When a person begins to act logically according to others, then one has left one’s youth behind. Rational principles can focus our judgments and set up guidelines for reflection, and we must finally choose for ourselves in the sense that the choice rests on our direct self-knowledge not only of what things we want but also of how much we want them. Sometimes there is no way to avoid having to assess the relative intensity of our desires. Rational principles can help us to do this, but they cannot always determine these estimates in a routine fashion. To be sure, there is one formal principle that seems to provide a general answer. This is the principle to adopt that plan which maximizes the expected net balance of satisfaction. Or to express the criterion less hedonistically, if more loosely, one is directed t take that course most likely to realize one’s most important aims. However, this principle also fails to provide us with an explicit procedure for making up our minds. It is clearly left to the agent oneself to decide what it is that one most wants and to judge the comparative importance of one’s several ends. The notion of deliberative rationality is one that characterizes a person’s future good on the whole as what one would now desire and seek if the consequences of all the various courses of conduct open to one were, at the present point of time, accurately foreseen by one and adequately realized in imagination. An individual’s good is the hypothetical composition of impulsive forces that results from deliberative reflection meeting certain conditions. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

We can say that the intelligible plan for a person is the one (among those consistent with the counting principles and other principles of rational choice once established) which one would choose with deliberative rationality. It is the plan that would be decided upon as the outcome of careful reflection in which the agent reviewed, in the light of all the relevant facts, what it would be like to carry out these plans and thereby ascertained the course of action that would best realize one’s more fundamental desires. In this definition of deliberative rationality it is assumed that there are no errors of calculation or reasoning, and that the facts are more correctly assessed. I suppose also that the agent is under no misconceptions as to what one really wants. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out,” reports Proverbs 25.2. In most cases anyway, when one achieves one’s aim, one does not find that one no longer wants it and wishes that one had done something else instead. Moreover, the agent’s knowledge of one’s situation and the consequences of carrying out each plan is presumed to be accurate and complete. No relevant circumstances are left out of account. Thus the rational plan for an individual is on that one would adopt if one possessed full information. It is the objectively rational plan for one and determines one’s real good. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

 As things are, of course, if we follow this or that plan, our knowledge of what will happen is incomplete. Often we do not know what is the rational plan for us; the most that we can have is a reasonable belief as to where our good lies, and sometimes we can only conjecture. However, if the agent does the best that a rational person can do with the information available to one, then the plan one follows is a subjectively rational plan. One’s choice may be an unhappy one, but if so it is because one’s beliefs are understandably mistaken or one’s knowledge insufficient, and not because one drew hasty and fallacious inferences or was confused as to what one really wanted. In this case a person is not to be faulted for any discrepancy between one’s apparent and one’s real good. The notion of deliberative rationality is obviously high complex, combining many elements. One could if necessary classify the kinds of mistake that can be made, the sorts of tests that the agent might apply to see if one has the adequate knowledge, and so on. It should be noted, however, that a rational person will not usually continue to deliberate until one has found the best plan open to one. Often one will be content if one forms a satisfactory plan (or subplan), that is, one that meets various minimum conditions. Rational deliberation is itself an actively like any other, and the extent to which one should engage in it is subject to rational decision. The formal rule is that we should deliberate up to the point where the likely benefits from improving our plan are just worth the time and effort of reflection. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Once we take the costs of deliberation into account, it is unreasonable to worry about finding the best plan, the one that we would choose had we complete information. It is perfectly rational to follow a satisfactory plan when the prospective returns from further calculation and additional knowledge do not outweigh the trouble. There is even nothing irrational in an aversion to deliberation itself provided that one is prepare to accept the consequences. Goodness as rationality does not attribute any special value to the process of deciding. The importance to the agent of careful reflection will presumably vary from one individual to another. Nevertheless, a person is being irrational if one’s unwillingness to think about what is the best (or a satisfactory) thing to do leads one into misadventures that on consideration one would concede that one should have taken thought to avoid. In this account of deliberative rationality I have assumed a certain competence on the part of the person deciding: one knows the general features of one’s wants and ends both present and future, and one is able to estimate the relative intensity of one’s desires, and to decide if necessary what one really wants. Moreover, one can envisage the alternatives open to one and establish a coherent ordering of them: given any two plans one can work out which one prefers or whether one is indifferent between them, and these preferences are transitive. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Once a plan is settled upon, one is able to adhere to it and one can resist present temptations and distractions that interfere with its execution. These assumptions accord with the familiar notion of rationality that I have used all along. Keeping in mind that our overall aim is to carry out a rational plan (or subplan), it is clear that some features of desires make doing this impossible. For example, we cannot realize ends the descriptions of which are meaningless, or contradict well-established truths. Since pie (3.14) is a transcendental number, it would be pointless to try to prove that it is an algebraic number. To be sure, a mathematician in attempting to prove this proposition might discover by the way many important facts, and this achievement might redeem one’s efforts. However, insofar as one’s end was to prove a falsehood, one’s plan would be open to criticism; and once one became aware of this, one would no longer have this aim. The same thing holds for desires that depend upon our having incorrect beliefs. It is not excluded that mistake opinions may have a beneficial effect by enabling us to proceed with our plans, being so to speak useful illusions. Nevertheless, the desires that these beliefs support are irrational to the degree that the falsehood of these beliefs makes it impossible to execute the plan, or prevents superior plans from being adopted. (I should observe here that in the thin theory the value of knowing the facts is derived from their relation to the successful execution of rational plans. So far at least there are no grounds for attributing intrinsic value to having true beliefs.) #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

