The “generation gap” is the cause of the brewing social revolution. Parents teach their children to obey and to have a blind trust for authority, so their only other option is to rebel because they are not taught to communicate and negotiate or compromise. By the time parents realize there is a problem, then their sons and daughters are unreasonable and beyond their command. The youth are now edging the middle age out of power. Corporations, a last stronghold of maturity and responsibility, are now recruiting vice presidents whose major qualifications are a B.A. degree and an age under thirty. In the end, however, social futurism must cut even deeper. For technocrats suffer, too, from the virus of elitism. To capture control of change, we shall, therefore, require a final, even more radical breakaway from technocratic tradition: we shall need a revolution in the very way we formulate our social goals. Rising novelty renders irrelevant the traditional goals of our chief institutions—state, church, corporation, army, and university. Acceleration produces a faster turnover of goals, a greater transience of purpose. Diversity or fragmentation leads to a relentless multiplication of goals. Caught in this churning, goal-cluttered environment, we stagger, future shocked, from crisis to crisis, pursuing a welter of conflicting and self-cancelling purposes. Nowhere is this more starkly evident than in our pathetic attempts to govern our cities. #RandolphHarris 1 of 22

 New Yorkers, within a short span, have suffered a nightmarish succession of disasters: the death of Aaliyah in a preventable airplane crash, Twin Towers destroyed by airplanes and over 3,500 lives lost in a single day, a water shortage, a subway strike, racial violence in the community and schools, hackers shutdown of a pipeline that supplies gasoline, a housing shortage, a fuel oil strike, a pandemic, a breakdown of telephone service, a teacher walkout, a power blackout, to name just a few. In its City Hall, as in a thousand city halls all over the high-technology nations, technocrat dash, firebucket in fist, from one conflagration to another without the least semblance of a coherent plan or policy for the urban future. This is not to say no one is planning. On the contrary; in this seething social brew, technocratic plans, sub-plans, and counter-plans pour fourth. They call for new highways, new roads, new power plants, new schools, more parking, new malls, and high-speed Internet. They promise better hospitals, housing, mental health centers, welfare programs. However, the plans cancel, contradict and reinforce one another by accident. Few are logically related to one another, and none to any overall image of the preferred city of the future. No vision—utopia or otherwise—energizes our efforts. No rationally integrated goals bring order to the chaos. And at the national and international levels, the absence of coherent policy is equally marked and doubly dangerous. #RandolphHarris 2 of 22

It is not simply that we do not know which goals to pursue, as a city or as a nation. The trouble lies deeper. For accelerating change has made obsolete the methods by which we arrive at social goals. The technocrats do not yet understand this, and, reacting to the goals crisis in knee-jerk fashion, they reach for the tried and true methods of the past. Thus, intermittently, a change-dazed government will try to define its goals publicly. Instinctively, it establishes a commission. In 2019 President Trump pressed into service, among others, a general, a judge, a couple of industrialist, border security, a few college presidents, and a labour leader to “develop a broad outline of coordinated national policies and programs” and to “set up a series of goals in various areas of national activity.” In due course, a red-white-and-blue paperback appeared with the commission’s report, Goals for Americans. Neither the commission nor its goals were able to reach their objective because federal judges and politicians and the mainstream screens news media, and some of the public fought against the American First agenda. The battle continued and the juggernaut of change continued to roll through America not fully realized, as it were, by a managerial intelligence. A far more significant effort to tidy up governmental priorities was still being initiated by President Trump as he successfully rolled out life saving vaccines, tax cuts, and relief checks to help the public. There was also the introduction of a planning program budgeting system throughout the federal establishment. The goal was to try to run programs much more closely and rationally to organizational goals. #RandolphHarris 3 of 22

