Psychoanalysis serves many functions. It can assist in promoting psychic growth and self-realization. I am sorry to say that only a small minority seem to be interested in psychic growth these days. Most people have an entirely different goal, which is to own more and consume more. It has been suggested that persons are kept from improperly approaching others by self-applied rules and by legal sanctions. However, in addition to these means of social control there are other kinds, designed not so much to alter the offender’s pattern of misbehaviour as to allow a particular victim to escape from the deprivation inflicted by the offense. I want to mention some of these techniques here, even though they, and some of the issues which follow, occur in regard to the acquainted as well as the unacquainted. If one is approached on the street by someone in need and does not wish to give the individual money, any one of three courses may be followed: One may spare the individual in need the embarrassment of a refusal by pretending not to notice the person’s appeal; or one may refuse, saying, “No, I’m sorry”; or one may stop and offer help by suggesting a charitable organization to which the unfortunate can apply. A kind heart may extent this list even further, but the essential point is that if one is asked for charity, an apology must accompany a refusal. Quite apart from other considerations, any sign of anger or impatience is brutally ill-mannered. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18
Another strategy is what might be called the “terminal squirm.” Here, the unwilling recipient of the overture grudgingly turns his attention to the speaker, gives a noncommittal reply, and then as quickly as possible turns away, taking for granted that the other will take this answer as a “signing out” cue. In our society, this technique is often employed by parents with their importuning patients. Given the fact that importuned persons attempt to avoid the importuners, we can expect that there will be an attempt on the part of importuners to counter this counter (and, in turn, an attempt on the part of the importuned to counter this counter to a counter). A counter to the strategy of acting as if no overturn has been received is to inveigle an individual into an explosive demonstration that one is not in fact as little involved and affected by the entreaties as one appears to show. In everyday terms, this is sometimes called “getting a rise.” Thus, children often play games of making funny faces at one another to see who will win the contest between “straight face” and laugh-provoking gesture. The phenomenon of getting a rise, or reciprocally, rising, also occurs when the butt is already involved in a face engagement with the stimulator, in which case getting a rise will consist in forcing the butt suddenly to “flood out” and sharply increase one’s level of manifest seriousness, mirth, and the like. Sometimes the teaser employs a passing remark calculated to make the butt become suddenly affronted, only to perceive at the next moment the unserious intent. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18
Sometimes the teasing or goading is continuous and mounting until successful, as in the game of “the dozens.” In mental hospitals rise-getting seems to be a common pursuit, practiced by junior staff and by patients upon patients who insist on being mute, and by still other patients who make wonderfully humorous efforts to entice staff into communicative contact. On a hospital ward, a middle-aged woman patient employed some expert techniques for getting others, against their wishes, into a state of talk. She would come progressively closer to the unwilling participant, increasing the loudness of her comments and the impropriety of their references, as well as the grotesqueness of her facial grimaces, until a point was reached where the participants could no longer maintain the fiction of not being engaged, and would, in some way, respond. In addition to this technique of progressive profanation, she would employ antics, dancing, prancing, and jumping in the immediate presence of the recalcitrant participant, stopping only when she succeeded in getting the other involved. If these antics failed, she would sometimes employ the strategy of stopping abruptly and then looking into the eyes of the other in secret collusive derision of the self that had just behaved in a peculiar way. The other would then frequently find himself entering into this collusion, establishing communion with an individual who, apparently, had suddenly become sane. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18
If this, too, failed, she would sometimes make offensive, abusive, or mimicking gestures at one individual, in a way that could barely be defined as behind his back, and then quickly turn to a second individual with a knowing, “I am-just-trying-to-kid-this-fool” look; the person receiving this collusive look often allowed himself to be trapped momentarily into a byplay, and thereby lost the game. Interestingly enough, she was able to combat the lack of civil inattention that nurses in the glassed-in nursing station accorded her—either by their pointed not-seeing of her or by their staring at her—by getting a rise from them even through the glass partition designed to protect them, and even at a time when they were working every effort to demonstrate that they would not be drawn into communication unless properly approached by a proper person. Underlying principles of respect that were once commonplace in society have increasingly given way to unkind behaviour. To help our children and youth set aside the many negative examples that bombard them, we must first understand respect and reasons we sometimes act disrespectfully. There are people in the community who merit respect through honourable living. We admire their commitment or standards. For example, we might respect a sailor who gave up winning a boat race to save a man overboard. On the other hand, we do not respect one who embezzles or another who treats a child hardly in the supermarket. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18
