Security is mostly superstition. Did you hear about the fellow who blamed arithmetic for his divorce? His wife put two and two together. Psychologists take pride in following a professional code that stresses high levels of competence, integrity, and responsibility; respect for people’s rights to privacy, dignity, confidentiality, and professional freedom; and above all, protection of the client’s welfare. Psychologist are also expected to use their knowledge to contribute to society. Many do volunteer work in the communities in which they live. (Ethical standards are an important part of research with humans and animals.) Psychologist doing naturalistic studies make a special effort to minimize bias by keeping a formal log of data and observations, called an observational record. As suggested in the study of playground aggression, videotaping often provides the best record of all. Despite its problems, naturalistic observation can supply a wealth of information and raise many interesting questions. In most scientists research it is an excellent starting point. Correlational studies help us discover relationships and make predictions. However, correlation does not demonstrate causation. Just because two things appear to be related does not mean that causation (a cause-and-effect connection) exists. The animals’ activity might be affected by seasonal changes in weight, hormone levels, or even the feeding schedule at the zoo. Just because one thing appears to be related to another does not mean that a cause-and-effect connection exists. #RandolphHarris 1 of 25

Here is another example of mistaking correlation for causation: What if a psychologist discovers that the blood of patients with schizophrenia contains a certain chemical not found in the general population? Does this show that the chemical causes schizophrenia? It may seem so, but schizophrenia could cause the chemical to form. Or, both schizophrenia and the chemical might be caused by some unknown third factor, such as the typical diet in mental hospitals. Just because one thing appears to cause another does not confirm that it does. This fact can be seen clearly in the case of obviously noncausal relationships. For example, there is a correlation between the number of churches in American cities and the number of bars; the more churches, the more bars. Does this mean that drinking makes you religious? Does it mean that religion makes you thirsty? No one, of course, would leap to such conclusions about cause and effect. However, in less obvious stations, it is tempting. (The real connection is that both the number of churches and the number of bars are related to the population size of cities.) Reverence for human suffering and human life, for the smallest and most insignificant, must be the inviolable law to rule the World from now on. In so doing, we do not replace antiquated slogans with new ones and imagine that some good may come out of high-sounding speeches and pronouncements. We must recognize that only a deep-seated change of heart, spreading from one human to another, can achieve such a thing in the World. #RandolphHarris 2 of 25

How are we to build humanity? Only by leading humans toward a true, inalienable ethic of our own. Reverence for life comprises the whole ethic of love in its deepest and highest sense. It is the source of constant renewal for the individual and for humankind. Typical features of a situation should represent reasonable constraints on arguments for accepting principles and the principles agreed to should match our considered convictions of justice in reflective equilibrium. Since each people is free to plan one’s life as one pleases (so long as one’s intentions are consistent with the principle of justice), unanimity concerning the standards of rationality is not required. All the theory of justice assumes is that, in the thin account of the good, the evident criteria of rational choice are sufficient to explain the preference for the primary goods, and that such variations as exist in conceptions of rationality do not affect the principles of justice adopted in the original position. Nevertheless, I have assumed that human beings do recognize certain principles and that these standards may be taken by enumeration to replace the notion of rationality. We can, if we wish, allow certain variations in the list. Thus there is disagreement as to the best way to deal with uncertainty. There is no reason, though, why individuals in making their plans should not be thought of as following their inclinations in this case. Therefore any principle of choice under uncertainty which seems plausible can be added to the list, so long as decisive arguments against it are not forthcoming. #RandolphHaris 3 of 25

It is only in the thing theory of the good that we have to worry about these matters. Here the notion of rationality must be interpreted so that the general desire for the primary goods can be established and the choice of the principles of justice demonstrated. However, even in this case, I have suggested that the conception of justice adopted is insensitive with respect to conflicting interpretations of rationality. However, in any event, once the principles of justice are chosen, and we are working within the full theory, there is no need to set up the account of the good so as to force unanimity on all the standards of the rational choice. In fact, it would contradict the freedom of choice that justice as fairness assures to individuals and groups within the framework of just institutions. A second contrast between the right and the good is that it is, in general, a good thing that individuals’ conceptions of their good should differ in significant ways, whereas this is not so for conceptions of right. In a well-ordered society citizens hold the same principles of right and they try to reach the same judgment in particular cases. These principles are to establish a final ordering among the conflicting claims that persons make upon one another and it is essential that this ordering be identifiable from everyone’s point of view, however difficult it may be in practice for everyone to accept it. On the other hand, individuals find their good in different ways, and many things may be good for one person that would not be good for another. #RandolphHarris 4 of 25

