Through education, we have the ability to change and improve the World in which we live. Never regard study as a duty, but as the enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit and make the future brighter for all of us. We my start our digression by  reminding ourselves that, in much of the analysis and speculation that has brought us to this point, we have relied heavily on the action of catalytic substances to render plausible the degree of chemical reactivity that our theories have required. We have been encouraged to do so by the extensive evidence that common atomic ingredients combined into spatial configurations of types found in living organisms do frequently display the remarkable accelerating effects on chemical processes that the term “catalyst” implies. The important new element that must be injected into the discussion at this point is the fact that, of all organic catalysts, none can compare in the effectiveness with certain kinds of protein. It appears that the “tangled string” design of the protein molecule, described in past reports, is ideally suited to the catalytic function—at least for the catalysis of reactions involving other organic material. The complex surface of such a molecule, with its specific exposed regions of positive and negative electric charge, can provide a sort of template into which molecules of other types can fit. If the surface arrangement of positive and negative charges on the protein molecule corresponds closely to the distribution of negative and positive charges on another organic molecule, there will be specific affinity for that molecule. If the correspondence is good but not perfect, the strains developed when the attracted molecule “sits down” on the protein may break some of the bonds that hold it together so that, when other arriving materials displaces that temporarily adsorbed to the protein, fragments of the original molecules, rather than the whole molecule itself, are sent back into the surrounding fluid. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

This is the way our digestive enzymes work to break down the organic materials we take in as food into the essential amino acids and other structural units from which new forms of molecular arrangements suitable to human architecture can be built up. In this subsequent reconstruction other enzymes are employed, each possessing surface electric fields that attract and force into juxtaposition the specific molecular fragments needed to make up the particular kind of complex molecule whose construction supervision is the enzyme’s reason for existence. Probably millions of different kinds of enzyme operate today to control the complex chemistry of plants and animals. In addition to their abundance and versatility, enzymes are amazingly powerful. Thus, the digestive process in our stomachs cause the disintegration of the food we eat much faster than would the strongest concentration of acid, without the destructive effect on the stomach lining that the acid would have. (That fact is pretty amazing that we have such strong acids in our body, but our tissues can handle them.) Returning to the chemical production lines operated by the nucleic acid mechanisms, let us now compare the mechanisms. One product might be a certain carbohydrate required at some stage of the cell’s chemistry; the other product, however, might be a protein enzyme that would amplify the rate of production of that same carbohydrate through some otherwise unimportant secondary chain of cellular reactions. Which product would contribute more to the cell’s growth? The answer would depend, of course, on the initial productivity of the “unimportant secondary chain of cellular reactions” and on the amount of multiplication of that productivity caused by the protein enzyme. However, we know from modern research that the second factor can be tremendous—multiplication of billions in the rate of reaction is easily possible for a well-designed enzyme. #RandolphHarris 2 of 23

When this is considered in conjunction with the almost limitless variety of chemical reactions that are possible among the organic and inorganic ingredients of a living cell, it is easy to imagine that nucleic acid molecules with a structure contributing to protein enzyme manufacture might have more of an impact on the growth and reproduction rates of the host organism than molecules leading to the direct, non-catalytic production of the structural material of the cell. And evidently that is a correct conclusion; it appears to account for the fact that modern nucleic acid mechanisms manufacture only proteins, nothing else. (However, it is not quite true that the nucleic acid mechanism manufacture only enzymes. Some structural proteins, which may not have catalytic properties, are also produced. This does not upset the strength of the evolutionary argument, however, for noncatalytic proteins could obviously be assembled as by-products of mechanisms developed for enzyme manufacture.) The protein enzymes, which today are highly specific and very powerful owing to their precisely tailored structure, then exercise tight control over all the complex chemistry of the living cell. Thus the mechanisms we have been studying truly constitute the genesis of the properties of the cell they serve. They are quite properly referred to as the genetic mechanisms. It is important that some of the implications of the specialization on protein manufacture should be understood. For example, the DNA molecules in the nucleus that are responsible for the production of transfer RNA have evolved such a sequence of bases as to manufacture only types of floating molecules possessing special affinity for the amino acids. Since 20 different amino acids enter into the formation of proteins, the cytoplasm of every living cell possesses 20 different kinds of transfer RNA. (As we shall see, there are more than 20: several types of transfer RNA molecule may be capable of transporting the same amino acid. This does not cause trouble in the assembly of the enzyme, for the messenger RNA molecule is coded unambiguously in terms of the various transfer RNAs.) #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