Yet if we were to interact with these people, we would likely treat them with respectful or polite manners, regardless of our feelings about their transgression. Ultimately, we can treat people respectfully because they are human even if we do not honour or admire their acts. We are taught to be respectful toward others without qualification, sometimes we may find ourselves falling into rationalizations about being disrespectful based on their behaviour. A person who causes a problem is often seen as warranting disrespectful treatment. However, we can not live our lives with the philosophy: if others would behave differently, we would not have to behave badly. This kind of thinking shifts responsibility for our behaviour to others. It makes us think that our disrespectful acts are someone else’s fault. Respect is an expression of our sense of universal brotherhood or sisterhood—a testimony of our membership in the human family. It acknowledges our common humanity and shows our reverence for being alive. However, it is also important to keep in mind that no one likes to take orders. Resentment caused by a brash order may last a long time—even if the order was given to correct an obviously bad situation. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18
Dan Santarelli, a teacher at a school in Wyoming, Pennsylvania, told one of our classes how one of his students had blocked the entrance way to one of the school’s shops by illegally parking his car in it. One of the other instructors stormed into the classroom and asked in an arrogant tone, “Whose Toyota is blocking the driveway?” When the student who owned the car responded, the instructor screamed: “Move that car and move it right now, or I will wrap a chain around it and drag it out of there.” Now that student was wrong. The car should have not been parked there. However, from that day on, not only did that student resent the instructor’s action, but all the students in the class did everything they could to give the instructor a hard time and make his job unpleasant. How could he have handled it differently? If he had asked in a friendly way, “Whose Toyota is that in the driveway?” and then suggested that if it were not moved, other cars could get in and out, the student would have gladly moved it and neither he nor his classmates would have been upset and resentful. Also, instead of pushing people to accelerate their work and rush through projects, call everybody together, explain the situation to them that it is crucial that they do their best work and as fast as they can so the business can succeed. And then ask, “Is there anything we can do to help in this situation?” “Can anyone think of different ways to process it through the corporation that will make it possible to handle the project?” #RandolphHarris 6 of 18
“Is there any way to adjust our hours or personnel assignments that would help?” The employees will often times come up with many ideas and will feel confident handling the project. They will approach it with a “We can do it” attitude, and that is how effective leaders become and stay successful. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders. A human with a passion for absolute control will try to circumvent, to overstep the limits inherent in human existence, for it is part of the human condition that we are not omnipotent. And if a man should gain much too much power, death will show him how powerless he is in the face of nature. Therefore, this leads many to ask the question, “Is essence always good?” Not at all. Essence is mechanical, it does not live by itself, it has no special thinking apparatus; it has to think through personality. Essence, type and fate are practically the same, but facts connected with fate are very difficult to find, expect perhaps just almost physical facts such as kind of health, capacities or similar things. There are many other things but they are hard to distinguish because in our state essence seldom works separately from personality. Many things that we have the inclination to ascribe to fate really belong to personality. So it is dangerous to draw conclusions. However, there are some things we can see, for instance that certain types of people attract certain types of people. They have the same kinds of friends, the same kinds of troubles, the same kinds of difficulties, but, of course, never without personality taking some part. So you cannot call it pure fate; it is more like cause and effect. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18
