Nice little dollies, they were, and not bigger than Gulliver’s Lilliput people. Their ways were like ours. In their America they had a republic on our own plan, and in their Europe, their Asia and their Africa they had monarchies and established churches, and a pope and a czar, and all the rest of it. They were not afraid of us; in fact they held us in rather frank contempt, because we were giants. Giants have never been respected, in any World. These people had a quite good opinion of themselves, although they were no bigger than a banana, and many of them no bigger than a clothespin. In church it was a common thing for the preacher to look out over his congregation and speak of them as the noblest work of God—and never a clothes pin smiled! These little animals were having wars all of the time, and raising armies and building navies, and striving after the approval of God every way they could. And wherever there was a savage country that needed civilizing, they went there and took it, and divided it up among the several enlightened monarchs, and civilized it—each monarch in his own way, but generally with Bibles and bullets and taxes. And the way they did whoop-up Morals, and Patriotism, and Religion, and the Brotherhood of Man was noble to see. I could not see that they differed from us, except in size. It was like looking at ourselves through the wrong end of the spyglass. However, Sandy said there was one difference, and a big one. It was this: each person could look right into every other person’s mind and read what was in it, but he thought his own mind was concealed from everybody but himself! “The Lord speaks unto men according to their language,” reports 2 Nephi 31.3. Aristotle in his Ethics shows how the philosopher appears as the ally of the gentlemen, speaking to them about the noble deeds that are their specialty (not his). #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

All he apparently does is clarify for them what they already practice. However, he makes slight changes that point toward philosophy. Piety is not even included in the list of the individual virtues. And shame, a quality of the noble and a great enemy of reason, is mentioned only in order to be banished from the canon. The virtuous man has nothing to be ashamed of, says Aristotle—and observation that fits Socrates’ view of himself but is not typical of gentlemen. And gradually Aristotle turns his readers’ attention to the theoretical life, not by seriously theorizing with them but by pointing to the direction in which it lies. He makes it godlike and the completion of their own incompleteness, which they used to achieve by admiring. Achilles and revering the Olympian gods. Now they admire the theoretical men who contemplate a thinking god. It is an open question whether the gentleman grasped the essence of philosophy less accurately in this way than does the modern man who respects the scientist because he provides him with useful things. Similarly in his Poetics, Aristotle explains to gentlemanly lovers of the theater what tragedy is and what they get from it. However, here too the changes things a bit. The poet is not, as Homer presents himself, inspired by the Muse but is an imitator of nature, id est, of the same thing the philosophers study, and hence does not depict a World alien to the one studied by philosophy, or one that results from causes in conflict with those admitted by science. Aristotle explicitly connects poetry with philosophy. And the end, the final cause, of tragedy is said to be the purgation of pity and fear, the two passions that combined lead to enthusiasm, religious possession or fanaticism. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Socrates had attacked the poets for appealing to those passions that make men ecstatic from terror at what they can suffer and their unprotectedness in their suffering. It is just here, according to Socrates, that reason should be invoked, to face the necessary, to remind men of the order in things that exists in spite of the accidents that happen to them individually. Pity and fear cry out for satisfaction, for attention, for being taken seriously. Above all, the World men incline to see is full of benevolent and malevolent deities who take their cases seriously. Poetry to succeed must speak to these passions, which are more powerful than reason in almost all men. Because poetry needs an audience it is, in Socrates’ view, too friendly to the enemies of reason. The philosopher has less need to enter into the wishes of the many or, as the wise of our time would put it, into the drama of history, or to be engage. This is why Socrates heightens the enmity between philosophy and poetry. Aristotle, actually following Socrates’ lead, suggests that the poet can be the doctor of mortals who are so mad as to insist they should be immortal. The poet, not the philosopher, can treat the passions that are dangerous to philosophy, which Socrates had to his great cost ignored. He can arouse these passions in order to flush them out of the soul, leaving the patients more relaxed and calmer, more willing to listen to reason. Aristotle tells the poets they should present heroes who deserve their fates, whose sad ends are plausibly attributable to a flaw in their characters. Their suffering, while pitiable, is not promiscuous, a reproach to the moral order, or the lack of one, in the World. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

