Many Americans attend college. The University provides a way our as well as a model of reform. If not easy to carry out or even keep in mind, its task is thus defined. It is, in the first place, always to maintain the permanent questions front and center. This it does primarily by preserving—by keeping alive—the works of those who best addressed these questions. In the Middle Ages, Aristotle was very much present in the minds of the leading elements of society. He was used as an authority almost on a level with the Church Fathers and was assimilated to them. This was, of course, an abuse of Aristotle, who thought that authority is the contrary of philosophy. His own teachings ought always to be approached with questions and doubts, not faith. The essence of philosophy is the abandonment of all authority in favour of individual human reason. Nevertheless, Aristotle was there, his moderate and sensible views had an effect on the World, and he could be a guide to those who came to have philosophic doubt. In our time, freedom from authority and the independence of reason are commonplaces. Aristotle, however, instead of being properly used—now that we have the proper disposition—has to all intents and purposes disappeared. We would hardly be able to use Aristotle, as did Hegel, to grasp the character of modernity. Instead we are more and more restricted to the narrow experience of the here and now, with a consequent loss of perspective. The disappearance of Aristotle has much less to do with his intrinsic qualities than with a political distaste for him, joined with the lack of intellectual discipline that results from a sense of self-sufficiency. Reason has become a prejudice for us. Rousseau noted that in his time many men were liberals who a century earlier would have been religious fanatics. He concluded that they were not really reasonable but, rather, conformists. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Reason transformed into prejudice is the worse form of prejudice. The most important function of the university in an age of reason is to protect reason from itself, by being the model of true openness. Hence, without having the answers, the university knows what openness is and knows the questions. It also knows the regime within which it lives, and the kinds of threats this regime poses to its activity. In a democracy it risks less by opposing the emergent, the changing and the ephemeral than by embracing them, because the society is already open to them, without monitoring what it accepts or sufficiently respecting the old. There the university risks less by having intransigently high standards than by trying to be too inclusive, because the society tends to blur standards in the name of equality. It also risks less by concentrating on the heroic than by looking to the commonplace, because the society levels. In an aristocracy the university would probably have to go in a direction opposite to the one taken in a democracy in order to liberate reason. However, in an aristocracy the university is a less important institution than in a democratic society, because there are other centers for the life of the mind, whereas in a democracy there is practically no other center, practically no way of life, calling or profession, that requires or encourages or even permits cultivation. This is increasingly the case in the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The university as an institution must compensate for what individuals lack in a democracy and must encourage its members to participate in its spirit. As the repository of the regime’s own highest faculty and principle, it must have a strong sense of its importance outside the system of equal individuality. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

The university must be contemptuous of public opinion because it has within it the source of autonomy—the quest for and even discovery of the truth according to nature. It must concentrate on philosophy, theology, the literary classics, and on those scientists like Newton, Descartes, and Leibniz who have the most comprehensive scientific vision and a sense of the relation of what they do to the order of the whole of things. These must help preserve what is most likely to be neglected in a democracy. They are not dogmatisms but precisely the opposite: what is necessary to fight dogmatism. The University is only one interest among many and must always keep its eye on that interest for fear of compromising it in the desire to be more useful, more relevant, more popular. The university’s task is illustrated by two tendencies of the democratic mind. One is abstractness. Because there is no tradition and men need guidance, general theories that are produced in a day and not properly grounded in experience, but seem to explain things and are useful crutches for finding one’s way in a complicated World, have currency. Marxism, Freudianism, economism, behaviouralism, et cetera, are examples of this tendency, and there are great rewards for those who purvey them. The very university of democracy and the sameness of man presupposed by it encourage this tendency and make the mind’s eye less sensitive to differences. The terms we have discussed in the past are evidences of this abstractness, simulacra of thought and experience, hardly better than slogans, which take the place of reflection. In aristocracies men take the experiences of their nations as unique and superior and tend not to generalize, but rather to forget the natural community of men and the universality of thought. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