Thus, for example, by applying it, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare can assess the costs and benefits of alternative programs to accomplish specified goals. However, who specifies these larger, more important goals? The inception of the planning and budgeting program and the systems approach is a major governmental achievement. It is of paramount importance in managing large organizational efforts. However, it leaves entirely untouched the profoundly political question of how the overall goals of a government or a society are to be chosen in the first place. President Trump wanted to Make America Great Again. He said it was “time we addressed ourselves, consciously and systematically, to the question of what kind of a nation we want to be.” He thereupon put his finger on the quintessential question. However, once more the method chosen for answering it proved to be inadequate. “Today, I have ordered the establishment, within the White House, of a National Goals Research Staff,” the President announced. “This will be a small, highly technical staff, made up of experts in the collection…and processing of data relating to social needs, and in the projection of social trends.” Such a staff, located within shouting distance of the Presidency, could be extremely useful in compiling goal proposals, in reconciling (at least on paper) conflicts between agencies, in suggesting new priorities. If it did nothing but force high officials to question their primary goals, staffed with excellent social scientists and futurists, it could earn its keep. #RandolphHarris 4 of 22

Yet even this step, like the two before it, bear the unmistakable imprint of the technocratic mentality. For it, too, evades the politically charged core of the issue. How are preferable futures to be defined? And by whom? Who is to set goals for the future? Behind all such efforts runs the notion that national (and, by extension, local) goals for the future of society ought to be formulated at the top. This technocratic premise perfectly mirrors the antiquated bureaucratic forms of organization in which line and staff were separated, in which rigid, undemocratic hierarches distinguished leader from led, manager from managed, planner from plannee. Yet the real, as distinct the glibly verbalized, goals of any society on the path to super-industrialism are already too complex, too transient and too dependent for their achievement upon the willing participation of the governed, to be perceived and defined so easily. We cannot hope to harness the runaway forces of change by assembling a kaffee klatsche of elders to set goals for us or by tuning the risk over to a “highly technical staff.” A revolutionary new approach to goal-setting is needed. Nor is this approach likely to come from those who play-act at revolution. One radical group, seeing all problems as a manifestation of the “maximization of profits” displays, in all innocence, an econocentricism as narrow as that of the technocrats. Another hopes to plunge us willy-nilly back into the pre-industrial past. #RandolphHarris 5 of 22

Still another sees revolution exclusively in subjective and psychological terms. None of these groups is capable of advancing us toward post-technocratic forms of change management. By calling attention to the growing ineptitude of the technocrats and by explicitly challenging not merely the means, but the very goals of industrial society, today’s young radicals do us all a great service. However, they no more know how to cope with the goals crisis than the technocrats they scorn. An orientation toward the future has been the hallmark of every revolutionary—but many people suffer from a disbelief in the future. The masses find themselves incapable of formulating a future. We must urge people to incorporate the future in the present by, in effect, living the life styles of tomorrow today. However, if this only leads to a pathic charade—free societies, cooperatives, pre-industrial communes, few of which have anything to do with the future, and most of which reveal, instead, only a passionate penchant for the past, then we need to try harder. Yet, the irony is compounded when we consider that some (though hardly all) of today’s young radicals also share with the technocrats a streak of virulent elitism. While decrying bureaucracy and demanding “participatory democracy” they, themselves, frequently attempt to manipulate the very groups of workers, marginalized groups or students on whose behalf they demand participation. The working mases in the high-technology societies are totally indifferent to calls for a political revolution aimed at exchanging one form of property ownership for another. #RandolphHarris 6 of 22