The effect of such drama would be to make men gentle and believers in the coherence of the World, in the rational relation of cause and effect. They are not made reasonable by this but are saved from hatred of reason and more disposed to accept it. Aristotle does not attempt to make scientists out of gentlemen, but he tempers their prevailing passions in such a way as to make them friends of philosophy. Socrates does much the same thing in the Apology when he addresses those who voted for his acquittal and tells them myths that tend to make death seem less terrible. The tales are not true, but they reinforce the gentleness that kept them from fearing and hence condemning Socrates. Socrates criticizes poetry in order to encourage it to be an ally of the philosophers instead of the priests. Thus philosophy’s response to the hostility of civil society is an educational endeavor, rather more poetic or rhetorical than philosophic, the purpose of which is to temper the passions of gentlemen’s souls, softening the hard passions such as anger, and hardening the soft ones such as pity. The model for all such efforts is the dialogues of Plato, which together rival the Iliad and the Odyssey, or even the Gospels, introducing a new hero who excites admiration and imitation. To introduce a new hero, a new taste has to be established, and the taste for Socrates is unique, counter to all previous tastes. Plato turns the personage of The Clouds into one of those civilization-constituting figures like Moses, Jesus or Achilles, who have a greater reality in men’s souls than do their own flesh-and-blood contemporaries. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

As Achilles is said to have formed Alexander the Great; Alexander, Caesar; and Caesar, Napoleon—reaching out to one another from the peaks across the valleys—so Socrates is the teacher of philosophers in an unbroken chain for two and a half millennia, extending from generation to generation through all the epochal changes. Plato insured this influence, not by reproducing Socrates’ philosophy, in the manner of Aristotle or Kant, but by representing his action, more in the manner of Sophocles, Aristophanes, Dante and Shakespeare. Socrates is made to touch the prevailing passion of each of the different kinds of soul in such a way as appear to be divinatory of their longings and necessary to their self-understanding. There are dialogues that touch the pious; some move the ambitious and the idealistic; others excite the erotic and still others the warriors and the politicians; some speak to the poets, others to the mathematicians; lovers of money are no more forgotten than are lovers of honor. There is hardly anyone who is not made indignant by one aspect of another of Socrates’ discourse, but there is also hardly anyone who is not moved and heartened by other aspects. Socrates stated the case for all human types better than they could have stated it for themselves. (He, of course, also stated the problem with each of those types and their aspirations.) Plato demonstrates the need for Socrates and in so doing makes the need felt in his readers. It is not only Alcibiades who felt incomplete without Socrates. In almost on case was there a total conversion of a man. Certainly none is ever depicted in the dialogues. Plato himself, and a few others, were converted to philosophy, and their self-discovery was possible because Socrates was more or less tolerate in Athens. The toleration of philosophy requires its being thought to serve powerful elements in society without actually becoming their servant. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The philosopher must come to terms with the deepest prejudices of men always, and of the men of his time. The one thing he cannot change and will not try to change is their fear of death and the whole superstructure of beliefs and institutions that make death bearable, ward it off or deny it. The essential difference between the philosopher and all other men is his facing of death or his relation to eternity. He obviously does not deny that many men die resolutely or calmly. It is relatively easy to die well. The question is how one lives, and only the philosopher does not need opinions that falsify the significance of things in order to endure them. He alone mixes the reality of death—its inevitability and our dependence on fortune for what little life we have—into every thought and deed and is thus able to live while honestly seeking perfect clarity. He is, therefore, necessarily in the most fundamental tension with everyone except his own kind. He relates to all the others ironically, id est, with sympathy and a playful distance. Changing the character of his relationship to them is impossible because of the disproportion between him and them is firmly rooted in nature. Thus, he has no expectation of essential progress. Toleration, not right, is the best he can hope for, and he is kept vigilant by the awareness of the basic fragility of his situation and that of philosophy. Socrates allies himself with those who are powerful in the city and at the same time fascinated or charmed by him. However, the charm only endures so long as he does not confront their most important concerns. Crito, the family man, thinks of Socrates as a good soldier. Those who get angry at Socrates and accuse him always see something the more gently disposed miss. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Thrasymachus sees that Socrates does not respect the city. He sees the truth about Socrates, but he cannot, at least in the beginning, appreciate him. The other appreciate him. The others appreciate him, but partly because they are blind to what is most important to him. This provides the model for the political tactics followed by the philosophers from Plato up to Machiavelli. None was primarily political, for there was a definite limit on what one could expect from politics, and it was essential not to make the pursuit of the truth dependent on what is politically relevant. Politics was a serious study to the extent that one learned about the soul from it. However, the practical politics of all the philosophers, no matter how great their theoretical differences, were the same. They practiced an art of writing that appealed to the prevailing moral tastes of the regime in which they found themselves, but which could lead some astute readers outside of it to the Elysian Fields where the philosophers meet to talk. They frequently became the interpreters of the traditions of their nations, subtly altering them to make them open to philosophy and philosophers. They were always suspect, but they also always had their well-placed friends. For this reason the form and content of the writings of men like Plato, Cicero, Farabi and Maimonides appear very different, while their inner teachings may be to all intents and purposes the same. Each had a different beginning point, a different cave, from which he had to ascend to the light and to which he had to return. Thus they appeared to be “relevant” without forming their minds to the prejudices of the day. This protected them from the necessity of the temptation to conform to what is most powerful. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Classical philosophy was amazingly robust and survived changes as great as are imaginable, such as that from paganism to the revealed Biblical religions. Marsilius of Padua was as Aristotelian as was Aristotle, proving that the problems are permanent but their expressions are changing. We moderns think that a comparatively minor change, like that wrought by the French Revolution, necessitates new thought. The ancients held that a man must never let himself be overcome by events unless those events taught something essentially new. They were more intent than were any men before or since on preserving the freedom of the mind. This was their legacy to the university. They, however, never let the principle become a dogma and never counted on its having any other ground than their wits. They were ever mindful of the responsibilities and the risks of their enterprise. In sum, the ancient philosophers were to a man proponent of aristocratic politics, but not for the reasons intellectual historians are wont to ascribe to them. They were aristocratic in the vulgar sense, favoring the power of those possessing old wealth, because such men are more likely to grasp the nobility of philosophy as an end itself, if not to understand it. Most simply, they have the money for an education and time to take it seriously. Only technology, with its attendant problems, makes universal education possible, and therefore opens the prospect of a different kind of relationship of philosophy to politics. Lavey’s brand of Satanism was designed to fill the void between religion and psychiatry, meeting man’s need for ritual, fantasy, and enchantment while at the same time providing a rational set of beliefs on which to base one’s life. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

