War, it will be seen, not only accomplishes the necessary destruction, but it accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the World by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then destroying them. However, this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of the mases, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that one should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that one should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The difficulties one has in observing four important manifestations—lying, imagination, the expression of negative emotions, and unnecessary talking—will show man his utter mechanicalness, and the impossibility even of struggling against this mechanicalness without help, that is, without new knowledge and without actual assistance. For even if a man has received certain materials, he forgets to use it, forgets to observe himself; in other words, he falls asleep again and must always be awaken. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

This “falling asleep” has certain definite features of its own, unknow, or at least unregistered and unnamed, in ordinary psychology. These features need special study. There are two of them. The first is called identification. “Identifying” or “identification” is a curious state in which man passes more than half of his life. He “identifies” with everything: with what he says, what he feels, what he believes, what he does not believe, what he wishes, what he does not wish, what attracts him, what repels him. Everything absorbs him, and he cannot separate himself from the idea, the feeling, or the object that absorbed him. This means that in the state of identification man is incapable of looking impartially on the object of his identification. It is difficult to find the smallest thing with which man is unable to “identify.” At the same time, in a state of identification, man has even less control over his mechanical reactions than at any other time. Such manifestations as lying, imagination, the expression of negative emotions, and constant talking need identification. They cannot exist without identification. If man could get rid of identification, he could get rid of many useless and foolish manifestations. Identification, its meaning, causes, and results, is extremely well described in the Philokalia. However, no trace of understanding of it can be found in modern psychology. It is a quite forgotten “psychological discovery.” The second sleep-producing state, akin to identification, is considering. Actually, “considering” is identification with people. It is a state in which man constantly worries about what other people think of him; whether they give him his due, whether they admire him enough, and so on, and so on. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

“Considering” plays a very important part in everyone’s life, but in some people it becomes an obsession. All their lives are filled with considering—that is, worry, doubt, and suspicion—and there remains no place for anything else. The myth of the “inferiority complex” and other “complexes” is created by the vaguely realized but not understood phenomenon of “identification” and “considering.” Both “identification” and “considering” must be observed most seriously. Only full knowledge of them can diminish them. If one cannot see them in oneself, one can easily see them in other people. However, one must remember that one in no way differs from others. In this sense all people are equal. Returning now to what was said before, we must try to understand more clearly how the development of man must begin, and in what way self-study can help this beginning. From the very start we meet with a difficulty in our language. For instance, we want to speak about man from the point of view of evolution. However, the word “man” in ordinary language does not admit of any variation or any gradation. Man who is never conscious and never suspects it, man who is struggling to become conscious, man who is fully conscious—it is all the same of our language. It is always “man” in every case. In order to avoid this difficult and to help the student in classifying his new ideas, the system divides man into seven categories. The first three categories are practically on the same level.  Man no. 1, a man in whom the moving or instinctive centers predominate over the intellectual and emotional, that is, Physical man. Man no.2, a man in whom the emotional center predominates over the intellectual, moving, and instinctive. Emotional man. Man no. 3, a man in whom the intellectual center predominates over the emotional, moving, and instinctive. Intellectual man. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

In ordinary life we meet only these three categories of man. Each one of us and everyone we know is any of the three personality types listed above. There are higher categories of man, but men are not born already belonging to these higher categories. They are all born in the first category, the second category, the third category, and can reach higher categories only through school. Man no. 4 is not born as such. He is a product of school culture. He differs from man no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3 by his knowledge of himself, by his understanding of his position, and, as it is expressed technically, by his having acquired a permanent center of gravity. This last means that the idea of acquiring unity, consciousness, permanent “I,” and will—that is, the idea of his development—has already become for him more important than his other interests. It must be added to the characteristics of man no. 4, that his functions and center are more balanced, in a way in which they could not be balanced without work on himself, according to school principles and methods. Man no. 5 is a man who acquired unity and self-consciousness. He is different from ordinary man, because in him, one of the higher centers already works, and he has many functions and powers that an ordinary man—that is, man no. 1, 2, and 3—does not possess. Man no. 6 is a man who has acquired objective consciousness. Another higher center works in him. He possesses many more new faculties and powers, beyond the understanding of an ordinary man. Man no. 7 is a man who has attained all that a man can attain. He has a permanent “I” and free will. He can control all the states of consciousness in himself and he already cannot lose anything he has acquired. According to another description, he is immortal within the limits of the solar system. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

