The origin of the World and the annulment of the World are not in me; neither are they outside me; they simply are not—they always occur, and their occurrence is also connected with me, with my life, my decision, my work, my service, and also depends on me, on my life, my decision, my work, and my service. However, what it depends on is not whether I “affirm” or “negate” the World in my soul, but how I let the attitude of my soul toward to the World come to life—and in actual life paths coming from very different attitudes of the soul can cross. The delinquent fatalism is the feeling of no chance in the past, no prospect for the future, no recourse in the present; whence the drive to disaster. It is a religious crisis. We spoke of the French writer Jean Genet as its literary prophet. Genet writes, sometimes explicitly but always essentially, as a juvenile delinquent. The criminals with whom he empathizes are not fully grown like those of Dostoevski or Shakespeare, like the Possessed or Iago and Edmund. They are not adequate, they do not have pretensions, to the independent social identities of kingship, marriage, fatherhood, politics, wealth. Genet’s heroes are young hustlers, sailors dependent on the mother ship, young men in jail, soldiers of occupation. His thieves do not rob the rich, but to get spending money or money to squander and show off. This thwarted juvenilism is the same thing as the exclusive homosexuality of his World, with its phallic proving and phallic adoration. Yet with this unpromising material, he performs a poetic miracle. He does it by stripping away the conceit, the conformity and the one-upping. He accepts, fully and fundamentally, the true situation of degradation, humiliation, uselessness, and terror in which his fellows live. In this he is like Dostoevski. He does so with perfect awareness and even, as a writer, with deliberate calculation. For instance, as he begins Les Pompes Funebres as if he had asked: What is the most degrading and offensive episode possible for middle-class French readers? #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

Yet Genet’s aim is not to offend, he is not defensive; it is that, like a classical playwright, he wants to establish his premises at once: that in the situation in which he finds himself, these are the things that work for him as an artist, that are still alive. In a speech on delinquency (banned from the radio), he explained that if he tried to write about the bourgeois and their important doings, his pen struck, he had nothing to say; but if he turned to these young criminals (really juvenile delinquents), his thoughts took wing, his style glowed. Therefore he knows they are more heroic, they are the superior people. That is, he drops the defenses of the underprivileged boy-man and gives himself completely to his own riches as an inspired artist; and the effect is not sensational—nor even bravado—but, as the images soar and the feeling becomes more tender and anguished and the thought more profound, our normal valuation of things is indeed swept away, and is succeeded by a living confusion. Naturally, then, his book is rewarded by coming to the cataclysmic little sentence: “T’as ete malheureux, hein?” (You been unhappy, haven’t you?) This truth is, of course, precisely what the youth juvenile delinquent could in fact never say—but neither could most adults. We are back to total abandonment, and there is nothing to do but bawl. When the conceit, the being cool, the mask-face, are taken away, the kids at once appear in their variety, color, lyric speech, and graceful and vigorous poses, very different from either the usual delinquent sullenness or the conventionality of the resigned youth. Having himself no achieved independent perspective to view them from, Genet cannot, of course, treat them fully as characters in their real place in nature. However, again his art does not fail them. What he presents is his own and their existent fact: how these shapes appear as fantasy-objects for himself and one another. (Genet is writing as an heir of Proust.) He uses as the basis of his narrative manner the evoked serial daydreams of schoolgirls and adolescent boys, that are often “self-love” fantasies. This is a literary innovation. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