Moreover, there is no urgency to reach a publicly accepted judgment as to what is the good of particular individuals. The reasons that make such an agreement necessary in questions of justice do not obtain for judgments of value. Even when we take up another’s point of view and attempt to estimate what would be to one’s advantage, we do so as an adviser, so to speak. We try to put ourselves in the other’s place, and imagining that we have one’s aims and wants, we attempt to see things from one’s standpoint. Cases of paternalism aside, our judgment is offered when it is asked for, but there is no conflict of right if our advice is disputed and our opinion is not acted upon. In a well-ordered society, then, the plans of life of the individuals are different in the sense that these plans give prominence to different aims, and persons re left free to determine their good, the views of others being counted as merely advisory. Now this variety in conceptions of the good is itself a good thing, that is, it is rational for member of a well-ordered society to want their plans to be different. The reasons for this are obvious. Human beings have various talents and abilities the totality of which is unrealizable by any one person or group of persons. Thus we not only benefit from the complementary nature of our developed inclinations but we take pleasure in one another’s activities. It is as if others were bringing forth a part of ourselves that we have not been able to cultivate. We have had to devote ourselves to other things, to only a small part of what we might have done. #RandolphHarris 5 of 25

However, the situation is quite otherwise with justice: here we require not only common principles but sufficiently similar ways of applying them in particular cases so that a final ordering of conflict claims can be defined. Judgments of justice are advisory only in special circumstances. The third difference is that may applications of the principles of justice are restricted by the veil of ignorance, whereas evaluation of a person’s good may rely upon a full knowledge of the facts. Thus, as we have seen, not only must the principles of justice be chosen in the absence of certain kinds of particular information, but when these principles are used designing constitutions and basic social arrangements, and in deciding between laws and policies, we are subject to similar although not as strict limitations. The delegates to a constitutional convention, and ideal legislators and voters, are also required to take up a point of view in which they know only the appropriate general facts. An individual’s conception of one’s good, on the other hand, is to be adjusted from the start to one’s particular situation. A rational plan of life takes into account our special abilities, interests, and circumstances, and therefor it quite properly depends upon our social position and natural assets. There is no objection to fitting rational plans to these contingencies, since the principles of justice have already been chosen and constrain the content of these plans, the ends that they encourage and the means that they use. However, in judgments of justice, it is only at the judicial and administrative stage that all restrictions on information are dropped, and particular cases are to be decided in view of all relevant facts. #RandolphHarris 6 of 25

In the light of these contrast we may further clarify an important difference between the contract doctrine and utilitarianism. Since the principle of utility is to maximize the good understood as the satisfaction of rational desire, we are to take as given existing preferences and the possibilities of their continuation into the future, and then to strive for the greatest net balance of satisfaction. However, as we have seen, the determination of rational plans is indeterminate in important ways. The more evident and easily applied principles of rational choice do not specify the best plan; a great deal remains to be decided. This indeterminacy is no difficulty for justice as fairness, since the details of plans do not affect in any way what is right or just. Our way of life, whatever our particular circumstances, must always conform to the principles of justice that are arrived at independently. Thus the arbitrary features of plans of life do not affect these principles, or how the basic structure is to be arranged. The indeterminacy in the notion of rationality does not translate itself into legitimate claims that humans can impose on one another. The priority of the right prevents this. The utilitarian, on the other hand, must concede the theoretical possibility that configurations of preferences allowed by this indeterminacy may lead to injustice as ordinarily understood. For example, assume that he larger part of society has an abhorrence for certain religious or practices involving pleasures of the flesh, and regards them as an abomination. #RandolphHarris 7 of 25

This feeling abomination towards this particular religion and the particular type of pleasures of the flesh is so intense that it is not enough that these practices be kept from the public view; the very though that these things are going on is enough to arouse the majority to anger and hatred. Even when these attitudes are unsupportable on moral grounds, there appears to be no sure way to exclude them as irrational. Seeking the greatest satisfaction of desire may, then, justify harsh repressive measures against actions that cause no social injury. To defend individual liberty in this case the utilitarian has to show that given the circumstances the real balance of advantages in the long run still lies on the side of freedom; and this argument may or may not be successful. In justice as fairness, however, this problem never arises. The intense convictions of the majority, if they are indeed mere preferences without any foundation in the principles of justice antecedently established, have no weight to begin with. The satisfaction of these feelings has no value that can be put in the scales against the claims of equal liberty. To have a complaint against the conduct and belief of others we must show that their actions injure us, or that the institutions that authorize what they do treat us unjustly. And this means that we must appeal to the principles that we would acknowledge in the original position. Against these principles neither the intensity of feeling nor its being shared by the majority counts for anything. #RandolphHarris 8 of 25

