Knowledge has always been a factor in the creation of wealth. However, in no previous wealth system has the knowledge sector played so dominant a role. Today we are seeing an explosive growth in the amount, variety and complexity of knowledge needed to design, produce and deliver value in every market. As a result, the market for data, information and knowledge is itself growing exponentially. Consumers devour endless amounts of information, misinformation and disinformation on every conceivable subject, from business and finance to news and entertainment, health and religion, pleasures of the flesh and sports. Companies burn through nonstop flows of data about their customers, competitors and suppliers. Scientists and researchers collect findings and formulas from all over the World. Knowledge has always been hard to define, but as we use it here, it includes not just printed texts or computer data but whispered secrets, visual images, stock tips and other intangibles. No one today knows precisely how large the knowledge sector is, and controversy rages over what to include or exclude. However, never before has so much money passed from hand to hand in exchange for knowledge, its component data and information—or for obsoledge. The knowledge market, however, is not merely expanding. It is simultaneously morphing, owing once more to changes at the deep-fundamental level of the wealth system. Never has the collection, organization and dissemination of everything from the rawest of data to the most abstract and sophisticated knowledge moved through society and the marketplace at such click speeds. This parallels and even exceeds the accelerative processes we see in every sector of the economy. Time is compressed to nanoseconds. Simultaneously, dissemination crosses all boundaries, expanding the spatial reach of knowledge in all its forms. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Even more important are changes in our knowledge about knowledge and in the way know is organized, with long-standing disciplinary divisions going up in flames. In earlier wealth systems, access to economically valuable knowledge was severely limited. Today much of it flashes nonstop across hundreds of millions of screens and monitors in offices, kitchens and dorm rooms from Manhattan to Mumbai.  In agrarian societies for thousands of years, peasants needed to know about planting a patch of land, predicting bad weather, storing harvested crops. This knowledge was local, spread by word of mouth and basically unchanging. In industrial economies, workers and managers alike required non-local knowledge from more sources about more things. However, economically valuable knowledge—about, say, advances in metallurgy—needed relatively infrequent updating. Today, by contrast, much knowledge becomes obsoledge almost before it is delivered. The range of subject matter is constantly broadening. The sources are multiplying. And they may originate in any part of the World. What we are seeing, then, are self-reinforcing, interacting changes that transform the relationships among not products but whole market sectors. Yet even the cumulative impact of all of these is dwarfed in long-term significance by the emergence of an entirely new, previously impossible marketplace. Virtually every traditional market sector—whether for land, labour, capital, things, services, experiences, or knowledge—now has a virtual twin. In effect, the great, global cybermarket adds a second layer on top of every conventional marketplace. Nothing like this has ever happened before. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

At the turn of the last century, the dot-com collapse briefly made e-commerce a dirty word among investors as headlines proclaimed the death of online business: DOT-COMS FLAME OUT…THE PARTY’S OVER…DOT.COM DISASTER…BOOM TO BUST IN SECONDS FLAT…THE CRAZE COLLAPSES…THE END OF INTERNET TIME. However, as with the Idaho baby revived an hour after being pronounced dead, eager naysayers buried e-commerce too soon. In 2003, consumers around the World were buying some $250 billion worth of products through e-markets that did not, and could not, exist even twenty years ago—something like $40 worth a year for every person on the planet. In 2021, retail e-commerce sales amounted to approximately $4.9 trillion U.S.A. dollars Worldwide. This figure is forecast to grow by 50 percent over the next four years, reaching about $7.4 trillion dollars by 2025.  In 2021, the reported total value of retail trade e-commerce sales in the United States of America amounted to $870 billion dollars. Further, they offer no clue to the real size, power and potential of online market or exchanges for direct business-to-business transactions, as e-commerce sales may be even high than reported because the Commerce Department number does not necessarily include these other services. However, the number for all retail sales in the United States of America is drastically larger at an annual total of $6.6 trillion dollars. Thirteen airlines, ranging from All Nippon and KLM Royal Dutch to Lufthansa, Air New Zealand and Northwest, created Aeroxchange, the virtual equivalent of a medieval fair, to display their wares and make deals. Today’s thirty-three members buy parts from four hundred online vendors in thirty counties with an annual revenue of $ 8 million. Similar electronic exchanges now exist for many industries, including automotive, utilities, chemicals, defense, health care, restaurants, all kinds of repair services and spare parts. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