The other major religions are outmoded, he asserts, because they are trying to keep superstition alive in a technological age. Christianity preaches the virtues of altruism and asceticism, LaVey acknowledges, but for political, not World reasons. “What are the Seven Deadly Sins?” he is fond of asking. “Gluttony, avarice, lust, sloth—they are urges every man feels at least once a day. How would you set yourself up as the most powerful institution on Earth? You first find out what every man feels at least once a day, establish that as a sin, and set yourself up as the only institution capable of pardoning that sin.” For LaVey, it is the guilt that makes people sick, not their urges. If an individual is law-abiding and causes harm to no other creature, then he or she should be able to indulge in whatever activity, pleasures of the flesh or otherwise, that one finds pleasurable. Distinguishing self-indulgence from compulsion, however, LaVey cautions, “If a person has no proper release for his desires, they rapidly build up and become compulsions.” In reality, it might not be so easy to tell when the line between the two has been crossed. Like a drug addict or alcoholic who insists he or she can stop anytime her or she wants, a person may try to present a sexual compulsion simply as a preference. Yet, as long as the compulsions were not alarming overt, LaVey, in the early days of the Church of Satan, was not strict in applying the distinction. He recognized that many of those applying for membership did indeed have emotional and psychological problems and were attracted to his church because of their feelings of alienation from the rest of society. In fact, many of the rituals held at midnight on Fridays at the black house took that fact into account with accommodating calculation. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

John Whiteside Parsons was born on 2 October 1914 in Los Angeles, California. His mother and father separated while he was quite young, and Parsons said later that this left him with “…a hatred of authority and a spirit of revolution, as well as an Oedipal attachment to his mother. He felt withdrawn and isolated as a child, and was bullied by other children. This gave him, he thought, “…the requisite contempt for the crowd and for the group of mores…” Parsons was born into a rich family, and sometime in his youth there was what he referred to as a loss of family fortune. This loss must only have been a temporary one, though—perhaps caused by the break-up of the family—since in the 1940s he inherited from his father a large, Victorian-style mansion in the well-to-do area of Pasadena. During adolescence, Parsons developed an interest in science, especially physics and chemistry, and in fact he went on to develop a career as a brilliant scientist in the fields of explosives and rocket-fuel technology. His achievements as a scientist were such that the Americans named a lunar crater after him when they came to claim that territory for their own. Appropriately enough, Crater Parsons is on the dark side of the moon. Many people—the ones who retain a rich cultural perspective that is not fully Americanized—is not the one who is chosen for the network television show or the corporate vice-presidency. He or she would not be chosen because, in so many ways, this person would be ill suited for the objective, mental, aggressive, unfeeling styles that are rewarded in corporate life. Instead, the corporations pick the rare person who is more like the traditional White males who already occupy the center stage. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