For most people, the rise in affluence has meant a better, not a worse, existence, and they look upon their much envied “suburban middle-class lives” as fulfillment rather than deprivation. Faced with this stubborn reality, undemocratic element in America seems to indicate that the masses are too bourgeosified, too corrupted and addled by Madison Avenue to know what is good for them. And so, even if it means stuffing it down the throats of thee who are too unenlightened to know their own interests, a revolutionary elite must establish a more humane and democratic future. In short, the goals of society have to be set by an elite. Technocrat and anti-technocrat often turn out to be elitist brothers under the skin. Yet systems of goal formulation based on elitist premises are simply no longer “efficient.” In the struggle to capture control of the forces of change, they are increasingly counter-productive. For under super-age of information, democracy becomes not a political luxury, but a primal necessity. Democratic political forms arose in the New World not because a few geniuses willed them into being or because man showed an “unquenchable instinct for freedom.” They arose because the historical pressure toward social differentiation and toward faster paced systems demanded sensitive social feedback. In complex, differentiated societies, vast amounts of information must flow at ever faster speeds between the formal organizations and subcultures that make up the whole, and between the layers and sub-structures within these. #RandolphHarris 7 of 22

We have already seen that despite the individualistic features of justice as fairness, the two principles of justice provide an Archimedean point for appraising existing institutions as well as the desires and aspirations which they generate. These criteria provide an independent standard for guiding the course of social change without invoking a perfectionist or an organic conception of society. However, the question remains whether the contract doctrine is a satisfactory framework for understanding the values of community and for choosing among social arrangements to realize them. It is natural to conjecture that the congruence of the right and the good depends in large part upon whether a well-ordered society achieves that good of community. One of the conditions of the original position is that the parties know that they are subject to the circumstances of justice. They assume that each has a conception of one’s good in the light of which one presses claims against the rest. So although they view society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage, it is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests. Now there are two ways of viewing these suppositions. The first is taken by the theory of justice: the idea is to derive satisfactory principles from the weakest possible assumptions. The premises of the theory should be simple and reasonable conditions that everyone or most everyone would grant, and for which convincing philosophical arguments can be given. At the same time, the greater the initial collision of claims into which the principles can introduce an acceptable order, the more comprehensive the theory is likely to be. Therefore a deep opposition of interests is presumed to obtain. #RandolphHarris 8 of 22

The other way to think of these suppositions is to regard the as describing a certain kind of social order, or a certain aspect of the basic structure that is actually realized. Thus we are led to the notion of private society. Its chief features are first that the persons comprising it, whether they are human individuals or associations, have their own private ends which either competing or independent, but not in any case complementary. And second, institutions are not thought to have any value in themselves, the activity of engaging in them not being counted as a good but if anything as a burden. Thus each person assesses social arrangements solely as a means to one’s private aims. No one takes account of the good of others, or of what they possess; rather everyone prefers the most efficient scheme that gives one the largest share of assets. (Expressed more formally, the only variables in an individual’s utility function are commodities and assets held by one, and not items possessed by others nor their level of utility.) We may suppose also that the actual division of advantage is determined largely by the balance of power and strategic position resulting from existing circumstances. Yet this division may of course be perfectly fair and satisfy the claims of mutuality. By good fortune the situation may happen to lead to this outcome Public goods consist largely of those instrumentalities and conditions maintained by the state for everyone to use for one’s own purposes as one’s means permit, in the same manner that each has one’s own destination when traveling along the highways. #RandolphHarris 9 of 22

The theory of competitive markets is a paradigm description of this type of society. Since the members of this society are not moved by the desire to act justly, the stability of just and efficient arrangements when they exist normally requires the use of sanctions. Therefore the alignment of private and collective interests is the result of stabilizing institutional devices applied to persons who oppose one another as indifferent if not hostile powers. Private society is not held together by a public conviction that its basic arrangements are just and good in themselves, but by the calculations of everyone, or of sufficiently many to maintain the scheme, that any practicable changes would reduce the stock of means whereby they pursue their personal ends. It is sometimes contended that the contract doctrine entails that private society is the ideal, at least when the division of advantages satisfies a suitable standard of reciprocity. However, this is not so, as the notion of a well-ordered society shows. And as I have just said, the idea of the original position has another explanation. The account of goodness as rationality and the social nature of humankind also requires a different view. Now the sociability of human beings must not be understood in a trivial fashion. It does not imply merely that society is necessary for human life, or that by living in a community humans acquire needs and interests that prompt them to work together for mutual advantage in certain specific ways allowed for and encouraged by their institutions. Nor is it expressed by the truism that social life is a condition for our developing the ability to speak and think, and to take part in the common activities of society and culture. #RandolphHarris 10 of 22