Similarly, the DNA molecules in the nucleus that are responsible for the production of messenger RNA have evolved in such a way as to manufacture only types of surface-bound molecules whose base sequences conjugate with the unpaired connection bases of the transfer molecules that carry the amino acids. The result is a protein factory in the cytoplasm. For establishing the one-to-one correspondence between DNA molecules in the nucleus and enzymes manufactured in the nucleus and enzymes manufactured in the cytoplasm, G. W. Beadle and E.L. Tatum, then at Stanford University, share in the Noble Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1958. Later discoveries have somewhat modified their conclusions but in no way detracted from the pioneering importance of their work. We have already noted that sometimes nonenzymatic proteins are ordered into existence by the nucleic acid mechanisms. In addition, it now appears that a DNA molecule is frequently responsible for the construction of only a major segment of protein and that the final stage of protein assembly consists of a joining together in the cytoplasm of two or more such segments. However, despite its slight inaccuracy, the description originally applied to the work of Beadle and Tatum—“one DNA molecule, one enzyme”—still characterizes its most important implications. (Beadle and Tatum actually established the connection between genes and enzymes. Later work showed the identity of genes and DNA molecules.) Because of their great chemical accelerating power, it is not surprising to find that enzymes have come to play a role not only in the general metabolism of the cell but in the operation of the underlying genetic mechanisms themselves. The catalysts we have postulated to assist in the formation of double-stranded from single-stranded nucleic acid are, in modern organisms, protein enzymes. And the related production of messenger RNA by DNA in the nucleus proceeds at a negligible rate unless an enzyme, RNA-polymerase, is present. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

Similarly, the attachment of an amino acid to a molecule of transfer RNA in the cytoplasm involves the intermediation of an enzyme. (There is a little more to this process than simple “attachment.” Energy must also be supplied by the participation of a molecule of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which is abundant in the cytoplasm. This results in the temporary addition to the amino acid of an energy-rich fragment which, however, drops off when the amino acids are finally linked to form a protein molecule under the guidance of the messenger RNA.) There is, in fact, a different such “attachment” enzyme for each 2o different amino acids. Finally, when the amino acids have been aligned along the controlling messenger RNA molecule, another enzyme links them together and in the process detaches the resulting protein molecule and sends it out into the surrounding fluid so that it can later perform its own important catalytic function in some possibly remote region of the cell. This, then, completes our story of how the powerful nucleic acid/enzyme control mechanisms might have got started. There are too many successive and unverified assumptions in the story for it to have any great likelihood of being true in detail, although the properties finally achieved by the postulated evolutionary processes are known to be those of the genetic mechanisms of modern organisms. Fortunately, in terms of the objectives of this treatment, the accuracy of the evolutionary description is not critical. The important thing is that the recital given here should carry conviction as to the adequacy of purely physical processes of the general nature of those postulated to account for the evolution of the modern cellular mechanisms. However, we have not yet completed our consideration of the nucleic acid/enzyme mechanism; we are merely taking not of a transition in the character of the discussion. From a treatment combining a very large proportion of speculation with only occasional experimental support we now revert to a more orthodox mixture of extensive experimental findings and modest speculative content. Soon, we will complete our discussion of the genetic mechanisms by such treatment of the evidence of recent research for a remarkable universality of many of the details as well as the general features of these mechanisms. #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

The search for the case of bipolar disorders have made little progress. Various explanations were proposed, but research did not support their validity. Psychodynamic theorists, for example, suggested that mania, like depression, emerges from the loss of a love object. Whereas some people introject the lost object and become depressed, others deny the loss and become manic. To avoid the terrifying conflicts generated by the loss, they escape into a dizzying round of activity. Although cases reports sometimes fit this explanation, controlled studies have not found a systematic relationship between the loss and other onset of a manic episode. More recently, biological research has produced some promising clues. Biological insights have come from research into neurotransmitter activity, ion activity, and genetic factors. Could overactivity of norepinephrine be related to mania? This was the expectation of several clinicians back in the 1960s after investigators first found a relationship between low norepinephrine activity and unipolar depression. One study did indeed find the norepinephrine activity of a person with mania to be higher than that of depressed or control subjects. In another study patients with a bipolar disorder were given reserpine, the blood pressure drug known to reduce norepinephrine activity in the brain, and the manic symptoms of some subsided. Because serotonin activity often parallels norepinephrine activity in unipolar depression, theorists at first expected that mania would also be related to high serotonin activity, but no such relationship has been found. Instead, research suggests that mania, like depression, may be linked to low serotonin activity. To make sense of this seemingly contradictory finding, a number of researchers have proposed a “permissive theory” of mood disorders. They argue that law serotonin activity opens the door to a mood disorder and permits the activity of norepinephrine (or perhaps other neurotransmitters) to define the particular form the disorder will take. #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