On the contract view, then, the grounds of liberty are completely separate from existing preferences. Indeed, when assessing the conduct of others, we may think of the principles of justice as an agreement not to take into account certain feeling. These points are familiar elements of the classical liberal doctrine. I have mentioned the again in order to show that the indeterminacy in the full theory of the good is no cause for objection. It may leave a person unsettled as to what to do, since it cannot provide one with instructions as to how to decide. However, since the aim of justice is not to maximize the fulfillment of rational plans, the content of justice is not in any way affected. Of course, it cannot be denied that prevailing social attitudes tie the statesman’s hands. The convictions and passions of the majority may make liberty impossible to maintain. However, bowing to these practical necessities is a different thing from accepting the justification that is these feelings are strong enough and outweigh in intensity any feelings that might replace them, they should carry the decision. By contrast, the contract view requires that we move toward just institutions as speedily as the circumstances permit irrespective of existing sentiments. A definite scheme of ideal institutions is embedded in its principles of justice. It is evident from these contrasts that in justice as fairness the concepts of the right and the good have markedly distinct features. These differences arise from the structure of contract theory and the priority of right and justice that result. #RandolphHarris 9 of 25

I do not suggest, however, that the terms “right” and “good” (and their relatives) are normally used in ways that reflect these distinctions. Although our ordinary speech may tend to support the account of these concepts, this correspondence is not needed for the correctness of the contract doctrine. Rather, two things suffice. First, there is a way of mapping our considered judgments into the theory of justice such that in reflective equilibrium the counterparts of these convictions turn out to be true, to express judgments that we can accept. And second, once we understand the theory, we can acknowledges these interpretations as suitable renderings of what on reflection these replacements, perhaps because they are too cumbersome, or would be misunderstood, or whatever, we are prepared to grant that they cover in substance all that wants to be said. Certainly these substitutes may not mean the same as the ordinary judgments with which they are paired. How far this is the case is a question that I shall not examine. Moreover, the replacements may indicate a shift more or less drastic from our initial moral judgments as they existed prior to philosophical reflection. Some changes anyway are bound to have taken place as philosophical criticism and construction lead us to revise and extend our views. #RandolphHarris 10 of 25

However, what counts is whether the conception of justice as fairness, better than any other theory presently known to us, turns out to lead to true interpretations of our considered judgments, and provides a mode of expression for what we want to affirm. In the hope of reaching the moon, humans fail to see the flowers that blossom at their feet. I cannot but have reverence for all that is called life. I cannot avoid compassion for everything that is called life. That is the beginning and foundation of morality. Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions. Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been victims of an illusion. If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say. What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experiences before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. If immediate experience cannot prove or disprove the miraculous, still less can history do so. Many people think one can decided whether a miracle occurred in the past by examining the evidence “according to the ordinary rules of historical inquiry.” However, the ordinary rules cannot be worked until we have decided whether miracles are possible, and if so, how probable they are. #RandolphHarris 11 of 25

For if miracle are impossible, then no amount of historical evidence will convince us. If they are possible but immensely improbable, then only mathematically demonstrative evidence will convince us: and since history never provides that degree of evidence for any event, history can never convince us that a miracle occurred. If, on the other hand, miracles are not intrinsically improbable, then the existing evidence will be sufficient to convince us that quite a number of miracles have occurred. The result of our historical enquiries thus depends on the philosophical views which we have been holding before we even began to look at the evidence. The philosophical question must therefore come first. If we omit the preliminary philosophical task, and rush on to the historical, here is an example of the sort of thing that happens. In a popular commentary on the Christian Bible, you will find a discussion of the date at which the Fourth Gospel was written. The author says it must have been written after the execution of Saint Peter, because, in the Fourth Gospel, Christ is represented as predicating the execution of Saint Peter. “A book,” thinks the author, “cannot be written before events which it refers to.” Of course it cannot—unless real predictions ever occur. If they do, then this argument for the date is in ruins. And the author has not discussed at all whether real predictions are possible. One takes it for granted (perhaps unconsciously) that they are not. Perhaps one is right: but if one is, one has not discovered this principle by historical inquiry. One has brought one’s disbelief in predictions to one’s historical work, so to speak, readymade. #RandolphHarris 12 of 25