We may also investigate the circumstances under which we have acquired our desires and conclude that some of our aims are in various respects out of line. Thus a desire may spring from excessive generalization, or arise from more or less accidental associations. This is especially likely to be so in the case of aversions developed when we are younger and do not possess enough experience and maturity to make the necessary corrections. Other wants may be inordinate, having acquired their peculiar urgency as an overreaction to a prior period of severe deprivation or anxiety. The study of these processes and their disturbing influence on the normal development of our system of desires is not our concern here. They do however suggest certain critical reflections that are important devices of deliberation. Awareness of the genesis of our wants can often make it perfectly clear to us that we really do desire certain things more than others. As some aims seem less important in the face of critical scrutiny, or even lose their appeal entirely, others may assume an assured prominence that provides sufficient grounds for choice. Of course, it is conceivable that despite the unfortunate conditions under which some of our desires and aversions have developed, they may still fit into and even greatly enhance the fulfillment of rational plans. If so, they turn out to be perfectly rational after all. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

If overstimulation at the sensory level increases the distortion with which we perceive reality, cognitive overstimulation interferes with our ability to “think.” While some human responses to novelty are involuntary, others are preceded by conscious thought, and this depends upon our ability to absorb, manipulate, evaluate and retain information. Rational behaviour, in particular, depends upon a ceaseless flow of data from the environment. It depends upon the power of the individual to predict, with at least fair success, the outcome of one’s own actions. To do this, one must be able to predict how the environment will respond to one’s acts. Sanity, itself, thus hinges on human’s ability to predict one’s immediate, personal future on the basis of information fed one by the environment. When the individual is plunged into a fast and irregular changing situation, or a novelty-loaded context, however, one’s predictive accuracy plummets. One can no longer make the reasonably correct assessments on which rational behaviour is dependent. To compensate for this, to bring one’s accuracy up to the normal level again, one must scoop up and process far more information than before. And one must do this at extremely high rates of speed. In short, the more rapidly changing and novel the environment, the more information the individual needs to process in order to make effective, rational decisions. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Yet just as there are limits on how much sensory input we can accept, there are in-built constraints on our ability to process information. In the words of psychologist George A. Miller of Rockefeller University, there are “severe limitations on the amount of information that we are able to receive, process, and remember.” By classifying information, by abstracting and “coding” it in various ways, we manage to stretch these limits, yet ample evidence demonstrates that our capabilities are finite. To discover these outer limits, psychologist and communications theorists have set about testing what they call the “channel capacity” of the human organism. For the purposes of these experiments, the regard humans as a “channel.” Information enters from the outside. It is processed. It exists in the form of actions based on decisions. The speed and accuracy of human information processing can be measured by comparing the speed of information input with the speed and accuracy of output. Information has been defined technically and measure in terms of units called “bits.” (A bit is the amount of information needed to make a decision between two equally likely alternatives. The number of bits needed increases by one as the number of such alternatives doubles.) By now, experiments have established rates for the processing involved in a wide variety of tasks from reading, typing, and playing the piano to manipulating dials or doing mental arithmetic. And while researcher differ as to the exact figures, they strongly agree on two basic principles: first, that humans have limited capacity; and second, that overloading the system leads to serious breakdown of performance. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

