On a bench in the park, mid-afternoon, dreamily noting the drift of the species back and forth—to think—this multitude is but a wee little fraction of the Earth’s population! And all blood-kin to me, every one! Eve ought to have come with me; this would excite her affectionate heart, she was never able to keep her composure when she came upon a relative; she would try to kiss every one of these people, African and European and all. [A baby-wagon passes.] How little change one can notice—none at all, in fact. I remember the first child well—let me see…it is three hundred thousand years ago come Tuesday; this one is just like it. So between the first one and the last one there is really nothing to choose. The same insufficiency of hair, the same absence of teeth, the same feebleness of body and apparent preoccupation of mind, the same general adorableness all around. Yet Eve worshiped that early one, and it was pretty to see her with it. This latest one’s mother worships it; it shows in her eyes—it is the very look that used to shine in Eve’s. To think—that so down a procession three hundred thousand years long and remain the same, without shade of change! Yet here it is, lighting this young creature’s face just as it lighted Eve’s in the long ago—the newest thing I have seen in the Earth, and the oldest. Of course, the Dinosaur—but that is in another class. We must try to understand the four chief functions of the human machine. I am sure everyone knows what the intellectual or thinking function is. All mental processes are included here: realization of an impression, formation of representations and concepts, reasoning, comparison, affirmation, negation, formation of words, speech, imagination, and so on. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

The second function is feeling or emotions: joy, sorrow, fear, astonishment, and so on. Even if you are sure that it is clear to you how, and in what, emotions differ from thoughts, I should advise you to verify all your views in regard to this. We mix thought and feelings in our ordinary thinking and speaking; but for the beginning of self-study it is necessary to know clearly which is which. The two functions following, instinctive and moving, will take longer to understand, because in no system of ordinary psychology are these functions described and divided in the right way. The words “instinct,” “instinctive,” are generally used in the wrong sense and very often in no sense at all. In particular, to instinct are generally ascribed external functions which are in reality moving functions, and sometimes emotion. The instinctive function in man includes in itself four different classes of functions: All the inner work of the organism, all physiology, so to speak; digestion and assimilation of food, breathing, circulation of the blood, all the work of inner organs, the building of new cells, the elimination or worked-out materials, the work of glands of inner secretion, and so on. The so-called five sense: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch; and all other senses such as the sense of weight, of temperature, of dryness or of moisture, and so on; that is, all indifferent sensations—sensations which by themselves are neither pleasant nor unpleasant. All physical emotions; that is, all physical sensations which are either pleasant or unpleasant. All kinds of pain or unpleasant feeling such as unpleasant taste or unpleasant smell, and all kinds of physical pleasure, such as pleasant taste, pleasant smell, and so on. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

The moving function includes in itself all external movements, such as walking, writing, speaking, eating, and memories of them. To the moving function also belong those movements which in ordinary language are called “instinctive,” such as catching a falling object without thinking. The difference between the instinctive and the moving function is very clear and can be easily understood if one simply remembers that all instinctive functions without exception are inherent and that there is no necessity to learn them in order to use them; whereas on the other hand, none of the moving functions are inherent and one has to learn them all as a child learns to walk, or as one learns to write or to draw. Besides these normal moving functions, there are also some strange moving functions which represent useless work of the human machine not intended by nature, but which occupy a very large place in man’s life and use a great quantity of his energy. These are: formation of dreams, imagination, daydreaming, talking with oneself, all talking for talking’s sake, and generally, all uncontrolled and uncontrollable manifestations. The four functions—intellectual, emotional, instinctive, and moving—must first be understood in all their manifestations, and later they must be observed in oneself. Such self-observation, that is, observation on the right basis, with a preliminary understanding of the states of consciousness and of different functions, constitutes the basis of self-study; that is, the beginning of psychology. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