That is, low serotonin activity accompanied by low norepinephrine activity may lead to depression; low serotonin activity accompanied by high norepinephrine activity. On both sides of the cell membrane of each neuron sit positively charged sodium ions. The ions play a critical role in sending incoming messages down the neuron to the nerve endings. When the neuron is at rest, most of the sodium ions sit on the outer side of the membrane. When the neuron is stimulated by an incoming message at its receptor site, however, the sodium ions from the outer side of the membrane travel across to the inner side. This movement, in turn, starts a wave of electrochemical activity that continues down the length of the neuron and results in its “firing.” Afterward, a flow of potassium ions from the inside to the outside of the neuron helps it to return to its original state. If brain messages are to be sent and received appropriately, the ions must travel properly back and forth between the outside and the inside of the neural membrane. Some theorists believe that improper transport of these ions may cause neurons to fire too easily (resulting in mania) or to stubbornly resist firing (resulting in depression). Such defects in the transport of ions would produce shifting misalignment along neural membranes and consequent fluctuation from one mood extreme to the other. In support of this theory, investigators have found membrane defects in the neurons of persons with bipolar disorders and have observed abnormal functioning in the proteins that help transport ions across a neuron’s membrane. Many experts believe that people inherit a biological predisposition to develop bipolar disorders. Findings from family pedigree studies support this idea. Identical twins of persons with bipolar disorder have a 40 percent likelihood of developing the same disorder, and fraternal twins, siblings, and other close relatives of such persons have a 5 to 10 percent likelihood, compared to the 1 percent prevalence rate in the general population. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

Researchers have also conducted genetic linkage studies to identify possible patterns in the inheritance of bipolar disorders. They select large families that have had high rates of a disorder over several generations, observe the pattern of distribution of the disorder among family members, and determine whether it closely follows the distribution pattern of a known genetically transmitted family trait (called a genetic marker), such as colour blindness, red hair, or a particular medical syndrome. After studying the records of Israeli, Belgian, and Italian families that had shown high rates of bipolar disorders across several generations, one team of researchers seemed for a while to have linked bipolar disorders to genes on the X chromosome. Other research teams, however, later used techniques for molecular biology to examine genetic patterns in large families, and they linked bipolar disorders to genes on chromosomes 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 22. Such ide-ranging findings ma mean that the logic behind the various gene studies is flawed. Alternatively, a wide variety of genetic abnormalities may combine to bring about bipolar disorders. Investigator have long known that physical decline of the youth and elderly can lead to depression. It was just to this deepening crisis of boredom, lack of personal engagement, cultural irrelevance, and ineptitude, in conditions of mass industry and mass education, that the movement called progressive education addressed itself. It is now moribund, but it can be revived. Its history in our century, however, is immensely instructive. The pragmatism, instrumentalism, and technoloism of James, Dewey, and Veblen were leveled against the abuses and ideals of the then dominant class: the Four Hundred and the Robber Barons—academic culture, cast morals and formal religion, unsocial greed. #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

The philosophers were concerned about abundant production, social harmony, practical virtues, and more honest perception and feeling, which would presumably pertain to the rising group of technicians, social-scientific administrators, and organized labour. (As a symbol of the “leisure-class culture” that they were attacking, they chose the “classical” culture of Greece, founded on slavery.) In that early turn of the century, these philosophers failed to predict that precisely with the success of the managers, technicians, and organized labour, the “achieved” values of efficient abundant production, social harmony, and one popular culture would produce even more devastatingly the things they did not want: and abstract and inhuman physical environment, a useless economy, a caste system, a dangerous conformity, a trivial and sensational leisure. (So that now we tend to think of the Greek pois as an “integral community,” making a public use of leisure and having a perfected education of the whole human whereas we have fragments.) Yet midway in this transition from the old tycoon-and clergyman culture to the new managerial organization there was crystallized a practical method of education with the defects of neither extreme (and in many ways strangely like Greek education); and it was given a sounding board especially by the daring Twenties. Progressive education drew on every radical idea since the middle of the eighteenth century, in pedagogy, politics, socialist and communitarian theory, epistemology, esthetics, anthropology, and psychiatry. It was as if progressive education resolved that in the education of the children there should be no missed revolutions and no unfinished situations. In its heyday, progressive education was not sectarian. Different school laid the emphasis in the different places—Dewey was more experimental, Russell more rational Neill more gender-reformist, the people around Goddard and Antioch more communitarian, Berea more “handicrafts,” Black Mountain more “creative,” Muste and Fincke more political-economical, and so forth. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