The importance of Genet for our purposes is this: By a scrupulously honest artistic method he creates from this unpromising material a World that has interest and value. Without being phony, he makes the doings of ignorant and self-destructive kids glow with nobility and religious significance; he makes them more worthwhile than the apparently adult doings in our standard writers. Now an artist demonstrated his World. If Genet can write more beautiful books about them, then they have more love and nature in them, for nothing comes from nothing. Like Miller and the young writers, Genet also accepts what is, whatever it is; but in their World “whatever it is” is ashen dull, whereas at the level of Genet’s disaffected juveniles, it begins to glow a little; some live embers are uncovered. And indeed, the fatalistic self-destruction of the kids struggling for life in an environment not suited to produce great human beings, is more interesting than the successful doings of that society. It is not interesting enough; for they are juvenile delinquents and do not have enough World. As soon as we ask question from the World of great culture and society, these boys begin to be, in Robert Linder’s phrase, rebels without a cause, and that is not interesting. Here is the pathos of literary critics like Lionel Trilling who demand that our novels illuminate the manners and morals of prevailing society. Professor Trilling is right, because otherwise what use are they for us? However, he is wrong-headed, because he does not see that the burden of proof is not on the artist but on our society. If such convenient criticism of prevalent life does not get to be written, it is likely that the prevailing society is not inspiring enough; its humanity is not great enough, it does not have enough future, to be worth the novelist’s trouble. The history of contemporary novel-writing tells the story very clearly. Hemingway, for instance, is a pretty good writer and he caught the spirit of young men of a whole generation; but this ideal, we have seen, turns out to be the conceited “proving” of tribes of junior executives and juvenile delinquents. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

Faulkner is a pretty good writer but his World is resigned (this is the meaning of its parochialism), and his work turns out to be a very complicated way of being a youth. When one undertakes the task of not giving up any claim of culture and humanity, one may then turn out to be far out of this World. Meantime there will have developed a counterstream of writing that has given up the task of integrating, and depicts instead the situation as it is, whatever it is: so Cline, Miller, Genet, Burroughs. However, among the many virtues of this school, conspicuously absent is edification. Tone is crucial and often colors meaning. If we do not know what is said seriously and what in jest, we do not know the meaning. If something is ironical or a quotation, an allusion, a pastiche, a parody, a diatribe, a daring coinage, a cliché, an epigram, or possibly ambiguous, we have to know what is said lightly and what solemnly, where a remark is prompted by a play of words. It is not secret that human beings have been replaced by baskets at toll-booth stations throughout the country. I, for one, am not all sentimental about the substitution since in the first place, human money-collecting on highways is undignified and probably boring, and in the second place, baskets are much better suited to the job than human hands. Baskets are bigger and never clammy. A basket cannot make change, but that is only a temporary deficiency. With very little effort, baskets can be programmed to subtract 25 cents from anything up to a thousand-dollar bill. There would then remain only one problem for the basket. It cannot answer such questions as “If I am going to New Hyde Park, what exit do I take?” or, “How far is it to the next rest station?” A basket can be programmed to answer these and other reasonable questions, and respond intelligently to such a remark as “The baby just threw up. Do you have a towel or something?” #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Nevertheless, that problem can be solved by the basket telling the individual where the nearest restroom is, or some sort of emergency booth. This solves all of the problems from the basket’s point of view. However, there still remain several for motorists, almost all of which concern their sensibilities. Each basket has an appendage that have has been programmed to flash or say “Thank you” after the motorist has performed one’s civic duty. Common courtesy, of course, compels the motorist to respond. In these circumstances, however, one feels quite silly saying “You are welcome,” unless one has some sort of assurance that one’s courtesy has been understood and perhaps appreciated. I know many motorists who refuse to say anything to the basket only because they assume the basket is indifferent to their responses. This is perfectly understandable, but it could be corrected if the basket were programmed to respond to a human’s “You are welcome” by flashing or saying something like “Well, it was awfully nice of you.” There still remains the problem of what one is to do or say when the coin has missed the basket. After you have retrieved the coin and thrown it in, the basket’s appendage or voice still says, “Thank you,” but unquestionably the remark now has a sarcastic ring, which only adds to one’s sheepishness. In such cases, the sensitive motorist will invariably say something like, “I am terribly sorry,” to which the appendage could not, in all courtesy, reply, “Well it was awfully nice of you,” but its voice could. It could also be programmed to say, “That’s is quite all right. Others frequently make the same mistake.” Such replies make the motorist feel that one’s efforts are appreciated, and one could proceed down the highway with that exhilarated air that comes to those who have exchanged cordialities with somebody, or something. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

