oneself fully with everyone can lead only to self-destruction and emotional emptiness. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

Urban humans must have more or less impersonal relationships with most of the people with whom one comes in contact with precisely in order to choose certain friendships to nourish and cultivate. One’s life represents a point touched by dozens of systems and hundreds of people. One’s capacity to know some of them better necessitates one’s minimizing the depth of one’s relationships to many others. Listening to the postman gossip becomes for the urban human an act of sheer graciousness, since one probably has no interest in the people the postman wants to talk about. Moreover, before lamenting modularization, it is necessary to ask ourselves whether we really would prefer to return to the traditional condition of humans in which each individual presumably related to the whole personality of a few people rather than to the personality modules of many. Traditional humans have been so sentimentalized, so cloyingly romanticized, that we frequently overlook the consequences of such a return. The very same writers who lament fragmentation also demand freedom—yet overlook the unfreedom of people bound together in totalistic relationships. For any relationship implies mutual demands and expectations. The more intimately involved a relationship, the greater the pressure the parties exert on one another to fulfill these expectations.  #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

The more intimately involved a relationship, the greater the pressure the parties exert on one another to fulfill these expectations. The tighter and more totalistic the relationships, the more modules, so to speak, are brought into play, and the more numerous are the demands we make. In a modular relationship, the demands are strictly bounded. So long as the shoe salesman performs one’s rather limited service for us, thereby fulfilling our rather limited expectations, we do not insist that one believe in our God, or that one be tidy at home, or share our political values, or enjoy the same kind of food or music that we do. We leave one free in all other matters—as one leaves us free to be who we are. This is not true of the total relationship and cannot be. To a certain point, fragmentation and freedom go together. All of us seem to need some totalistic relationships in our lives. However, to decry the fact that we cannot have only such relationships is nonsense. And to prefer a society in which the individual has holistic relationships with a few, rather than modular relationships with many, is to wish for a return to the imprisonment of the past—a past when individuals may have been more tightly bound to one another, but when they were also more tightly regimented by social conventions, mores of pleasures of the flesh, political and religious restrictions. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

This is not to say that modular relationships entail no risks or that this is the best of all possible Worlds. There are, in fact, profound risks in the situation. Until now, however, the entire public and professional discussion of these issues has been badly out of focus. For it has overlooked a critical dimension of all interpersonal relationships: their durations. In the case of society, pure time preference is unjust: it means (in the more common instance when the future is discounted) that the living take advantage of their position in time to favour their own interests. The living, if they allow themselves to be moved by such considerations, wrong their predecessors and descendants. Collective saving for the future has many aspects of a public good, and the isolation and assurance problems arise in this case. Basic units of experience contribute to more generalized structures in the process of depersonalizing. This could happen in different ways: besides people who characteristically experience life mainly in terms of others (as in “They sent me a letter saying that had closed down”), there are people who experience life mainly in terms of themselves (as in “I felt so worried when I did not hear”), and other again who experience life mainly in terms of feelings which come and go. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

The first kind are people for whim whatever happens in life comes to be rather intricately integrated with other people and things: anything that does not involve other people means rather little to them and is therefore only vaguely taken in and remembered, and rather infrequently a spur to action. The second kind are people for whom whatever happens in life comes to be rather intricately integrated with self-regions, and what cannot find much connection with themselves is experienced as rather irrelevant, only half taken in, rather vaguely remembered and rather infrequently a spur to action. Feedbacks involve expectations or, amounting to the same thing, values, wishes, hopes, prejudices, and all kinds of nonrational non-cognitive features. They also involve the accumulation and organization of incoming information, that is they involve ego-functions; at simple level these would be such processes as perceiving, conceptualizing, categorizing, remember, comparing, and planning. The dominant central regions are the ones where the ego-functions are located. Ego-functions develop as the personality develops, guiding people to find their way in situations. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

Some higher-order ego-functions clearly performing a steering role: regulating the general level of psycho-motor activity, regulating control over delay, planning activities and giving them an orientation, shifting attention in flexible ways, differentiating between stimuli, integrating experience and actions (skills). There are also functions performed by Principal Control Systems, processes through which incoming information is organized and selected or discarded, at successively higher levels or organization (more centrally). These processes are clearly cognitive functions of a very high order—ego-functions: ordering, categorizing, and encoding information, retrieving information from memory, juxtaposing information so as to make reflective thought possible (comparing, patterning), framing alternative plans for higher-level decisions, inspecting certain overlearned and automated action-systems, together with the representation-models linked to them, that may be proving maladapted. As a result of such inspection, systems and models long out of awareness become available for reappraisal in the light of new information, and if necessary, attempts can be made to reorganize or perhaps replace them. The term “ego-functions” raises a small but confusing problem in terminology. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

