Technologies can sometimes help us to either marketize or de-marketize at will. If computer power can, at least in principle, be sold back by customers, why not power in the sense of energy? Today a trickle of excess energy from wind power already flows from the homes of customer and is sold to local utility companies. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, under the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978, electric-power utilities must buy this excess of power from home owners whose wind generators meet certain requirements. While the actual amount of energy flowing may be small, it illustrates again the complexity and reversibility of roles. Take a hypothetical case in which Tracy and Bill Parker, being good environmentalists, but a windmill for their home. The firm selling it to them no doubt regards them as customers or consumers. However, their purchase is actually a capital investment. To the degree that the Parkers generate their own energy and use it, they are energy prosumers. Since they do not pay themselves, money does not change hands, and apart from the purchase of the equipment itself, there is no transaction for economists to track. The value the Parkes create is part of the hidden economy. If, however, they sell the output (or part of it) to the local power company, they are not only prosumers but also energy producers. And they trigger a monetary transaction, which then gets tracked and added to the GDP statistics. Now imagine advanced technologies of the future in the hands of millions of families who use them both to prosume and to produce. What might make that happen? Cheaper, more powerful solar units could. However, if many energy experts are correct, the next great advance will be excess energy flowing back to the utilities from cars and homes powered by fuel-cell technology. The big auto firms have already invested two billion dollars in fuel-cell research and development.

Hydrogen is today enjoying unprecedented momentum. The World should not miss this unique chance to make hydrogen an important part of our clean and secure energy future. Forecasts suggest the global hydrogen fuel cell vehicle market could grown more than 75 percent in 2021 to 2026, approaching $31 billion in value. Hydrogen and energy have a long-shared history—powering the first internal combustion engines over 200 years ago to becoming an integral part of modern refining industry. It is light, storable, energy-dense, and produces no direct emissions of pollutants or greenhouses gases. However, for hydrogen to make a significant contribution to clean energy transitions, it needs to be adopted in sectors where it is almost completely absent, such as transport, buildings and power generation. Supplying hydrogen to industrial users is now a major business around the World. Demand for hydrogen, which has grown more than threefold since 1975, continues to rise—almost entirely supplied from fossil fuels, with 6 percent of global natural gas and 2 percent of global coal going to hydrogen production. The number of countries with polices that directly support investment in hydrogen technologies is increasing, along with the number of sectors they target. There are around 50 targets, mandates and policy incentives in place today that direct support hydrogen, with the majority focused on transport. Hydrogen can be extracted from fossil fuels and biomass, from water, or from a mix of both. Natural gas is currently the primary source of hydrogen production, accounting for around three quarters of the annual global dedicated hydrogen production of around 70 million tonnes. This accounts for about 6 percent of global natural gas use. Gas is followed by coal, due to its dominant role in China, and a small fraction is produced from the use of oil and electricity.

Hydrogen use today is dominated by industry, namely: oil refining, ammonia production and steel production. Virtually all of this hydrogen is supplied using fossil fuels, so there is significant potential for emissions reductions from clean hydrogen. The production costs of hydrogen from natural gas is influenced by a range of technical and economic factors, with gas prices and capital expenditures being the two most import. Fuel costs are the largest cost component, accounting for between 45 percent and 75 percent of production costs. While less than 0.1 percent of global dedicated hydrogen production today comes from water electrolysis, with declining costs for renewable electricity, in particular from solar PV and wind, there is growing interest in electrolytic hydrogen. The main advantage of hydrogen cars is that they produce no emissions at the tailpipe—just water, and you do not have to recharge a battery everyday to use the car, so they are more sustainable than electric cars. The competitiveness of hydrogen fuel cell cars depends on fuel cell costs and refueling stations while for trucks the priority is to reduce the delivered price of hydrogen. Shipping and aviation have limited low-carbon fuel options available and represent an opportunity for hydrogen-based fuels. In buildings, hydrogen could be blended into existing natural gas networks, with the highest potential in multifamily and commercial buildings, particularly in dense cities while longer-term prospects could include the direct use of hydrogen in hydrogen boilers or fuel cells. In power generation, hydrogen is one of the leading options for storing renewable energy, and hydrogen and ammonia can be used in gas turbines to increase power system flexibility. Ammonia could also be used in coal-fire power plants to reduce emissions. Therefore the time is right to tap into hydrogen’s potential to play a key role in a clean, secure and affordable energy future.