No doubt even the concepts that we use to describe our plans and situation, and even to give voice to our personal wants and purposes, often presuppose a social setting as well as a system of belief and thought that are the outcome of the collective efforts of a long tradition. These facts are certainly not trivial; but to use them to characterize our ties to one another is to give a trivial interpretation of human sociability. For all of these things are equally true of persons who view their relations purely instrumentally. The social nature of humankind is best seen by contrast with the conception of private society. Thus human beings have in fact shared final ends and they value their common institution and activities as good in themselves. We need one another as partners in ways of life that are engaged in for their own sake, and the successes and enjoyments of others are necessary for and complimentary to our own good. These matters are evident enough, but they call for some elaboration. In the account of goodness as rationality we came to the familiar conclusions that rational plans of life normally provide for the development of at least some of a person’s powers. The Aristotelian Principle points in this direction. Yet one basic characteristic of human beings is that no one person can do everything that one might do; nor a fortiori can one do everything that any other person can do. The potentialities of each individual are greater than those one can hope to realize; and they fall short of the powers among humans generally. Thus everyone mist select which of one’s abilities and possible interests one wishes to encourage; one must plan their training and exercise, and schedule their purist in an orderly way. #RandolphHarris 11 of 22

Different persons with similar or complementary capacities may cooperate so to speak in realizing their common or matching nature. When humans are secure in the enjoyment of the exercise of their own powers, they are disposed to appreciate the perfections of others, especially when their several excellences have an agreed place in a form of life the aims of which all accept. Thus we may say that it is through social union founded upon the needs and potentialities of its members that each person can participate in the total sum of the realized natural assets of the others. We are led to the notion of the community of humankind the members of which enjoy one another’s excellences and individuality elicited by free institutions, and they recognize the good of each as an element in the complete activity the whole scheme of which is consented to and gives pleasure to all. This community may also be imagined to extend over time, and therefore in this history of a society the joint contributions of successive generations can be similarly conceived. Every human being, then, can act with only one dominant faculty at a time; or rather, our whole nature disposes us at any given time to some single form of spontaneous activity. It would therefore seem to follow from this that humans are inevitably destined to a partial cultivation, since one only enfeebles one’s energies by directing them to a multiplicity of objects. However, humans have it in their power to avoid this one-sidedness, by attempting to unite the distinct and generally separately exercised faculties of this nature, by bringing into spontaneous cooperation, at each period of one’s life, the dying sparks of activity, and those which the future will kindle, and endeavouring to increase and diversify the powers with which one works, by harmoniously combining them, instead of looking for mere variety of objects for their separate exercise. #RandolphHarris 12 of 22

What is achieved, in the case of the individual, by union of past and future with the present, is produced in society by the mutual cooperation of its different members; for, in all stages of one’s life, each individual can achieve only one of those perfections, which represent the possible features of human character. It is through a social union, therefore, based on the internal wants and capacities of its members, that each is enabled to participate in the rich collective resources of all the others. As a pure cause to illustrate this notion of social union, we may consider a group of musicians every one of whom could have trained oneself to play equally as well as the others any instrument in the orchestra, but who each have by a kind of tacit agreement set out to perfect their skills on the one they have chosen so as to realize the powers of all in their joint performances. If one were to learn how to make complete use of all one’s natural capacities, every individual human will have to live for a vast length of time, and therefore it will require perhaps an incalculable series of generations of humans. A communist society is one in which each person completely realizes one’s own nature, in which one expresses all of one’s power. In any event, it is important not to confuse the idea of social union with the high value put upon human diversity and individuality, or with the conception of the good as the harmonious fulfillment of natural powers by (complete) individuals; nor finally, with gifted individuals, artists, states-people, and so one, achieving this for the rest of humankind. #RandolphHarris 13 of 22