Understanding of this division of man into seven categories is very important, for the division has very many applications in all possible ways of studying human activity. It gives, in the hands of those who understand it, a very strong and very fine instrument or tool for the definition of manifestations which, without it, are impossible to define. Take, for instance, the general concepts of religion, art, science, and philosophy. Beginning with religion, we can see at once that there must be a religion of man no. 1, that is all forms of fetishism, no matter how they are called; a religion of man no. 2, that is emotional, sentimental religion, passing sometimes into fanaticism, the crudest forms of intolerance, persecution of heretics, and so on; a religion of man no. 3, that is theoretical, scholastic religion, full of argument about words, forms, rituals, which become more important than anything else; a religion of man no. 4, that is the religion of man who works for self-development; religion of man no. 5, that is the religion of a man who has attained unity and can see and know many things tht man no. 1, 2, and 3 can neither see not know; then a religion of man no. 6 and a religion of man no. 7, about neither of which can we know anything. The same division applies to art, science, and philosophy. There must be an art of man no. 1, an art of man no. 2, an art of man no. 3; science of man no. 1, science of man no. 2, science of man no. 3, science of man no. 4, and so on. You must try to find examples of these for yourselves. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

This expansion of concepts greatly enlarges our possibility of finding right solutions to many of our problems. And this means that the system gives us the possibility of studying a new language, that is, new for us, which will connect for us ideas of different categories, which are, in reality, united, and divide ideas of seemingly the same categories which are, in reality, different. The division of the word “man” into seven words—man no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, with all that follows—is an example of this new language. This gives us the fourth definition of psychology as the study of a new language. And this language is a universal language, which people sometimes try to find or invent. The expression, “a universal language” or “philosophical language,” must not be taken in a metaphorical sense. The language is universal in the same sense as mathematical symbols are universal. And besides that it includes in itself all that people can think about. Even the few words of this language which have been explained, give you the possibility of thinking and speaking with more precision than is possible in ordinary language, using any of the existing scientific or philosophical terminologies and nomenclatures. It has become widely accepted that a major source of prediction difficulty in the contemporary Information Revolution is the multiplicity of forces that are interacting. For example, the hard lesion has been learned that technologies are adopted not only as a function of cost, but also as a function of numbers of others adopting. A technology with a small market lead may become dominant even when it is not superior in a quality, as in the stories of DVD versus Blue Ray, and the QWERTY keyboard. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

Effectiveness of technology has been observed sometimes to depend on deployment of other technologies, such as Internet service provision depending on the installed base of telephones. There have been striking cases of process surprise, such as a way of replacing carbon paper (xerography) that can upset the internal security of autocratic nations, as well as alter the conduct the internal security of autocratic nations, as well as alter the conduct of basic office procedures. And cultural variables have been shown to set a controlling context for technical developments, as in rural areas of developing countries that may leapfrog wired communications to go directly to wireless, or when countries with nonalphabetic languages have sharply different approaches to word processing. Reaping the benefits of new technology has turned out often to require collateral resources, so that innovations imagined to favor equality could turn out to accelerate differences between social classes. We have learned that absence in electronic mail socially controlling status cues can unleash embarrassing episodes of “flaming,” in which participants write things they would never say to a recipient’s face. Such lessons have taught us all that virtually every important force in collective life affects the way the Information Revolution plays out. Scale economics, technological preconditions, national developmental sequencing, social status, economic inequality, internal security postures, cultural context, and many more forces work to condition the development of information technology impacts. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