It is very important to remember that in observing different functions it is useful to observe at the same time their relation to different states of consciousness. Let us take the three states of consciousness—sleep, waking state, and possible glimpses of self-consciousness—and the four functions—thinking, feeling, instinctive, and moving. All four function can manifest themselves in sleep, but their manifestations are desultory and unreliable; they cannot be used in any way, they just go by themselves. In the state of waking consciousness or relative consciousness, they can to a certain extent serve for our orientation. Their results can be compared, verified, straightened out; and although they may create many illusions, still in our ordinary state we have nothing else and must make of them what we can. If we knew the quantity of wrong observations, wrong theories, wrong deductions and conclusions made in this state, we should cease to believe ourselves altogether. However, men do not realize how deceptive their observations and their theories can be, and they continue to believe in them. It is this tht keeps men from observing the rare moments when their functions manifest themselves in connection with glimpses of the third state of consciousness; tht is, of self-consciousness. All this means that each of the four functions can manifest itself in each of the three states of consciousness. However, the results are quite different. When we learn to observe these results and their difference, we shall understand the right relation between functions and states of consciousness. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

However, before even considering the difference in function in relation to states of consciousness, it is necessary to understand that man’s consciousness and man’s functions are quite different phenomena, of quite different nature and depending on different causes, and that one can exist without the other. Functions can exist without consciousness, and consciousness can exist without functions. We can stop to compose ourselves at any time. Composure is the result, not the precondition, of assembling the events of our lives into a meaningful whole. The word compose comes from the Latin root pausare, to rest, nd the Greek pauein, to stop. If we are fortunate, we get to take a long pause before the stop of death. When frailty or illness limits our external activities, we are given the opportunity to expand our reach into ourselves. Life has the shape and meaning of a great work of art: it is one’s task to select, telescope and transmute the facts so that their universal significance should be revealed. When a society offers at its apex a scheme of things, inclusive and integrative of all subordinate orientations, and when that scheme by virtue of being generally accepted as true holds great authority, then that society is unified and cohesive, is an organism. Every leader seeks to embody such a scheme of things, and charismatically to make it ever more powerfully appealing, binding on the loyalties of all. A number of the things we research in dealing with specialized characteristics have recurring themes in the work of complexity. Many of these themes can be distilled and brought to bear on the problem of analyzing interventions in a World that is hard to predict because it is complex. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

In contest, a World that is hard to predict merely because it is complicated can be attacked in quite a different way. For example, nearly additive contributions of factors mean tht independent studies of the important factors can later be merged at acceptable cost. The Human Genome Project is a large bet that much can be understood via such a “divide and conquer” strategy. Nevertheless, in many cases the interactions of the parts of the system are critical, and complexity reigns. Our framework can be developed to give a unified view of the work on complex systems. As we look across many lines of this research, we see in most of the studies collections of elements—what we have called populations of agents. Usually those elements subdivide into some types (for example, buyers, and sellers, inhibiting molecules and potentiting ones, BMWs and Mercedes). Each of the is connected to some, but usually not all, of the others. The connections are through relations, and there is tremendous variety across fields in what those relations are and how they work (for example, magnetic attraction, organizational authority, electrical stimulation, affinity of pleasures of the flesh, chemical inhibition, geographical proximity or ethnic hostility). Each element in one of those complex systems has patterns of action that affect those connected to it. The research very often centers on the emergent global dynamics of the whole system. It asks the questions like: How (or when) does a system of locally trading agents develop prices that will cause marketwide inventories to clear? How does a brain made of interconnected neurons learn? How does a pile of sand generate its characteristic mix of large and small avalanches? #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

How does news about a vacant job successfully make its way from an employer to potential employees in distant towns? How does a gene pool remix itself over time to create and retain genotypes that may be fit for a changing environment? How do we nurture a network of trust that permits informal credit mechanisms to foster trade efficiencies? It is usual in this approach to view the global properties of the systems as emerging from the actions of its part, rather than seeing the actions of parts as being imposed from a dominant central source. This is not a denial that there are times when systems have effective central authorities or dominant influences. However, the project of complexity theories in such cases is to understand how those dominant influences come about, what sustains (or undermines) them, and how local action responds in the face of global constraints. An excellent example is the work of Padgett and Ansell (1993) on the emergence of a new form of state in medieval Florence as Medici power built up out of tensions within the marital, residential, and commercial networks of the city. Finally, many complex systems—but by no means all—are “adaptive.” As we said earlier, in systems we call adaptive the strategies used by agents or a population change over time as the agents or population works for improved performance. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