Most classical writer have tended to use the word “ego” where I would use the word “self.” There is then a danger that “self” and “ego” will be equated, whereas all agree that there is more to the personality than ego-functioning. I would like to restrict the word “ego” to be the collective noun for all cognitive functions. This would enable us to use the word “self” as the collective noun for all self-regions. Human’s capacity for self-awareness, reason, and imagination—new qualities that go beyond the capacity for instrumental thinking of even the cleverest animals—requires a picture of the World of one’s place in it that is structed and has inner cohesion. Humans need a map of their natural and social World, without which one would be confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently. One would have no way of orienting oneself and of finding for oneself a fixed point that permits one to organize all the impressions that impinge upon one. Whether one believed in sorcery and magic as final explanations of all events, or in the spirit of one’s ancestors guiding one’s life and fate, or in an omnipotent God who will reward or punish one, or in the power of science to give answers to all human problems—from the standpoint of one’s need for a frame of orientation, it does not make any difference. #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

One’s World makes sense to one, and one feels certain about one’s ideas through the consensus with those around one. Even if the map is wrong, it fulfills its psychological function. However, the map was never entirely wrong—nor has it ever been entirely right, either. It has always been enough of an approximation to the explanation of phenomena to serve the purpose of living. The impressive fact is that we do not find any culture in which there does not exist such a frame of orientation. Or any individual either. Often an individual may disclaim having any such overall picture and believe that one responds to the various phenomena and incidents of life from case to case, as one’s judgments guides one. However, it can be easily demonstrated that one takes one’s own philosophy for granted, because to one it is only common sense, and one is unaware that all one’s concepts rest upon a commonly accepted frame of reference. When such a person is confronted with a fundamentally different total view of life one judges it as “crazy” or “irrational” or “childish,” while one considers oneself as being only logical. The need for the formation of a frame of reference is particularly clear in the case of children. They show, at a certain age, a deep need for a frame of orientation and often make it up themselves in an ingenious way, using the few data available to them. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

The intensity of the need for a frame of orientation explains a fact that has puzzled many students of the human being, namely the ease with which people fall under the spell of irrational doctrines, either political or religious or of any other nature, when to the one who is not under their influence it seems obvious that they are worthless constructs. Part of the answer lies in the suggestive influence of leaders and in the suggestibility of humans. However, this does not seem to be the whole story. Humans would probably not be so suggestive were it not that one’s need for a cohesive frame of orientation is so vital. The more an ideology pretends to give answers to all questions, the more attractive it is; here may lie the reason why irrational or even plainly insane thought systems can so easily attract the minds of humans. However, a map is not enough as a guide for action; humans also need a goal that tells one where to go. The animal has no such problems. Its instincts provide it with a map as well as with goals. However, humans, lacking instinctive determination and having a brain that permits one to think of many directions in which one could go, needs an object of devotion to be the focal point of all one’ strivings and the basis for all one’s effective—and not only proclaimed values. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

One need such an object of devotion for a number of reasons. The object integrates one’s energies in one direction. It elevates one beyond one’s isolated existence, with all its doubts and insecurity, and gives meaning to life. In being devoted to a goal beyond one’s isolated ego, one transcends oneself and lead the prison of absolute egocentricity. The term “transcendence” is traditionally used in a theological frame of reference. Christian thinking takes for granted that human’s transcendence implies transcendence beyond oneself to God; this theology tries to prove the need for belief in God by pointing to humans’ need for transcendence. This logic, however, is faulty unless the concept of God is used in a purely symbolic sense standing for “not-self.” There is a need to transcend one’s self-centered, narcissistic, isolated position to one of being related to others, of openness to the World, escaping the hell of self-centeredness and hence self-imprisonment. Religious systems like Buddhism have postulated this kind of transcendence without any reference to a god or superhuman power; so did Meister Eckhart, in his boldest formulations. The object of human’s devotion vary. One can be devoted to an idol which requires ones to abandon one’s children or to an ideal that makes one protect one’s children; one can be devoted to the growth of life or to its destruction. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

One can be devoted to the goal of amassing a fortune, of acquiring power, of destruction, or to that of living and of being productive and courageous.  One can be devoted to the most diverse goals and idols; yet while the difference in the objects of devotion are of immense importance, the need for devotion itself is a primary, existential need demanding fulfillment regardless of how this need is fulfilled. Jesus stood forth among humanity as the light of the World. What did that mean? “In Him was life,” the apostle said, “and the life was the light of human,” –a light of such power that the darkness in the World cannot extinguish it (John 1.4-5). Light means both energy and knowledge. From the person of Christ there uniquely came into the World the energy and knowledge by which human beings could be delivered from evil and enabled to live as it ought to be lived. This is why Jesus sent out his apprentices to make apprentices of al ethnic groups on Earth, what he had in mind was Worldwide moral revolution What that would be can be realized only if we think of the population of the Earth being transformed into “the children of light” as we have presented them here—or if there were only a substantial minority of such people. Ordinary human beings in their ordinary positions in life were appointed and empowered by one to be, each in their peculiar place, “the light of the World.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