What is true for television commentators and corporation executive is also true for government officials. As the personnel within the institutions change, the institutions maintain their inflexible form. The balance of power among races and genders begins to alter, but the power arrangement themselves—some people on top, other people on the bottom, other people are often times totally excluded. If alternative to the life-style of the system exist, they are not represented. None of this is to argue that the non-dominant culture or any group which has been denied access should not seek the success they are presently beginning to achieve in the objective World of money and power. In their shoes I would certainly do the same. It is only a remark that the subtle pressures of technological and corporate form create an archetypal Faustian bargain. In winning rights or money or power, the diverse elements in American culture lose their unique identity, their cultural roots. They become what they oppose. And so the real power is revealed as existing in the institutions and the technology itself. For proof, you have only to watch the diverse cultural programming on television. It might as well be American Housewife of Chicago Fire. As with Flowers of the Attic, a way of mind is reduced to the exigencies of soap opera and sitcoms. As for mainstream American “culture,” presumed to be the oppressor, it does not exist either. It is itself subordinate to corporate culture, or corporate consciousness, commodity life and the channelization of all behavior and thought into a nice package that suits a machine. Speaking of machines, one of the most important things computers do today is talk to one another. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

In fact, computers and communication are so closely fused today as to be inseparable. This means that computer companies must defend not only their operating systems, but also their access to, or control of, telecommunications networks. If operating systems control what goes on inside computers, telecommunications standards control what does on between computers. (The distinction, in reality, is not so neat, but good enough for our purposes here.) And here again we find companies and countries locked in a bitter struggle over the main systems that process our information. Because more data, information, and knowledge now flows across national boundaries, the info-war over telecommunications is, if anything, even more politically fraught than the war over operating systems. General Motors, for example, in trying to tie together its global production, has devised its own standard to allow its machines to communicate with one another even though they come from different makers. It calls this standard MAP (for Manufacturing Automation Protocol) and has tried to promote its Worldwide adoption by other manufacturers and its own supplies. To block GM, the European Community (EC) has talked thirteen giant manufacturing companies, including BMW, Olivetti, British Aerospace, and Nixdorf, into supporting a counter-standard called CNMA. If European machines are going to talk to one another, the EC seems to be saying, it will not be on terms defined by General Motors—of the United States of American. This toe-to-toe over electronic communication in the factories of the plants, however, is only part of a larger battle for control of the World’s extra-intelligent networks. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

As Japanese firms began to connect up electronically with plants and offices around the World a host of companies rushed to sell them the necessary computers and telecommunications links. This is a field in which U.S.A technology still outstrips that of Japan; and IBM, once again, was a major player. However, the Japanese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications announced that any networks linking Japan with the outside World would have to conform to a technical standard set by an obscure United Nations consultative committee on telecom policy. This ruling would have kept IBM in Japan from using equipment and systems designed to its own proprietary standard. The result was a massive lobbying effort in Washington and Tokyo, negotiations between the two governments, and ultimately, a back-off by Japan. When each country’s telephone system was controlled by a single company or ministry, national standards were set and international standards were then decided by the International Telecommunications Union. Life was simple—until computers wanted to talk to one another. By the 1980s, as new technologies avalanched into the market, businesses and individuals alike were using machines built by different manufacturers, using different operating systems, running programs written by different software houses, and trying to send messages around the World through a patchwork of cables, microwaves, and satellites belonging to different countries. The result today is the much-bewailed electronic Tower of Babel, and it explains why desperate cries for “connectivity” and “interoperability” echo around the business World. And here yet again the main struggle has shaped up as IB versus The World. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

IBM has long promoted a standard called System Network Architecture. The problem with SNA is that while it allows (some, not all) IBM machines to talk to other IBM machines, it is decidedly deaf to a great many non-IBM computers. As The Wall Street Journal once put it: “Hooking any non-SNA computers into those networks is a programmer’s nightmare. Rivals wanting to sell their computers to IMB’s legion of customers must mimic SNA in their own machines.” This indirect control of access to information may have been tolerable when most computers were IBMs, but not today. Hence the cry had gone up for computer democracy. While we are focusing on technology, consider the case of cesarean sections. Close to one out of every four Americans is now born by C-section. Through modern technology, American doctors can deliver babies who would have died otherwise. As Dr. Laurence Horowitz notes in Taking Charge of Your Medical Fate, “…the proper goal of C-section is to improve the chances of babies at risk, and that goal has been achieved.” However, C-sections are a surgical procedure, and when they are done routinely as an elective option, there is considerable and unnecessary danger; the changes of a woman’s dying during a C-section delivery are two to four times greater than during a normal traditional delivery. In others words, C-sections can and do save the lives of babies at risk, but when they are done for other reasons—for example, for the convenience of doctor or mother—they pose an unnecessary threat to health, and even life. Your body is not a machine. It is a living organism. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