While an analogy between chimps and humans is certainly not precise, neither is it farfetched. We were not suddenly captured by hunters and imprisoned in a room or a zoo, but over a period of several generations, or species has suffered a similar fate. We have been removed from the environment within which we evolved and with which we are uniquely designed to interact. Now we interact and coevolve with only the grosser, more monolithic, human-made commercial forms which remain available within our new laboratory-space station. Because we live inside the new environment, we are not aware that any tradeoff has been made. We have had to sacrifice the billions of small, detailed, multispectral experiences—emotional, physical, instinctive, sensual, intuitive and mental—that were appropriate and necessary for humans interacting with natural environments. Like the Micronesian islander trapped between two modes of experience, we have found that functioning on an earlier multidimensional level has become not only useless but counterproductive. If we remained so attuned to the varieties of snowflakes that we could find fifty-six varieties as the Inuit person can; or to dreams so that we could find hundreds of distinct patterns as the Senoi Indians can; or to the minute altitude strata, inch by inch above the ground, occupied by entirely different species of flying insects as the California Indians once could; all this sensitivity would cripple any attempt to get along in the modern World. None of it would get us jobs, which gets us money, which in turn gets us food, housing, transportation, products, or entertainment, which are the fulfillments presently available in our New World. We have had to re-create ourselves to fit it. We have had to reshape our very personalities to be competitive, aggressive, mentally fast, charming and manipulative. These qualities succeed in today’s World and offer survival and some measure of the satisfaction within the cycle of work-consume, work-consume, work-consume. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

As for any dormant anxieties or unreconstructed internal wilderness, these may be smooth over by compulsive working, compulsive eating, compulsive buying, compulsive pleasures of the flesh, and then our brands of soma: spirits, Librium, Valium, Thorazine, barbiturates and television. Born within the walls of our reconstructed environment, unaware of any other, we are like the chimpanzee in the lab. We are making the best of a situation that seems as inevitable as it is ubiquitous. Participating in it is the only logical ways to get along. Yet there are people who do not adjust, who cannot be made satisfied or functional within these confines. They eventually fall out of the pattern. As one may have noticed, a lot of people seem to be going crazy these days. People are shooting each other as never before, walking with streets with blank stares, lying in doorways, making jail a way of life, or living off government transfer payments. Other burst out, unable to contain their frustrations: beating children, torturing animals, forming gangs, or, on another level, among those who view these matters in terms of power, forming revolutionary movements. These people are unable or unwilling to remake themselves to fit the given arrangement. In Huxley’s World, all of them would be moved benevolently out of the system to islands. In Orwell’s World they would be imprisoned and changed by torture and brainwashing. Our own World uses a combination of separation, removal and reconstruction, but there can never be any question of the enforcement of the overall model. If too many people fell out of the pattern, the whole system would be endangered. If even a small percentage of the population should step out of the cycle of button pushing—work-consumer, work-consume—then we would see the gross national product decline and the economy begin to disintegrate. After a time no one would deliver our food from afar, the buses would cease to run, jobs would disappear, hospitals would close, money would be useless, and having lost all individual skills of survival and all contact with the Earth itself, people would experience craziness and a breakdown of order as the new reality. #RanolphHarris 7 of 18

Yet another attack on science as a truth filter comes from residual postmodernism, the murky French philosophy that decades ago began infiltrating university departments of literature and social science—and even business schools—Worldwide. Businesses have been told to adopt “postmodern management.” They are offered data communications systems for “Post-Modern SMEs [small business enterprises].” Students can study “postmodern business ethics” at Brunel University in London or Simon Fraser University in Canada and are urged to go to Las Vegas to see a postmodern “business role model.” Postmodernism, or POMO, would not be very important today—much of it is being supplanted by other obscurantisms—but for its attack on truth itself. In their offensive against science as a test of truth, POMOs tell us that scientific truths are not universal. And that makes sense. Many scientists might even agree. Since we do not know the limits of the Universe(s) we inhabit, and maybe cannot do so, we cannot logically prove the universality of anything. They—along with feminist critics and others—also have a point when they say scientific truths are not entirely neutral. After all, money often determines what research is done, and values help determine the very question that scientists choose to study, the hypotheses they frame and even the language they use to convey the results. However, this is where their arguments go from half-right to half-cocked. We are told that all truths are relative, so that on one’s explanation of anything is better than anyone else’s. The real question, however, is “Better for what?” If we want to fly to Munich or Maui, do we want a competent, knowledgeable pilot at the controls—or the World’s best flower arranger? It is when the POMOs tell us that all truths, scientific or not, are subjective and only exist inside people’s heads, that they go fully around the end and lapse into sophomoric solipsism. By their own theory, their own assertions are inherently unverifiable. Even if they were true, we would still need to lead our lives as though they were not. Try paying credit-card bill with money that exists only in your mind. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