Rather, in the limiting case where the powers of each are similar, the group achieves, by a coordination of activities among peers, the same totality of capacities latent in each. Or when these powers differ and are in suitable ways complementary, they express the sum of potentialities of the membership as a whole in activities that are intrinsically good and not merely cooperation for social or economic gain. In either case, persons need one another since it is only in active cooperation with others that one’s powers reach fruition. Only in a social union is the individual complete. Our predecessors in achieving certain things leave it up to us to pursue them further; their accomplishments affect our choice of endeavours and define a wider background against which our aims can be understood. To say that humans are historical beings is to day that the realization of powers of human individuals living at any one time takes the cooperation of many generations (or even societies) over a long period of time. It also implies that this cooperation is guided at any moment by an understanding of what has been done in the past as it is interpreted by social tradition. By contrast with humankind, every individual terrestrial being can and does do what for the most part it might do, or what any other of its kind might or can do that lives at the same time. The range of realized abilities of a single individual of the species is not in general materially less than the potentialities of others similar to it. The striking exception is the difference of pleasures of the flesh. This is perhaps why an affinity of pleasures of the flesh is the most obvious example of the need of individuals both human and other terrestrial beings for each other. #RandolphHarris 14 of 22

Yet this attraction may take but a purely instrumental form, each individual treating the other as a means to one’s own pleasure or the continuation of one’s line. Unless this attachment is fused with elements of affection and friendship, it will not exhibit the characteristic features of social union. Now many forms of life possess the characteristic of social union, shared final ends and common activities valued for themselves. Science and art provide ready-to-hand illustrations. Likewise families, friendships, and other groups are social unions. There is some advantage though in thinking about the simpler instances of games. Here we can easily distinguish four sorts of ends: the aim of the game as defined by its rules, say to score the most runs; the various motives of the players in playing the game, the excitement they get from it, the desire for exercise, and so on, which may be different for each person; the social purposes served by the game which may be unintended and unknown to the players, or even to anyone in the society, these being matters for the reflective observer to ascertain; and then finally, the shared end, the common desire of all the players that there should be a good play of the game. If the same is played fairly according to the rules, if the sides are more or less evenly matched, and if they players all sense that they are playing well, only then can this shared end be realized. However, when this aim is attained, everyone takes pleasure and satisfaction in the very same thing. A good play of the game is, so to speak, a collective achievement requiring the cooperation of all. #RandolphHarris 15 of 22

Now the shared end of a social union is clearly not merely a common desire for the same particular thing. Grant and Lee were one in their desire General Ulysses S. Grant and General Robert E. Lee were one in their desire to hold Richmond, Virginia USA but this desire did not establish community between them. Persons generally want similar sorts of things, liberty and opportunity, shelter and nourishment, yet these wants may put them at odds. Whether individuals have a shared end depends upon the more detailed features of the activity to which the excellences and enjoyments of each are complementary to the good of all. Each can then take pleasure in the actions of the other as they jointly execute a plan acceptable to everyone. Despite their competitive side, many games illustrate this type of end in a clear way: if everyone’s zest and pleasure are not to be languish, the public desire to execute a good and fair play of the game must be regulative and effective. The development of art and science, of religion and culture of all kinds, high and low, can of course be thought of in much the same way. Learning from one another’s efforts and appreciating their several contributions, human beings gradually build up systems of knowledge and belief; they work out recognized techniques for doing things and elaborate styles of feeling and expression. In these cases the common aim is often profound and complex, being defined by the respective artistic, scientific, or religious tradition; and to understand this aim often takes years of discipline and study. #RandolphHarris 16 of 22