To take another example: a surgical procedure known as carotid endarterectomy is used to clean out clogged arteries, thus reducing the likelihood of stroke. In 1987, more than one hundred thousand Americans had this operation. It is now established that the risks involved in such surgery outweigh the risks of suffering a stroke. Horowitz again: “In other words, for certain categories of patients, the operation may actually kill more people than it saves.” To take still another example: about seventy-eight thousand people every year get cancer from medical and dental X-rays. In a single generation, it is estimated, radiation will induce 2.34 million cancers. Examples of this kind can be given with appalling ease. However, in the interests of fairness the question about the value of technology in medicine is better phrased in the following way: Would American medicine be better were it not so totally reliant on the technological imperative? Here the answer is clearly, yes. We know, for example, from a Harvard Medical School study which focused on the year 1984 (no Orwellian reference intended), that in New York State alone there were thirty-six thousand cases of medical negligence, including seven thousand deaths related in some way to negligence. Although the study does not give figures on what kinds of negligence were found, the example is provided of doctors prescribing penicillin without asking the patients whether they were hyper-sensitive to the drug. We can assume that many of the deaths resulted not only from careless prescriptions and the doctors’ unwise thoughts about their patients’ histories but also from unnecessary surgery. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

In other words, iatrogenics (treatment-induced illness) is not a major concern for the profession, and an even greater concern for the patient. Doctors themselves feel restricted and dominated by the requirement to use all available technology. Technology is not a neutral element in the practice of medicine: doctors do not merely use technologies but are used by them. Second, technology creates its own imperatives and, at the same time, creates a wide-ranging social system to reinforce its imperatives. And third, technology changes the practice of medicine by redefining what doctors are, redirecting where they focus their own attention, and reconceptualizing how they view their patients and illness. Like some well-know diseases, the problems that have arisen as a result of the reign of technology came slowly and were barely perceptible at the start. As technology grew, so did the influence of drug companies and the manufacturers of medical instruments. As the training of doctors changed, so did the expectations of patients. As the increase in surgical procedures multiplied, so did the diagnoses which made them seem necessary. Through it all, the question of what was being undone had a low priority if it was asked at all. The Zeitgeist of the age placed such a question in a range somewhere between peevishness and irrelevance. In a growing Technopoly, there is no times or inclination to speak of technological debits. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Ho do researchers design what they cannot see? To make a new molecule, both its structure and the procedure to make it must be designed. Compared to gigantic science projects like the Superconducting Supercollider and the Hubble Space Telescope, working with molecules can be done on a shoestring budget. Still, the costs of trying many different procedures add up. To help predict in advance what will work and what will not, designers turn to models. You may have played with molecular models in chemistry class: colored plastic balls and sticks that fit together like Tinker Toys. Each color represents a different kind of atom: carbon, hydrogen, and so on. Even simple plastic models can give you a feel for how many bonds each kind of atom makes, how long the bonds are, and at what angels they are made. A more sophisticated form of models uses only sphere and partial spheres, without sticks. These colorful, bumpy shapes are called CPK models, and are widely used by professional chemists. Nobel laureate Donald Cram remarks that “We have spent hundreds of hours building CPK models of potential complexes and grading them for desirability as research targets.” His research, like that of fellow Nobelists Charles J. Pederson and Jean-Marie Lehn, has focused on designing and making medium-sized molecules that self-assemble. Although physical models cannot give a good description of how molecules bend and move, computer-based molecules can. Computer-based modeling is already playing a key role in molecular engineering. As John Walker (a founder and leader of Autodesk) has remarked, “Unlike all of the industrial revolutions that preceded it, molecular engineering requires, as an essential component, the ability to design, model, and simulate molecular structures using computers.” #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