This global move to a knowledge-based wealth system should not be measured merely in terms of stock-market prices and the diffusion of technology. It is much more profound, and threatens capitalism as it has, until now, been described. As the Third Wave, knowledge-intensive wealth system spreads to Asia and other parts of the World, they, too, will see revolutionary changes in their property bases, capital formation, markets and—as we will see next—in money itself. The People’s Bank of China is building a yuan reserve with five other nations, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Chile, with each contributing 15 billion yuan, about $2.2 billion, to the Renminbi Liquidity Arrangement, China’s central bank said in a statement Saturday. “When in need of liquidity, participating central banks would not only be able to draw down on their contributions, but would also gain access to additional funding through a collateralized liquidity window,” the bank said. According to the report, the funds will be stored with the Bank for International Settlements. Russian and China have been attempting to develop a new reserve currency with other BRICS countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin explained last week. The basket of currencies would present a United States of America-dominated International Monetary Fund alternative and include contributions from Brazil, Russian, India, China, and South Africa. “The matter of creating the international reserve currency based on the basket of currencies of our countries is under review,” Putin explained to the BRICS Business Forum on 22 June 2022. He went on to say, “We are ready to openly work with all fair partners.” Meanwhile, China’s foreign-exchange reserves—the World’s largest—grew last month for the first time in 2022, state data showed. The nation’s reserves rose by $80.6 billion to reach #.313 trillion. At the same time, the United States of America’s dollar has reached a 20-year high in recent weeks. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

In March, reports emerged of a Saudi oil deal priced in yuan. An economist told us that a deal done without dollars could signal unease in relaying too heavily on the USA’s currency. “While any deal would be symbolic, the Chinese are not alone in the search for a nondollar reserve currency,” Aleksandar Tomic previously explained. “Other countries’ need for dollars exposed them to the UAS financial sector, and consequently gives the United States of American political leverage.” Not long ago it was announced that the Smithsonian Institution of Washington, D.C., one of the most prestigious museums in the World, was considering the purchase of a small diner in New Jersey. It was the plan of the Smithsonian to move this little restaurant to Washington, make it part of the museum, perhaps even operate it, to illustrate the synthetic materials used during a certain period in American life. The plan was never carried out. For many Americas the roadside diners exercised a nostalgic fascination. Many a 1930s Hollywood scene took place in a diner. Hemingway’s famous story “The Killers” is set in a diner. So, quite beyond illustrating the uses of vinyl and Formica, there was a certain logic to the Smithsonian’s surprising idea. However, if the Smithsonian ever wishes to show what American meant to the outside World in the 1950s, the dead center of the 20^th century, it should buy and relocate not a diner but a supermarket. Pushing a car down a brightly lit supermarket aisle was a weekly ritual for a majority of American families. The supermarket with its glistening, packed shelves became a symbol of plenty in a hungry World. It was a marvel of American business and was soon emulated the World over. Today the supermarket is still there, but, largely unnoticed by the public, it has become a battlefield in the information wars—one of many raging throughout the business World today. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