Unless one had done so one’s historical conclusion about the date of the Fourth Gospel could have been reached at all. One’s work is therefore quite useless to a person who wants to know whether predictions occur. The author gets to work only after ne has already answered that question in the negative, and on ground which one never communicates to us. I use the word Miracle to mean an interference with Nature by supernatural power. Unless there exists, in addition to Nature, something else which we may call the supernatural, there can be no miracles. Some people believe that nothing exists except Nature; I call these people Naturalists. Others think that, besides Nature, there existing something else: I call them Supernaturalists. Our first question, therefore, is whether the Naturalist or the Supernaturalists are right. And here comes our first difficulty. Before the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist can begin to discuss their difference of opinion, they must surely have an agreed definition both of Nature and of Supernature. However, unfortunately it is almost impossible to get such a definition. Just because the Naturalist thinks that nothing but Nature exists, the word Nature means to one merely “everything” or “the whole show” or “whatever there is.” And if that is what we mean by Nature, then of course nothing else exists. The real question between one and the Supernaturalist has evaded us. Some philosophers have defined Nature as “What we perceive with our five sense.” However, this is also unsatisfactory; for we do not perceive our own emotions in that way, and yet they are presumably “natural” events. #RandolphHarris 13 of 25

In order to avoid this deadlock and to discover what the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist are really differing about, we must approach our problem in a more roundabout way. I begin by considering the following sentences. Are those his natural teeth or a set? The dog in his natural state is covered with fleas. I love to get away from tilled lands and metaled roads and be alone with Nature. Do be natural. Why are you so affected? It may have been wrong to kiss her but it was very natural. A common thread of meaning in all these usages can easily be discovered. The natural teeth are those which grow in the mouth; we d not have to design them, make them, of fit them. The dog’s natural state is the one one will be in if no one takes soap and water and prevents it. The countryside where Nature reigns supreme is the one where soil, weather and vegetation produce their results unhelped and unimpeded by humans. If they were not at the pains to alter, natural behaviour is the behaviour which people would exhibit. If moral or prudential consideration do not intervene, the natural kiss is the kiss which will be given. In all the examples Nature means what happens “of itself” or “of its own accord”: what you do not need to labour for; if you take no measures to stop it, what you will get. The Greek word for Nature (Physis) is connected with the Greek verb for “to grow”; Latin Natura, with the verb “to be born.” The Natural is what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or goes on, of its own accord; the given, what is there already: the spontaneous, the unintended, the unsolicited. #RandolphHarris 14 of 25

What the Naturalist believes is that the ultimate Fact, the thing you cannot go behind, is a vast process in space and time which is going on of its own accord. Inside that total system every particular even (such as your sitting reading this essay) happens because some other event has happened; in the long run, because the Total Event is happening. Each particular thing (such as this page) is what it is because other things are what they are; and so, eventually, because the whole system is what it is. All the things and events are so completely interlocked that no one of them can claim the slightest independence from “the whole show.” None of them exists “on its own” or “goes on of its own accord” except in the sense that it exhibits, at some particular place and time, that general “existence on its own” or “behaviour of its own accord” which belongs to “Nature” (the great total interlocked event) as a whole. Thus no thoroughgoing Naturalist believes in free will: for free will would mean that human beings have the power of independent action, the power of doing something more other than what was involved by the total series of events’ And any such separate power of originating events is what the Naturalist denies. Spontaneity, originality, action “on its own,” is a privilege reserved for “the whole show,” which one calls Nature. The Supernaturalist agrees with the Naturalist that there must be something which exists in its own right; some basic Fact whose existence it would be nonsensical to try to explain because this Fact is itself the ground or starting-point of all explanations. However, one does not identify this Fact with “the whole show.” One think that things fall into two classes. #RandolphHarris 15 of 25