This has not gone unnoticed in the business community. John Walker’s remark was part of a talk on nanotechnology given at Autodesk, a leader in computer-aided design, model, and simulate molecular structures using computers.” This has not gone unnoticed in the business community. John Walker’s remark was part of a talk on nanotechnology given at Autodesk, a leader in computer-aided design and one of the five largest software firms in the United States of America. Soon after this talk, the company made its first major investment in the computer-aided design of molecules. How does molecular design compare to more familiar kinds of engineering? Manufacturers and architects know that designs for new products and buildings are best done on a computer, by computer-aided design (CAD). The new molecular-design software can be called molecular Cad, and in its forefront are researchers such as Jay Ponder of the Yale University Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry. Ponder explains that “There’s a strong link between what molecular designers are doing and what architects do. Michael Ward of Du Pont is designing a set of building blocks for a Tinker Toy set so that you can build larger structures. That is exactly we’re doing with modeling techniques. All the designs and mechanical engineering principles that apply to building a skyscraper or a bridge apply to molecular architecture as well. If you’re building a bridge, you’re going to model it and see how many trucks can be on the bridge at the same time without it collapsing, what kind of forces you’re going to apply to it, whether it can stand up to an earthquake. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

“And the same process goes on in molecular design: You’re designing pieces and then analyzing the stresses and forces and how they will change and perturb the structure. It’s exactly the same as designing and building a building, or analyzing the stresses on aby marco-scale structure. I think it’s important to get people to think in those terms. The molecular designer has to be creative in the same way that an architect has to be creative in designing a building. When people are looking at the interior of a protein structure and trying to redesign it to create a space that will have a particular function, such as binding to particular molecules, that’s like designing a room to use as a dining room—one that will fit certain sizes of tables and certain numbers of guests. It’s the same thing in both cases: You have to design a space for a function.” Ponder combines chemistry and computer science with an overall engineering approach: “I’m kind of a hybrid. I spend about half my time doing experiments and about half my time writing computer programs and doing computational work. In the laboratory, I cate or design molecules to test some of the computational ideas. So I’m at the interface.” The engineering perspective helps in thinking about where molecular research can lead: “even though with nanotechnology we’re at the nanometer scale, the structures are still big enough that an awful lot of things are classical. Again, it’s really like building bridges—very small bridges. And so there are many almost standard mechanical-engineering techniques for architecture and building structures, such as stress analysis, that apply. That American Technopoly has now embraced the computer in the same hurried and mindless way it embraced medical technology is undeniable, was perhaps inevitable, and is certainly most unfortunate.  #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

This is not to say that the computer is a blight on the symbolic landscape; only that, like medical technology, it has usurped powers and enforced mind-sets that a fully attentive culture might have wished to deny it. Thus, an examination of the ideas embedded in computer technology is worth attempting. Others, of course, have done this, especially Joseph Weizenbaum in his great and indispensable book Computer Power and Human Reason. Weizenbaum, however, ran into some difficulties, as everyone else has, because of the “universality” of computers, meaning (a) that their uses are infinitely various, and (b) that computers are commonly integrated into the structure of other machine. It is, therefore, hard to isolate specific ideas promoted by computer technology. The computer, for example, is quite unlike the stethoscope, which has a limited function in a limited context. Except for safecrackers, who, I am told, use stethoscopes to hear the tumblers of locks click into place, stethoscopes are used only by doctors. However, everyone uses or is used by computers, and for purposes that seem to know no boundaries. Putting aside such well-known functions as electronic filing, spreadsheets, and word-processing, one can make a fascinating list of the innovative, even bizarre, uses of computers. Computers are enabling aquatic designers to create giant water slides that mimic roller coasters and eight-foot-high artificial waves. Of course you know computers are used in board room meetings, but computer graphics help jurors to remember testimony better. We are sandwiched-on, tuned-in, visually oriented society, and jurors tend to believe tht they see. This technology keeps the jury’s attention by simplifying the material and by giving them little bursts of information. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

If you like windows, this is the house for you. Buyers will be impression by all the light, which makes this etheral opened concept home feel like Heaven on Earth.

Live life on your unique terms when you’ve chosen a home at #MillsStation – this bedroom is just one of three at Residence 3.

This layout also boasts a den with a fireplace; check out more info in our bio and peep 👀 some more pics.

The exciting addition to the sought-after Cresleigh Ranch masterplan, offers a distinctive collection of ranch homes with designer details, thoughtful layouts and abundant personalization options.

There are only a few homes left in this highly coveted Cresleigh Homes Community, but there are also other homes available and being built.

#CresleighRanch
#CresleighHomes