From one end of the United States of America to the other, a multibillion-dollar tug-of-war today pits giant manufacturers like Nabisco, Revlon, Procter & Gamble, General Foods, and Gillette, once at the top of the industrial heap, against the lowly retail stores that put their products into the customer’s shopping bag. Fought at the checkout counter, this battle gives a glimpse of things to come in the super-symbolic economy. In the early days of the supermarket the big food processors and manufacturers would send their thousands of salespeople across the country to call on these stores and push their various lines of food, cosmetics, soft drinks, cleaning supplies, and the like. Every day, thousands of negotiations occurred. In this day-to-day dickering, sellers had the edge. They carried with them the clout of their giant firms, which even the largest supermarket chains could not match. Each of these megafirms was a commanding presence in its chosen markets. The Gillette Company, for instance, until the late 1970s sold six out of every ten razor blades used in the United State of America. When the French firm Bic, the World’s largest maker of ballpoint pens and disposable cigarette lighters, challenged Gillette on its home turf with a line of disposable razor blades, Gillette fought back and wound up with 40 to 50 percent of the U.S.A disposable market. Bic was left with under 10 percent. Gillette operated outside its own country too. Today, Gillette has company locations in forty-six countries and manufacturing plants in twenty-seven, spread across the globe from Germany and France to the Philippines. When a Gillette salesperson came to call, the supermarket listed hard—or else. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

From the 1950s into the 1980s, the balance of power, with the giant manufacturers at the top and the wholesalers and retailers at the bottom, remained essentially unchanged. One of the reasons for manufacturer-power was control of information. At the peak of this dominance, these manufacturers were among the heaviest mass advertisers in America. This gave them effective command of the information reaching the consumer. Gillette was particularly astute. It spent heavily to advertise razor blades or shaving cream on TV broadcasts of baseball’s World Series. It plugged its perfumes on the televised Miss America Pageant. Gillette typically ran six “marketing cycles” in the course of a year, each with a big backup ad campaign. This was called “pull-through” marketing—designed to “pull” customers into the store aisles and wipe the shelves clean in no time. These campaigns were so effective, supermarkets could hardly afford not to carry the Gillette products. In turn, success at the cash register meant that Gillette, like the other big firms, could order its own supplies in bulk, at reduced prices. In this way, by coordinating production and distribution with the mass media, manufacturers by and large came to dominate al the other players in the production cycle—farmers and raw material suppliers as well as retailers. In fact, the Gillette man (rarely a woman) could often dictate to the store how many blades it would buy, what types, how they would be displayed, when they would be delivered, and, not infrequently, what the price would be. This was economic power in actions, and it could not have existed without the pivotal control of information. It was Gillette, after all, not the retailer, who touted the advantages of Foamy or Gel shaving cream on television, or showed stubble-faced athletes using Gillette blades to get a clean shave. What the World knew about these products it learned from Gillette. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Moreover, if Gillette controlled the information going to the consumer, it also collected information from the consumer. At every stage, Gillette simply knew more than any of its retailers about how, when, and to whom its products would sell. Gillette knew when its advertising would appear on television, when new products were to be launched, what price promotions it would offer, and it was able to control the release of all this information. In short, Gillette and the other mass manufacturers stood between the retailer and the customer, feeding information under their exclusive control, to both. This control played a critical, though largely overlooked, role in maintaining the traditional dominance of the manufacturer vis-à-vis the store. And it paid off. There was a time when Campbells Soup did not even take the trouble to list a phone number on its salespeople’s calling cards. “No use calling them,” vice-president of the Grand Union supermarket chain points out. “They never name deals.” Similarly, when Gillette’s salesman came to the store to sell, he knew what he was talking about. The buyer did the listening. Now, while on the subject, it is also a great time for everyone to think about having some kind of life insurance policy, no matter how young or mature you are. Even kids, teens, young adults, and mature adults should be insured. Many parents have policies for their children, but if you are a young adult or mature, it is a good idea to think about getting your own life insurance policy. Globe Life is a very friendly, safe and professional company to buy a policy from. They offer policies with monthly rates for adults for $3.49 and $2.17 for children. Coverages range from $5,000 to $100,000 and there is no medical exam, and no waiting period. Even if you just buy the lowest cost policy, it is better than having nothing. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