When we use the phrase Complex Adaptive System, we leave open the question of whether the agents or population actually achieves improved performance. If we are designing interventions, improvement on some measure is what we want to promote. For a system to exhibit adaptation that enhances survival (or another measure of success), it must increase the likelihood of effective strategies and reduce the likelihood of ineffective strategies. We call such a process attribution of credit if an agent uses a performance criterion to increase the frequency of successful strategies or decreases the frequency of unsuccessful ones. The latest erosion of the United States of America-Europe ties was typically attributed to their shape differences over the Ukrainian war. However, far deeper forces are at work. The alliance can be said to have cracked the way Western Europeans stopped fearing an attack by Russia—and concluded they no longer needed U.S. troops and taxpayers to defend them. However, this is not true because they are now relying on American taxpayer money during this war and as a result of the hard economic conditions. For today’s widening split actually began generations earlier when the United States of America started to change its relationship to the deep fundamental and began building a knowledge economy. Europe’s core countries, by contrast, focused on reconstruction after World War II and subsequent expansion of their smokestack economies. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

Rich with talent, top-notch scientists, I.T. engineers, futurists and thinkers, Europe for a time seemed poised to embrace the new technological potentials. However, it was largely led b rear-mirror business and political leaders steeped in the guiding doctrines of the industrial age and incapable of thinking beyond them. It is true that in recent years Europe has moved faster than the United States of America in several advanced sectors, including mobile-phone use. Its Airbus for a time did well competing against an under-the-weather Boeing. It may lead the United States of America in grid computing. The French are strong competitors in the satellite-launch business, and Europe is planning to loft a rival to the American Global Positioning System. Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, gave us the World Wide Web. Linus Torvalds, a Finn, gave of Linux. And the European Space Agency led the project that, in collaboration with NASA, put a probe on Titan, Saturn’s moon. This list could easily be extended. However, all these successes needed to be set against a larger, much darker picture. To this day, key industrial principles such as standardization, concentration, maximization of scale and centralization still dominate European Union thinking. Thus, as knowledge-based economies move from massification toward de-massification of products and markets—accompanied by growing social and cultural diversity—the European Union has been homogenizing national differences. Giving lip service to the concept of diversity, it has, in fact, kept busy attempting to “harmonize” everything from taxes to cosmetics, job resumes to motorcycle laws. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

In applying one-size-fits-all rules, moreover, as The Economist points out, it usually opts for the most stringent and least flexible of the available versions. As in Japan and elsewhere, success in advanced knowledge economies requires increasingly flexible business and governmental organizations. However, the European specializes in imposing inflexible, top-down industrial-style controls—even on the budgets and financial decisions of its member nations. Under the Maastricht Treaty each nation using the euro as currency was bound to limit government deficits to nor more than 3 percent of its GDP. This was done largely at the imperial instance of Germany, which eventually found the limits so restrictive that it, itself, repeatedly violated the inflexible standard it helped impose on everyone else. Around 6 percent of the 12 euro-zone members are in violation of the pact. French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed E.U. constitution, a four-hundred-page masterwork of bureaucratic overkill. Critics noted that the authors of the U.S. Constitution required fewer than ten pages, including the Bill of Rights. Most countries use tariffs, quotas, and other measures to restrict important competition and protect domestic industries. Such policies rise prices, and hurt all domestic users of the protected product. Economists have estimated that when important quotas are used to protect industries such as steel, textiles, or sugar, the rest of us pay higher prices amounting to roughly $100,000 for each job saved. How is it that the gains to a few always get priority over the much larger aggregate losses to the many? #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The trick is to bring up the cases one at a time. First, 10,000 jobs in the shoe industry are at risk. To save them would cost a billion dollars to the rest of us, or just over $4 each. Who would not agree to pay $4 to save 10,000 jobs even for total strangers, especially when competing nations can be blamed for their plight? Then along comes the garment industry, the steel industry, the auto industry, and so on. Before we know it, we have agreed to pay over $50 billion, which is more than $200 each, or nearly $1,000 per family. (Which is why so many people want to cut off other nations from receiving economic assistance. The money we send them causes us a deficit, and then America cannot afford to pay for infrastructure improvements and social services that Americans need. Often time new taxes are born to help offset the cost, but where does it stop, how much more do we have to pay when we are taxed without representation? Before you know it, we have so many new taxes and all taxes are so high that America becomes a communist nation.) If we had foreseen the whole process, we might have thought the cost too high, and insisted that workers in each of these industries bear the risks of international trade just as they would bear any other economic risk. Decisions made case by case can lead to undesirable results overall. In fact, a sequence of majority votes can lead to an outcome that everyone regards as worse than the status quo. The income tax reform of 1985-86 almost collapsed because the Senate initially took a case-by-case approach. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