The essential thing is that there be a shared final end and accepted ways of achieving it which allow for the public recognition of the attainments of everyone. When this end is achieved, all find satisfaction in the very same thing; and this fact together with the complementary nature of the good of individuals affirms the tie of community. I do not wish to stress, however, the cases of art and science and high forms of religion and culture. In line with the rejection of the principle of perfection and the acceptance of democracy in the assessment of one another’s excellences, they have no special merit from the standpoint of justice. Indeed the reference to games not only has the virtue of simplicity but in some ways is more appropriate. It helps to show that the primary concern is that there are many types of social union and from the perspective of political justice we are not to try to rank them in value. Moreover these unions have no definite size; they range from families and friendships to much larger associations. Nor are there limits of time and space, for those widely separated by history and circumstance can nevertheless cooperate in realizing their common nature. A well-ordered society, and indeed most societies, will presumably contain countless social unions of many different kinds. With these remarks as preface, we can now see how the principles of justice are related to human sociability. The main idea is simply that a well-ordered society (corresponding to justice as fairness) is itself a form of social union. Indeed, it is social union of social unions. Both characteristic features are present: the successful carrying out of just institutions is the shared final end of all the members of society, and these institutional forms are prized as good in themselves. #RandolphHarris 17 of 22

Let us consider these features in turn. The first is quite straightforward. In much the same way that players have the shared end to execute a good and fair play of the game, so the members of a well-ordered society have the common aim of cooperating together to realize their own and another’s nature in ways allowed by the principles of justice. This collective intention is the consequence of everyone’s having an effective sense of justice. Each citizen wants everyone (including oneself) to act from principles to which all would agree in an initial situation of equality. This desire is regulative, as the condition of finality on moral principles requires; and when everyone acts justly, all find satisfaction in the very same thing. The explanation of the second feature is more involved, yet clear enough from what has been said. We have only to note the various ways in which the fundamental institutions of society, the just constitution and the main parts of the legal order, can be found good in themselves once the idea of social union is applied to the basic structure as a whole. Thus first of all, we can say that everyone’s acting to uphold just institutions is for the good of each. Human beings have a desire to express their nature as free and equal moral persons, and this they do most adequately by acting from the principles that they would acknowledge in the original position. When all strive to comply with these principles and each succeeds, then individuality and collectively their nature as moral persons is most fully realized, and with it their individual and collective good. #RandolphHarris 18 of 22

Further, a just constitutional order, when adjoined to the smaller social unions of everyday life, provides a framework for these many associations and sets up the most complex and diverse activity of all. In a well-ordered society each person understands the first principles that govern the whole scheme as it is to be carried out over many generations; and all have a settled intention to adhere to these principles in their plan of life. Thus the plan of each person is given a more ample and rich structure than it would otherwise have; it is adjusted to the plans of others by mutually acceptable principles. Everyone’s more private life is so to speak a plan within a plan, this superordinate plan being realized in the public institutions of society. However, this larger plan does not establish a dominant end, such as that of religious unity or the greatest excellence of culture, much less national power and prestige, to which the aims of all individuals is rather that the constitutional order should realize the principles of justice. And if the Aristotelian Principle is sound, this collective activity must be experienced as a good. We have seen that the moral virtues are excellences, attributes of the person that it is rational for persons to want in themselves and in one another as things appreciated for their own sake, or else as exhibited in activities so enjoyed. Now it is clear that these excellences are display in the public life of a well-ordered society. Therefore the companion principle to the Aristotelian Principle implies that human appreciate and enjoy these attributes in one another as they are manifested in cooperating to affirm just institutions. #RandolphHarris 19 of 22