Hydrogen can help tackle various critical energy challenges. It offers ways to decarbonize a range of sectors—including long-haul transport, chemicals, and iron and steel—where it is proving difficult to meaningfully reduce emissions. It can also help improve air quality and strengthen energy security. Energy visionaries (in the positive sense) Amory and Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute have long pictured a “soft-energy” economy. According to Amory Lovins, “One you put a fuel cell in an ultralight car, then you have a 20-25 kilowatt power station on wheels, which is driven 4 percent of the time and parked 96 percent of the time. So why not lease those fuel cell cars to people who work in buildings?” In this scenario, your car, while parked, is plugged in to the building. The car generates electricity, which you sell back to the grid at a time of peak demand. Eventually, the conversion from gas-guzzling heavy cars to fuel-cell-driven lightweight cars, could Lovins says, add up to “five to six times” the generating capacity of the national grid. Whatever form the specifics might take, they open at least the possibility of a highly decentralized energy system—with homes, factories, offices and other buildings networked together and exchanging energy, with less energy coming from huge, highly polluting centralized power plants. The interactions between visible and hidden parts of the wealth system are multiplying and growing more complex. And some are even more far-reaching than the Lovinses’ scenario suggests. What follows may sound ridiculous, and it is…today. However, if, as prosumers, we can already make our own mix-and-match music and movies, greeting cards, digital photos and numerous other things, and if we can conceive of both producing and prosuming our own energy, what stop there?

That takes us to the scenario conjured up not merely by Hollywood science-fiction writers but by executives of 3D Systems of Valencia, California, whose founder, Charles Hull, invented something called stereolithography in 1984. It goes by various names, from rapid prototyping and 3D printing to solid imaging, desktop manufacturing, holoforming, hyperduplication and fabbing. The field is still embryonic and has not settled on its own jargon. However, that has not stopped its early innovation from being put to practical use. Fabbers are based on the assumption that manufacturing largely consists of twisting or bending things, joining things or cutting, slicing, sanding or otherwise separating pieces of material from one another. Users make a three-dimensional digital model of the desired product, then program tools to ass, subtract or join material, rather like a printer adding ink or skipping a spot. When engineers for Penske Racing needed prototype engine parts for cars to be driven by Ryan Newman and Rusty Wallace in the Winston Cup Series, they turned to Hull’s company to make them quickly—faster than possible by traditional model-markers. These technologies have been used elsewhere to prototype everything from zippers to lightbulbs and heart valves, drainpipes to dinnerware and dentures. They have been employed by architects, sculptors, Hollywood prop markers, dental labs and an array of the World’s biggest companies—including Airbus and Boeing, Mattel and Motorola, Tupperware and Texas Instruments. In fact, virtually every home in American now contains products prototyped by stereolithographic machines. However, prototyping is only was only a first step. If inkjet printers can spray ink on predesignated points on paper, why not spray other substances according to computer-assisted design programs? And do it in three dimensions (3D)? Why not build a desired shape by using a tiny laser to shave away layer after layer of unwanted material? Why not join components by squirting a bonding agent on their joints?

Well, from COVID-19 test kit swabs to more affordable, accessible prosthetic limbs, several 3D printing innovations have hit the medical industry this year. Having started out as gimmicky, clunky, and expensive technology that allowed people to print random items in their home, 3D printing—or “additive manufacturing”—is now rapidly becoming one of the most talked about production innovations across the medical sector—as well as a number of other industries. These technologies have allowed human capital to produce smaller, less expensive, more versatile models fed from cartridges holding various powders or chemicals instead of ink. That has made it possible for anyone to download instructions from the Net and turn on what amounts to a “desktop factory.” Your children can now print their own toys. Baby prosumers of the here and now. 3D printing capabilities has assisted desktop manufacturing prototyping in the deployment of making toys, clothing, furniture, sports equipment, consumer electronics, and one day it will even be able to manufacture automobiles. Users of this fabrication technology will someday make almost any product you can imagine (and maybe some you cannot imagine. 3D printing can make patient-specific prosthetic limbs and orthopaedic implants, and, in an effort to plug gas in traditional supply chains, face masks, testing kit swabs and ventilator components have all been 3D printed throughout the COVID-19 crisis. And, even with many use cases already established at the beginning of 2020, researchers the World over have not stood still in their efforts to explore every potential benefit that additive manufacturing could hold in the medtech arena. In January of 202, researchers from the University of Sheffield in the UK announced they had manufactured 3D-printed parts capable of killing common bacteria.