However, I think that almost all schools would have accepted, in varying degrees, all of the following positions: To learn theory by experiment and doing. To learn belonging by participation and self-rule. Permissiveness in all animal behaviour and interpersonal expression. Emphasis on individual differences. Unblocking and training feeling by plastic arts, eurhythmics and dramatics. Tolerances of races, classes, and cultures. Group therapy as a means of solidarity, in the staff meeting and community meeting. Taking youth seriously as an age in itself. Community of youth and adults, minimizing “authority.” Educational use of the actual physical plant (buildings and farms) and the culture of the school community. Emphasis in the curriculum on real problems of wider society, its geography and history, with actual participation in the neighbouring community (of village or city). Trying for functional interrelation of activities. This is not a perfect educational program. It lacks the grandeur and explosive playfulness. It lacks religious quiet. And it is weak in the models of the humanities. However, there cannot be a “perfect” educational system, for each system must meet its social situation. In a period like ours, of transition, uprootedness, inhuman scale, technical abstractness, affectlessness, and conformity, no lesser program is seriously conservative of human resources. Our official public educators are not serious in their concern for human resources, or they would use this program. There has always been one criticism of progressive education that must be answered, namely, that it is weak in curriculum, in cultural and scientific content. I think this is a misunderstanding. #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

There is only one curriculum, no matter what the method of education: what is basic and universal in human experience, and practice, the underlying structure of culture. This philosophic content fans out as speech, as finding where you are in space and time, as measuring and structuring, and being a social terrestrial being. It may be called English, geography and history, arithmetic, music and physical training; or Greek, history, logic, and Rugby; or trivium and quadrivium (plus games); or literature, social studies, science, and eurhythmics. It is the same basic curriculum; the differences are in method, and they concern how to teach the curriculum and make it second nature to the students, unblocking rather than encumbering, and brining out the best. The curriculum is only superficially what “a man ought to know”; it is more fundamentally how to become a man-in-the-World. The method must vary with what good or bad habits and powers the young have come with in various situations. The curriculum certainly cannot vary with what is temporarily convenient for a bad society (the definition of a bad society being one that is not educational). Not to teach the whole curriculum is to give up on the whole man. For instance, in our Cold War debate about teaching science, we talked about ho geometry is “too hard” for many, and if we insist in on all, it will produce failure and truancy. However, this is not the progressive educator’s way of looking at it. Is it that geometry is too hard, or that the aim of teaching is not bona fide, being rapid technical know-how rather than humane understanding? Is it that the method is irrelevant to the aptitude and ineptitude that the children have come with? What cannot disregard our duty to geometry as such as a worth-while human object, our duty to Euclid, Kepler, and Einstein. The result of a dismissive attitude is that these champions will not be champions for all humans. #RandolphHarris 11 of 23

We are in a sad dilemma if, as is he case, kids do not learn because it is not humanly worth while to learn, they have no deep motivation; and then, to keep them in school we have to cut down on the few subject that are humanly worth while. The question cannot be whether to teach science or to whom, for what is man without science? but how to teach in in various circumstances. Attention has been centered for so long on the individuality of each child that [educators] resist any idea that a new national concern [defense against non-Capitalism] might be an important factor in planning a high school program. You have to start raising patriotic kids again, kids that are proud to be American, who pledge allegiance to the flag every day, or the enemy will overtake us by making us hate our own kind and our home nation. The fact is that there could be the unfolding individuality and the achievement of habits in science. We need more than the bright upper fraction of the students to be somehow induced to take hard programs. Will the incentive to fight an atomic war, or biological terrorism, match the social apathy and cynicism of these boy? More important, there has to be more than 15 percent of the class who are “academically talented.” Parents need to become providers and raise their children in two family homes with both parents working and stop being so selfish. Some parents would rather live without than get up and go to work, they just want to live off their man and kids, and some men refuse to provide for their children. It is very important that people have children for the right reason, and want to support them, not just have kids to collect welfare or child support and roll around in bed all day cooking from drama from the ideas they see on TV. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