Imagine, for example, an assembly line worker in a factory making childrens’ blocks. One’s job is to press a button each time a red block passes in front of one on the conveyor belt. So long as the belt moves at a reasonable speed, one will have little difficulty. One’s performance will approach 100 percent accuracy. So long as the belt moves at a reasonable speed, one will have little difficulty. One’s performance will approach 100 percent accuracy. We know that if the pace is too slow, one’s mind will wander, and one’s performance will deteriorate. We also know that is the belt moved too fast, one will falter, miss, grow confused and uncoordinated. One is likely to become tense and irritable. One may even take a swat at the machine out of pure frustration. Ultimately, one will give up trying to keep pace. Here the information demands are simple, but picture a more complex task. Now the blocks streaming down the line are of many different colours. One’s instructions are to press the button only when a certain colour pattern appears—a yellow block, say, followed by two reds and a green. In this task, one must take in and process far more information before one can decide whether or not to hit the button. All other things being equal, one will have even greater difficulty keeping up as the pace of the lines accelerates. In a still more demanding task, we not only force the worker to process a lot of data before deciding whether to hit the button, but we then can force one to decide which of several buttons to press. We can also vary the number of times each button must be pressed. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

Now one’s instructions might read: For colour pattern yellow-red-red-green, hit button number two once; for pattern green-blue-yellow-green, hit button number six three times; and so forth. Such tasks require the worker to process a large amount of data in order to carry out one’s task. Speeding up the conveyor now will destroy one’s accuracy even more rapidly. Experiments like these have been built up to dismaying degrees of complexity. Test have involved flashing lights, musical tones, letters, symbols, spoken words, and a wide array of other stimuli. And subjects, asked to drum fingertips, speak phrases, solve puzzles, and perform an assortment of other tasks, have been reduced to blithering ineptitude. The results unequivocally show that no matter what the task, there is a speed above which it cannot be performed—and not simply because of inadequate muscular dexterity. The top speed is often imposed by mental rather than muscular limitations. These experiments also reveal that the greater the number of alternative courses of action open to the subject, the longer it takes one to reach a decision and carry it out. Clearly, these findings can help us understand certain forms of psychological upset. Managers plagued by demands for rapid, incessant and complex decisions; pupils deluged with facts and hit with repeated tests; housewife or househusbands confronted wit squalling children, jangling telephone, over flowing email, broken washing machines, the wail of rock and roll from the teenager’s loft areas on the second floor of the house, and the whine of the television set in the parlor—may well find their ability to think and act clearly impaired by the waves of information crashing into their senses. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

It is more than possible that some of the symptoms noted among battle-stressed soldiers, disaster victims, and culture shocked travelers are related to this kind of information overload. One of the men who has pioneered in information studies, Dr. James G. Miller, director of the Mental Health Research Institute at the University of Michigan, states flatly that “Glutting a person with more information than one can process may lead to disturbance.” Dr. Miller suggests, in fact, that information over load may be related to various forms of mental illness. One of the striking features of schizophrenia, for example, is “incorrect associative responses.” Ideas and words that ought to be linked in the subject’s mind are not, and vice versa. The schizophrenic tends to think in arbitrary or highly personalized categories. Confronted with a set of blocks of various kinds—triangles, cubes, cones, et cetera—the normal person is likely to categorize them in terms of geometric shape. The schizophrenic askes to classify them is just as likely to say, “They are all soldiers” or “They all make me feel sad.” In the volume Disorders of Communication, Dr. Miller describes experiments using word association test to compare normals and schizophrenics. Normal subjects were divided into two groups, and asked to associate various words with other words or concepts. One group worked at its own pace. The other worked under time pressure—id est, under conditions of rapid information input. The time-pressed subject camp up with responses more like those of schizophrenics than of self-paced normals. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