The first class we find either things or (more probably) One Thing which is basic and original, which exists on its own. In the second we find things which are merely derivative from the One Thing. The one basic Thing has caused all the other things to be. It exists on its own; they exist because it exists.  If it ever ceases to maintain them in existence, they will cease to exist; if it ever alters them, they will be altered. The difference between the two views might be expressed by saying that Naturalism gives us a democratic Supernaturalism a monarchical, picture of reality. The Naturalist thinks that the privilege of “being on its own” resides in the total mass of things, just as in a democracy sovereignty resides in the whole mass of the people. The Supernaturalist thinks that this privilege belongs to some things or (more probably) One Thing and not to others—just as, in a real monarchy, the king has sovereignty and the people have not. And just as, in a democracy, all citizens equal, so for the Naturalist one thing or event is as good as another, in the sense that they are all equally dependent on the total system of things. Indeed each of them is only the way in which the character of that total system exhibits itself at a particular point in space and time. The Supernaturalist, on the other hand, believes that the one original or self-existent thing is on a different level from, and more important than, all other things. At this point a suspicion may occur that Supernaturalism is the characteristic philosophy of a monarchical age ad Naturalism of a democratic, in the sense that Supernaturalism, even if false, would have been believed by the great mas of unthinking people four hundred years ago, just as Naturalism, even if false, will be believed by the great mass of unthinking people today. #RandolphHarris 16 of 25

Everyone will have seen that the One Self-existent Thing—or the small class of self-existent things—in which Supernaturalist believe, is what we call God or the gods. I propose for the rest of this essay to treat only that form of Supernaturalism which believes in one God; partly because polytheism is not likely to be a live issue for most of my readers, and partly because those who believed in many gods very seldom, in fact, regarded their gods as creators of the Universe and as self-existent. The gods of Greece were not really supernatural in the strict sense which I am giving to the word. They were products of the total system of things and included within it. This introduces an important distinction. The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in a God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling “God” arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms. A Naturalist would not object to that sort of God. The reason is this—such a God would not stand outside Nature or the total system, would not be existing “on one’s own.” It would still be “the whole show” which was the basic Fact, and such a God would merely be one of the things (even if he were the most interesting) which the basic Fact contained. What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it. #RandolphHarris 17 of 25

We are now in a position to state the difference between the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist despite the fact that they do not mean the same word by Nature. The Naturalist believes that a great process, or “becoming,” exists “on its own” in space and time, and that nothing else exists—what we call particular things and events being only the parts into which we analyse the great process of the shapes which the process takes a given moments and given point in space. This single, total reality one calls Nature. It may, or my not, be he only reality which the one Primary Thing has produced. There might be other systems in addition to the one we call Nature. In that sense there might be several “Natures.” This conception must be kept quite distinct from what is commonly called “plurality of Worlds”—id est, different solar systems or different galaxies, “island Universes” existing in widely separated parts of a single space and time. These, however remote, would be parts of the same Nature as our own sun: it and they would be interlocked by being in relations to one another, spatial and temporal relations and causal relations as well. And it is just this reciprocal interlocking within a system which makes it what we call Nature. Other Natures might not be spatio-temporal at all: or, if any of them were, their space and time would have no spatial or temporal relations to ours. It is just this discontinuity, this failure of interlocking, which would justify us in calling them different Natures. #RandolphHarris 18 of 25

This does not mean that these different Natures would have absolutely no relation between them; they would be related by their common derivation from a single Supernatural source. They would, in this respect, be like different novels by a single author; the events in one story have no relation to the events in another except that they are invented by the same author. To find the relation between them you must go right back to the author’s mind: there is no cutting across from anything Mr. Pickwick says in Pickwick Papers to anything Mrs. Gamp hears in Martin Chuzzlewit. Similarly there would be no normal cutting across from an event in one Nature to an event in any other. By a “normal” relation I mean one which occurs in virtue of character of the two systems. We have to put in the qualification “normal” because we do not know in advance that God might not bring two Natures into partial contact at some particular point: that is, He might allow selected events in the one to produce results in the other. There would thus be, at certain points, a partial interlocking; but this would not turn the two Natures into one, for the total reciprocity which makes a Nature would still be lacking, and the anomalous interlockings would arise not from what either system was in itself but from the Divine act which was brining them together. If this occurred each of the two Natures would be “supernatural” in relation to the other: but the fact of their contact would be supernatural in a more absolute sense—nothing as being beyond this or that Nature but beyond any and every Nature. It would be one kind of Miracle. The other kind would be Divine “interference” not by the bringing together of two Natures, but simply. #RandolphHarris 19 of 25