More parents also need to recognize when they, themselves, have a mental problem. They could need counseling and medication to get better. Some parents are jealous of their kids and do not want to see them succeed and when they see them doing well, they plot against them. There are some very unhealthy parents who get power out of profiting off of and hurting their own children and pretending not to know why their child, or adult-child’s life is falling apart. I have a strong suspicion that we have learned little about the abilities of the human being. I suspect that they are greater than most people assume. However, they need a unified household and a cohesive family. Not a family when women marry men who hate their male child and slowly all the family grows to dislike him because the mother has allowed the tone for how she controls her household to be set. If one is concerned about conserving human resources, this would seem to be the obvious first approach: to find why most are so inept and to invent techniques to unblock them, to increase the pool of the “academically talented.” However, if the home is out of order, school may not help much. Perhaps the conventional school itself is not such a good idea, especially if the “national need” is for creative scientists; for at the point in their careers at which these boys are tested (say ages twelve to fifteen), the “brightness” of the 15 percent might or might not indicate a profound feeling for the causes of things; it is largely verbal and symbol-manipulating, and is almost certainly partly an obsessional device not to know and touch risky matter, just as Dr. Freud long ago pointed out that the nagging questions of small children are a substitute for asking the forbidden questions. If these are the important kinds of issues—motivation, unblocking ability, deep-rootedness of learning—a little more attention to the individuality of the child, and some more progressive education, might suit the national need. It might even speed up the invention of rockets. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

If these are the important kinds of issues—motivation, unblocking ability, deep-rootedness of learning—a little more attention to the individuality of the child, and some more progressive education, might suit the national need. It might even speed up the invention of rockets. If China is continuing to outpace us, they will build colonies on the moon and Mars first, they will control weather, perfect irresistible weapons, copy software, work out the bugs, and create better various that are less expensive, lead the World in every, and become the World’s Superpower. That is why in science people can, and do, co-operate no matter what their nationalities are,” they speak an international language, and they belong to an international community “who practice the brotherhood of man.” A healthy sign is that salaries for scientist are edging upward; the universities private research laboratories, industrial concerns and the government assures to scientists a comfortable, secure life. Not, however, that money should be a factor in deciding on a scientific career. Science is fun. Nevertheless, the concept of “decision load” is crucial to any understanding of democracy. All societies require a certain quantity and quality of political decision in order to function. Indeed, each society has its own unique decision structure. The more numerous, varied, frequent, and complex the decision required to run it, the heavier its political “decision load.” And the way this load is shared fundamentally influences the level of democracy in society. In preindustrial societies, where the division of labour was rudimentary and change was slow, the number of political or administrative decisions actually required to keep things running was minimal. The decision load was small. A tiny, semi-educated, unspecialized ruling elite could more or less run things without help from below, carrying the entire decision load by itself. #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

What we now call democracy burst forth only when the decision load suddenly swelled beyond the capacity of the old elite to handle it. The arrival of the Second Wave, bringing expanded trade, a greater division of labour, and leap to a whole new level of complexity in society, caused the same kind of decision implosion in its time that the Fourth Wave is causing today. As a result, the decisional capabilities of the old ruling groups were overwhelmed, and new elites and sub-elite had to be recruited to cope with the decision load. Revolutionary new political institution had to be designed for that purpose. As industrial society developed, becoming ever more complex, its integrating elites, the “technicians of power,” were in their turn continually compelled to recruit new blood to help them carry the expanding decision load. It was this invisible but inexorable process that drew the middle class more and more into the political arena. It was this expanded need for decision-making that led to an ever-wider franchise and created more niches to be filled from below. Many of the bitterest political battles in Second Wave countries—the struggle of American Blacks for integration in many businesses, of British trade unionists for equal educational opportunity, or women for their political rights, the hidden class warfare in America. At any given time, however, there was a definite limit to how many additional people could be absorbed into the governing elites. And this limit was essentially fixed by the size of the decision load. Despite the Second Wave society’s meritocratic pretensions, therefore, whole subpopulations were screed out on racist, sexist, and similar grounds. Periodically, whenever the society jumped to a new level of complexity and the decision load swelled, the excluded groups, sensing the new opportunities, would intensify their demand for equal rights, the elites would open doors a bit wider, and the society would experience what seemed like a wave of further democratization. #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

