The sadomasochistic splitting of power has the characteristics of all symptomatic behavior: it is literally destructive, and it involves a polarization in which one side of the split is apparent, while the other is hidden. People who turn to violence are visibly controlling; what is less obvious are their weakness and feelings of powerlessness. On the other hand, those who habitually play the victim may be quite unaware of their own more subtle methods of control. This is why issues of power are so difficult to deal with: things are not as they appear to be. Weaklings puff themselves up and try to act strong; tough people hide their vulnerabilities; the rest of us fail to look past the surface. We assume that the fabrication of power all around us are genuine, and we fall victim to them. Heinrich Himmler is an excellent example of a vicious, sadistic character who illustrates what has been said about the connection between sadism and the extreme forms of the anal-hoarding, bureaucratic, authoritarian character. The “bloodhound of Europe,” as he was called by many, Mr. Himmler was, together with Mr. Hitler, responsible for the slaughter of between fifteen and twenty million unarmed and powerless Russians, Poles, and Jewish. Whenever one person victimizes another, real power has been lost and replaced by a literalistic drama that is dangerous for both parties. Stage V On forgoing a working agreement, the offender and, in many cases, victim appeared committed to battle. They contributed to and invested in the development of a fateful transaction, one which was problematic and consequential to their face and wider reputation. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Both the offender and the victim placed their character on the line, and alternative methods for assessing character focused on a working agreement that violence was appropriate. Because opponents appeared to fear displaying weakness in character and consequent loss of face, and because resolution of the content was situationally bound, demanding an immediacy of response, they appeared committed to following through with expressed or implied intentions. Commitment to battle was additionally enhanced by the availability of weapons to support verbal threats and challenges. Prior to victory, the offender often sought out and secured weapons capable of overcoming the victim. In about thirty-six percent of the cases, offenders carried hand guns or knives into the setting. In only thirteen percent of these cases did offenders bring hand guns or knives into the situation on the assumption that they might be needed if the victims were confronted. In the remainder of these cases such weapons were brought in as a matter of everyday routine. In either event, to inflict the fatal blow required the mere mobilization of the weapon for action. In sixty-four percent of the cases, the offender either left the situation temporarily to secure a hand gun, rifle, or knife, or transformed the status of some existing situational prop, such as a pillow, telephone cord, kitchen knife, beer mug, or baseball bat, into a lethal weapon. The possession of weapons makes battle possible, and, in situations defined as calling for violence, probable. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The particular dynamics of the physical interchange are quite varied. In many cases, the battle was brief and precise. In approximately fifty-four percent of the cases, the offender secured the weapon and dropped the victim in a single shot, stab, or rally of blows. In the remaining cases, the battle was two-sided. One or both secured a weapon and exchanges a series of blows, with one falling in defeat. Stage VI Once the victim had fallen, the offender made one of three moves which marked the termination of the transaction. In over fifty-eight percent of the cases, the offender fled the scene. In about thirty-two percent of the cases, the offender voluntarily remained on the scene for the police. In the remaining cases, the offender was involuntarily held for the police by members of the audience. These alternatives seemed prompted by two lines of influence: the relationship of the offender and victim and the position of the audience vis-à-vis the offense. When there is no audience, the offender and victim were intimately related, the offender typically remained on the scene and notified the police. Sometimes these offenders waited for minutes or hours before reporting the event, stating they needed time to think, check the victim’s condition, and make arrangements on financial matters, the children, and work before arret. In contrast, when victims were acquaintances or enemies, offenders typically fled the scene. Moreover, these offenders often attempted to dispose of their victims and incriminating evidence. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

Seventy percent of the cases, however, occurred before an audience, and offenders’ moves seemed related to audience reactions to the offense. Bystanders seemed to replace the victim as the primary interactant, serving the offender as the pivotal reference for his existing orientations. The audience assumed one of three roles: hostile, neutral, or supportive. In the hostile role, accounting for nearly thirty-five percent of the case, bystanders moved to apprehend the offender, assist the victim, and immediately notify police. Such audiences were generally comprised of persons who either supported the victim or were neutral during the pre-battle escalation. In several of these cases, bystanders suggested, without use of force, that the offender assist the victim, call the police, and so forth. These audiences were comprised of the offender’s intimates, and he or she followed their advice without question. In either case, hostile bystanders forced or suggested the offender’s compliance in remaining at the scene for police. In almost seventeen percent of the cases, the audience was neutral. These people appeared as shocked bystanders. Having witnessed the killing, they stood numb as the offender escaped and the victim expired. In the remainder of the cases, the audience was supportive of the offender. These audiences were usually comprised of persons who encouraged the offender during the pre-battle stages. Supportive bystanders rendered assistance to the offender in his or her escape, destroyed evidence, and maintained ignorance of the event when questioned by the police, breaking down only in later stages of interrogation. Thus, while a hostile audience directs the offender to remain at the scene, the supportive audience permits or directs one’s flight. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