All this is, at present, purely speculative. It by no means follows from Supernaturalism that Miracles of any sort do in fact occur. God (the primary thing) may never in fact interfere with the natural systems than one, He may never cause them to impinge on one another. However, that is a question for further consideration. If we decide that Nature is not the only thing there is, then we cannot say in advance whether she is safe from miracles or not. There are things outside her: we do not yet know whether they can get in. The gates may be barred, or they may not. However, if Naturalism is true, then we do know in advance that miracles are impossible: nothing can come into Nature from the outside because there is nothing outside to come in, Nature being everything. No doubt, events which we in our ignorance should mistake for miracles might occur: but they would in reality be (just like the commonest events) an inevitable result of the character of the whole system. Our first choice, therefore, must be between Naturalism and Supernaturalism. Reverence for live, surrender of strangeness, the urge to maintain life—we hear these expressions around us, and they sound cold and shallow. However, even if they are modest words they are rich in meaning. A seed is equally commonplace and insignificant, yet within it rests the germ of a lovely flower or a life-giving food. These simple words contain the basic attitude from which all ethical behaviour develops, whether the individual is conscious of it or not. Thus the presupposition of morality is to share everything that goes on around us, not only in human life but in the life of all creatures. #RandolphHarris 20 of 25

Any religion or philosophy which is not based on respect for life is not a true religion or philosophy. Just as white light consists of coloured rays, so Reverence for Life contains all the components of ethics: love, kindliness, sympathy, empathy, peacefulness, power to forgive. We can find healing and peace as we better understand any apply the principle of forgiveness. We know that we must forgive. “I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all humans,” reports Doctrine and Covenants 64.10. And that forgives is healthy for us, yet when it comes down to the work and effort it takes to forgive, many continue to hold on to the pain. Our brains are programmed to remember in order for us to learn. There is a difference between occasionally remembering an event and ruminating on it. Once we forgive, we will not need to continually think about and analyse the event. The past is to be learned from but not lived in. We look back to claim the embers from glowing experiences but not the ashes. To be tied to earlier mistakes is the worst kind of wallowing in the past from which we are called to cease and desist. Holding on to pain and hurt sometimes helps victims feel mor secure. By withholding forgiveness, we protect the wound, but it also will not heal because we are constantly thinking abut the hurt and reopening the wound. Let us bind up the wounds…that have been caused by cutting words, by stubbornly cultivated grievances, by scheming plans to “get even” with those who may have wronged us. Fortunately, we all have the power to rise above it, if we will “clothe [ourselves] with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace,” reports Doctrine and Covenants 88.125. #RandolphHarris 21 of 25

Forgiveness means pardoning an offense. To forgive, we must first acknowledge that what happened was wrong and caused pain. We pardon the fault because we too are imperfect. We turn the judgment over to God and allow Him to relieve the burden. To forgive is not to condone. We do not rationalize bad behaviour or allow others to mistreat us because of their struggles, pains, or weakness. Forgiveness and trust are two different things. We can forgive without developing a trusting relationship. If someone continually hurts us, God commands us to forgive, but we are also responsible to set boundaries to keep ourselves safe. The Saviour asks us to forsake and combat evil in all its forms, and although we must forgive a neighbour who injures us, we should still work constructively to prevent that injury from being repeated. We found it necessary, in the interests of greater precision and better exposition, to restrict the term “Overself” to represent the ultimate reality of humans, and to introduce the term “World-Mind” to represent the ultimate reality of the Universe. The Overself is the representative God in humans. The Overself is a part of World-Mind. Whereas World-Mind is beyond human capacity to know, the Overself is within that capacity. That point in humans where the two Worlds of being—infinite and finite—can be said to touch, is Overself. The gap between human’s mind and God’s mind is uncrossable. However, the gap between one’s everyday mind and the Overself—which is close to God—is not. Through it he may penetrate a little deeper into the mystery. The Overself is the highest point in the human being; it is there were one can find oneself “made in the image of God.” #RandolphHarris 22 of 25