However, they do really pay attention to their experiences, to the diversity of phenomena that is homogenized by abstract “mind-sets.” This is another thing the democratic university must learn from aristocracies. Our temptation is to prefer the shiny new theory to the fully cognized experience. Even our famous empiricism is more of a theory than an openness to experience. Producing theories is not theorizing, or a sign of theoretical life. Concreteness, not abstractness, is the hallmark of philosophy. All interesting generalization must proceed from the richest awareness of what is to be explained, but the tendency to abstractness leads to simplifying the phenomena in order more easily to deal with them. If, for example, one sees only gain as a motive in men’s actions, then it is easy to explain them. One simply abstracts from what is really there. After a while one notices nothing other than the postulated motives. To the extent that men begin to believe in the theory, they no longer believe that there are other motives in themselves. And when social policy is based on such a theory, finally one succeeds in producing men who fit the theory. When this is occurring or has occurred, what is most needed is the capacity to recover the original nature of man and his motives, to see what does not fit the theory. Hobbes’s mercenary account of the virtues, which won out in psychology, needs to be contrasted with Aristotle’s account, which preserves the independent nobility of the virtues. Hobbes was thinking of Aristotle, which we never do, when he developed his teaching. In order to restore what was really a debate, and thereby restore the phenomenon man, one must read Aristotle and Hobbes together and look at what each saw in man. Then one has the material on which to reflect. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

For modern men who live in a World transformed by abstractions and who have themselves been transformed by abstractions, the only way to experience man again is by thinking these abstractions through with the help of thinkers who did not share them and who can lead us to experiences that are difficult or impossible to have without their help. A related problem is a tendency in the social sciences to prefer deterministic explanations of events to those that see them as results of human deliberation and choice. This tendency is a consequence of the impotence of the individual in egalitarian society. Curiously, in democracy, the freest of societies, men turn out to be more willing to accept doctrines that tell them that they are determined, that is, not free. No one by oneself seems to be able, or have the right, to control events, which appear to be moved by impersonal forces. In aristocracies, on the other hand, individuals born to high position have too great a sense of their control over what they appear to command, are sure of their freedom and despise everything that might seem to determine them. Neither the aristocratic nor democratic sentiment about the causes of events is simply adequate. In a democracy where men already think they are weak, they are too open to theories that teach them they are weak, which, by making individuals think that controlling action is impossible, have the effect of weakening them further. That is why we are encouraging you all to be proud Americans again. Have pride in your flag, the national anthem, America cars, food and produced and goods and services produced in America. Do not allow yourselves to be colonized by a spirit of doom and gloom. Do not allow the joker and the riddler to control your streets, airwaves, radio, and politics. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

Remember, this is a country of agriculture, it is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Go back to being like the Americans of the 1950s, who loved their suburban communities, and their American cars and new they were great and kind people. “Winter comes calling. The temperature’s falling. A fear is crawling. Don’t quit, we’re all in. The ship’s a mile out. Don’t blow the lights out. They’ll cry their eyes out, if we sink the lighthouse. Since fear itself is cruel and selfish—a contradiction—you tried to shout out my words in your mouth. We’re hard on the angel’s heels, with fire and brimstone wheels. The meadow starts with bones, and flowers and tears. With darkness closing, we’re decomposing. We’re made of starlight. From cruel and dark night, the guilty crushed out. We’re left in no doubt. They’ll cry their eyes out if we sink the lighthouse,” by Above & Beyond, “Sink the Lighthouse,” featured artist: Alex Vargas, Album: We are All We Need, 2015. The lighthouse represents American. The antidote is again the classic, the heroic—Homer, Plutarch. At the outset they appear hopelessly naïve to us. However, it is our sophisticated naivete that makes us think that. Churchill was inspired b his ancestor Marlborough, and his confidence in his own action is inconceivable without the encouragement to his education. And Shakespeare learned a large part of what he knew about statesmanship from Plutarch. This is intellectual genealogy of modern heroes. The democratic revolution of the mind extinguishes such old family lines and replaces them with decision-making theory, in which there is no category for statesmanship, let alone heroes. To sum up, there is one simple rule for the university’s activity: it need not concern itself with providing its students with experiences that are available in democratic society. They will have them in any event. It must provide them with experiences they cannot have there. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Old writers may not have been perfect, but they could best make us aware of our imperfections, which is what counts for us. The universities never performed this function very well. Now they have practically ceased trying. There is an Armageddon cult whose cosmology is trying to depress America. It is a bloodthirsty, orgiastic, mind-bending cult under the direction of a special interest group. Much more frightening than Manson could ever be in that it is able to successfully maintain a façade of eccentric legitimacy while secretly conducting vicious human sacrifices to its gods. The cult has been conducting cannibalistic rites on American citizens in the shadows and in secret so that Americans will give of their rights, give up capitalism, and become under control of communism. It is a lot like the Four Pi movement, which is 12.56 numerically. The rites are bloody and orgiastic. The goal is to transfix people, get them to become apathetic and make them feel a sense of entitlement so that they will release the fiend that lies dormant within one, for it is strong and ruthless and its power is far beyond the bounds of human frailty. The cult’s literature is repeated and the Process leaders reputedly envision the cult members coming together as groups of future shock troops in the coming Armageddon. The cult is into murder and mayhem. They teach their members that by spreading violence and chaos, they will help to fulfill the prophecies of Armageddon and speed up the Final Judgment. Also, many of these heinous criminals who are labeled as “lone wolves” are actually not. In many cases they are part of an organization that traffics in drugs and pornography with aims to spread panic and destruction, and are also connection to crimes before and after those who are labeled as lone wolves commit an act of violence. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