At its heart, POMO theory not only attempts to discredit science; taken to its extreme, it actually undermines all the truth criteria because it calls into question the very concept of truth. And it is here that postmodernists merge with snake-oil salesmen, cult leaders, hoaxers and others who stretch our gullibility to the max, and who, when asked “Why should I believe you?” have no better answer than “Because.” Now central to the feminist project is the suppression of modesty, in which the revolution of pleasures of the flesh played out a critical preparatory role, just as capitalism, in the Marxist scheme, prepared the way for socialism by tearing the sacred veils from the charade of feudal chivalry. The revolution of pleasures of the flesh, however, wanted men and women to get together bodily, while feminism wanted them to be able easily to get along separately. Modesty in the old dispensation was the female virtue, because it governed the powerful desire that related men to women, providing a gratification in harmony with the procreation and rearing of children, the risk and responsibility of which fell naturally—that is, biologically—on women. Although modesty impeded pleasures of the flesh, its result was to make such gratification central to a serious life and to enhance the delicate interplay between the genders, which make acquiescence of the will as important as possession of the body. Diminution or suppression of modesty certainly makes attaining the end of desire easier—which was the intention of the revolutions of the pleasures of the flesh—but it also dismantles the structure of involvement and attachment, reducing pleasures of the flesh to the thing-in-itself. This is where feminism enters. Female modesty extends sexual differentiation from the sexual act to the whole life. It makes men and women always men and women. The consciousness of directedness toward one another, and its attractions and inhibitions, inform every common deed. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

As long as modesty operates, men and women together are never just lawyers or pilots together. They have something else, always potentially very important, in common—ultimate ends, or as the say, “life goals.” Is winning this case or landing this plane what is most important, or is the love and family? As lawyers or pilots, men and women are the same, subservient to the one goal. As lovers or parents they are very different, but inwardly related by sharing the naturally given end of continuing the species. Yet their working together immediately posses the question of “roles” and, hence, “priorities,” in a way that men working together or women working together does not. Modesty is a constant reminder of their peculiar relatedness and its outer forms, and inner sentiments, which impede the self’s free creation or capitalism’s technical division of labor. It is a voice constantly repeating that a man and a woman have a work to do together that is far different from that found in the marketplace, and of a far greater importance. This is why modesty is the first sacrifice demanded by Socrates in Plato’s Republic for the establishment of a city where women have the same education, live the same lives and do the same jobs as men. If the difference between men and women is not to determine their ends, if it is not to be more significant than the difference between bald men and men with hair, then they must strip and exercise unclothed together just as Greek men did. With some qualifications, feminists praise this passage in Plato and look upon it as prescient, for it culminates in an absolute liberation of women from the subjection of marriage and childbearing and—rearing, which become no more important than any other necessary and momentary biological events. Socrates provides birth control, terminating a pregnancy, and day-care centers, as well as marriages that last a day or a night and have their only end the production of sound new citizens to replenish the city stock, cared for by the city. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