This was achieved by adding a silver-based antibacterial compound at the manufacturing stage—and the research team stated it could help save the lives of vulnerable patients in hospitals and care homes by preventing the spread of infections like MRSA. Their research showed the compound can be successfully incorporated into existing 3D printing materials without any negative influence on processability or part strength, and under the right conditions, the resultant parts demonstrate antibacterial properties without being toxic to human cells. This novel process has the potential to used in the development of medica device products—as well as general parts for hospitals, door handles, children’s toys, dentures, and mobile phones. In June, mechanical engineers and computer scientists at the University of Minnesota made a discovery that allowed sensors to be 3D-printed directly on to moving human organs. Thanks to motion capture technologies similar to the ones used to create special effects in many modern movies, the team was able to print electronic, hydrogel-based sensors on organs like lungs that are constantly expanding. The new 3D printing technique could have applications in diagnosing and monitoring the lungs of patients with COVID-19, and may also be used to print sensors directly on a pumping heart in the future. If you could download instructions for making a toaster, a toaster that prints pictures on toast as easily as you now download music files, what would you do? The prince of your own private tabletop factory could soon drop to one thousand dollars. If record companies had a fit over Napster, wait until manufacturers find out you can download Roxlex.fab, Barbie.fab or BMW.fab and make then yourself. Long before these fabbers turn up in millions of homes, we can expect to see the same process of dispersal by which printing and developing film moved from centralized Kodak or Fuji film-processing factories to street-corner one-hour photo shops and, ultimately, by way of the digital camera, into the hands of the prosumer. An intermediate stage before the full-fledged phase of fabrication is already happening in many homes today. Soon, your neighborhoods will be workshops where do-it-yourselfers go to use machines they way they now go to Kinko’s for copying.

This step-by-step developmental process could make a giant nonlinear jump, however, by its convergence with advances in nanotechnology—the manipulation of matter at a molecular scale, so tiny it is measured in billionths of a meter. If we learn to do this well, the possibilities point to self-assembling products with endless potential applications. Everything from self-repairing teeth and self-cleaning dishes to computers a thousand times faster, more energy-efficient and less expensive than those based on silicone are possible. In fact, things you never even thought of like clothes that automatically adjust their size, texture, fit and fashion will be possible. Along with solar cells so tiny they can be painted onto your Cresleigh Homes or embedded in pavement; medical microrobots small enough to “roto-root” arteries and eliminate dangerous plaque; and materials with trillions of submicroscopic motors, computers, fibers and struts built into them. They day may come when we perform nonsurgical liposuction and reshape our bodies with nanotools. Intecommunicating nano-sized sensors could provide military intelligence. Nanotech could also reduce manufacturing waste, generate energy and give us materials lighter than balsa but stronger than steel. However, like nuclear energy and genetic engineering, nanotechnology has also raised serious safety concerns, especially when the word self-replication is added to it. This is not the place to discuss these issues here, but you see the implications of human life being extended well passed 100 years old, and replacement of organs, in many cases, will become unnecessary. With or without nanotechnology, we face the possibility of a dramatically changed future economy, one that is far more decentralized, with millions of file swapping people both prosuming goods for themselves and also producing goods for others.