If this picture is even roughly correct, it tells us that the extent of democracy depends less on culture, less of Marxist class, less on battlefield courage, less on rhetoric, less on political will, then on the decision load of society. A heavy load will ultimately have to be shared through wider democratic participation. So long as the decision load od the social system expands, therefore, democracy becomes not a matter of choice but of evolutionary necessity. The system cannot run without it. What all this further suggests is that we may well be on the edge of another great democratic leap forward. For the very implosion of decision-making now overwhelming our presidents, prime ministers, and governments unlocks—for the first time since the industrial revolution—exciting prospects for a radical expansion of political participation. The first nation which will dare apply this truth to its own affairs and relationships will draw a dividing line through the World’s history. It may have to suffer although not in the same way, not the same extent, as did Telemachus, who was stoned to death in Rome’s Arena but accomplished his mission of putting an end forever to combats between man and beast. However, this nation will prove that the vicious circle of war unending can be broken, that bloody combat of people against people can end. If pacific and nonviolent methods will fail to produce, in most circumstances, any immediate successful result, they cannot fail in the long run, if patiently practised, to impress the adversary by their example—hitherto unknow to and unconceived by him. Nuclear war is not the best decision. This alone is sufficient for one side to refuse to engage in it, whether or not the other side takes advantage of such refusal. In the absence of an impartial and effectual World-authority, the only alternative to war as a means of settling disputes is renunciation of the right to terminate others. #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

Humans have been forced against a wall built from the results of their own actions, that is, the Universal Law, and made to face two alternatives: either they go on preparing defensively or aggressively for war or starts the new course of preparing for peace. The remedy is simple to formulate, although political and military leaders who find it unpalatable will assert that its result would be worse than war. It is this: cease manufacturing both atomic bombs and other atomic weapons; cease using the atom for military purposes in any way. This may seem startlingly unrealistic but it is the only way to escape an otherwise inevitable fate, too terrible to describe even in outline. What Napoleon, Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, the Caesars, and all the aggressive warrior-rules known to history combined could not terminate during their entire lifetimes, can be terminated in less than one minute by the weapons of twenty-first century man. In the New Testament the relation of the moral conscience to faith as the foundation of the religious life is dealt with in only two connections. In Hebrews 9.9 ritual religion is criticized because “gifts and sacrifices cannot possible make the conscience of the worshipper perfect.” Therefore, the writer continues, “Let us draw near with a true heart, in absolute assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from a bad conscience.” Only perfect salvation can give the moral status from which a good conscience follows. However, the “assurance of faith” is not a matter of conscience. The other link between faith and conscience is given in the criticism of heresy. Heresy entails an unclean conscience because it involves a moral distinction. In I Timothy 1.19 and 4.2 libertines and ascetics, both representatives of pagan dualistic morals, are rejected. Against them the writer says: “Hold to faith and a good conscience. Certain individuals have seared the good conscience and thus come to grief over their faith. They are “seared in conscience.” #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

The judgment that one cannot be a heretic with a good conscience has been accepted by the church. The more implications of heresy were always emphasized, although not always rightly. Heresy is not an error in judgment or a difference in experience, but a demonic possession, splitting the moral self and producing a bad conscience. On this basis the church waged its war against the heretics of all periods. Scholasticism raised the question: according to what norms does the conscience judge, and how are these norms recognized by it? The answer was given in terms of the artificial (or distorted) word synteresis, id est, a perfection of our reason that leads us toward the recognition of the good. It has immediate and infallible evidence, being a spark of the divine light in us, the uncreated light in depth of the soul, as the Franciscans asserted; the created light of our intuitive intellect, as the Dominicans said. The basic principles given by the synteresis are: The good must be done; the evil must be avoided. Every being must live according to nature. Every being strives toward happiness. Conscience is the practical judgment that applies these principles to the concrete situation. It is syllogismus practicus. We are obliged to follow our conscience whether the syllogismus is correct or not. We are, of course, responsible for not knowing the good. However, we are not allowed to act against our conscience, even if it is objectively correct to do so. Humans have an infallible knowledge of the moral principles, the natural law, through synteresis; but they have a conscience that is able to fall into error in every concrete decision. In order to prevent dangerous errors, the authorities of the church give advice to the Christian, especially in connection with the confession in the sacrament of penance. Summae de casibus conscientiae (collections concerning cases of conscience) were given to the priests. In this way the conscience became more and more dependent on the authority of the church. #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