“Must one work harder to alter one’s type than to alter acquire personality?” If it is necessary, but perhaps the type is quite all right. In most cases it is personality that must be changed; uncontrolled personality cannot be right. Only very few people can work on essence. It is not exactly an advantage to the people who can, because it is very difficult for them. Generally we work on personality, and this is the only work we can do, and if we work it will bring us somewhere. “When we try to change our being is essence as much as affected as personality?” We have to work on personality but essence is affected if we really change something. “Did you say that personality is all lies?” No, I said that personality was almost all artificial, just as essence is almost all real. “Are our ‘I’s part of personality of essence?” Both. There are “I”s belonging to essence and “I”s belonging to personality. “Are they connected with different centers?” continued the same questioner. Certainly, there are intellectual “I”s, moving “I”s and instinctive “I”s. An “I” is just one desire, one wish. However, this distinction is only for convenience. You may forget it if you like, although it is like that. Just take it that “I”s are small and personality is already more complicated desires. “Is the instinctive center closely connected with one’s essence?” Yes, it controls the necessities of essence. “Is intelligence part of essence?” #RandolphHarris 8 of 18
Generally speaking, yes. However, I would like to know what you mean by intelligence. If I say “yes” you cannot apply it; it will remain dead capital. “Can intelligence grow or increase by certain treatment?” asked the same questioner. That is what I said. If we speak about ourselves, we shall see that intelligence belongs to essence and personality in a very mixed way; though, in a cosmic way, a certain amount of intelligence is given to every essence. I believe the human being is fully himself only when he expresses himself, when he makes use of the powers within him. If he cannot do that, if his life consists only of possessing and using rather than being, then he degenerates; he becomes a thing; his life becomes pointless. It becomes a form of suffering. Real joy comes with real activity, and real activity involves the utilization and cultivation of human powers. We should not forget that exerting our minds encourages the growth of brains cells. That is a fact supported by physiological evidence. An alternative to selecting entire agents as the basis for the amplification of success is to make copies or recombinations at the level of particular strategies. If success can be assessed at the strategy level rather than the agent level, one difference that often occurs is a lowered cost of copying. To assemble or acquire a whole new agent (a new person, a new business, a new governmental unit) is typically more costly than to copy a strategy employed by a successful agent. It takes years to grow several Pacific yew trees for bark that provides cancer-fighting compounds for a single patient. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18
An owner of a baseball team can try to buy a star pitcher from another team. If the reason for success is that the pitcher is winning by throwing the forkball, it might be more advantageous to tech the other pitchers that strategy during the off-season. Whether this will be promising or not depends on how easily the forkball can be copied. Is there a pitching coach for hire with success in teaching it? Or perhaps success depends on the uncanny similarity of the star’s forkball and fastball motions. Then it may be necessary to pay the cost of acquiring the whole agent, with the entire complement of strategies, or of searching for another pitcher with a comparable package of skills. A second difference that often occurs between the strategy and agents levels is waiting time. One could just think of this as a special case of higher costs, but it deserves a brief discussion of its own. Because assembling copies of agents is generally a larger task involving more resources, it typically takes more time than copying or recombining strategies. Even if the direct costs of agent copying were affordable, the indirect costs of delay might not be. For example, another company may have a propriety process for manufacturing a part that does into a product you are developing. It might be quite valuable to invent your own process for making the needed component, and plausible to create a division within your company to do it. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18
It would lower your costs and let you tailor the part to your particular needs. However, competitors are racing to the market for your own product. The delay while you create a capacity to make the part means falling behind in competition with them. So you license the existing process from its owner, copying the strategy not because of lower monetary costs but because of the value of elapsed time. To highlight the speed at which strategies can change, consider a stock market. Agents watch changes in prices for information about what other agents believe. Thus the market has recursive nature in which agents’ expectations are formed on the basis of their anticipation of other agents’ expectations. The result can be rapid bubbles and crashes. Simulations of markets as Complex Adaptive Systems demonstrate how high rates of exploration can generate these bandwagon effects and “market psychology.” Social mobilization is another arena in which agents’ expectations are formed by watching each other’s behaviour. Again, the result can be very rapid change once a bandwagon begins. The fall of the Berlin Wall occurred with amazing speed once the initial demonstrations showed what was possible. As in a market, people formed their expectations on the basis of their anticipation of others’ expectations. Once begun, a series of demonstrations set off a cascade of revised beliefs leading to irresistible levels of protest. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18