On the basis of this research, criminal homicide does not appear as a one-sided event with an unwitting victim assuming a passive, non-contributory role. Rather, murder is the outcome of a dynamic interchange between an offender, victim, and, in many cases, bystanders. The offender and victim develop lines of action shaped in part by the actions of the other and focused toward saving or maintaining face and reputation and demonstrating character. Participants develop a working agreement, sometimes implicit, often explicit, that violence is a useful tool for resolving questions of face and character. In some settings, where very small children are murdered, the extent of their participation cannot be great. However, generally these patterns characterized all cases irrespective of such variables as age, gender, race, time and place, use of alcohol, and proffered motive. We know that in the evolution of vertebrates, the bond of personal love and friendship was the epoch-making invention created by the great constructors when it became necessary for two or more individuals of an aggressive species to live peacefully together and to work for a common end. We know that human society is built on the foundation of this bond, but we have to recognize the fact that the bond has become too limited to encompass all that it should; it prevents aggression only between those who know each other and are friends, while obviously it is all active hostility between al men of all nations or ideologies that must be stopped. Obviously, love and friendship should embrace all humanity; we should love all our human brothers indiscriminately. This commandment is not new. Our reason is quire able to understand its necessity as our feeling is able to appreciate its beauty, but nevertheless, made as we are, we are unable to obey it. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

Indeed, one might be inclined to summarize the whole matter by saying that the individual is obliged to demonstrate involvement in a situation through the modulation of one’s involvements within the situation. However, this would be a loose way of talking. First, that which the individual owes is conveyed through appropriate modulation of situated involvements. What is thereby conveyed, however, is not “involvement,” but rather a kind of respect and regard for that to which attachment and belongingness are owed. At the heart of it is a kind of concern that shows one to be a part of the thing for which one is concerned. Second, a situation, as defined in this study, is merely an environment of communication possibilities, and not the sort of thing to which one can become attached. The little society involved is that of the gathering in the situation, and the little social system found therein is made up from conduct performed in accordance with the norms of situational propriety. Finally, what is owned the gathering is owed the social occasion in which it occurs, the joint social life sustained by the gathering being an embodiment of the occasion itself. Situational proprieties, then, give body to the joint social life sustained by a gathering, and transform the gathering itself from a mere aggregate of persons present into something akin to a little social group, a social reality in its own right. Behind this social function we can see still further ones. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

When a situation comes into being, mutual accessibility of body signs is not the only contingency faced by those who are present. As already suggested, each person becomes a potential victim or aggressor in the potential occurrence of violent interpersonal actions, such as physical or sexual assault, blocking of the way, and so forth. Further, each person present is in a position to accost or be accosted by the others for the purpose of initiating a state of talk—a joint conversational engagement. And this, too, has its own dangers, for when persons are joined in this way they can command and plead with each other, insult or compliment each other, inform and misinform each other, or be seen (by others) as being on close terms, and the like. Further, when an engagement is sustained in the presence of bystanders, the participants open themselves up to being listened in on and interfered with, just as the bystanders become vulnerable to undesired distractions. Although these various dangers of being in the presence of others are perhaps not frequently realized, especially in middle-class society, the possibility of their occurrence is always there. And it is through body signs that persons present signify to each other that they can be trusted not to exploit these threatening possibilities. Only when these signs are received may the individual feel secure enough to forget about defending oneself, secure enough to give oneself up to the merely-situated aspects of one’s involvements. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Aside, then, from the disrespect an individual shows to a gathering by conducting oneself improperly, such improprieties can also cause the others present to fear for their physical and social inviolability, whether rightly or not. And here, incidentally, is one reason for arguing that social situations and the gatherings occurring therein are worth studying, even apart from the social occasion that incorporates them. Ordinarily, situations are thought to be so closely enmeshed in a particular on-going institutional setting, and these settings to be so very different one from another, that excision of situations and their gatherings for separate study might seem questionable. However, it is only in situations that individuals can be physically assaulted, accosted by requests for talk, or drawn away from conversations and other involvements by the antics of bystanders. It is in situations that these accessibilities will have to be faced and dealt with. And in facing these accessibilities and dealing with them, a common and distinctive character is given to the social life sustained in situations, regardless of the uniqueness of the larger span of social life in which each gathering is embedded and of which each is an expression. King James vowed to make deviants conform or he would “harry them out of the land or else do worse.” If from the beginning one did not state making serious efforts to develop will, it is possible to understand and not be able to do anything about a situation. If will remains undeveloped, then the development of understanding cannot help much. One can understand very much, but at the same time not be able to do anything about it. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Much like in Elizabethan England, the exiles knew they were supposed to assimilate. Yet they found it difficult to find a way to flee from the profane multitude that harassed them in their gatherings at the manor house of William Brewster at Scrooby. These educated and sometimes prosperous people, knowing they had much to lose, prepared to lose it by booking a ship onto which they sneaked one night in 1607. Someone betrayed them before they could leave for Holland and religious freedom: Officers searched the men’s shirts for money, “yea even the women further than become modesty.” They tried to escape again a few months later, but only some of the husbands and fathers eluded authorities. The families of these pesky believers were then permitted to join them. “Is the will part of being?” Yes, the same as consciousness or understanding. Only if you work too much on understanding and disregard will, then instead of growing stronger, you will will become weaker, or will remain the same as it was. With our will—the will of men nos 1, 2, and 3—we can only control one center, using all the concentration possible for us. We can never control two or three centers, and yet centers are dependent on one another. Suppose that we decide to control one center and, meanwhile, other centers go on by themselves, then they will immediately corrupt the center that we want to control and bring it again to mechanical reaction. “How can one attain this kind of will?” That was explained in relation to “stop” exercise. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