Similar experiments conducted by psychologist G. Usdansky and L.J. Chapman made possible a more refined analysis of the types of errors made by subjects working under forced-pace, high information-input rates. They, too, concluded that increasing the speed of response brought out a pattern of errors among normals that is peculiarly characteristic of schizophrenics. “One might speculate,” Dr. Miller suggests, “that schizophrenia (by some as-yet-unknow process, perhaps a metabolic fault which increases neural ‘noise’) lowers the capacities of channels involved in cognitive information processing. Schizophrenics consequently have difficulties in coping with information inputs at standard rates likes the difficulties experienced by normals at rapid rates. As a result, schizophrenics make errors at standard rates like those made by normals under fast, forced-input rates.” Dr. Miller argues, the breakdown of human performance under heavy information loads may be related to psychopathology in ways we have not yet begun to explore. Yet, even without understanding its potential impact, we are accelerating the generalized rate of change in society. We are forcing people to adapt to a new life pace, to confront novel situations and master them in ever shorter intervals. We are forcing them to choose among fast-multiplying options. We are, in other words, forcing them to process information at a far more rapid pace than was necessary in slowly-evolving societies. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

There can be little doubt that we are subjecting at least some of them to cognitive overstimulation. What consequences this may have for mental health in the techno-societies has yet to be determined. Now whether it is a question of understanding a fellow human being or of self-knowledge, I must in both cases leave all theoretical assumptions behind me. Since scientific knowledge not only enjoys universal esteem but, in the eyes of modern humans, count as the only intellectual and spiritual authority, understanding the individual obliges me to commit the lese majeste, so to speak, of turning a blind eye to scientific knowledge. This is a sacrifice not lightly made, for the scientific attitude cannot rid itself so easily of its sense of responsibility. And if the psychologist happens to be a doctor who wants not only to classify one’s patient scientifically but also to understand one as a human being, one is threatened with a conflict of duties between the two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive attitudes of knowledge on the one had and understanding on the other. This conflict cannot be solved by an either/or but only by a kind of two-way thinking: doing one thing while not losing sight of the other. In view of the fact that, in principle, the positive advantages of knowledge work specifically to the disadvantage of understanding, the judgement resulting therefrom is likely to be something of a paradox. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Judged scientifically, the individual is nothing but a unit which repeats itself ad infinitum and could just as well be designated with a letter of the alphabet. For understanding, on the other hand, it is just the unique individual human being who, when stripped of all those conformities and regularities so dear to the heart of the scientist, is the supreme and only real object of investigation. The doctor, above all, should be aware of this contradiction. On the one hand, one is equipped with the statistical truths of one’s scientific training, and on the other, one is faced with the task of treating a sick person, who especially in the case of psychic suffering, requires individual understanding. The more schematic the treatment is, the more resistances it—quite rightly—calls up in the patient, and the more the cure is jeopardized. The psychotherapist sees oneself compelled, willy-nilly, to regard the individuality of a patient as an essential fact in the picture and to arrange one’s methods of treatment accordingly. Today, over the whole field of medicine, it is recognized that the task of the doctor consists in treating the sick person, not an abstract illness. This illustration from the realm of medicine is only a special instance of the problem of education and training in general. Scientific education is based in the main on statistical truths and abstract knowledge and therefore imparts an unrealistic, rational picture of the World, in which the individual, as a merely marginal phenomenon, plays no role. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