This is not unique to the contemporary episode in the growth of information technology. The earlier episode of the Information Revolution that began with movable type also had epochal consequences. The Chinese Empire, the Islamic states, and the Christian West each gave its own distinctive shape to the movable type revolution in printing. Roughly speaking, the Chinese used printing to reinforce central authority, while Islam suppressed the technology. The Western case had been highly interesting to scholars because of its many indirect effects including contributions to the promotion of religious conflict and the rise of nation-states. These are just the kind of nonadditive contextual effects that distinguish complex dynamic regimes. If complexity is often rooted in patterns of interaction among agents, then we might expect systems to exhibit increasingly complex dynamics when changes occur that intensify interaction among their elements. This, of course, is exactly what the Information Revolution is doing: reducing the barriers to interaction among processes that were previously isolated from each other in time or space. Information can be understood as a mediator of interaction. Decreasing the costs of its propagation and storage inherently increases possibilities for interaction effects. An Information Revolution is therefore likely to beget a complexity revolution. Many educators base their philosophies on narratives rich in symbols which they respected and which they understood to be integral to the stories they wanted education to reveal. It is, therefore, time to ask, What story does American education wish to tell now? #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

In a growing Technopoly, what do we believe education is for? The answers are discouraging, and one of them can be inferred from any television commercial urging the young to stay in school. The commercial will either imply or state explicitly that education will help the preserving students to get a good job. And that is it. Well, not quite. There is also the idea that we educate ourselves to compete with the Japanese or the Germans in an economic struggle to be number one. Neither of these purposes is, to say that least, grand or inspiring. The story of each suggests that the United States of America is not a culture but merely an economy, which is the last refuge of an exhausted philosophy of education. This belief, I might add, is precisely reflected in the President’s Commission Report, A Nation at Risk, where you will find a definitive expression of the idea that education is an instrument of economic policy and of very little else. We may get a sense of the desperation of the educator’s search for a more gripping story by using the “television commercial test.” Try to imagine what sort of appeals might be effectively made on TV commercial to persuade parents to support schools. (Let us, to be fair, sidestep appeals that might be made directly to students themselves, since the youth of any era are disinclined to think schooling a good idea, whatever the reasons advance for it. See the “Seven Ages of Man” passage as in As You Like It.) Can you imagine, for example, what such a commercial would be like if Jefferson or John Dewey prepared it? “Your children are citizens in a democratic society,” the commercial might say. “Their education will teach them how to be valuable citizens by refining their capacity for reasoned thought and strengthening their will to protect their liberties. As for their jobs and professions, that will be considered only at a ‘late and convenient hour’” (to quote John Stuart Mill, who would be pleased to associate himself with Jefferson’s or Dewey’s purpose.) #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

Is there anyone today who would find this a compelling motivation? Some, perhaps, but hardly enough to use it as the basis of a national program. John Locke’s commercial would, I imagine, be even less appealing. “Your children must stay in school,” he might say, “because there they will learn to make their bodies slaves of their minds. They will learn to control their impulses, and how to find satisfaction and even excitement in life of the mind. Unless they accomplish this, they can be neither civilized nor literate.” How many would applaud this mission? Indeed, who could we use to speak such words—Barbara Bush? Paris Hilton? Donald Trump? Even the estimable Dr. Bill Cosby would hardly be convincing. The guffaws would resound from Maine to California. There is a comprehensive purpose to education. Literacy is defined as the capacity to understand and use the words, dates, aphorisms, and names that form the basis of communication among the educated in our culture. It is, of course, an expected outcome of any education that students become acquainted with the important references of their culture. Even Rousseau, who would have asked his students to read only one book, Robinson Crusoe (so that they would learn how to survive in the wild), would probably have expected them to “pick up” the names and sayings and dates that made up the content of the educated conversation of their time. The problem with the present time is that the condition of technology-generated information is so long, varied, and dynamic that it is not possible to organize into a coherent educational program. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

To some, making a list of cultural heroes and books that qualify one as educated, is not a solution to the problem of information glut. It is therefore considered to be incoherent. However, it also confuses a consequence of education with a purpose. When we answer the question, “What is an educated person?” We left unanswered the question, “What is an education for?” Young me, for example, will learn how to make lay-up shots when they play basketball. To be able to make them is part of the definition of what good players are. However, they do not play basketball for that purpose. There is usually a broader, deeper, and more meaningful reason for wanting to play—to assert their manhood, to please their fathers, to be acceptable to their peers, even for the sheer aesthetic pleasure of the game itself. What you have to do to be a success must be addressed only after you have found a reason to be successful. In Technopoly, this is very hard to do. The skunkworks organization—here a team is handed a loosely specified problem or goal, given resources, and allowed to operate outside the normal company rules. The skunkworks group thus ignores both the cubbyholes and the official channels—id est, the specialization and hierarchy of the existing corporate bureaucracy. Tremendous energies are released; information is exchanged at high speed outside normal channels. Members develop strong emotion toward their work and one another, and very often, enormously complex projects are completed in record time. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

