Morality is not a vision of ends, however desirable, but a system of restraints in the pursuit of any ends. To understand the meaning of a “school,” there has to already have been an experience of the search and struggle for the change of being. These lectures are obviously not intended for everybody, but as an invitation, to those who may agree on the futility of man’s present situation, to inquire into and experience the question of what he is and what he might become. Most people want to hear new things; that is, things that they have never heard before. I know that it is not an easy thing to realize that one is hearing new things. We are so accustomed to the old tunes, and the old motives, that long go we ceased to hope and ceased to believe that there might be anything new. And when we hear new things, we take them for old, or think that they can be explained and interpreted by the old. It is true that it is a difficult task to realize the possibility and necessity of quite new ideas, and it needs with time a revaluation of all usual values. I cannot guarantee that you will hear new ideas, that is, ideas you never heard before, from the start; but if you are patient you will very soon begin to notice them. And then I wish you not to miss them, and to try not to interpret the in the old way. During the time when psychology was connected with philosophy and religion it also existed in the form of art. Poetry, drama, sculpture, dancing, even architecture, were means for transmitting psychological knowledge. For instance, the Gothic cathedrals were in their chief meaning works on psychology. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

In the ancient times before philosophy, religion, and art had taken their separate forms as we now know them, psychology had existed in the form of Mysteries, such as those of Egypt and of ancient Greece. Later, after the disappearance of the Mysteries, psychology existed in the form of Symbolical Teachings which were sometimes connected with the religion of the period and sometimes not connected, such as astrology, alchemy, magic, and the more modern Masonry, occultism, and Theosophy. When we understand the importance of the study of man from the point of view of his possible evolution, we shall understand that the first answer to the question, what is psychology, should be that psychology is the study of the principles, laws, and facts of man’s possible evolution. If we take historical mankind, that is, humanity for ten or fifteen thousand years, we may find unmistakable signs of a higher type of man, whose presence can be established on the evidence of ancient monuments and memorials which cannot be repeated or imitated by the present humanity. As regards prehistoric man or creatures similar in appearance to man and yet at the same time very different from him, whose bones are sometimes found in deposits of glacial or pre-glacial periods, we may accept the quite possible view that these bones belong to some being quite different from man, which died out long ago. Denying previous evolution of man, we must deny any possibility of future mechanical evolution of man; that is, evolution happening by itself according to laws of heredity and selection, and without man’s conscious efforts and understanding of his possible evolution. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

Our fundamental idea shall be that man as we know him is not a completed being; that nature develops him only up to a certain point and then leaves him, to develop further, by his own efforts and devices, or to live and die such as he was born, or to degenerate and lose capacity for development. Evolution of man in this case will mean the development of certain inner qualities and features which usually remain undeveloped, and cannot develop by themselves. Experience and observation show that this development is possible only in certain definite conditions, with efforts of a certain kind on the part of man himself, and with sufficient help from those who began similar work before and have already attained a certain degree of development, or at least a certain knowledge of methods. We must start with the idea that without efforts evolution is impossible; without help, it is also impossible. After this we must understand that in the way of development, man must become a different being, and we must learn and understand in what sense and in which direction man must become a different being; that is, what a different being means. Then we must understand that all men cannot develop and become different beings. Evolution is the question of personal efforts, and in relation to the mass of humanity evolution is the rare exception. It may sound strange, but we must realize that it is not only rare, but is becoming more and more rare. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

Many questions naturally arise from the preceding statements: What does it mean that in the way of evolution man must become a different being? What does “different being” mean? Which inner qualities or features can be developed in man, and how can this be done? Why cannot all men develop and become different beings? Why such an injustice? Why cannot all men develop and become different beings? Because they do not want it. Because they do not know about it and will not understand without a long preparation what it means, even if they are told. The chief idea is that in order to become a different being man must want it very much and for a very long time. A passing desire or a vague desire based on dissatisfaction with external conditions will not create a sufficient impulse. The evolution of man depends on his understanding of what he may get and what he must give for it. If man does not want it, or if he does not want it strongly enough, and does not make necessary efforts, he will develop. So there is no injustice in this. Why should man have what he does not want? If man were forced to become a different being when he is satisfied with what he is, then this would be injustice. Now we must ask ourselves what a different being means. If we consider all the material we can find that refers to this question, we find an assertion that in becoming a different being man acquires many new qualities and powers which he does not possess now. This is a common assertion which we find in all kinds of systems admitting the idea of psychological or inner growth of man. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