The individual, however, as an irrational datum, is the true and authentic carrier of reality, the concrete human as opposed to the unreal ideal or “normal” human to whom the scientific statements refer. What is more, most of the natural sciences try to represent the results of their investigations as though these had come into existence without human’s intervention, in such a way that the collaboration of the psyche—an indispensable factor—remains invisible. (An exception to this is modern physics, which recognize that the observed is not independent of the observer.) So, in this respect as well, science conveys a picture of the World from which a real human psyche appears to be excluded—the very antithesis of the “humanities.” Under the influence of scientific assumptions, not only the psyche but the individual human and, indeed, all individua events whatsoever suffer a levelling down and a process of blurring that distorts the picture of reality into a conceptual average. We ought not to underestimate the psychological effect of the statistical World-picture: it thrusts aside the individual in favour of anonymous units that pile up into mass formations. Instead of the concreter individual, you have the names of organizations and, at the highest point, the abstract idea of the State as the principle of political reality. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the State (raison d’etat). Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goals and meaning of the individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lie in individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and consists in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how one should live one’s own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed, educated as a social unit, accommodated in the appropriate housing unit, and amused in accordance wit the standards that give pleasure and satisfaction to the masses. The rulers, in their turn, are just as much social units as the ruled, and are distinguished only by the fact that they are specialized mouthpieces of the State doctrine. They do not need to be personalities capable of judgment, but throughgoing specialists who are unusable outside their line of business. State policy decides what shall be taught and studied. This is why religion is important. It is a way that we are able to retain our identity for God is the highest authority and in control and we cannot allow our minds to be solely focused on the material World and forget our true purpose. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Humankind now has three choices: to remain divorced from the transcendent; to construct a rational order to preserve society without recourse to real or imagined gods; or to establish the viable influence of the Kingdom of God in the kingdoms of humans. The first option invites chaos and tyranny, as the bloodshed, repression, and nihilism of this century testify. We are then left with the second and third choices. These opposing arguments were well presented by two of the great thinkers of the twentieth century: the eminent journalist, Walter Lippmann, and Nobel laureate, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Before writing A Preface to Morals, Lippmann concluded that modern humans could no longer embrace a simple religious faith. For Lippmann, the goal was to create a humanistic view in which “mankind, deprived of the great fictions, is to come to terms with the needs which created those fictions.” For himself, Lippmann came to a rather fatalistic conclusion: “I take the humanistic view because, in the kind of World I happen to live in, I can do no other.” Lippmann thus set about to extract the ethical ideals of religious figures from their theological and historical context. Humans in one’s own rational interest, he believed, could sustain a human-made religion. Some religion, even if it was a religion that denied religion, had to be followed. On the other side of the spectrum from this religion of humanism stands Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a lonely and often outspoken profit. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

In Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard commencement address, Solzhenitsyn listed a litany of woes facing the West: the loss of courage and will, the addiction to comfort, the abuse of freedom, the capitulation of the intellectuals to fashionable ideas, the attitude of appeasement with evil. The cause for all this was the humanistic view Lippman had embraced. “The humanistic way of thinking,” thundered Solzhenitsyn, “which had proclaimed itself as our guide, did not admit the existence of evil in man, nor did it seek any task higher than the attainment of happiness on Earth. It started modern western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs…gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today.” In American democracy, said Solzhenitsyn, rights “were granted on the ground that man if God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.” Solzhenitsyn lamented that over two hundred years ago, as the Constitution was being written, or even nearly seventy years ago, when Walter Lippman was tying to preserve the husk of Western virtue, “it would have seemed quite impossible…that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims…The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even to excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society had grown simmer and dimmer.” Like MacArthur, Solzhenitsyn was saying that nothing less than spiritual renewal could save the New World. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