It suggests millions of small businesses built on advanced tools for custom production and presumption—and a vast growth of high-tech artisans of the kind seen today in northern Italy. Of course, all this remains speculative. Trends are moving in this direction, but trends get derailed, twisted, reversed or neutralized by countertrends. What is nevertheless clear is that we are developing ever more dense and complicated interactions between the money and the non-money economy present in all three of the World’s dominant wealth systems—those based on peasant agriculture, industrial mass production and advanced knowledge. The history of the future will surprise us. As more and more of the World’s less affluent are drawn into the money system, we are likely to see a relative decline in First Wave, poverty-based prosuming. However, we will also experience a relative increase in Third Wave, high-tech prosuming based on the diffusion of ever more powerful and versatile new tools into the hands of ordinary individuals in the most advanced economies. The failure of most economists as yet to recognize this historic shift subverts their best efforts to understand revolutionary wealth and how it will affect us and our children. Have you ever wondered how we turn into our images? More than any other single effect, television places images in our brains. It is a melancholy fact that most of us give little importance to this implantation, perhaps because we have lost touch with our own image-creating abilities, how we use them and the critical functions they serve in our lives. Not being in touch, we do not grasp the significance of other people’s images replacing or gaining equality with our own. And yet there are no more terrifying facts about television than that it intervenes between humans and our own images of the concrete World outside our minds.

What makes these matters most serious is that human beings have not yet been equipped by evolution to distinguish in our minds between natural images and those which are artificially created and implanted. Neither are we equipped to defend ourselves against the implantation. Until the invention of moving-image media, there was never a need to make any distinction or defense. And so the final effect, as we will see, is that the two kinds of image—artificial and natural—mere in the mind and we are driven into a nether World of confusion. Like the Solaris astronauts, we cannot differentiate between the present and the past, the concrete and the imaginary. Like the schizophrenic, we cannot tell which image is the product of our own minds, which is representative of the real World, and which has been put inside us by a machine. Humans are image factories—I have heard people day they cannot visualize; they cannot make pictures in their heads. It is true that some people do it more easily than others, but everyone does it. If you believe yourself to be among those who cannot, please simply bring your mother to mind or your best friend. Have you done that? Can you see them in your head? It is quite easy. If I ask you to recall your childhood bedroom, you can probably do that as well. Many people can find enormous detail in that image. If you have managed to make a picture in your heard of any of these, it is definite proof that you can do it and that the phenomenon exists. There are ten categories of natural human imagery: Memory. You can remember people’s faces. You can visualize the place you work in. Eidetic images. (Photographic memory.) You can remember the details of your room. You have “photographed” them. Imagination. You can make up images. You can also create images in your own mind.

Daydreams or fantasy. A kind of imagination that occurs while you are doing other things. You are working in your office, but your mind is creating images of what? The time you hit a home run? A slice of Dutch apple pie? A gourmet hotdog at the Oakland A’s game? The new BMW you want to buy? These are pictures. Hypagogic images. These are images that come in that half-awake space just before sleep. Hypnopomic images. The images that come in that half-awake space just before you are fully awake. Dreams. You may not remember them, but virtually everyone has them. They are pictures. Hallucinations/visions. An image that takes place inside the head but that is confused with something that is taking place outside. Usually associated with psychosis. Under stress conditions everyone has them. Drugs can cause them; meditation can produce them; so can sleep deprivation and high fever. Truck drivers complain of them long hours on the freeway. After-image. The movie is over, but the image remains in the head. Recurrent image. The experience is over—you are home from work—but the face of the boss looms in your mind. You cannot clear it out. This list in incomplete and one category overlaps another. However, there is a wide variety of natural imagery that exists and that everyone experiences some of it. Humans are veritable image factories. We are constantly producing images ourselves and we are absorbing and storing images from the World outside ourselves. True Love Waits is another image. It is the most celebrated and identifiable organization in the modern chastity movement, but many others urge the same message. Together, they have contributed to the persistent presence of chastity, albeit in tiny dollops, in today’s youth culture. And virginity, rare through it remains, is no longer a shameful burden. The chastity movement has at the very least redeemed it as a socially acceptable human quality.