The new product game when BMW wanted to design a car that would appeal to young people, it put together a team—average age twenty-seven—and turned it loose. In the words of one young engineer: “It’s incredible how the company…gave us the freedom to do it our way.” When Nippon Electric Company (NEC) developed its PC8000, it turned the project over to a group of former microprocessors sales engineers who had no previous experience with PCs. Says the project head: “We were given the go-ahead from top management to proceed with the project, provided we would develop the product by ourselves and also be responsible for manufacturing, selling, and serving it on our own.” IBM’s PC, which became the industry standard, was developed by a nearly autonomous group working in Boca Raton, Florida. Apart from quarterly reviews by corporate headquarters in Armonk, New York, the team was free to operate as it wished. It was also permitted to break normal corporate policy about buying from outside suppliers. Similar examples can be found at Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, and other high-tech firms. The skunkwork format is inherently and militantly antibureaucratic. A project team takes on a self-organization character as it is driven to a state of “zero information”—where prior knowledge does not apply…Left to stew, the process begins to create its own dynamic order. The project team begins to operate like a start-up company—it takes initiatives and risk, and develops an independent agenda. Successful skunkworks develop their own leadership, based on skill and competence rather than formal rank. These newly empowered leaders often come into direct frontal conflict with the formal leader appointed by the bureaucracy to initiate and oversee the skunkwork unit. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

A new way of life based on revolutionary wealth is still taking form in America—plug-in/plug-out jobs, glitter and hype, speed, commercialism, 24/7 entertainment, speed, cleaner air, dirtier television, rotten schools, speed, a broken health system and longer life, speed again, perfect landings on Mars, information overload, surplus complexity, reduced racism, hyper-diets and hyper-kids Oh, yes, and still more speed. Add to this kaleidoscope the multiplying contradictions in America life today. Viagra commercials and anti-abortion marchers. Free markets—but tariffs and subsidies that favor U.S. firms. Americans who are provincials—bad at languages, uninterested in other cultures. However, hooray for globalization! Outsides do not know what to make of all this noisy disarray. In the words of Dominique Moisi, the French foreign-affairs experts, “It’s not that we are so much against America, it is that we cannot understand the evolution of that country.” However, neither do most Americans. And outsiders do not know that the Americans do not know. It might help to think about America not simply as the World’s most powerful nation-states, which it currently, but as the World’s greatest social and economic laboratory. It is the main place in the World were new ideas and new ways of life are eagerly tried—and sometimes pushed to stupid, even cruel extremes—before they are rejected. Experiments are under way in this lab not merely with technologies but with culture and the arts, patterns in pleasures of the flesh, family structures, diets, and sports, start-up religions and brand-new business models. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

Simultaneously, the United States of America is experimenting with all three of the deep fundamentals of wealth. That is what all the speed is about—want it is why so many people yearn for a less frenzied time. It is why machines may need to work faster and people more slowly. America is experimenting as well with space and how it is divided up—witness the growth permeability of economic boundaries. And above all, of course, it is experimenting with countless new ways of turning data, information and knowledge into wealth. The United States of America is the place where mistakes are allowed to happen—and sometimes lead to economically or socially valuable breakthroughs. It is where almost any failure is redeemable and where “comeback kids” are admired rather than shunned (sometimes when they should not be). Great laboratories re free to make mistakes. If they do not risk error, they are not reaching out for the future. And America is. The trouble is that no everyone likes to live in a laboratory—or next door to one. Lab mistakes can cost people jobs, influence, power—even lives. Many Americans fear change and yearn for a return to the so-called good old days of the early 1950s, when America was a Second Wave country and the Third Wave was barely visible. Conveniently forgetting the backbreaking physical labour, racial hatred and subjugating of women that still characterized the U.S. economy and society during those supposedly “good” times, and legitimately afraid of losing their jobs, position, prestige or prominence, they derogate the present and fear—and resist—the future. The result, therefore, inside America, no less than in China, Japan, Europe and elsewhere, is wave conflict. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