In the first round of the Finance Committee’s markup sessions, the amended Treasury proposal became so weighted down with special interest provisions that it sank to a merciful death. The senators realized that they were “powerless” to prevent any one organized lobby from getting special treatment. Yet the combination of these lobbyists could destroy the bill, and this would be worse than producing no legislation at all. So Senator Packwood, the committee chairman, made his own lobby: he persuaded a majority of the committee members to vote against any amendment to the tax bill, even those amendments that especially favored their own constituents. The reform was enacted. However, special provisions are already staging a comeback, one or two at a time. Along similar lines, the line-item veto would allow the president to veto legislation selectively. If a bill authorized money for school lunches and a new space shuttle, the president would have the option of neither, either, or both, instead of the current neither or both. Although a first reaction is that this allows the president greater control over legislation, the opposite might end up happening as Congress would be more selective about which bill it process. While the line-item veto is generally thought to be unconstitutional, this question may have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

These problems arise because myopic decision-makers fail to look ahead and see the whole picture. In the case of tax reform, the Senate recovered its vision just in time; the issue of protectionism still suffers. The pulsating organization is one that expands and contracts in a regular rhythm. A good example is the U.S. Census Bureau, which swells to enormous size every ten years, then shrinks, starts planning for the next decennial count, and swells again. Ordinarily staffed by about 7,000 regular employees, the Bureau maintains twelve regional centers around the United States of America. However, to conduct a complete census, it sets up a parallel or “shadow” center for each of the twelve. Through them more, than 1.2 million applicants ae interviewed to find the 400,000 “troops” who actually fan out and knock on every American door. These shadow centers are designed to last one year or a year and a half, and then to be dismantled. The staff then shrivels back to around 7,000. At which point planning begins for the next count ten years in the future. Carrying this operation through successfully ought to earn the managerial equivalent of an Olympic gold medal. The 1990 census was fraught with bugs and bloopers. However, the task would clearly daunt many a senior business executive. Indeed, many firms will notice that their own problems, though smaller in scale, are not entirely dissimilar. For “pulsating organizations” are present in many industries as well. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