The high value of the evil urge finds its strongest expression in an interpretation of the scriptural verse (Genesis 1, 31) which assets that God, on the evening of the day on which He had created man, looked upon all He had made and found it “very good”: this “very good” applies to the evil urge, whereas the good one only earns the predicate “good”; of the two, it is the evil urge which is fundamental. However, that it is called the evil urge derives from man’s having made it so. Thus Kain (as is said in the Midrash) might indeed respond to the God who was calling him to account that it was He, God, Himself who had implanted in him the evil urge; but the rejoinder would be untrue, since only through him, man, did it become evil. It became so, and continually becomes so, because man separates it from its companion and in this condition of independence makes an idol of precisely that which was intended to serve him. Man’s task, therefore, is not to extirpate the evil urge, but to reunite it with the good. David, who did not dare to stand up to it and therefore “slew” it in himself—as it runs in one of his Psalms (109.22): “My heart is pierced through within me”—did not fulfill it, but Abraham, whose whole heart was found faithful before God, who now made a covenant with him (Nehemiah 9.8) did. Man is bidden (Deuteronomy 6.5): “Love the Lord with all thine heart,” and that means, with thy two united urges. The evil urge must also be included in the love of God thus and thus only does it become perfect, and thus and thus only does man become once more as he was created: “very good.” To achieve this, however, man must begin by harnessing both urges together in the service of God. As when a person who is less affluent possess two oxen, one that has already ploughed and one that has not yet ploughed, and now a new field is to be cultivated: he brings both of them together beneath the yoke. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

However, how is the evil urge to be prevailed upon to permit this to happen to it? Why, it is nothing but a crude ore, which must be placed in the fire in order to be moulded: so let it be totally immersed in the great fire of the Tora. And that also man cannot do of his own strength; we must pray to God to assist us to do His will with our hearts. Therefore the Psalmist beseeches (86.11): “Unite my heart to fear Thy name”; for fear is the gateway to love. This important doctrine cannot be understood as long as good and evil are conceived, as they usually are, as two diametrically opposite forces or directions. Its meaning is not revealed to us until we recognize them as similar in nature, the evil “urge” as passion, that is, the power peculiar to man, without which he can neither beget nor bring forth, but which, left to itself, remains without direction and leads astray, and the “good urge” as pure direction, in other words, as an unconditional direction, that towards God. To unite the two urges implies: to equip the absolute potency of passion with the one direction that renders it capable of great love and of great service. Thus and not otherwise can man become whole. Although there are wonderful surprises from the human organization, the latest and most potent creation and miracle-worker of the commercialized intellect will not be able to spread more love until we unite out urges. We have many wonderful transportation-systems, in manufactures, in systems of communication, in news-gathering, book-publishing, journalism; in protecting labour; in oppressing labour; in herding the national parities and keeping the sheep docile and usable; in closing the public service against brains and character; in electing purchasable legislatures, blatherskite Congresses, and city governments which rob the town and sell municipal protection to gamblers, thieves, men and women of the evening, and professional seducers for cash. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