Several cultural icons have actually glamorized celibacy or at least coaxed it out of the closet. Well before True Love Waits surfaced, Juliana Hatfield, a rock singer popular with teenagers and young adults, informed Interview magazine that she was a virgin. MTV, you know that station that used to be known for playing music videos, well their veejay Kennedy, the ultra geek who made geek chic, made the same defiant announcement. In 1994, singer Morrissey claimed to be an asexual secondary virgin who last had pleasures of the flesh years ago. “Sex is never actually in my life,” he said. “Therefore I have no sexuality.” And that makes total sense. If one is not involved in pleasures of the flesh, what does their sexuality matter? They are not having sex and decided it is not something they want to do at the time and this has been a long-established pattern. And when the fake news media lied about Aaliyah’s marriage to R.Kelly, she consoled in her pastor that she was still pure. And in 1999, the flamboyant, age-defying, and voluptuous movie start Cher revealed the startling news that ever since her last intimate relationship ended years earlier, she had been celibate. Decades earlier, she had named her only child Chastity. Nonetheless, she was finding her own experience of chastity a “strange” one due entirely to a dearth of suitable lovers. The men she met were either unappealing or unappealing to be marginalized as “Mr. Cher.” The implication was that until she was offered steady affection and commitment, Cher would remain abstinent. Mrs. Sarah Winchester, who built the Winchester Mystery House was also celibate after the death of her new born daughter and husband. Chastity also has its small- and large-screen champions. Nubile young actress Cassidy Rae, star of the Models, Inc. assured fans that despite her on-screen defloration, she was still, at age eighteen, a virgin. “I want to stay as pure as I can for my [future] husband,” she said.

Actress Tori Spelling’s Beverly Hills 90210 character, Donna Martin, was for several breathless television seasons one of the few virgins left on Rodeo Drive until she, too, joined the mainstream when she did the deed in 1997. In the movie Clueless, actress Alicia Silverstone as Cher was not only the coolest gal on campus, she was also a virgin saving herself for teen heartthrob Luke Perry. Probably the most impressive celibate model for males is A.C. Green, a powerful (six-foot-nine-inch, 225-pound) forward with the National Basket-ball Association’s Phoenix Suns. At thirty-three, Green may be America’s most enduring famous virgin, and as founder of Athletes for Abstinence perhaps its most vocal. “I am still a virgin,” Green said in 1997. “I abstain as an adult for the same reasons I did as a teen—the principle does not change, or the feeling of self-respect I get. From a sheer numbers standpoint, [abstaining] can be a lonely cause—but that does not mean it is not right.” The most toweringly important model for most males and many females is Los Angeles Lakers superstar Magic Johnson. Johnson’s too-late damnation of the rampant promiscuity that led to his HIV infection has seriously sullied the hitherto dazzling image of the World of carefree sexual gratification. Johnson also spelled out the sad lesson his seropositivity has taught him: “The only safe sex is no sex.” This tiny cast of brave virgins (born and reborn) and one doomed libertine, however, plays against the relentless eroticism of popular music, television, and cinema; they are oases of purity in society’s steamy sexual landscape. For this reason, they loom large in the lonely sights of chastity advocates, particularly professional ones. The sexual revolution’s legacy of skyrocketing teenage pregnancies, staggeringly high rates of abortion and illegitimate births, and raging STDs and STIs, including the AIDS, has also shocked and alarmed people more concerned about the disturbing social consequences than the religion implication.

Now, considering how sex tends to affect hormones, people are always trying to “play” someone else, and the fact that there are deadly diseases and viruses out there, one can perhaps understand why youth would say, “forget it, I will be celibate.” Some people do not want to put themselves at risk, nor be bothered with all the drama of a relationship, and later, maybe this celibacy becomes for religious reason or may even be enforced. Unlike the Moral Majority, which spawned True Love Waits, these men and women often tolerate or support premarital sex, but between consenting adults, not youth. For them, abstinence is a time-related issues, essential for young people, irrelevant or option in maturity. This very different focus has produced a drive for youth chastity with a wide range of strategies: educational, punitive, exhortatory. Though these are eerily comparable to the tactics employed in the perpetually losing war on drugs, and about as effective, the battle continues because the stakes are so high. Few are willing to surrender sex; yet, because it is such a tyrant, it must be conquered completely if the Overself is to rule. When this bipolar nature of pleasures of the flesh is understood, when it is seen that the opposite pole is always contained in every being, the question arises whether marriage is needed any longer to achieve the balance of these two poles. The answer must be that so long as the need is felt, so long is the pleasures of the flesh force still not sublimated and the development of the other pole within oneself still incomplete. Marriage will continue to be indicated until this completion is attained. When humans are asked to deny totally and permanently their sex instinct, they re asked too much. The force of human nature would overtake them in the end. An ideal which is unrealizable is useless as a working ideal, however lofty it seems as a theoretical one.