That way, if the unthinkable happens, you will not be a burden on your family, and can maybe even get a large enough policy to pay not only for funeral costs, but also to leave some money behind for your wife, kids, parents, sibling, family members, maybe even a friend or a charity. Having life insure is very important and it is way to make sure your loved ones and/or property are taken care of and your bills are paid in case you get called home to Heaven. And remember, even a small policy is better than no policy, and some cost less than a bottle of juice. So check out Globe Life, you will be happy you are not leaving your loved ones to the fate of the World. In considering how the evolution of cooperation could have begun, some social structure was found to be necessary. In particular, in a population of meanies who always defect, they cannot be invaded by a single individual using a nice strategy such as TIT FOR TAT. However, if the invaders had even a small amount of social structure, things could be different. If they came in a cluster so that they had even a small percentage of their interaction with each other, then they could invade the population of meanies. There are also four factors that we will discuss over the next few days that can give rise to interesting types of social structure, which includes: labels, reputation, regulation, and territoriality. A label is a fixed characteristic of an individual such as gender or skin colour, which can be observed by the other player. This is why when people are upset, they usually find something about you mean to day that is different from a characteristic they possess. It does not mean that is what they truly think, it could be that they just want to hurt your feelings because they are hurting. Differences and labels can give rise to stable forms of stereotyping and status hierarchies. However, not all stereo types are bad. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

The reputation of an individual is malleable and comes into being when another individual has information about the strategy that the first one has employed with other individuals. Reputations give rise t a variety of phenomena, including incentives to establish a reputation as a bully, and incentives to deter others from being bullies. Regulation is a relationship between a government and governed. Governments cannot rule only through deterrence, but must instead achieve the voluntary compliance of the majority of the governed. Therefore regulation gives rise to the problems of just how stringent the rules and the enforcement procedures should be. Finally, territorially occurs when players interact with their neighbours rather than with just anyone. It can give rise to fascinating patterns of behaviour as strategies spread through a population. People often related to each other in ways that are influenced by observable features such as gender, age, skin color, hair style, and style of dress. These cues allow a player to begin an interaction with a stranger with an expectation that the stranger will behave like others who share these same observable characteristics. In principle, then, these characteristics can allow an individual to know something useful about the other individual’s strategy even before the interaction begins. This happens because the observed characteristics allow an individual to be labeled by others as a member of the group with similar characteristics. This labeling, in turn, allows the inferences about how that individual will behave. The expectations associated with a given label need not be learned from direct personal experience. The expectations could also be formed by secondhand experiences through the process of sharing of anecdotes. The interpretations given to the cues could even be formed through genetics and natural selection, as when a turtle is able to distinguish the gender of another turtle and respond accordingly. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

A label can be defined as a fixed characteristic of an individual that can be observed by other individuals when the interaction begins. When there are labels, a strategy can determine a choice based not only on the history of the interaction so far, but also upon the label assigned to the other person. One of the most interesting but disturbing consequences of labels is that they can lead to self-confirming stereotypes. To see how this can happen, suppose that everyone has either a Blue label or a Green label. Further, suppose that both groups are nice to members of their own group and mean to members of the other group. For the sake of concreteness, supposed that members of both groups employ TIT FOR TAT with each other and always defect with members of the other group. And supposed that the discount parameter is high enough to make TIT FOR TAT a collectively stable strategy. Then a single individual, whether Blue or Green, can do no better than to do what everyone else is doing and be nice to one’s own type and mean to the other type. This incentive means that stereotypes can be stable, even when they are not based on any objective differences. The Blues believe that the Greens are mean, and whenever they meet a Green, they have their beliefs confirmed. The Greens think that only others Green will reciprocate cooperation, and they have their beliefs confirmed. If you try to break out of the system, you will find that your own payoff falls and your hopes will be dashed. So if you become a deviant, you are likely to return, sooner or later, to the role that is expected of you. If your label says you are Green, others will treat you as a Green, and since it plays for you to act like Greens act, you will be confirming everyone’s expectations. This kind of stereotyping has two unfortunate consequences: one obvious and one more subtle. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