When a revolutionary wealth-creation system arises, one of the first things it does it create counter-revolutionaries. The late banker Walter Wriston, head of the White House Economic Advisory Policy Board under President Reagan, put it bluntly: “Whenever there is a sift in how wealth is created, the old elites give up their position and a new group of people raise and control society. We’re in the middle of that right now.” What he did not point out is that “old elites” do not give up without a fight. Game theory can be dangerous to your health. Late one night, after a conference in Jerusalem, two American economists found a licensed taxicab and gave the driver directions to their hotel. Immediately recognizing them as American tourists, the driver refused to turn on his meter; instead, he proclaimed his love for Americans and promised them a lower fare then the meter. Naturally, they were somewhat skeptical of this promise. Why should this stranger offer to change less than meter when they were willing to pay the metered fare? How would they even know whether or not they were being overcharged? (If the driver wanted to prove that he was going to charge less than the meter, he could have turned on the meter and asked and then charged 80 percent the price. The fact that he did not should have told something about his intentions.) On the other hand, they had not promised to pay the driver anything more than what would be on the meter. If they were to start bargaining and the negotiations broke down, they would have to find another taxi. Their theory was that once they arrived at the hotel, their bargaining would be much stronger. And taxis were hard to find. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

They arrived. The driver demanded 2,500 Israeli New Shekels ($724.18). Who knew what fare was fair? Because people generally bargain in Israel, they protested and counter-offered 2,200 shekels. The driver was outraged. He claimed that it would be impossible to get from there to here for that amount. Before negotiations could continue, he locked all the doors automatically and retraced the route at breakneck speed, ignoring traffic lights and pedestrians. Were they being kidnapped to Beirut? No. He returned to the original position and ungraciously kicked the two economists out of his cab, yelling, “See how far your 2,200 shekels will get you now.” They found another cab. This driver turned on his meter and 2,200 shekels later they were home. Certainly the extra time was not worth the 300 shekels to the economists. On the other hand, the story was well worth it. It illustrates the dangers of bargaining with those who have not yet read our essay. More generally pride and irrationality cannot be ignored. Sometimes, it may be better t be taken for a wife when it costs only two dimes. There is a second lesson to the story. Think of how much stronger their bargaining gaining position would have been if they had begun to discuss the price after getting out of the taxi. (of course, for hiring a taxi, this logic should be reversed. If you tell the driver where you want to go before getting in, you may find your taxi chasing after some other customer. Get in first, then say where you want to go.) #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

People have cried “Wolf!” before about new technologies leading to overwhelming abundance. It was said of nuclear power, and of steam power before it, and perhaps of water wheels, the horse, the plough, and the chipped rock. Molecular manufacturing is different because it is a new way to make almost anything, including more of the equipment needed to do the manufacturing. There has never been anything quite like this before. The basic argument for low-cost production is this: Molecular manufacturing will be able to make almost anything with little labor, land, or maintenance, with high productivity, and with modest requirements for materials and energy. Its products will themselves be extremely productive, as energy producers, as material collectors, and as manufacturing equipment. There has never been a technology with this combination of characteristics, so historical analogies must be used with care. Perhaps the best analogy is this: Molecular manufacturing will do for matter processing what the computer has done for information processing. There will always be limiting costs, because resources—whether energy, matter, or design skill—always have some alterative use. Cost will not fall to zero, but it seems that they could fall very low. Yet there is no society that does not put restrictions on resources. Out of an infinite plenty is created a host of artificial scarcities. It would obviously repay us to look into this matter, since we have already observed that although we live in the most affluent society ever know, the sense of deprivation and discomfort that pervades it is also unparalleled. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

Cresleigh Homes

There’s nothing like a move-in ready home! When you choose Homesite 70 at #PlumasRanch Riverside, get ready to enjoy the best of this #CresleighHomes development.

Not only does this home maximize its single story space, it also sits squarely on one of the last cul-de-sac addresses in the neighborhood. It’s also adjacent to an orchard, and includes an upgraded wrought iron fence.

This home is ready for you! Give our office a call to take a 👀 peek: 530-870-8748.