However, this is not sufficient. Even the most detailed descriptions of these new powers will not help us in any way to understand how they appear and where they come from. There is a missing link in ordinary known theories, even in those I already mentioned which are based on the idea of the possibility of evolution of man. The truth lies in the fact that before acquiring any new faculties or powers which man does not know and does not possess now, he must acquire faculties and powers he also does not possess, but which he ascribes to himself; that is, he thinks that he knows them and can use and control them. This is the missing link, and this is the most important point. By way of evolution, as described before, that is, a way based on effort and help, man must acquire qualities which he thinks already possessed, but about which he deceives himself. In order to understand this better, and to know what are these facilities and powers which man can acquire, both quite new and unexpected and also those which he imagines that he already possessed, we must begin with man’s general knowledge about himself. And where comes at once to a very important fact. Man does not know himself. Man has invented many machines, and he knows that a complicated machine needs sometimes years of careful study before one can use it or control it. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

However, he does not apply this knowledge to himself, although he himself is a much more complicated machines than any machine he has invented. He has al sorts of wrong ideas about himself. First of all, he does not realize that he actually is a machine. What does it man that man is a machine? It means that he had no independent movements, inside or outside of himself. He is a machine which is brought into motion by eternal influences and external impacts. All his movements, actions, words, ideas, emotions, moods, and thoughts are produced by external influences. By himself, he is just an automaton with a certain store of memories of previous experiences, and a certain amount of reserve energy. The conductor of an orchestra in the Soviet Union (during the Stalin era) was traveling by train to his next engagement and was looking over the score of the music he was to conduct that night. Two KGB officers saw what he was reading and, thinking that the musical notation was some secret code, arrested him as a spy. He protested that it was only Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto, but to no avail. On the second day of his imprisonment, the interrogator walked in smugly and said, “You had better tell us all. We have caught your friend Tchaikovsky, and he is already talking.” So beings one telling of the prisoners’ dilemma, perhaps the best-known strategic game. Let us develop the story to its logical conclusion. Suppose the KGB has actually arrested someone whose only offense is that he is called Tchaikovsky, and are separately subjecting him to the same kind of interrogation. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

If the two innocents withstand the treatment, each will be sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. If the conductor makes a false confession that implicates the unknown “collaborator,” while Tchaikovsky holds out, then the conductor will get away with 1 year (and the KGB’s gratitude), while Tchaikovsky gets the harsh sentence of 25 years for his recalcitrance. Of course, the tables will be turned if the conductor stand firm while Tchaikovsky gives in and implicates him. If both confess, then both will receive the standard sentence of 10 years. Now consider the conductor’s thinking. He knows that Tchaikovsky is either confessing or holding out. If Tchaikovsky confesses, the conductor gets 25 years by holding out and 10 years by confessing, so it is better for him to confess. If Tchaikovsky holds out, the conductor gets 3 years if he holds out, and only 1 if he confesses; again it is better for him to confess. Thus confession is clearly the conductor’s best action. In a separate cell in Dzerzhinsky Square, Tchaikovsky is doing a similar mental calculation and reaching the same conclusion. The result, of course, is that both of them confess. Later, when they meet in the Gulag Archipelago, they compare stories and realize that they have been had. If they both had stood firm, they both would have gotten away with much shorter sentences. If they had had an opportunity to meet and talk things over before they were interrogated, they could have agreed that neither would give in. However, they are quick to realize that in all probability such an agreement would not have done much good. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Once they were separated and the interrogations began, each person’s private incentive to get a better deal by double-crossing the other would have been quite powerful. Once again they would have met in the Gulag, there perhaps to settle the score of the betrayals (not of the concerto). Can the two achieve enough mutual credibility to reach their jointly preferred solution? Many people, firms, and even nations have been gored on the horns of the prisoners’ dilemma. Look at the life-or-death issue of nuclear arms control. Each superpower liked it best the outcome in which the other disarmed, while it kept its own arsenal “just in case.” Disarming yourself while the other remains armed was the worst prospect. Therefore no matter what the other side did, each preferred to stay armed. However, they could join in agreeing that the outcome in which both disarm is better than the one in which both are armed. The problem is the interdependence of decisions: the jointly preferred outcome arises when each chooses its individually worse strategy. Could the jointly preferred outcome be achieved given each side’s clear incentive to break the agreement and to arm itself secretly? In this case it needed a fundamental change in Soviet thinking to get the World started on the road to nuclear disarmament. For one’s comfort, safety, or even life itself, one needs to know the way to get out of the prisoner’s dilemma. The story of the prisoners’ dilemma also carries a useful general point: most economic, political, or social games are different from games such as football or poker. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