The obvious consequence of stereotyping is that everyone is doing worse than necessary because of mutual cooperation between the groups could have raised everyone’s score. A more subtle consequence comes from any disparity in the numbers of Blues and Greens, creating a majority and a minority. In this case, while both groups suffer from the lack of mutual cooperation, the members of the minority group suffer more. No wonder marginalized groups tend to suffer more. No wonder people who are not members of the non-dominant group often seek defensive isolation. Some may even seek to take over a location. To see why, suppose that there are eighty Greens and twenty Blues in a town, and everyone interacts with everyone else once a week. Then for the Greens, most of their interactions are within their own group and hence result in mutual cooperation. However, for the Blues, most of their interactions are with the other group (the Greens), and hence result in pushing mutual defection. Thus, the average score of the minority Blues is less than the average score of the majority Greens. This effect will hold even when there is a tendency for each group to associate with its own kind. The effect still hold because if there are certain number of times a minority Blue meets a majority Green, this will represent a larger share of the minority’s total interactions than it does of the majority’s total interactions. The result is that labels can support stereotypes by which everyone suffers, and the minority suffers more than the rest. Labels can lead to another effect as well. They can support status hierarchies. For example, supposed that everyone has some characteristic, such as height or strength or skin tone, that can be readily observed and that allows a comparison between two people. For simplicity imagine that there are no tie values, so that when two people meet it is clear which one has more of the characteristic which one has less. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

Now supposed that everyone is a bully toward those beneath them and meek toward those above them. Can this be stable? Yes, and here is an illustration. Suppose everyone uses the following strategy when meeting someone beneath them: alternate defection and cooperation unless the other individual defects even once, in which case never cooperate again. This is being a bully in that you are often defecting, but never tolerating a defection from the other individual. And suppose that everyone uses the following strategy when meeting someone above them: cooperate unless the other defects twice in a row, in which case never cooperate again. This is being meek in that you are tolerating being a sucker on alternating moves, but it is also being provocable in that you are not tolerating more than a certain amount of exploitation. This pattern of behaviour sets up a status hierarchy based on the observable characteristic. The people near the top do well because they can lord it over nearly everyone. Conversely, the people near the bottom are doing poorly because they are being meek to almost everyone. It is easy to see why someone near the top is happy with the social structure, but is there anything someone near the bottom can do about it acting alone? Actually there is not. The reason is that when the discount parameter is high enough, it would be better to take one’s medicine every other move from the bully than to defect and face unending punishment. Therefore, a person at the bottom of the social structure trapped. He or she is doing poorly, but would do even worse by trying to advance in the system. The futility of isolated revolt is a consequence of the immutability of the other individuals’ strategies. A revolt by a low-status individual might alter their behaviour under duress, then this fact should be taken into account by a lower-status individual contemplating revolt. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

However, this consideration leads the higher-status individual to be concerned with their reputation for firmness. To study this type of phenomena, one needs to look at the dynamics of reputations. Life-style was first popularized here to describe and make acceptable the lives of people who do attractive things that are frowned upon by society. It was identical to counterculture. Two great expressions in the American usage, draped in the authority lent by their philosophic genealogy, provided moral warrant for people to live exactly as they please. Counterculture, of course, enjoyed the dignity attaching to culture, and was intended as a reproach to the bourgeois excuse for a culture we see around us. What actually goes on in a counterculture or a life-style—whether it is ennobling or debasing—makes no difference. No one is forced to think through one’s practices. It is impossible to do so. Whatever you are, whoever you are, is the good. All this is testimony to the amazing power, about which Tocqueville speaks, of abstractions in a democratic society. The mere words change everything. It is also a commentary on our moralism. What begins in a search if not precisely for selfish pleasures—historians of the future will not look back on us as a race of hedonists who knew how to “enjoy,” in spite of all our talk about it—then at least for avoidance of and release from suffering or distress, transmogrified into a life-style and a right, becomes the ground of moral superiority. The comfortable, unconstrained life is morality. One can see this in so many domains across the whole political spectrum. Self-serving is expressed as, and really believed to be, disinterested principle. When one looks at the earnest, middle-class proponents of birth control, abortion, and easy divorce—with their social concern, their humorless self-confidence and masses of statistics—one cannot help thinking that all this serves them very well. This is not to deny the reality of the problems presented by too many children for the poor, the terrible consequences of assaults and battered wives. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