It follows that the collective activity of justice in the preeminent form of human flourishing. For given favourable conditions, it is by maintaining these public arrangements that persons best express their nature and achieve the widest regulative excellences of which each is capable. At the same time just institutions allow for and encourage the diverse internal life of associations in which individuals realize their more particular aims. Thus the public realization of justice is a value of community. A well-ordered society does not do away with the division of labour in the most general sense. To be sure, the worst aspects of this division can be surmounted: no one need be servilely dependent on others and made to choose between monotonous and routine occupation which are deadening to human thought and sensibility. Each can be offered a variety of tasks so that the different elements of one’s nature find a suitable expression. However, even when work is meaningful for all, we cannot overcome, nor should we wish to, our dependence on others. In a fully just society persons seek their good on ways peculiar to themselves, and they rely upon their associates to do things they could not have done, as well as things they might have done but did not. It is tempting to suppose that everyone might fully realize one’s powers and that some at least can become complete exemplars of humanity. However, this is impossible. It is a feature of human sociability that we are by ourselves but parts of what we might be. We must look to others to attain the excellences that we must leave aside, or lack altogether. #RandolphHarris 20 of 22

The collective activity of society, the many associations and the public life of the largest community that regulates the, sustains our efforts and elicits our contribution. Yet the good attained from the common culture far exceeds our work in the sense that we cease to be mere fragments: that art of ourselves that we directly realize is joined to a wider and just arrangement the aims of which we affirm. The division of labour is overcome not by each becoming complete in oneself, but by willing and meaningful work within a just social union of social union in which all can freely participate as they so incline. The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God, can not be frustrated, neither can they come to naught, for God does not walk in crooked paths. Remember, remember, that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of humans. For although a human may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet, if one boasts in one’s own strength, and follows after the dictates of one’s own will, one must fall and insure the vengeance of a just God upon one. Behold, you have been intrusted with these things, but how strict were your commandments. And remember, also, the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them. Clouds are flowing in the river, waves are flying in the sky. Life is laughing in pebble. Does a pebble ever die? Flowers grow out of the Earth, such a miracle to see. What seems dead and what seems dying makes for butterflies to be. #RandolphHarris 21 of 22

Life is laughing in a pebble, flowers bathe in morning dew. Dust is dancing in my footsteps, and I wonder who is who. Clouds are flowing in the river, clouds are drifting in my teas, on a never-ending journey, what a miracle to be! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for is name alone is exalted. His glory is above the Earth and Heaven. He hath given glory unto Hi people, praise to all His faithful ones, to the children of America, a people near to Him. Hallelujah. Ascribe unto the Lord, ye ministering Angels, ascribe unto the Lord glory and power. Render unto the Lord the glory due unto His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. The voice of the Lord is over the waters; the God of glory thundereth! The Lord is over the great waters. The voice of the Lord is mighty; the voice of the Lord is fully of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the  cedars; yea, the Lord shattereth the cedars of Tahoe. He maketh the mountains leap like a calf, Tahoe and Sacramento like a wild ox. The voice of the Lord causeth the desert to tremble; the Lord maketh the desert a Heavenly temple. The voice of the Lord maketh the oak trees dance, and strippeth the forest bare; while in His Temple everything proclaims His glory. The Lord was King at the Flood; the Lord shall remain King forever. May the Lord give strength unto His people; may the Lord bless His people with peace. There is no other way to settle doubts concerning the soul with incontestable certainty than the way of getting personal knowledge of it by a mystical glimpse. Even when a human denies the Overself and thinks it out of one’s view of life, one is denying and thinking by means of the Overself’s own power—attenuated and reflected though it be. One is able to reject the divine presence with one’s mind only because it is already in one’s mind. #RandolphHarris 22 of 22

BRIGHTON STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA |

Now Selling!

Brighton Station at Cresleigh Ranch is Rancho Cordova’s newest home community! This charming neighborhood offers an array of home types with eye catching architecture styles such as Mid-Century Modern, California Modern, Prairie, and Contemporary Farmhouse.

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!

Welcome to Cresleigh Homes, America’s Favourite! Our homes are designed for seamless integration between indoors and outdoors. The colors, the trim, the sightlines – everything combines to make you feel like you’re experiencing the best of both worlds – at the same time! See more pictures from our Brighton Station Res 4 model via the link in profile. https://cresleigh.com/brighton-station/

#CresleighHomes

#CresleighRanch