We see them in companies that gear up for annual model changes, then gear down again; in retail firms that staff up for Christmas and lay off in January; and in pickup crews used for film and television production. In fact, one of the most rapidly proliferating formats in business today is the task force or project team, examples of what we term “ad-hocracy.” These, however, are only variants of the pulsating organization. While true “pulsers” grow and shrink repetitively, a project team normally carries out a single task. In therefore grows and declines once and then is dismantled. It is, in effect, a “single-pulse” organization. Pulsing organizations have a unique information and communication requirements. For its recent census, the Census Bureau’s shadow centers, for example, were linked by some $100 million worth of computers and telecommunications equipment in a temporary network designed to be disposed of, or folded back into the permanent organization. Executives in charge of pulsing companies or units often find their power pulsing too. Funds dry up as the unit shrinks. People disappear. The available pool of knowledge or talent diminished. The power of rival units in the company expands relatively as the unit continues to shrink. In a pulsating power structure, the executive who commands a large project may be a “700-pound gorilla” one day—and a money the next. As many pulsating organizations interact, they lend a kind of rhythm to the economy. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Pulsing, however, is not only a matter of size. Some companies pulse back and forth between centralization and decentralization. With each swing or pulse, information structures are changed—and power therefore shifts. The speedup and growing unpredictability of change point toward faster pulsing in the ten years ahead. It is possible that, some day soon, an advertising man who must create a television commercial for a new California Chardonnay will have the following inspiration: Jesus is standing alone in a desert oasis. A gentle breeze flutters the leaves of the stately palms behind him. Soft Mideastern music caresses the air. Jesus holds in his hand a bottle of wine at which he gazes adoringly. Turning toward the camera, he says, “When I transformed water into wine at Cana, this is what I had in mind. Try it today. You’ll become a believer.” If you think such a commercial is not possible in your lifetime, then consider this: As I write, there is an oft-seen commercial for Hebrew National Frankfurters. It features a dapper-looking Uncle Sam in his traditional red, white, and blue outfit. While Uncle Sam assumes appropriate facial expressions, a voice-over describes the delicious and healthful frankfurters produced by Hebrew National. Toward the end of the commercial, the voice stresses that Hebrew National Frankfurters surpass federal standards for such products. Why? Because, the voice says as the camera shifts our point of view upward toward Heaven, “We have to answer to a Higher Authority.” #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

I will leave it to the reader to decide which is more incredible—Jesus being used to sell wine or God being used to sell frankfurters. Whichever you decide, you must keep in mind that neither the hypothetical commercial nor the real one is an example of blasphemy. They are much worse than that. Blasphemy is, after all, among the highest tributes that can be paid to the power of a symbol. The blasphermer take symbols as seriously as the idolater, which is why the President of the United States of America (circa 1991) whishes to punish, through a constitutional amendment, desecrators of the American flag. What we are talking about here is not blasphemy but trivialization, against which there can be no laws. In Technopoly, the trivialization of significant cultural symbols is largely conducted by commercial enterprise. This occurs not because corporate America is greedy but because the adoration of technology pre-empts the adoration of anything else. Symbols tht draw their meaning from traditional religious or national contexts must therefor be made impotent as quickly as possible—that is, drained of sacred or even serious connotations. The elevation of one god requires the demotion of another. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” applies as well to technological divinity as any other. There are two intertwined reasons that make it possible to trivialize traditional symbols. The first, as neatly expressed by the social critic Jay Rosen, is that, although symbols, especially images, are endlessly repeatable, they are not inexhaustible. Second, the more frequently a significant symbol is used, the less potent is its meaning. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