It is a civilization which has destroyed the simplicity and repose of life; replaces its contentment, its poetry, its soft romance-dreams and visions with the money-fever, sordid ideals, vulgar ambitions, and the sleep which does not refresh; it has invented a thousand useless luxuries, and turned them into necessities, it has created a thousand vicious appetites and satisfies none of them; it has dethroned God and set up a shekel in His place. Religion has removed from the heart to the mouth. You have the word of Noah for it. Time was, when two sects, divided but by a single hair of doctrine, would fight for that hair, would kill, torture, persecute for it, suffer for it, starve for it, die for it. That religion was in the heart; it was vital, it was a living thing, it was the very man himself. Who fights for his religion now, but with the mouth? Your civilization has brought the flood. Noah has said it, and he is preparing. “And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and baptized in my name. And this ye shall always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have showed unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit be with you,” reports # Nephi 18.5-7. Religion can be considered a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not in principle a social institution; nor are all institutions that reduce information by excluding some kinds or sources necessarily bureaucracies. Schools may exclude dianetics and astrology; courts exclude hearsay evidence. They do so for substantive reasons having to do with the theories on which these institutions are based. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

However, bureaucracy has no intellectual, political, or moral theory—except for its implicit assumption that efficiency is the principal aim of all social institutions and that other goals are essentially less worthy, if not irrelevant. That is why John Stuart Mill thought bureaucracy a “tyranny” and C.S. Lewis identified it with Hell. The transformation of bureaucracy from a set of techniques designed to serve social institutions to an autonomous metainstitution that largely serves itself came as a result of several developments in the mid- and late-nineteenth century: rapid industrial growth, improvements in transportation and communication, the extension of government into ever-larger realms of public and business affairs, the increasing centralization of governmental structures. To these were added, in the twentieth century, the information explosion and what we might call the “bureaucracy effect”: as techniques for managing information became more necessary, extensive, and complect, the number of people and structures required to manage those techniques grew, and so did the amount of information generated by bureaucratic techniques. This created the need for bureaucracies to manage and coordinate bureaucracies, then for additional structures and techniques to manage the bureaucracies that coordinated bureaucracies, and so on—until bureaucracy became, to borrow again from Karl Kraus’s comment on psychoanalysis, the disease for which it purported to cure. Along the way, it ceased to be merely a servant of social institutions and became their master. Bureaucracy now not only solves problems but creates them. More important, it defines what our problems are—and they are always, in the bureaucratic view, problems of efficiency. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

As Lewis suggests, this makes bureaucracies exceedingly dangerous, because, though they were originally designed to process only technical information, they now are commonly employed to address problems of a moral, social, and political nature. The bureaucracy of the nineteenth century was largely concerned with making transportation, industry, and the distribution of goods more efficient. Technopoly’s bureaucracy has broken loose from such restrictions and now claims sovereignty over all of society’s affairs. This may be because so many people find the most appropriate type of daily life for them is a day by day World of destruction. Peace has become the most difficult and abnormal state of many civilizations to live in. No moment is so dazzling to them as when everyday imaginings concerning death and danger and World destruction are transformed into duty. Magnanimity perishes during long periods of peace and, in its stead, there develop cynicism, apathy, weariness, and, at most, spiteful raillery…Honour, humaneness, self-sacrifices are still being respected, valued, and rated highly immediately after war, but the longer peace lasts—the dimmer, the more withered, the more torpid all these beautiful magnanimous things grow, while wealth and the spirit of acquisition take possession of everything. At length, there is nothing left but hypocrisy—hypocrisy of honour, of self-sacrifice, of duty, so that these will still be respected, despite all the cynicism, but merely in boastful phases and as a matter of form. There will be no more genuine honour, and nothing but formulas will be left. Formulas of honour mean the death of honour. The peril we face in trusting social, moral, and political affairs to bureaucracy may be highlighted by reminding ourselves what a bureaucrat does. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