The immediate knowledge of the good was denied to the layman. The Jesuits removed the synteresis, and with it any direct contact between God and man, replacing it by the ecclesiastical, and especially the Jesuit, adviser. However, the adviser had the choice from among different authorities, since the opinion of each of them was equally probably. Heteronomy and probabilism destroyed the autonomous, self-assured conscience. In spite of these distortions, the medieval development performed a tremendous task in educating and refining the conscience of the European people generally, and the monastic and semimonastic groups in particular. The depth and breadth of bad conscience in the Middle Ages is the result of this education and the soil for new interpretations of the meaning and functions of conscience. For people like Elizabeth Tudor, her conscience was so that, virginity was such a striking feature of her reign that when she was nearly fifty and enamored of Walter Raleigh, she agreed to his suggestion that a new American colony be named in her honour—Virginia. Until her death, contemporaries speculated and gossiped, blithely slandering their queen, but all evidence, including the correspondence of dozens of informed foreign diplomats, confirms that Elizabeth truly was, as she claimed, the Virgin Queen. Why did this lovely, brilliant, accomplished, and ambitious young woman, whose passionate and jealous heart were legendary, never succumb to her sweethearts? Her reasons were both psychological and political. Throughout her childhood, Elizabeth was exposed to marriage Henry VIII—style. This began when she was two and a half years old and Henry, her father ceased to love her mother, Anne Boleyn. Instead, he fixed his fickle heart on Jane Seymour, Anne’s radiant, slender, meek, and sly young lady-in-waiting. The raucous, impetuous, vain, and silly Anne was devastated when she stumbled across Jane perched on her husband’s knee. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

Soon after, she delivered a premature, stillborn son. Instead of offering sympathy on their shared loss, Henry stormed into Anne’s sickroom, ranting that she deprived him of an heir. Divorce, Henry VII-style was close. Anne’s enemies trumped up adultery charges against her, and Henry, longing for an excuse to be rid of her, pretended to be enraged. Anne went from brief imprisonment in the Tower of London to mock trial to execution by beheading, denying her infidelity with her last breath. Elizabeth, far away at the nursery palace at Hunsdon, never saw her mother again. Before her death, Anne made arrangements for Elizabeth’s religious instruction but left no other instructions or final message. She died blaming her little daughter for ruining her by not being a boy. The baby princess was in grave danger from her father, just as her half sister Mary had been when Anne Boleyn replaced her mother, Spain’s Catherine of Argon. Elizabeth’s caretakers, understanding her precarious situation, were petrified. Justly so, because Henry soon had Parliament declare Elizabeth disowned, just as he had done with Mary, with whom he sent her to live. Later in life, teenage Elizabeth was caught in the arms of Admiral Thomas Seymour. Elizabeth was sent away and Catherin Parr, the Admiral’s wife, died a year later. Despite Catherine’s death, the scandal continued to dog Elizabeth. The affair had been more than a near-seduction. Though her moral standards and her love for Catherine drove her to resist him, she had been attracted to the jovial Admiral Thomas Seymour. Her banishment from court was shattering, humiliating, and dangerous. She heard the swirl of gossip—that Seymour had hoped Catherine would die in childbirth so he could wed the little princess and that she, Elizabeth was still an adolescent but she was learning a harsh lesson—because she was a princess, her flirtation was no longer an affair of the heart but an affair of the state. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