Socrates even adds infanticide to the list of conveniences available. A woman will probably have to spend no more time and effort on children’s business than a man would in curing a case of the measles. Only then can women be thought to be naturally fit to do the same things as men. Socrates’ radicalism extends to the relation of parent and child. The citizens are not to know their own children, for, if they were to love them above others, then the means that brought them into being, the intercourse of this man and this woman, would be judged to be of special significance. Then we would be back to the private family and the kinds of relatedness peculiar to it. Socrates’ proposal especially refers to one of the most problematic cases for those who seek equal treatment for woman—the military. These citizens are warriors, and he argues that just as women can be liberated from subjection to men and take their places alongside them, men must be liberated from their special concern for women. A man must have no more compunction about stifling the advancing female enemy than the male, and he must be no more protective of the heroine fighting on his right side than of the hero on his left. Equal opportunity and equal risk. The only concern is the common good, and the only relationship that tend to take on a life of their own and were formerly thought to have natural roots in attraction based on pleasures of the flesh and of love of one’s own children. Socrates consciously rips asunder the delicate web of relations among human beings woven out of their nature for intimate passions. Without it, the isolation of individuals is inevitable. He makes explicit how equal treatment of women necessitates the removal of meaning from the old kind of intimate passions—whether they were founded on nature or convention—and a consequent loss of the human connections that resulted from them which he replaces with the common good of the city. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

In this light we can discern the outlines of what has been going on recently among us. If conservatives who have been heartened by the latest developments within the woman’s movement, think that they and the movement are on common ground, they are mistaken. Certainly both sides are against adult films. However, the feminists are against it because it is a reminiscence of the old love relationship, which involved differentiated roles for pleasures of the flesh—roles now interpreted as bondage and domination. Adult films demystify that relationship, leaving the merely intimate compassions component of male-female relationships without their erotic, romantic, moral and ideal accompaniments. If impoverished satisfaction, it caters to and encourages the longing men have for women and its unrestrained. That is what feminist anti-pornographers are against—not the debasement of sentiment of the threat to the family. That is why they exempt homosexual adult films from censorship. It is by definition not an accomplice to the domination of females by males and even helps to undermine it. Actually, feminists favor the demystifying role of adult films. It unmakes the true nature of the old relationships. The purpose is not to remystify the worn-out systems but to push on toward the realm of freedom. They are not for a return to the old romances, Brief Encounters, for example, which gave charm to love in the old way. They know that is dead, and they are now wiping up the last desperate, untouched, semicriminal traces of a kind of a desire that no longer has a place in the World. It is one thing, however, to want to prevent women from being ravished and brutalized because modesty and purity should be respected and their weakness protected by responsible males, and quite another to try to protect them from male desire altogether so that they can live as they please. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

Feminism makes use of conservative moralism to further its own ends. This is akin to, and actually part of, the fatal old alliance between traditional conservatives and radicals, which has had such far-reaching effects for more than a century. They had nothing in common but their hatred of capitalism, the conservatives looking back to the revival of throne and altar in the various European nations, and to piety, the radicals looking forward to the universal, homogenous society and to freedom—reactionaries and progressive united against the present. They feed off the inner contradictions of the bourgeoisie. Of course fundamentalists and feminists can collaborate to pass local ordinances banning smut, but the feminist do so to demonstrate their political clout in furthering their campaign against “bourgeois rights,” which are, sad to say, enjoyed by people who want to see dirty movies or buy equipment to act out comically distorted fantasies. It is doubtful whether they fundamentalist gain much from this deal, because it guarantees the victory of a surging moral force that is “antifamily and antilife.” See how they do together on the terminating pregnancy issue! People who watch adult films, on the other hand, are always at least a little ashamed and unwilling to defend it as such. At best, they sound a weak and uncertain trumpet for the sanctity of the Constitution and the First Amendment, of which they hope to be perceived as defenders. They pose no threat in principle to anything. Illness, disease, and accidents erode more than good physical health. They may also ravage a previously healthy sexuality, so that eroticism gives way to impotence that may not be reversible. Obviously, ailments affecting the private organs greatly increase the chances of impotence. Prostate cancer in men and vaginismus in women are examples, but generalized conditions are just as lethal to pleasures of the flesh. Almost half of the impotent North American men over fifty are victims of atherosclerosis, the hardening of artery walls because of fatty-material buildup, which blocks the flow of blood to the arteries supplying the male organ. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