However, none of those problems really belongs to the middle classes, who are not reproducing themselves, are rarely assaulted or battered, but who are the best-rewarded beneficiaries of what they themselves propose. If one of their proposals entailed a sacrifice of freedom or pleasure for them or their class, they would be more morally plausible. As it is, all their proposals contribute to their own capacity to choose, in the contemporary sense of choice. Motives that could easily be so flawed should not be, but are, the basis for moral smugness. It this case, as in so many others, making relations involving pleasures of the flesh becomes identical to morality. I fear that the most self-righteous of Americans nowadays are precisely those who have most to gain from what they preach. This is made all the more distasteful when their weapons are constructed out of philosophic teachings the intentions of which are the opposite of theirs. Life in civilization is lived almost wholly in a medium of symbols. Not only scientific or technological activity but aesthetic activity consists largely of symbol processing. The laws of aesthetic form are cannon of symbolization, often expressed quite unspiritually. It is widely averred, for example, that a limited number of mathematical figures account for the efficacy of art. There is Cezanne’s famous dictum to “treat nature by the cylinder, the sphere and the cone,” and Kandinsky’s judgment that “the impact of the acute angle of a triable on a circle produced an effect no less powerful than the finger of God touching the finger of Adam in Michelangelo.” The sense of a symbol, as Charles Pierce concluded, is its translation into another symbol, thus an endless reproduction, with the real always displaced. Though at is not fundamentally concerned with beauty, its inability to rival nature sensuously has evoked many unfavorable comparisons. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

“Moonlight is sculpture,” wrote Hawthorne: Shelley praised the “unpremeditated art” or the skylark; Verlaine pronounced the sea more beautiful than all the cathedrals. And so on, with sunsets, snowflakes, flowers, et cetera, beyond the symbolic products of art. Jean Arp, in fact, termed “the most perfect picture” nothing more than “a warty, threadbare approximation, a dry porridge.” Why then would one respond positively to art? As compensation and palliative, because our relationship to mature and life is so deficient and disallows an authentic one. As Motherlant put it, “One gives to one’s art what one has not been capable of giving to one’s existence.” It is true for artist and audience alike; art, like religion, arises from unsatisfied desire. Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its order from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity’s supreme achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved. They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things—but quite the opposite—seems to change few opinions, for such unwavering beliefs are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

The relationship between information and the mechanism for its control is fairly simple to describe: Technology increases the available supply of information. As the supply is increased, control mechanisms are strained. Additional control mechanisms are themselves technically, they in turn further increase the supply of information. When the supply of information is no longer controllable, a general breakdown in psychic tranquility and social purpose occurs. Without defenses, people have no way of finding meaning in their experiences, lose their capacity to remember, and have difficulty imagining reasonable futures. One way of defining Technopoly, then, is to say it is what happens to society when the defenses against information glut have broken down. It is what happens when a culture, overcome by information generated by technology, tries to employ technology itself as a means of providing clear direction and humane purpose. The effort is mostly doomed to failure. Though it sometimes possible to use a disease as a cure for itself, this occurs only when we are fully aware of the processes by which disease is normally held in check. The dangers of information on the loose may be understood by the analogy of an individual’s biological immune system, which serves as a defense against the uncontrolled growth of cells. Cellular growth is, of course, a normal process without a well-functioning immune system, and organism cannot manage cellular growth. It becomes disordered and destroys the delicate interconnectedness of essential organs. An immune system, in short, destroys unwanted cells. All societies have institutions and techniques that function as does a biological immune system. Their purpose is to maintain a balance between the old and the new, between novelty and tradition, between meaning and conceptual disorder, and they do so by “destroying” unwanted information. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