On July 4, 1967, in the White House, President Lyndon Johnson signed a measure called the Freedom of Information Act. At the signing ceremony he declared, “Freedom of information is so vital that only the national security, not the desire of public officials or private citizens, should determine when it must be restricted.” No sooner had Johnson spoken than a reporter asked if he could obtain a copy of the original draft of these remarks. It was the first request made in the full radiant flush of the new freedoms guaranteed by the act. Johnson turned him down cold. The “Secrecy Tactic” is the first, probably oldest, and most pervasive info-tactic. Today the U.S.A. government classifies as secret some 20 million documents a year. Most of these pertain either to military diplomatic affairs—or to mattes that might embarrass officialdom. However, if that seems undemocratic and even hypocritical, most other countries are far more secretive, defining everything from alfalfa yields to population statistics as state secrets. Some governments are positively paranoid. Virtually everything they do is secret unless specifically declared otherwise. Secrecy is one of the familiar tools of repressive power and corruption. However, it also has its virtues. In a World filled with bizarre generalissimos, narco-politicians, and killer-theologians, secrets are necessary to protect military security. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18
Moreover, secrecy makes it possible for officials to say things they would not utter in front of a TV camera—including things that need saying. They can criticize their bosses’ policies without embarrassing them publicly. They can compromise with adversaries. Knowing how and when to use a secret is a cardinal skill of politician and bureaucrat. Secrets give rise to the second most common info-tactic, another classic tool of power: the “Guided Leak Tactic.” Some secrets are kept; others leak. When the leak is inadvertent it is merely an ineffectually kept secret. Such leaks drive officials into deep dementia. “Why,” one CIA official is supposed to have asked, “do we have to sent the China estimate to U.S military commands overseas just because that’s where the action is? That’s where the leaking is, too.” In short, better to keep information secret than to send it to those who need it. By contrast, “guided leaks” are informational missiles, consciously launched and precision-targeted. In Japan targeted leaks have produced spectacular effects. The Recruit-Cosmos financial scandal, which led to the ouster of Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita in 1989, offered a field day for leakers mainlining inside information from the office of the chief prosecutor, Yusuke Yoshinaga, to the daily press. “Without these press leaks,” says Takashi Kakuma, author of books on corruption in Japan, “I’m sure their investigation would have been stopped.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 18
Reporters received carefully timed spurts of information, which were moves in an exquisite power ballet. By releasing details to the press, the prosecutors prevented higher-ups in the Ministry of Justice from emasculating the investigation and protecting the upper reaches of the Takeshita government and the Liberal Democratic Party. Without these guided leaks, the government might have survived. In France, too, leaks have historically played a major political role. Recounting France’s difficulties in disentangling from the Indochina War, a White House document states: “Leak and counter leak was [sic] an accepted domestic political tactic…Even highly classified reports or orders pertaining to the war were often published verbatim in the pages of political journals.” So prevalent are leaks in London that they have created a pall of suspicion inimical to innovation. Officials hesitate to voice a new idea, he charges, for fear it will be leaked instantly and its author made to look ridiculous before the idea has had a chance to be considered. However, unless someone things, which sooner rather than later entails thinking aloud, no new thinking will be done and no old thinking will be brought up to date. In Washington, where guided leaks from a still unidentified source called Deep Throat forced Richard Nixon to resign the presidency, and where guided leaks are still a daily phenomenon, leak-phobia is rampant. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18
Thirty five years ago, presidential assistants felt free to write candid memos and have serious, far-reaching disagreements with each other—and the President. Watergate put a stop to that. One quickly learned never to write anything on paper that you would be unhappy to see on the page of The Oakland Tribune…Never say anything controversial in conversation where more than one person was present. The ironic consequence when the really inconsequential issues come along, an army of bureaucrats moves in to consider it [sic]. However, the more important the issues, the fewer the numbers involved—almost solely because of the fear of leaks. Of course, the same officials who excoriate leakers are themselves very often the best source of guided leaks. While serving in the White House as national security adviser, Henry Kissinger once wanted the telephones of his staffers wiretapped to find out whether they were leaking embarrassing information to the press and Congress. However, Kissinger himself was—and remains—a “leak-master.” Secrets and guided leaks, however, are only the two most familiar info-tactics used in political and bureaucratic war. They may not be the most important. Many of you will remember a game from elementary school called “one-two-three shoot” or “matching fingers.” In this contest, one of the players chooses “evens” and the other player gets “odds.” On the count of three, each of the two players simultaneously casts out either one or two fingers. If the total number of fingers is even, the “even” player wins, while if the sum is odd, the “odds” players wins. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18