Diabetes, hypothyroidism, low testosterone or high estrogen, dispersion, and anorexia are among scores of aliments that can be inhibiting intimate passions. Obesity is an immensely complicated disorder that can engender so much personal shame in an individual that one effectively represses all sort of protective obesity that shields them from unwanted encounters dealing with pleasures of the flesh. The range of conditions leading to impotence is vast and creates celibates in all walks of life. Ancient Roman males suffered impotence caused from the overingestion of lead from their magnificent aqueduct system. Many found the condition so distressing and comical that it became a recurring them in their literature. In Satyricon, the poet Titus Petronius Arbiter describes how he feigned illness to disguise his impotence, then decided to attack his flaccid male organ, the cause of all his troubles. Self-mockery belies the real impact impotence often has, on both men and women. Roman males, unable to hide their inability to achieve “attention,” bemoaned their fate, sought medical advice, and if that did not work, resorted in desperation to quackery. Some retreated into shamed celibacy. In poetry, there was often a combination of clever, self-deprecating satire and the frustration and impatience of men not yet in total despair. Now, back in the 1980s, when schools began investing heavily in computers, there was much enthusiasm about the apparent advantages of digital documents over paper one. Many educators were convinced that introducing hyperlinks into text displayed on computer screens would be a boon to learning. Hypertext would, they argued, strengthen student’s critical thinking by enabling them to switch easily between different viewpoint. Freed from the lockstep reading demanded by printed pages, readers would make all sorts of new intellectual connections among diverse text. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

The academic enthusiasm for hypertext was further kindled by the belief, in line with the fashionable postmodern theories of the day, that hypertext would overthrow the patriarchal authority of the author and shift power to the reader. It would be a technology of liberation. Hypertext provided a revelation by freeing readers from the stubborn materiality of printed text. By moving away from the constrictions of page-bound technology, it provided another model for the mind’s ability to reorder the elements of experience by changing the links of association or determination between them. However, since college is so reliant of authors and books and taking the material seriously, their needs to be more of a push to fortify the grade school students in the importance of books. Writing is great, but they also need to see how serious reading books is so they know it will help them improve their grades, their writing ability, their spelling and grammar. A lot of students are not prepared for college level English because they never learned the importance of reading. Nonetheless, by the 1990s, the enthusiasm had begun to subside for hypertext. Research was painting a fuller, and very different, picture of the cognitive effects of hypertext. Evaluating links and navigating a path through them, it turned out, involves mentally demanding problem-solving tasks that are extraneous to the acts of reading itself. Deciphering hypertext substantially increases readers’ cognitive load and hence weakens their ability to comprehend and retain what they are reading. A study showed that readers of hypertext often ended up clicking distractedly through pages instead of reading them carefully. Hypertext readers often cannot remember what they have and have not read. Groups that use paper documents also outperform users of hypertext in completing assignments. And that is the key there, people wonder why English is such a challenge, it may be because one is not reading and being exposed to the works of people who can write. One needs and example to follow. Reading is like the training wheels of writing. Let professionals, through their books, teach you how to format your words and sentences so you can excel in school and be prepared for the business World, or just communication in general, as an adult. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

You know, you can not go to work and speak like this, “He was driving fast, and then he went like this and then they were all over here.” You have to be able to say who “he” is, and what “went like this,” means, and explain who or what was “all over here.” Nonetheless, even though the World Wide Web has made hypertext commonplace, indeed ubiquitous, research continues to show that people who read liner text comprehend more, remember more, and learn more than those who read text peppered with links. When hypertext readers are asked to read a book, when compared with traditional book readers, reading the same material, the hypertext readers took longer to read the story, yet in subsequent interviews they also reported more confusion and uncertainty about what they had read. Seventy five percent of them said that they had had difficulty following the text, while only ten percent of the linear-text readers reported such problems. One hypertext reader complained, “The story was jumpy. I do not know if that was caused by the hypertext, but I made choices and all of a sudden it wasn’t flowing properly, it just kind of jumped to a new idea I didn’t really follow.” A second, using a short and more simply written story, produced the same results. Hypertext readers again reported greater confusion following the text, and their comments about the story’s plot and imagery were less detailed and less precise than those of the liner-text readers. With hypertext, the researcher concluded, “the absorbed and personal mode of reading seems to be discouraged.” The reader’s attention “was directed toward the machinery of the hypertext and its functions rather than to the experience offered by the story.” The medium used to present the words obscured the meaning of the words. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