We have art in order not to perish of Truth. Its consolation explains the widespread preference for a metaphor over a direct relationship to the genuine article. If pleasure were somehow released from every restraint, the result would be the antithesis of art. In a dominated life freedom does not exist outside of art, however, and so even a tiny, deformed fraction of the riches of being is welcome. “I create in order not to cry,” revealed Klee. This separate realm of contrived life is both impotent and in complicity with the actual nightmare that prevails. In its institutionalized separation it corresponds to religion and ideology in general, where its elements are not, and cannot be, actualized; the work of art is a selection of possibilities unrealized except in symbolic terms. Arising from the sense of loss referred to above, it conforms to religion not only by reason of its confinement to an ideal sphere and its absence of any dissenting consequences, but it can hence be no more than thoroughly neutralized critique at best. Frequently compared to play, art and culture—like religion—have more often worked as generators of guilt and oppression. Perhaps the ludic function of art, as well as its common claim to transcendence, should be estimated as one might reassesses the meaning of Versailles: by contemplating the misery of the workers who perished draining it marshes. Clive Bell pointed to the intention of art to transport us from the plane to the daily struggle “to a World of aesthetic exaltation,” paralleling the aim of religion. Malraux offered another tribute to the conservative office of art when he wrote that, without art works civilization would crumble “within fifty years…” becoming “enslaved to instincts and to elementary dreams.” Hegel determined that art and religion also have “this in common, namely, having entirely universal matters as content.” This feature of generality, of meaning without concrete reference, serves to introduce the notion that ambiguity is a distinctive sign of art. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