Football and poker are zero-sum games: one person’s gain is another person’s loss. However, in the prisoners’ dilemma, there are possibilities for mutual advantage as well as conflict of interest; both prisoners prefer the no-confession result to its opposite. Similarly, in employer-union bargaining, there is an opposition of interests in that one side prefers low wages and the other high ones, but there is agreement that a breakdown of negotiations leading to a strike would be more damaging for both sides. In fact such situations are the rue rather than the exception. Any useful analysis of games should be able to handle a mixture of conflict and concurrences of interests. We usually refer to the players in the game as “opponents,” but you should remember that on occasion, strategy makes strange bedfellows. Although we do our best to foresee important consequences, there is widespread acknowledgment that this is extraordinarily hard in times of dramatic change. The Information Revolution provides excellent examples, for deep reason we will examine. Some of the most famous stories of mistaken foresight center on managers and board members at companies like IBM and Intel who were unable to grasp the World-changing potential of their own products. IBM leaders once thought a handful of computers would suffice for the entire World. The Intel board of directors discouraged the first proposals to develop a microprocessor. The National Science Foundation has remarked that its panel of distinguished information technology scientists and engineers is consistent in its unwillingness to predict the future. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Efforts of the Justice Department to redress the consequences of Microsoft Corporation’s monopoly are hampered by the inability of experts to say what operating systems might become. The gears of the digital revolution [are] turning faster then the wheels of justice. Some industry leaders were frank enough to say—two years after the deluge—that they saw the first effective Web browser, Mosaic, as an inconsequential toy. As we write, that experience of the unanticipated World Wide Web explosion is fresh in our memories. In the Information Revolution, there are clearly strong limits on our ability to foresee what is to come. A wary attitude toward prediction is probably healthy, but it presents a severe roadblock to the normal processes of designing new artifacts or strategies, or refining and implementing policies. The standard procedure of design and policy making is to develop expectations (predictions) of how the future will unfold, and to define actions we could take that would lead to more desirable predicted futures. This stance can be stretched to accommodate some uncertainty by brining in specialized techniques like Bayesian inference to deal with probability distributions on possible futures. However, the usual approaches to designing an intervention grind to a half if we acknowledge that we do not know what might happen as a consequence of our actions. What we need is a far more innovative approach to the problem of the silver wave—solutions that may have to cross the boundaries of multiple existing bureaucracies. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

A key slander of retirees holds that they are unproductive. However, older people do not have to be unproductive, and most are not, once we recognize, in addition to their paid production, the economic value they create by prosuming. We need not replay the discussion of prosuming we have previously discussed. However, Japan could lead the World toward solutions of the aging problem by increasing the productivity and productivity of elderly prosumers. We know that prosumers create social capital by volunteering. Japan might envision large-scale ways to facilitate that. Or it might consider modest loans to some retirees for tools or materials with which to test their long-held idea for new kinds of products or services that might sell in the money economy. Or for woodworking tools a retiree might use to make furniture one could bater to a friend for diving one to the doctor on Wednesday afternoons. As we have seen, there are many ways in which prosumer output can be increased, and alternative forms of money that can be used in lieu of a regular paycheck. The choice for retirees requiring care does not have to be between a woman and a robot. Admittedly, some of the specific ideas sketched here may be impractical. However, to solve many twenty-first-century problems it will be necessary to explore ideas outside of the many boxes stuffed with obsolete industrial-age assumptions. Japan has repeatedly shown that it is a highly creative country, capable of finding tiny, fascinating, novel solutions to problems. To solve the problems now piling up, it will have to apply the same creativity and willingness to explore and experiment on a large scale as well. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