In another experiment, researcher had people sit at computers and review two online articles describing opposing theories of learning. One article laid out an argument that “knowledge is objective”; the other made the case the “knowledge is relative.” Each article was set up in the same way, with similar headings, and each had links to the other article, allowing a reader to jump quickly between the two to compare the theories. The researcher hypothesized that people who use to compare the theories. The researchers hypothesized that people who used the link would gain a richer understanding of the two theories and their differences than would people who read the pages sequentially, completing one before going on to the other. They were wrong. The test subjects who read the pages linearly actually scored considerably higher on a subsequent comprehension test than those work clicked back and forth between the pages. The links got in the way of learning, the researcher concluded. When it comes to the influence of hypertext on comprehension, it was discovered that comprehension declines as the number of links increased. Readers were forced to devote more and more of their attention and brain power to evaluating the links and fewer cognitive resources to devote to understanding what they were reading. There is a strong correlation between the number of links and disorientation or cognitive overload. Reading and comprehension require establishing relationships between concepts, drawing inferences, activating prior knowledge, and synthesizing main ideas. Disorientation or cognitive overload may thus interfere with cognitive activities of reading and comprehension. Although hypertext may not always diminish comprehension, there is very little support for the once-popular theory that hypertext will lead to an increased demands of decision-making and visual processing in hypertext impaired reading performance, particularly when compared to traditional liner presentations. Many features of hypertext results in increased cognitive load and thus may have required working memory capacity that exceeds readers’ capabilities. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Now, there are three who bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. To those who ask, “Three what?” we answer, “Three persons.” Therefore there are but three persons in God. There can only be three persons in God. For it was shown that several person are the several subsisting relations really distinct from each other. However, a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Now, time was when humans lived as did the other terrestrial beings. In those days of humans’ beginnings no vision of goodness, no dream of justice or mercy had as yet been born within the human heart. As once in the physical World, so then in the realm of the spirit—darkness was upon the face of the deep. However, even as the spirit of God hovered over chaos, so it moved through the confused souls of primitive humans. The divine within them stirred. They could not forever remain content with the brutality. Slowly falteringly, they groped toward a better way of life. Inarticulately, they prayed with the Psalmist: “Show me Thy ways, O Lord, teach me Thy paths.” Thus was begun the great pilgrimage, humans’ march from the bestial to the divine. Each people, in its own way, felt the stirrings of God within itself. Each strove to discover the good life, and aspired to live it. The Lord hath made known His salvation; His righteousness hath He revealed in the sight of the nations. It was not given to all people to succeed alike in this quest. Some lost vision. Others followed false gods. Still others were satisfied with too little. For all the idols of the peoples are things of nought; but the Lord made the Heavens. In this universal pilgrimage toward the good life, America led the way. Thou, America, art My servant; I, the Lord, have called thee in righteousness, and set thee for a light of nations. Who has no house now, may the Lord build one a house. Who is alone now, may one not remain so long. Wake, read, write letters, and will in the days and nights one be blessed with joy and love. Now it is time to sit quiet face to face with Thee, and to sing dedication of life in this silent and overflowing leisure. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

Cresleigh Homes

All the best roads lead HOME. 🏠 Our #BrightonStation Residence 3 home does look spacious from the outside, but wait til you step through the door! 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms make this expansive model one of the best for your family as it grows through the years.

There’s even an en suite bedroom on the first floor – perfect for entertaining, or for multi-generational living. The best homes fit your life, not the other way around! 🤗

With Cresleigh, you will enjoy spacious home designs with a large great rooms, and kitchens that inspire the chief inside of you.

#CresleighHomes
#CresleighRanch