It was true that Seymour, now a suspiciously merry widower, sought to marry her. Meanwhile, he was accused of high treason and Elizabeth had to answer questions about her own participation in his schemes. She had the sense to write the protector exonerating herself, calling the rumors “shameful Slanders” and offering to appear at court where her flat stomach would confirm her innocence. She also noted that she would not marry without Privy Council’s consent, a sentiment she would never modifty. Ultimately, Seymour was beheaded and Elizabeth was absolved, but the rumors never stopped, and for two years, her brother, Kind Edward, refused to receive her at court. Reprieved, Elizabeth learned invaluable lessons from the incident. She had been betrayed by the loose, thoughtless tongues of her serving women. Nothing she did was private from these women, who spent most of each day with her and were always a source of potential spying. (As queen, she had eighteen of them.) From then on, she governed her private behaviour accordingly. Elizabeth also took away the lesson that her body belonged not to her but to England, and that her marriage would be a political event, decided and approved by government councilors. When it happened, she had to be virginal and unstained, absolutely above suspicion. And in her circles, as she had impressed upon her during Henry’s multiple marriage, even a hint of infidelity in a queen could easily be fatal. Virginity quickly suggested itself to her as a solution to a quagmire of potential problems. Elizabeth was a queen and immensely wealthy and secure. However, throughout her life, the virginal queen had flaunted her tantalizing spinsterhood and toyed with foreign diplomats about various marriage proposals. Each time this happen, her virtue was carefully investigated, with serving maid, ladies-in-waiting, and courtiers all eager to disclose their confidences. The verdict as always the same: “she has truly and verily been praised and extolled for her virginal and royal honour, and nothing can be said against her; and all the aspersions against her are but the spawn of envy and malice and hatred.” #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

Queen Elizabeth was far too brilliant and ambitious to subordinate herself to a man and used her famous virginity like a moat that protected her from anyone seeking to get too close to the reins of power. In persistently defying the explicit wishes of her councilor and parliament to marry and provide England with a successor, she consolidated her own power and did what no other woman ever had, died a virgin and gave her name to an entire era. Now, looking at the wealth of today, the third and last wealth wave, still explosively spreading as we write, challenges all the principles of industrialism as it substitutes ever-more-refined knowledge for the traditional factors of industrial production—land, labour, and capital. Where the Second Wave wealth system brought massification, the Third Wave de-massifies production, markets, and society. Where Second Wave wealth system brought massification, the Third Wave de-massifies production, markets and society. Where the Second Wave societies substituted the one-size-fits-all nuclear family for the large extended family of most First Wave agrarian societies, the Third Wave recognizes and accepts a diversity of family formats. Where the Second Wave built ever-more-towering vertical hierarchies, the Third Wave tends to flatten organizations and brings a shift to networks and many alternative structures. And these only begin the lengthy list of radical changes. Thus, manufacturing things we can touch—the core function of Second Wave economies—has increasingly become an easily commoditized, comparatively simple, low-value-added activity. By contrast, such intangible functions as financing, designing, planning, research, marketing, advertising, distributing, managing, servicing and recycling are frequently more difficult and costly. They often add more value and generate more profit than metal bending and muscle work. The result is a profound change in the relations of different sectors in the economy. #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

As each wealth wave swelled, it moved unevenly across the World, so that today in countries such as China, Brazil, and India we can find all three waves overlapping and moving at the same time—vestigial hunters and gathers dying away as First Wave less affluent people take over their land; less affluent moving to cities for jobs in Second Wave factories; and Internet cafes and software startups cropping up as the Third Wave thrives. With these shifts comes a combination of decadence, innovation and experiment as old institutions become dysfunctional and people try out new ways of life, new values, new belief systems, new family structures, new political forms; new types of art, literature and music; new relations between the genders. No wealth system can sustain itself without a host society and culture. And the host and culture themselves are shaken up as two or more wealth systems collide. These crude sketches only begin to hint at the differences in the World’s three wealth systems and the three great civilizations that come with them. However, they are enough to suggest their main themes: If the first Wave wealth system was chiefly based on growing things, and the Second Wave on making things, the Third Wave wealthy system is increasingly based on serving, thinking, knowing and expanding. It is clear that, just as industrialism usually created more wealth and bigger surpluses per capita than peasant economies ever could, today’s emergent, still-incomplete Third Wave wealth systems look minute by comparison. It could increase not only money wealth but human wealth as well—the non-money wealth we make for ourselves and our loved ones. Each of these three wealth systems imposes different imperatives on societies and the lives of ordinary people. They produce very different forms and amounts of wealth. They have utterly different ecological and cultural consequences. And they produce three radically different lifeways. #RandolphHarris 23 of 23

Cresleigh Homes

Nothing says home like our new community at #Havenwood. We’ve got four incredible models to choose from, and they’re include up to five bedrooms!

We’re so excited to debut this community; we know you’ll love it as much as we do!

#CresleighHomes