When Sears, Roebuck & Company, the largest U.S. retailer, announced a major reorganization of its merchandise group not long ago, the group chairman and CEO, Michael Bozie, said it was needed because “We are competing in many diverse businesses…and have essentially been using one organizational format to compete in all of these businesses.” This, critics implied, had made the firm sluggish and noncompetitive. However, even top managers who sense they need to “let go” or loosen the reins, in order to free up the energies of their people, drastically underestimate how far they will need to break the grip of bureaucracy. Scores, if not hundreds of companies have broken themselves into numerous “profit centers,” each of which, it is hoped, will act like a small, market—driven enterprise. Even some staff operations have now been designated as profit centers and must finance themselves (and thus justify their existence) by selling their inhouse services. However, what good is it to break a firm into profit centers if each of these is merely a cookie-cut miniature of the parent firm—a mini-bureaucracy nestling inside the mega-bureaucracy? What is beginning now is a much more profound and revolutionary shift, which will alter the entire nature of power in business. Most American managers still think of the organization as a “machine” whose parts can be tightened or loosened, “tuned up, or lubricated. This is the bureaucratic metaphor. By contrast, many Japanese are already using a post-bureaucratic metaphor—the corporation, they say, “is a living creature.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

This implies, among other things, that it undergoes birth, maturation, again, and death or rebirth in a new form. The Japanese term for company birth is sogyo and many companies today speak of experiencing a second or third or “new” sogyo. It is precisely at this moment of rebirth that long-term success or failure is determined. For if the new reborn firm is still organized along bureaucratic lines, like the old one it replaces, it may have a short and unhappy second life. By contrast, if at this moment firms are permitted to reach out in new direction and to assume whatever organizational forms are most appropriate, chances for adaptation to the new, innovation-rich environment are much better. The flex-firm concept does not imply structurelessness; it does suggest that a company, in being reborn, may cease being a mule and turn into a team consisting of a tiger, a school or piranhas, a mini-mule or two, and who knows, maybe even a swarm of information-sucking bees. The image underlines the point. The business of tomorrow may embody many different formats within a single frame. It may function as a kind of Noah’s Ark. To grasp the “flex-firm” concept, it helps to remind ourselves that bureaucracy is only one of an almost infinite variety of ways to organizing human beings and information. We actually have an immense repertoire of organizational forms to draw on—from jazz combos to espionage networks, from tribes and clans and councils of elders to monasteries and soccer teams. Each is good at some things and bad at others. Each has its own unique ways of collecting and distributing information, and ways of allocating power. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

A company could conceivably have within it’s a monastery-style unit that write software…a research team organized like an improvisational jazz combo…a compartmentalized spy network, with need-to-know rules, operating within the law, to scout for merger or acquisition possibilities…and a sales force organized as a highly motivated “tribe” complete with its own war songs and emotional membership rituals. (The author has attended the sales meeting of a major corporation where the tribal form was incipient and the members so psyched up about their jobs they quite literally danced on tabletops.) This new way of a company as a collection of very different organizations, many of them counterbureaucratic, reflects what already exists in some firms in a semi-smothered or embryonic form. Many businesses will find themselves moving toward this free-form model simply to stay alive in the de-massified economy of tomorrow. The term flex-firm is needed because there is no handy word in the English language to describe such an entity. The French economist. Hubert Landier uses the mouth-cracking term polycellular to describe the business of the future. Others describe it as “neural” or nervous-system-like rather than machinelike. Still others refer to the emerging business organization as a “network.” Through all these words capture some facet of the new reality, none are adequate, because the drawing business form of the future embraces them all, and more. They may include elements that are polycellular or neural. They may (or may not) be networked. However, organization may also include within it units that remain thoroughly bureaucratic because, for some functions, bureaucracy remains essential. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