As the World’s history suggests, a bureaucrat is little else than a glorified counter. The French word bureau first meant a cloth for covering a reckoning table, then the table itself, then the room in which the table was kept, and finally the office and staff that ran the entire counting room or house. The word “bureaucrat” has come to mean a person who by training, commitment, and even temperament is indifferent to both the content and the totality of a human problem. The bureaucrat considers the implications of a decision only to the extent that the decision will affect the efficient operations of the bureaucracy, and takes no responsibility for its human consequences. Thus, Adolf Eichmann becomes the basic model and metaphor for a bureaucrat in the age of Technopoly. When faced with dangerous crimes against humanity, he argued that he had no part in the formulation of Nazi political or sociological theory; he dealt only with the technical problems of moving vast numbers of people from one place to another. Why they were being moved and, especially, what would happen to them when they arrived at their destination were not relevant to his job. Although the jobs of bureaucrats in today’s Technopoly given five thousand times a day in America alone: I have no responsibility for the human consequences of my decisions. I am only responsible for the efficiency of my part of the bureaucracy, which must be maintained at all costs. Eichmann, it must also be noted, was an expert. And expertise is a second important technical means by which Technopoly strives furiously to control information. Japan worries. To the outside World it often seems economically invincible. However, things look different from inside. It has no energy supplies of its own, grows little food, and is highly sensitive to trade restrictions. If the yen goes down, it worked. If the yen goes up, it worries. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

However, individual Japanese do not just worry about the economy in general. They also worry about their own future. So they are among the World’s biggest savers. And they buy massive amounts of insurance. For a long time the chief beneficiaries of all this anxiety were the giant insurance companies. Today, however, it is the insurers who are doing the worrying. The government is opening the door that once kept out competition from Japan’s aggressive securities brokers. Tough, World-class companies like Nomura and Daiwa, the Merrill Lynches or Shearsons of Japan, are preparing to move in on the insurance industry’s turf. Topping that off, the entire insurance field is in an uproar of change. Customers are demanding all sorts of newfangled policies and financial services which these venerable giants—Nippon Life is over one hundred years old—find hard to create and manage. To deal with threats like these, the big insurance firms have begun laying down an electronic line of defense. Nippon Life is betting nearly half a billion dollars on a new information system that adds 5,000 PCs, 1,500 larger computers for its satellite offices, mega-machines for branches and headquarters, plus optical scanners and other equipment, all plugged together in a single network that will allow agents in the field to dial up central data banks, respond to synthesized voice commands on the phone, and get facsimile printouts of the data they need about customer or policies. Meanwhile, Meiji Mutual, with its 38,000 agents, mainly women, is also racing to arm itself with the weaponry of communications. Nor are the insurance companies alone. All of Japan, it would seem, is going electronic. Writes Datamation: “Major service companies are installing networks with 5,000 or more PCs and workstations in every corner of Japan.” Say Meiji’s Toshiyuki Nakamura: “If we don’t…we might lose everything.” #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Nakamura is right. For as electronic networks spread, power is beginning to shift. And not just in Japan. The United States of America and Europe, too, are wiring up as never before. It is the electronic race of the century. Japan’s high-tech manufacturing miracle brought in such immense amounts of money and sent the yen spiraling so high that Japanese companies began investing heavily in factories in Taiwan, South Korea and, in time, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines—helping to kick-start the development process in what soon were called Newly Industrialized Countries, or NICs. In effect, Japan had begun off-loading its low-tech, low-value production to neighbouring countries with more affordable labour, while it upshifted more and more to knowledge-based operations. Japan was not the only spigot from which direct investment flowed into Asia. Nonetheless, by the 1980s, according to the Library of Congress Country Studies, Japan had, in fact, “displaced the United States as the largest provider of investment and economic aid” in the Asia-Pacific region. In all, Japan poured more than $123 billion into Asian neighbours between 1980 and 2000. It is difficult to determine precisely how many new manufacturing and related service jobs in these Asian countries are specifically attributable to the influx of investment from Japan, America and Europe. Or to the next step, when South Korea and Taiwan themselves began investing in their less affluent neighbours—setting in motion a developmental chain reaction spilling over from the United States of America to Japan to these other countries. The result was the flow of billions of dollars into agrarian economies in the region where some of the World’s worst poverty existed. In each of these recipient countries, we saw the same classic process at work—the shift of the workforce from agriculture to industry. In South Korea as late as 1970, 51 percent of the labour force was still in agriculture. By 2000, the number was down to 9 percent, while manufacturing employment had risen to 22 percent. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