It is true to say that the Overself possesses properties which belong also to God. However, because one human is like another, we do not claim one to be identical with that other. The Overself is Godlike in nature but not in identity. The Overself is our knowledge, experience, or sight of the World-Mind, of God, and is the only one we shall ever get while we are still in the flesh. There is a point there the human meets the divine, where the conscious ego emerges from the all-encompassing Void. That point we call the Overself. There is some point in each individual being where the human and the divine must join, where human’s little consciousness bends low before, or blends subtly with, the Universal Mind which is one’s ultimate source. It is impossible to describe the intersection in any terms which shall adequately fit, but it can be named. In philosophy it is the Overself. The essence of humans is one’s Overself, which is an emanation from the Mind. Here is the focal point of all spiritual searching, here humans meet God. I do conjure thee, O thou Spirit Barbatos, by all the most glorious and efficacious names of the Most Great and Incomprehensible Lord God of Hosts, that thou comest quickly and without delay from all parts and places of the Earth and World wherever thou mayest be, to make rational answers unto my demands, and that visibly and affably, speaking with a voice intelligible unto mine understanding as aforesaid. #RandolphHarris 23 of 25

I conjure and constrain thee, O thou Spirit Buer, by all the names aforesaid; and in addition by these seven great names wherewith Solomon the Wise bound thee and thy companions in a Vessel of Brass, Adonai, Preyai, Prerai, Teteagrammation, Anaphaxeton, or Anepheneton, Inessenfatoal, or Inessenfatall, Pathtumon, or Pathatumon, and Itemon; that thou appearest here before this Circle to fulfill my will in all things that seems good unto me. And if thou be still so disobedient, and refusest still to come, I will in the power and by the power of the name of the Supreme and Everlasting Lord God Who created both thee and me and all the World in six days, and what is contained therein. Eie, Saraye, and by the power of this Primeumation which commandeth the whole host of Heaven, curse thee, and deprive thee of thine office, joy, and place, and bind thee in the depths of the Bottomless Pit or Abyss, there to remain unto the Day of the Last Judgment. And I will bind thee in the Eternal Fire, and into the Lake of Flame and of Brimstone, unless thou comest quickly and appearest here before this Circle to do my will. Therefore, come thou! in and by the holy names Adonai, Zabaoth, Adonai, Amioran. Come thou! for it is Adonai who commandest thee. If Thou hast come thus far, and yet one appeareth not, thou mayest be sure that one is sent unto some other place by one’s King, and cannot come; and if it be so, invocate the King as here followeth, to send him. #RandolphHarris 24 of 25

However, if one do not come still, then thou mayest be sure that one is bound in chains in hell, and that one is not in the custody of one’s King. If so, and thou still hast a desire to call one even from thence, thou must rehearse the general curse which is called the Spirits’ Chain. We are the servants of the Holy One, blessed be He, before whom and before whose glorious Torah we bow at all times. Not in humans do we put our trust, nor upon any angel do we rely, but upon the God of Heaven, who is the God of truth, and whose Torah is truth, and whose prophets are prophets of truth, and who aboundeth in deeds of goodness and truth. In Him do we trust, and unto His holy and glorious name we utter praises. May it be Thy will to open our hearts unto Thy Torah, and to fulfill the wishes of our hearts and of the hearts of all Thy people America for good, for life and for peace. Amen. The Lord, the Eternal, is a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and acquitting. The Overself is the point where the One Mind is received into consciousness. It is the “I” freed from narrowness, thoughts, flesh, passion, and emotion—that is, from the personal ego. Each of us represents not merely an act of birth, but an atom of God. Mediate upon the body of your instrument, but pluck your heart string 1^st in any situation. When meeting, greeting, or seating your thoughts, as we flash eyes with others, ask God for great discernment. If your Life is to be a musical score and not the points counted at the end of the game, please let God be your lead electric guitar, bass, and rhythm sections all within the vibrations of one string. Your string. Sing. #RandolphHarris 25 of 25

Cresleigh Homes

Some days you want to cozy up to the kitchen island for pizza, 🍕 and other days you want to set the dining room table with the nice china. 🍷🍽

That butler’s pantry in the Brighton Station Res 2 at #CresleighRanch provides quick and easy access to the dining room!

Cresleigh Ranch offers innovative detail and thoughtful attention to our award-winning Mid-Century Modern, California Modern, Prairie, and Contemporary Farmhouse architecture. Hundreds of designer options will be available to personalize your home. Homes range from approximately 2,000 to 4,000 square feet.

Located off Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway, the residents of Cresleigh Ranch will enjoy, being just minutes from shopping, dining, and entertainment, and quick access to Highway 50 and Grant Line Road providing a direct route into Folsom. Residents here also benefit from no HOA fees, two community parks and the benefits of being a part of the highly-rated Elk Grove Unified School District.

Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier. Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Mini to help connect everything together! https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/residence-2/

#CresleighHomes