If the seed is expanded then nerve energy is lost, the mind is debilitated and its power of upward contemplative flight reduced. However, this does not necessarily lead to the consequence of a probation against marriage or to a refusal of its consummation. It leads to a discipline of marriage and to a change in its consummation. If philosophy rejects the ascetic view in this matter, it also rejects the common view and the common practice. More cannot be written in public print but let it suffice that both the finest relationship between the genders and the highest purity in ethics of pleasures of the flesh are attained only among the philosophical adepts. Theirs is not only a moral achievement but a magical one. The retention of the vital force is a practice in such circles as Christianity, Indian yoga, Chinese Taoism, and Japanese religions. The act of reproducing the human body can be made a sacred one or left an animal one. The monastic celibates are not the only persons who lived what they call a “pure” life. Any married couple can do the same, provided they limit their physical relations to reproductive productive purposes alone and even then limit the number of their children to what reason and intuition direct. This means that they will refuse to dissipate the generative energies for mere pleasure, but instead will deliberately seek to transmute them. Thus marriage is redeemed by the few who can raise to this lofty ideal as it is degraded by the many who insist on keeping to their kinship with the animals. If the seminal secretions of the sexual glands are conserved and if the sexual desires are mentally sublimated, the man will become self-possessed in speech and action. He will experience a joyous feeling of mastery over the animal in him that weaklings never know and cannot understand. The soul-mate is really the Self within. One will find one’s true soul-mate when one finds one’s inner Self, when one yields oneself completely and lovingly up to it.

Some major contenders in the chaste-youth campaign are “tough love” enforcement of statutory rape and abortion laws, and enactment of laws against financially delinquent fathers, including teenagers. The fundamentalist-Christian True Love Waits movement represents the most significant exhortatory moral approach. So does the cheerier Born-Again Virgins of America—BAVAM!—which targets the already fallen. Last and perhaps most enduring are the sex-education programs that optimistically rely on the power of well-presented and accurate information to persuade young people that self-respecting, self-selected, disease-free sexual virtue is its own reward. Legislative pressure—Thou Shalt Not Fornicate with Underage Children, Thou Shalt Not Easily Abort Unwanted Mistakes, Thou Shalt Not Evade Parental Financial Obligations—attaches consequences to actions, and the assumption is that most people will avoid incurring these consequences. Chastity as a model is inferred rather than cited as the obvious way to conform to the law. Safe sex, which solves every problem except illicit intercourse, is a close second. However, a major flaw of such attempts t bludgeon people into behaving is that monitoring all or even most violations is too monumental an operation to succeed. Most people soon understand that only the unlucky are caught and punished, and motivation to abide by these laws is as best halfhearted. Chastity is the realm of miracle to that of personal piety and its most personal expression. To many people, it says, “God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, when He takes me. For many, chastity means being able to go after death into Heaven. They know that even if they have made mistakes, “God will guide me with His counsel, and afterwards He will take me up to glory.”

The interesting response to the nature-society tension, much more fertile than the return to, or nostalgia for, nature, can be summed up by the word “culture. It seems to mean something high, profound, respectable—a thing before which we bow. It joins nature as a standard for the judgment of men and their deeds but has even greater dignity. It is almost never used pejoratively, as are “society,” “state,” “nation” or even “civilization,” terms for which culture is gradually substituted, or whose legitimacy is underwritten by culture. Culture is the unity of man’s brutish nature and all the arts and sciences he acquired in his movement from the state of nature to civil society. Culture restores the lost wholeness of first man on a higher level, where his faculties can be fully developed without contradiction between the desires of nature and the moral imperatives of his social live. “Culture” in the modern sense was first used by Immanuel Kant, who was thinking of Rousseau when he employed it, particularly about what Rousseau said of the bourgeois. The bourgeois is selfish, but without the purity and simplicity of natural selfishness. He makes contracts hoping to get the better of those with whom he contracts. His faithfulness to others and his obedience to law are founded on expectation of gain: “Honesty is the best policy.” Thus he corrupts morality, the essence of which is to exist for its own sake The bourgeois satisfies neither extreme, nature or morality. If it asks for what nature cannot give, the moral demand is merely an abstract ideal. Brutish selfishness would be preferable to sham morality. The progress of culture provides the link between inclination and duty. Kant uses the education of sexual desire as an example. Naturally man has the desire to have pleasures of the flesh and hence to procreate. However, he has no desire to care for his children or educate them, even though the growth of their faculties requires prolonged maintenance and training. So the family is necessary.