The beginnings, in the mid-nineteenth century, of a “graphics revolution” allowed the easy reproduction of visual imges, thus providing the masses with continuous access to the symbols and icons of their culture. Through prints, lithographs, photographs, and, later, movies and television, religious and national symbols became commonplaces, breeding indifference if not necessarily contempt. As if to answer those who believe that the emotional impact of a sacred image is always and ever the same, we should be reminded that prior to the graphics revolution most people saw relatively few images. Paintings of Jesus or the Madonna, for example, would have been seen rarely outside the churches. Paintings of great national leaders could be seen only in the homes of the wealthy or in government buildings. There were images to be seen in books, but books were expensive and spent most of their time on shelves. Images were not a conscious part of the environment, and their scarcity contributed toward their special power. When the scale or accessibility was altered, the experience of encountering an image necessarily changed; that is to say, it diminished in importance. One picture, we are told, is worth a thousand words. However, a thousand pictures, especially if they are of the same object, may not be worth anything at all. This is a common enough psychological principle. You may demonstrate this for yourself (if you have not at some time already done so) by saying any word, even a significant one, over and over again. Sooner than you expect, you will find that the word has been transformed into a meaningless sound, as repetition drains it out of its symbolic value. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Any male who has served in, let us say, the United States of America’s Army or spent time in a college dormitory has had this experience with what are called obscene words, especially the notorious four-letter word which I am loath to reproduce here. Words that you have been taught not to use and that normally evoke an embarrassed or disconcerted response, when used too often, are stripped of their power to shock, to embarrass, to call attention to a special frame of mind. They become only sounds, not symbols. Moreover, the journey to meaninglessness of symbols is a function not only of the frequency with which they are invoked but of the indiscriminate contexts in which they are used. An obscenity, for example, can do its work best when it is reserved for situations that call forth anger, disgust, or hatred. When it is used as an adjective for every third noun in a sentence, irrespective of emotional context, it is deprived of its magical effects and, indeed, of its entire point. This is what happens when Abraham Lincoln’s image, or George Washington’s, is used to announce linen sales on President’s Day, or Martin Luther King’s birthday celebration is taken as an occasion for furniture discounts. It is what happens when Uncle Sam, God, or Jesus is employed as an agent of the profane World for an essentially trivial purpose. In the meantime, we should be able to exercise our humanity, governing each other and being governed, instead of encasing ourselves in the laden armor of our technological schizophrenia. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Some costs apply to a kind of product, regardless of how many copies are made: these include design costs, technology-licensing costs, regulatory-approval costs, and the like. Other costs apply to each unit a product: these include the costs of labor, energy, raw materials, production equipment, production sites, insurance, and waste disposal. The per-kind costs can become very low if production runs are large. If these costs stay high, it will be because people prefer new products or their new benefits, despite the cost—hardly cause for complaint. The more basic and easier to analyze costs are per-unit costs. A picture to keep in mind here is of Desert Rose Industries, where molecular machinery does most of the work, and where products are made from parts that are ultimately made from simple chemical substances. Let us consider some cost components. Energy: Manufacturing at the molecular scale need not use a lot of energy. Plants build billions of tons of highly patterned material every year using available solar energy. Molecular manufacturing can be efficient, in the sense that the energy needed to build a block of product should be comparable to the energy released in burning an equivalent mass of wood or coal. If this energy were supplied as electricity at today’s costs, the energy costs of manufacturing would be something like a dollar per kilogram. We will return to the cost of energy later. Raw Materials: Molecular manufacturing will not need exotic materials as inputs. Plain bulk chemicals will suffice, and this means materials no more exotic than the fuels and feedstocks that are, for now, derived from petroleum and biomass—gasoline, methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen. These typically cost tends of cent per kilogram. If bizarre compounds are used, they can be made internally. Rare elements could be avoided, but might be useful in trace amounts. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The total quality of raw materials consumed will be smaller than in conventional manufacturing processes because less will be wasted. Capital Equipment and Maintenance: As we saw in the Desert Rose scenario, molecular manufacturing can be used to build all of the equipment needed for molecular manufacturing. It seems that this equipment—everything from large vats to submicroscopic special-purpose assemblers—can be reasonably durable, lasting for months or years before being recycled and replaced. If the equipment were to cost dollars per kilogram, and produce many thousands of kilograms of product in its life, the cost of the equipment would add little to the cost of the product. Waste Disposal: Today’s manufacturing waste is dumped into the air, water, and landfills. There need be no such waste with molecular manufacturing. Excess materials of the kind now spewed into the environment could instead be completely recycled internally, or could instead be completely recycled internally, or could emerge from the manufacturing process in pure form, ready for use in some other process. In an advanced process, the only wastes would be leftover atoms resulting from a bad mix of raw materials. Most of these leftover atoms would be ordinary minerals and simple gases like oxygen, the main “waste” from the molecular machinery of plants. Molecular manufacturing produces no new elements—if arsenic comes out, arsenic must have gone in, and the process is not to blame for its existence. Any intrinsically toxic materials of this sort can at least be put in the safest form we can devise for disposal. One option would be to chemically bond it into a stable mineral and put it back where it came from. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

Welcome to Residence 4 – the largest home in the #MillsStation community at #CresleighRanch! 👏

With 2,692 square feet at your disposal, you’ll find that there’s enough room for all the party guests with space to spare. Whether you’re hosting a holiday party 🦃 or just cooking up something for the special people in your life, you’ll have everything you need in this home!

Questions? Call us! (916) 781-6020