A key feature of post-bureaucratic firms is that the relationships of their parts are not closely pre-specified, like information force-fitted into an old-fashioned data base. Instead, the units of a flex-firm may draw information, people, and money from one another and from outside organizations as needed. They may be next door to one another or continents apart. Their functions may partly overlap, like information in a hyper-media data base; for other purposes, the functions may be logically, geographically, or financially divided. Some may use many central services provided by headquarters; others may choose to use only a few. In turn this requires freer, faster flows of information. This will mean crisscrossing, up, down, and sideways conduits—neural pathways that bust through the boxes in the table of organization so that people can trade the idea, data, formulae, hints, insights, facts, strategies, whispers, gestures, and smiles that turn out to be essential to efficiency. Once you connect the right people with the right information you get the extra value added. Information is the catalyst for effecting change at every level. That is what makes its power so awesome. Social science, social research, and the kind of work we call imaginative literature are three quite different kinds of enterprises. In the end, all of them are forms of story-telling—human attempts to account for our experience in coherent ways. However, they have different aims, ask different meanings to “truth.” In most of these respects, social research has little in common with science, and much in common with other forms of imaginative literature. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Yet social “scientists” have consistently sought to identify themselves, and in more than name, with physicists, chemists, biologists, and others who inquire into the lawful regularities of the natural World. Why students of the human condition should do this is not hard to explain. The great success of modern times—indeed, perhaps the only successes—have come in medicine, pharmacology, biochemistry, astrophysics, and all the feats of mechanical, biological, and electronic engineering made possible by the consistent application of the aims, assumptions, and procedures of natural science. These successes have attached to the name of science an awesome measure of authority, and to those who claim the title “scientist” a similar measure of respect and prestige. Beyond that lies the nineteenth-century hope that the assumptions and procedures of natural science might be applied without modification to the social World, to the same end of increased predictability and control, and with the same kind of engineering success. This hope has proved both misguided and illusory. However, the illusion is a powerful one, and, given the psychological, social, and material benefits that attach to the label “scientist,” it is hard to see why social researchers should find it hard to give it up. It is less easy to see why the rest of us have so willingly, even eagerly, cooperated in perpetuating the same illusion. In part, the explanation lies in a profound misunderstanding of the aims of natural and of social Worlds. However, there is more to it than that. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

When the new technologies and techniques and spirit of men like Galileo, Newton, and Bacon laid the foundations of natural science, they also discredited the authority of earlier accounts of the physical World, as found, for example, in the great tale of Genesis. By calling into question the truth of such accounts in one realm, science undermined the whole edifice of belief in sacred stories and ultimately swept away with it the source to which most humans had looked for moral authority. It is not too much to say, I think that the desacralized World has been searching for an alternative source of moral authority ever since. So as far as I know, no responsible natural scientist, either of the Renaissance or of recent times, has claimed that the procedures of natural science or its discoveries can tell us what we ought to do—whether some way of dealing with our fellow humans is good or evil, right or wrong. Indeed, the very principles of natural science, with its requirement of an objective stance toward what is studied, compel the natural scientist to abjure in his or her role as a scientist such as moral judgments or claims. When natural scientists speak out on moral questions, on what is good or evil to do, they speak as the rest of us—as concerned citizens on a threatened planet, as rational women and men, as people of conscience who must struggle no less than you must, or I, to answer for themselves where the ultimate authority for their moral judgments lies. It is the World of desperate listeners, longing for a more powerful moral authority, that begs the natural scientist to say it is the science that speaks, not the woman or man. However, the scientist cannot honor consent. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Looking further at the human environment, we find a lot of cloth and related materials, such as carpeting and shoes. The textile industry was at the cutting edge of the first industrial revolution, and the next industrial revolution will have its effects on textiles. With nanotechnology, even the finest textile fibers could have sensors, computers, and motors in their core at little extra cost. Fabrics could include sensors able to detect light, heat, pressure, moisture, stress and wear, networks of simple computers to integrate this data, and motors and other nanomechanisms to respond to it. Ordinary, everyday things like fabric and padding could be made responsive to a person’s needs—changing shape, color, texture, fit, and so forth—with the weather and a person’s posture or situation. This process could be slow, or it could be fast enough to respond to a gesture. One result would be genuine one-size-fits-all clothing (give or take child sizes), perfectly tailored off the rack, warm in winter, cool and dry in summer; in short, nanotechnology could provide what advertisers have only promised. Even bogus advertising gives a clue to human desires. Throughout history, the human race has pursued the quest for comfortable shoes. With fully adjustable materials, the seemingly impossible goal of having shoes that both look good and feel good should finally be achieved. Shoes could keep your feet dry, and warm except in the Arctic, cool except in the tropics, and as comfortable as they can be with a person stepping on them. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

Cresleigh Homes

Residence 1 at #PlumasRanch Meadows may be a single story, but it’s not small on space! From the lavish outdoor space to the two car garage (plus workshop!), it offers all the room you’ll need to spread out and do your thing. 👌

As the evening temps drop, our firepit becomes the go-to destination for us AND our guests. Enjoy all that #CresleighHomes has to offer both indoors and out!