However natural desire does not point to the family. Desire is promiscuous and inclines man toward freedom. So desire is repressed. Man is commanded to abandon his desire. He is punished for it. Myths are created that haunt him, make him feel guilty and persuade him that he is sinful because of his natural desires. Marriage constrains both parties, and faithless deeds as well as desires habitually accompany it. In spite of all of society’s machinery, untamed desire is always there. It is natural. It can be pushed down, but never completely, and its always has its revenge in one way or another. A man in this condition can never be happy. However, a man who is deeply in love with a woman both desires and, for the moment at least, really cares for another. If this latter condition can be made permanent, desire and morality practically coincide. The free choice of marriage and the capacity to stick to it, not merely outwardly but also inwardly, is proof of culture, of desire informed by civility. It is also the proof of human freedom, of the overcoming nature for the sake of morality, without making humans unhappy. The exclusive preference for one person whose attraction is founded on ideas of beauty and virtue unknow to natural man makes pleasures of the flesh sublime or sublimates it. This is love, and love seeks expression in poetry and music. Thus sublimated, desire for pleasures of the flesh culminates in the art. The children who are love’s products make reflection about education necessary. And the family, its rights and its duties, its legal basis and its protection, finally connect what was once an isolated individual, concerned only with oneself, to politics.

Love, family and politics, which previously divided man and trapped him, can now be ordered in such ways as to fulfill and enhance natural desire and can therefore be unambiguously affirmed by the will. One is one’s own master again, but social or related to other humans without being alienated by them. He is neither promiscuous nor repressed, because his passion for pleasures of the flesh is fully expressed and satisfied. Both the World of nature and that of society are fulfilled. His intellectual acquisitions are fulfilled. His intellectual acquisitions re not just extrinsic adornments but harmoniously serve and enrich his life. Such is the ideal of culture so far as matters dealing with pleasures of the flesh are concerned. Something of the kind must occur in all the aspects of man’s life in order to produce a personality, the fully cultured human being. This Rousseauan-Kantian vision is in essential agreement with the Enlightenment view of what is natural in man. However, for the first time within philosophy, something other and higher than nature is found in man. It should be noted that pleasures of the flesh is a theme hardly mentioned in thought underlying the American Founding. There it is all preservation, not procreation, because fear is more powerful than love, and men prefer their lives to their pleasures. This subordination or taming of the pleasures of the flesh and everything connected with it made it easier for society to satisfy nature’s most powerful demands. The rehabilitation of pleasures of the flesh made society’s task more difficult and placed different demands on it. The primacy given to the pleasures of the flesh instinct in later modern thought as opposed to the preservative instinct among the early moderns accounts for much of the drama of our intellectual life, and for the varying expectations from social life. We are back to our economist and psychiatrist.

Cresleigh Homes

Another bedroom?! 🤔 Nope, it’s the pantry! Never run out of room for ANY of your favorites – here we come with 15 boxes of Frosted Flakes…just kidding!

However, at approximately 2,300 square feet, the #Havenwood Residence 1 is astoundingly spacious. It is larger than many two story homes in the Valley. Check out interactive floor plans on our website!

This home is Victorian inspired, with its front and rear porch, generous use of windows. It offers a view from every direction. The open concept living area flows into the included covered patio, allowing for indoor/outdoor living.

Special features like a built-in wood cabinet and the living room and a bookcase in the study, and a large island in the kitchen with an attached breakfast room and walk-in pantry make the gathering and working ares complete.

Note the spacious bedrooms–master with a soaker tub and show. A two-car attached garage is included with Residence 1.

#CresleighHomes