In Taiwan during the same period, the shift went down from 37 percent to rural to 7 percent, as the industrial workforce swelled to 35 percent. Malaysia went from more than 50 percent in agriculture to 16 percent, with manufacturing jumping to 27 percent. Similar, though less dramatic, shifts occurred in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. In each case, too, it was not just money that was transferred. With it came what economist William Easterly, formerly of the World Bank, has called “leakage”—a diffusion of knowledge, not just about technologies, but about finance, about markets and marketing, about import-export rules and business in general. The net effect of this massive transfer of industrial-age activities and know-how has been to raise multitudes of the World’s least affluent people out of the most extreme poverty. Ending up struggling in urban slums may hardly seem like progress to people with full bellies. However, for most of the Asian millions driven off the land by drought, hunger and disease, going back would be worse. And they know it. This process, during which countries transitioning toward knowledge economies transferred some of their manufacturing to less affluent, mainly agrarian countries from Asia to Latin America, had important corollaries. The recipient countries saw lengthened life expectancy, a general decline in infant mortality and reduced rates of population growth, the latter a key factor in the poverty equation. Between 1960 and 1999, per capita food production in the World grew by nearly 25 percent, and the number of those surviving on less than 2,100 calories a day—the threshold used to define malnutrition—plunged by 75 percent. Not incidentally, during roughly the same period, East Asians, starting from an admittedly low case, saw a 400 percent increase in average real incomes. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

The gains made by these and other poor countries, and not merely in Asia but in Latin America and elsewhere, are not the result of the softhearted benevolence of the rich World. These external inputs of capital—accompanied by hand-me-down relevant knowledge—would have had little impact without the brains, energy, hard work, ideas, entrepreneurialism and struggle of leaders and ordinary people in the least affluent countries themselves. Overall, however, what we find is a remarkable case of trickle-down economics—which for reasons that were unanticipated and unintentional actually worked, and not just in Asia. Yet an important question remains: How much of this anti-poverty progress in recent decades would have happened had the computer never been invented and the latest revolutionary wealth system never arrived? The story, moreover, does not end with this question hanging in the air. For none of what we have seen here so far fully explains the turbo-powered rise of Asia—or tells us what happens next as Africa, China, and Indian burst onto the World scene. To those thinking in terms of nanotechnology, STMs immediately looked promising not only for seeing atoms and molecules but for manipulating them. This idea soon became widespread among physicists. As Calvin Quate stated in Physics Today in 1986, “Some of us believe that the scanning tunneling microscope will evolve. That one day [it] will be used to write and read patterns of molecular size.” This approach was suggested as a path to molecular nanotechnology in Engines of Creation, again in 1986. By now, whole stacks of scientific papers document the use of STM and AFM tips to scratch, melt, erode, indent, and otherwise modify surfaces on a nanometer scale. These operations move atoms around, but with little control. They amount to bulk operations on a tiny scale—one fine scratch a few dozen atoms wide, instead of the billions that result from conventional polishing operations. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