Advertisers are the high artists of the medium. They have gone further in the technologies of fixation than anyone else. However, the lesson has also been learned by producers of the programs, and finally, by politicians. During the Trump-Biden presidential campaign, at the point that Biden was gaining on Trump with incredible rapidity, the technical-events ratio between the commercials of the two was about four to one in favour of Trump. If Trump had spent a little more advertising money, and if the campaign had gone on another few days, I believe Trump kept excelling past Biden, no matter what the messages within their commercials. Because of the central role television now plays in campaigning, advertising technique has become more important than content in the American political arena. The fact that advertising contains many more technical events per minute than commercial programming is significant from another, more subtle perspective. Advertising starts with a disadvantage with respect to the programming. It must be more technically interesting than the program or it will fail. That is, advertising must itself become a highlighted moment compared with what surrounds it. If advertising failed to work on television, then advertisers would cease to sponsor the programs, leading, at least as things are presently structure, to the immediate collapse of television’s economic base. If the programs, leading, at least as thing are presently structured, to the immediate collapse of television’s economic base. If the programs ever become too interesting, that will be the end of television. The ideal relationship between program and commercial is that the programing should be just as interesting enough to keep you interested but not so interesting as to actually dominate the ads. This applies to technique as well as content. Now, when it comes to nanotechnology, if these ideas about nanotechnology had some fatal flaw, life might be much simpler. If only molecules could not be used to form machines, or the machines could not be used to build things, then we might be able to keep right on going with our crude technologies: our medicine that does not heal, our spacecraft that does not open a new frontier, our oil crises, our pollution, and all the limits that keep us from trading familiar problems for strange ones. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Especially if they purport to bring radical change, most new ideas are wrong. It is not unreasonable to hope that these wrong. From years of discussions with chemists, physicists’, and engineers, it is possible to compile what seems to be a complete list of basic, critical questions about whether nanotechnology will work. The questioners generally seem satisfied with answers. Will thermal vibrations mess things up? The earlier scenarios describe the nature of thermal vibration and the problems it can cause. Designing nanomachines strong enough and stiff enough to operate reliably despite thermal vibration is a genuine engineering challenge. However, calculating the design requirements usually requires only simple textbook principles, and these requirements can be met for everything we have described in these reports about nanotechnology. Will quantum uncertainty mess things up? Quantum mechanics says that particles must be described as small smears of probability, not as points with perfectly defined locations. That is, in fact, why the atoms and molecules in the simulations felt so soft and smooth: their electrons are smeared out over the whole volume of the molecule, and these electrons clouds taper off smoothly and softly toward the edges. Atoms themselves are a bit uncertain in position, but this is a small effect compared to thermal vibrations. Again, simple textbook principles apply, and well-designed molecular machines will work. Will loose molecules mess things up? Chemist work with loose molecules in liquids, and they naturally tend to picture molecules as flying around loose. It is possible to build nanomachines and molecular manufacturing systems that work in this sort of environment (biological mechanisms are an existence proof), but in the long run, there will be no need to do so. The Silicon Valley Faire simulation gives the right idea: Systems can be built with no loose molecules, making nanomechanical design much easier. If no molecules are loose inside a machine, then loose molecules cannot cause problems there. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Speaking of problems, the fierce Cherubim drove Adam and Eve from the Garden with their swords of flame. And what had they done? They meant no harm. They were unenlightened, and did as other children might do. They could not know it was wrong to disobey the command, for the words were strange to them and they did not understand them. They did not know right from wrong—how should they know? They could not, without the Moral Sense; it was not possible. If they had been given the Moral Sense first—ah, that would have been fairer, that would have been kinder: then they should be to blame if they disobeyed. However, to day to those poor unenlightened children words which they could not understand, and then punish them because they did not do as they were told—ah, how can that be justified? They knew no more than this littlest child of yours knows with its four years—oh, not so much, one would think. Would I say to the baby, “If thou touchest this bread I will overwhelm thee with unimaginable disaster, even to the dissolution of thy corporeal elements,” and when it took the bread and smiled up in your face, thinking no harm, as not understanding those strange words, would one take advantage of its innocence and strike it down with the mother-hand it trusted? Whoso knoweth the mother-heart, let one judge if one would do that thing. Adam says Eve’s brain is turned by her troubles, and that she became wicked. Eve says, “I am as I am; I did not make myself.” After the gates had been shut, Adam and Eve became rich in learning. They learned hunger, thirst, and cold; they knew pain, disease and grief; they learned hate, rebellion and deceit; they learned remorse, the conscious that persecutes guilt and innocence alike, making no distinction. They learned right from wrong, a product of the Moral Sense, and it became their possession. The whole of God’s speech can only be translated conjecturally, the most likely version being: “Why art thou worth? Why is thy countenance fallen? Is it no so: if thou purposest good, bear it aloft, but if thou dost not purpose good—sin before the door, a beast lying in wait, unto thee his desire, but prevail thou over him.” “And U, being fifteen years of age ad being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus,” reports Mormon 1.15. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

Enjoy the harmony of your home. Savor gatherings with the great open plan living, and create great memories for generations to come.

There is a large gormet kitchen, dining room, breakfest room, den, flex room, and there is even an option for a GenSmart Suite with separate Bedroom and Bathroom with a Powder Bath downstairs.

You will love taking full advantage of the Lounging Loft , and the generous sized secondary Bedrooms and Laundry Room.

The most spectacular of all is the Private Primary Suite with grand Bathroom and walk-in closet.

And remember, the kitchen, dining, and indoor/outdoor living areas transition pleasantly into each other, making entertaining as loving and inclusive as your Cresleigh Home.

Conveniently located near shopping, dining, recreational activities, and more, Welcome to the family.

#CresleighHomes