Supposed the loser pays the winner a dollar. We can compute the usual table of wins and losses in relation to the choices of strategies. There is no equilibrium to this game if the two players do not act randomly. Imagine that “Odds” were to play 1 finger with certainty. “Evens” would always choose to play 1 finger as well. Now the logic turns on itself. Since “Odds” is certain that his opponent will display 1 finger, he will choose to show 2 fingers. This leads “Evens” to respond with 2 fingers. In which case, “Odds” will play 1 finger. We are back where we started, and there is no end in sight to the circular reasoning. An easy way to check if randomness is needed is to consider whether there is any harm in letting the other player see your move before he responds. When unpredictability is needed, it would be disadvantageous to move first. Think what would happen in “one-two-three shoot” if you moved first: you would always lose. Not just any randomness will do. Suppose Odds chooses 1 finger 75 percent of the time and 2 fingers 25 percent of the time. Then Evens, by choosing 1, can, win 75 percent of the time, and on average get .75 X 1 + .25 X (-1) = .5 dollars per play. Similarly, the choice of 2 would lose Evens fifty cents per play on average. So Evens would choose 1. However, then Odds should be choosing 2, not the 75:25 mixture. The mixture would not survive the successive rounds of thinking about each other’s strategy. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18
In other words, there is an equilibrium pattern of randomness and it has to be calculated. In this example, the whole situation is so symmetric that the equilibrium mix has to be 50:50 for each player. Let us try that out. If Odds chooses 1 and 2 equally often, then Evens wins .5 X 1 + .5 X (-1) = 0 per play on average, whether he plays 1 or 2. Therefore he also wins 0 on average, whether he plays 1 or 2. Therefore he also wins 0 on average when he plays his 50:50 mixes are best responses to each other, that is, an equilibrium. The name for this solution is a “mixed-strategy” equilibrium, reflecting the necessity for the individuals to randomly mix their moves. The equilibrium mix in more general situations is not so evident from symmetry, but there are some simple rules for calculating it. People have often been wrong about physical limits, confusing the limits of their technology with the limits of the possible. As a result, learned men first dismissed the idea of heavier-than air flight, and then dismissed the idea of flying to the Moon. Yet physical limits are real, and all technology—past, present, and future—will stay within those limits. There is even reason to suspect that some of those limits are where the learned now believe them to be. Nanotechnology will make it possible to push closer to the real limits set by natural law, but it will not change those laws of the limits they set. It will not affect the law of gravity, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the charge of the electron, the radius of the hydrogen atom, the value of Planck’s constant, the effects of the uncertainty principle, the principle of least action, the mass of the proton, the laws of thermodynamics, or the boiling point of water. Nanotechnology will not make energy or matter from nothing. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18
It seems a good bet that no one will build a faster-than-light spacecraft, or an antigravity machine, or a cable twice as strong as a diamond. There are limits. Science today may be wrong about some limits, but scientific knowledge is practically defined to be our best information about how the World works, so it is not wise to bet against it. There will be claims that nanotechnology will be able to do things that it cannot, or that capabilities are around the corner when they are not. Sometimes these will be innocent errors, sometimes they will be culpably stupid errors, and sometimes they will be what amounts to fraud. Among the problems that nanotechnology cannot solve is that of misguided claims, by people calling themselves “scientists,” “engineers,” or “businesspeople,” that they have a big technical breakthrough worth a fortune. Every interesting new technology, parcharlatans. For every Thomas Edison inventing useful products such as light bulbs or the precursor of movie projectors, there were people promoting electric hairbrushes to cure baldness, and electric shoes, electric belts, electric hats—the list goes on—that authoritatively claims cures for infertility, overweight, underweight, and all the ills and discomforts of mankind. Today, we are thankful that our forefather paved the way for us, and that we do not have to suffer the same credulity that they did. The more deprivation a person has to put up with, the more obedient one has to be so that one will not rebel against the deprivation imposed on one. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18
Cresleigh Homes
There’s something magical ✨ about dreaming about your new life in a new home this year – and we think the time has come for you to check out our community at #Havenwood!
Randolph Harris II International Institute 