As way of drawing together the technical limits and tendencies of television technology so that a pattern emerges, we need to consider some miscellaneous inherent biases. War is better television than peace. It is filled with highlighted moments, contains action and resolution, and delivers a powerful emotion: fear. Peace is amorphous and broad. The emotions connected with it are subtle, personal and internal. These are far more difficult to televise. Violence is better TV than nonviolence. When there is a choice between objective events (incidents, data) and subjective information (perspectives, thoughts, feelings), the objective event will be chosen. It is more likely to take visual form. Cars (and most commodities) are more visible on television, and come across with less information loss, than any living thing, aside from human faces. The smaller a plant or creature, or the more complex an image it presents, the harder it is to convey and the less likely it is to be chosen. Cars, like most urban forms, offer a clean, straight, uncomplicated message. They communicate their essence more efficiently than plants do. We are bound to have more images of cars and urban forms on television than natural environments and creates. Religions with charismatic leaders such as Billy Graham, Jesus Christ, Reverend Moon, Maharishi or L. Ron Hubbard, Joel Ostin, are far simpler to handle on television than leaderless or nature-based religions like Zen Buddhism, Christian Science, Native Americans (however, European Americans now considered themselves Native Americans and the Native Americans are referred to as Indigenous people), or druidism, or, for that matter, atheism. Single, all-powerful gods, or individual godlike figures are simpler to describe because they have highly defined characteristics. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Nature-based religions are dependent upon a gestalt of human feeling and perceptual exchanges with the planet. To be presented on television, they would need to be too simplified to retain meaning. To study different aspects of the evolutionary process, different methodological tools have been used. One set of questions asked about the destination of the evolutionary process. To study this, the concept of collective (or evolutionary) stability was used to study where the evolutionary process would stop. The idea was to determine which strategies could not be invaded if they were used by everyone. The virtue of this approach is that it allowed a good specification of which types of strategies can protect themselves, and under what conditions this protection can work. For example, it was shown that TIT FOR TAT would be collectively stable if the shadow of the future were large enough, and that the strategy of always defecting would be collectively stable under all possible conditions. The power of the collective stability approach is that it allows a consideration of all possible new strategies, whether minor variants of the common strategy or completely new ideas. The limitation of the stability approach is that it only tells what will last once established, but it does not tell what will get established in the first place. Since many different strategies can be collectively stable once established in a population, it is important to know which strategies are likely to get established in the first place. For this a different methodology was need. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

To see what is likely to get established in the first place, the emphasis must be placed upon the variety of things that can happen at once in a population. Since the process of getting fully established is likely to take a considerable amount of time, another kind of technique was used to study the changing prospects of strategies as their social environments of changes. This technique was an ecological analysis, which calculated what would happen if each generation had strategies growing in frequency in proportion to their success in the previous generation. This was an ecological approach because it introduced no new strategies, but instead determined the consequences over hundreds of generations of the variety of strategies already represented in society. It allowed for an analysis of whether the strategies that were successful in the beginning would remain successful after the poor performers had dropped out. The growth of the successful strategies in each generation could be thought of as due to either better survival and reproduction of the users of that strategy, or due to a greater chance of being imitated by others. In the territorial system, determination of what is successful is local. Each location which has a more successful neighbour adopts the strategy of the most successful of its neighbours. As in the ecological simulation, this growth of the more successful can be attributed to either better survival and reproduction, or to greater chance of being imitated by others. The Process incorporated the ideas of a number of its ancestors and current occupants of the occult landscape. Accordingly, there was an intermingling of philosophy, membership, and networking among the groups. The Solar Lodge, a secret magical society. The Brayton cult operated a boardinghouse near the University of Southern California campus in Los Angeles and recruited members from the student body there. The cult was broken up when a Riverside Country sheriffs raided the Blythe commune and found a six-year-old boy chained in a packing crate. Getting what you want is not easy. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

Soccer uniforms, ⚽ swimsuits, 🩱 sandy beach towels – oh my! Summer brings more dirty laundry than we ever thought possible, but once you’ve got a fully functional, absolutely beautiful laundry room, it’s not a problem.

The beautiful #CresleighRanch Mills Station Residence 2 offers two stories of smartly designed living space.

On the main floor, you’ll find a spacious dining room, great room and kitchen with a center island, as well as a convenient powder room, off the 2-car garage, and a large main floors master bedroom with a luxurious bathroom.

And psst…our homesite 104 is ready for new owners!

Don’t miss the final opportunity to purchase at Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch.

#CresleighHomes