If we reject the nihilism that denies all meaning and hope, we must believe human society has purpose. We are forced to choose, therefore, belief in humans, in faith in faith, hope in hope, and love of love; or we must look for a point beyond ourselves to steady our balance. The view that humans in their own rational interest can sustain a humanmade religion is voiced regularly on op-ed pages, on television specials, even from church pulpits. It remains fashionable because it offers a beneficial view of human nature, filled with hopeful optimism about human’s capacities. However, it ignored the ringing testimony of a century filled with terror and depravity. If the real benefits of the Judeo-Christian ethic and influence in secular society were understood, it would be anxiously sought out, even by those who repudiate the Christian faith. The influence of the Kingdom of God in the public arena is god for society as a whole. Everything else can be known, as things and ideas are known, as something apart or processed, but the Overself cannot be truly known in this way. Only by identifying oneself with It can this happen. From the ordinary human point of view the Overself is the Ever-Still: yet that is our own conceptualization of it, for the fact is that all the Universe’s tremendous activity is induced by its presence. That out of which we draw our life and intelligence is unique and indestructible, beginning less and infinite. Each of us feels that there is something which directs one’s will, controls one’s movements, and constitutes the essence of one’s awareness. This something expresses itself to us as the “I.” #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

It is not only the hidden and mysterious source of their own little self but also the unrecognized source of the only moments of real happiness that they ever have. At some time, to some degree, and in some way, everything else in human experience can be directly examined and analysed. However, this is the one thing that can never be treated in this way. For it can never acknowledge itself without objectifying itself, thus making something other than itself, some simulacrum that is not its real self. The Overself is a fountain of varied forces. What does the coming of Overself consciousness means to humans? It means, first of all, an undivided mind. Listen to the Roman Stoics’ definition of the Overself: “the divinity which I planted in his heart” of Marcus Aurelius; “your guardian spirit” of Epictetus. This is the “UNDIVIDED MIND” where experience as subject and object, as ego and the World, or as higher self and lower self does not break consciousness. At the center of every human’s being there is one’s imperishable soul, one’s guardian angel. What can I render unto the Lord for all His bountiful dealings toward me? Some would say it begins with the mind, or perhaps above on the astral plane that our souls embrace the wonder Spirit of the Lord in His merry chase. That is where we become blessed by speech and freedom and begin to give our thanks. In the chase on pace toward grace and freedom, I will lift up the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. My vows will I pay unto the Lord, yea, in the presence of all His people. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Grievous in the sight of the Lord is the death of His faithful one. Ah, Lord, I am indeed Thy servant: I am Thy servant, the son of Thy handmaid; thou hast loosed my bonds. I will offer to Thee a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and call upon the name of the Lord. Lord, will you hold me close enough to hear the beating of your heart? There is but ne Heart with a single pulse. May I be lucky enough, one day, to be with Thou and feel it beating for us both. I will pray my vows unto the Lord, yea, in the presence of all His people; in the courts of the Lord’s house, in the midst of America. Hallelujah. Thy depth of range, O Lord, makes Thou so strong and wonderful. I stay charmed in Thy race. There is nothing better than to make life’s journey with Thou. O praise the Lord, all ye nations; laud Him, all ye peoples. For great is His mercy toward us; and the faithfulness of the Lord is everlasting. Hallelujah. O give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good, for His lovingkindness endureth forever. O let now America say: His lovingkindness endureth forever. Let now the house of Aaron say: His loving kindness endureth forever. Let them that revere the Lord say: His lovingkindness endureth forever. Bind me your will, tie me to your grace, chain me to your mercy, lock me to your forgiveness. Let us live eternally, in your Heavenly Kingdom. Even in ten thousand years our life shall not break, even for a single breath, enterally in your arms shall I stay. Out of my straits I called upon the Lord; He answered me and set me free. The Lord is with me as my helper, I shall see my adversaries discomfited. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

A peaceful home is a happy home! We’re loving how these calm and centered neutrals really enhance the spacious floor plan of the #BrightonStation Residence 3! We know you’ll add your own touches, but this look is just so inspiring. 🙏

Residence Three at Brighton Station boasts 2,757 square feet in this expansive two story home. There are four bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a three car garage! https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/residence-3/

Homes are selling in our community! Call us 916-333-1919 to schedule an appointment.

#CresleighHomes
#CresleighRanch