It would no more be possible to the light of the World than it is possible to hide a city on a hill. “You are the light of the World. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before humans, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in Heaven,” reports Matthew 5.14-16. Now, modern humanity—say since the late 1800s—has lived in a rage of moral self-righteousness. In its intellectual leaders it has lived in an attitude of superiority and condemnation toward the morality of the culture that is, supposedly, “Christian.” Its “greatest” prophets—a line of those thought to be among our greatest thinkers—have weighed Jesus in the moral balances and found him wanting. In fact, they have found ways of treating him as inaccessible and have then concentrated on finding those who profess to be his followers wanting. Fearsome “Christian” types—the Enforcer, the Proper-Above-All, the Propagandist, the Happy Yappy, the Obsequious Self-Promoter, the Cowardly Faithful, the Heartlessly Successful, and no and on—are relentlessly hammered on as proving the moral bankruptcy of the way of Christ, though in fact these are human types, found in all cultures. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

Nevertheless, modern humanity has officially, in its governing institutions, forsaken the true light of the World, Jesus himself. In times of desperation they may still turn to him in prayer, but they do not think of him as the only one who knows reality and how the World should go. Meanwhile, all of the horrendous political movements of the twenty-first century have pled moral righteousness on their side and unrighteousness in their opponents as the justification for brutalities that no one would have thought possible the fact. And the leaders of Worldwide anti-Americans groups do the same. The highest ethical teaching in the World that has ever been given was rejected by the intellectual leaders of humanity in favour of teachings that open the way to forms of human behaviour more degrading than any the World has ever seen to this point. It is certainly no justification for all that horror in the present and historically to day that it was partly due to the failure of those who have professed Christ to stand throughout the Earth as the manifest children of light. And yet that is a very essential part of the truth about our modern World. Still today those who are concerned about contemporary culture do not seem to fully realize what has happened—that those identified with Christ, and Christ himself, have come to be seen as morally inferior. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

They do not realize that the attacks on what we might call traditional Christian morality—or just “traditional values”—is a morality—or just “traditional values”—is a moral attack: an attack from the point of view of (supposed) moral superiority. The infinite power is without a history but the ideas in its consciousness do have one. Nothing ever happens to That which is out of every kind of time and space, which transcends every kind of shape and change. However, its ideas pass through experience after experience because they appear in timed succession and pictured form. World-Mind is omnipresent. The divine Mind is implicit in every Universe, the divine Power implicated in every cosmic activity This is the reality that is hidden in me and you, in the whole Universe itself. It acts everywhere and exists eternally. It is the unseen divinity that is responsible for the seen productions of Nature and Time, and hence the divine is present in every atm of so-called matter and in every individual human being. The farewell greeting “God be with you!” is really a reminder which means “God will be with you wherever you go for He is everywhere.” Thus make it. Unseen itself, its presence is seen in every Earthly form; unthinkable though it be, its existence is self-manifested in every thought. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

The Universe comes forth from the World-Mind, from its own being and its own substance. Therefore the Universe is divine, therefore God is present in every atom and likewise in every one of us. Whoever denes the existence of God denies the very essence of one’s own self. Whether the divine power is looked upon as being inside or outside oneself—and both views will be true and complementary—in the end it must be thought of without any reference to body and ego at all. In no part of space does the World-Mind exist, and at no point in time is it to be met. Sweet God, please give me the right words to say. Inspiring and eloquent God of smooth speech, please pick out from the many words just the rights ones for this occasion and feed them to me. I will do the rest. For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and He is the ruler over the nations. Redeemers shall ascend to the United States of American and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s. And the Lord shall be King over all the Earth; on that day shall the Lord be One, and His name one. Reasoned thinking can only check the guidance or revealing of intuition, whereas the latter can actually guide and illumine the path of the former. Where the shrewdest judgment finds itself bewilder, the mysterious faculty of intuition moves unhesitatingly and surely. When the thought of a problem was welded into one with its solution, when there was no gap of time between question and answer, it was a period of absolute clarity. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

Cresleigh Homes

Not to brag, but the in-unit Washer and Dryer you will get in your place at @HUBApts means no more trips to the laundromat. Also, unlimited hot blankets to snuggle up in when you watch Netflix. The list goes on and on. 😉

Hub Apartments boasts an excellent location for enjoying upscale shopping and dining experiences, all within walking distance.

#HUBApts
#CresleighHomes