Those who heard that lecture about “stop” exercise may remember it. To control more than one center is the basis of “stop” exercise. This can only be done if you put yourself under some other will because your own will is insufficient. Sometimes it may be necessary to control four centers, and the maximum of your energy of will can only control one center. So another will is necessary. This is why schools of discipline is necessary and school exercises. “How can we work against self-will? It is possible for us, as we are, to recognize the moments when we have real will?” Not real will; we cannot have that. All we have is self-will and willfulness, or small wills that change all the time. Real will is very far off; it is based on Permanent “I,” consciousness and individuality. We have not got it. About how we can work against self-will: you can study the system. There are certain demands in the system; things you must not do or must do. For instance, you must not talk, because if you do, you will only tell lies. You cannot speak about the system before you know and understand it. In this way, from the very beginning, you meet with ideas of the work opposed to self-will. If you forget about the work, you re not working against self-will. The only way to struggle against self-will is to remember the work. It may be that at one moment the work does not enter at all, but at another moment it does enter, and in that moment you can understand what giving up self-will means. Ask yourself: Is it right from the point of view of the work or not? This is struggle against-self-will. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

First it is necessary to understand what will is. We have no will; we only have self-will and willfulness. Self-will is self-assertion. Willfulness is going against something, against rules, and so on. Both include a kind of opposition to something and in that form they exist. Man has no original will which can exist without opposition, and which is permanent. That is why it is necessary to subjugate it. This subjugation trains it so that afterwards it can follow a definite line. When it becomes strong enough, it is no longer necessary to limit it. So will cannot be left as it is. Now it runs in all directions. It has to be trained, and in order to train will one has to do many unpleasant things. In an ordinary man will follows a zigzag line or goes in a circle. Will shows the direction of efforts. Effort is our money. We must pay with effort and the time of effort—in the sense of whether it is the right time for the effort or not—we obtain results. Effort needs knowledge, knowledge of moments when effort is useful. The efforts we can make are efforts of self-observation and self-remembering. When people hear about effort, they think about an effort of “doing.” That would be lost effort or wrong effort, but effort of self-observation and self-remembering is right effort because it can give right results. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. [Every individual] intends only his own security, only one’s own gain. And he is in this lead by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest, one frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when one intends to promote it.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Adam Smith wrote this in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations. Ever since, these word have been music to the ears of free-market advocates. The efficiency of the economic marketplace is then interpreted to suggest that a government should not interfere with individuals’ selfish attempts to maximize their interests. Some free-marketers are inclined to take this idea beyond the economic realm and like Dr. Pangloss in Candide claim that “everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible Worlds.” The sad reality is that Adam Smith’s invisible hand has a relatively small span. There is no general presumption that when every person pursues one’s own interest, the outcome will be the best of all possible Worlds. Even in the narrower sphere of economic affairs, there are important caveats and exceptions to the rule of the invisible hand. Game theory provides a natural way to think about social interactions of individuals. Every person has one’s own aims and strategies; we being them together and examine the equilibrium of the game in which these strategies interact. Remember that there is no presumption that an equilibrium must be good; we have to find out in each situation whether the outcome is a war of each against all, or the best of all possible Worlds, or something between these extremes. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

Why did Adam Smith think the invisible hand would produce good economic results for society? Well, his argument went as follows. When I buy a loaf of bread, I am using up some socially valuable resources—the wheat, the fuel, the services of the oven, the labor, and so on—that go into marking the loaf. What stops me from over-using these resources is the price of the loaf. (Much like is someone keeps hitting your car, the insurance company charges them a lot of money to repair it, to prevent future accidents. However, if drivers know they can cause an at fault accident and win the lottery, word gets around they got a good one to move into.) I will buy the load only if its value to me exceeds the price I have to pay. In a well-functioning market the price equals the cost of all these resources—the baker will not sell me the loaf unless the price covers all his costs, and competition will preclude his charging me a higher price. Thus I will buy the loaf only if its value to me exceeds the cost of the resources to the rest of society. The market mechanism, therefore, controls my desire to by more bread to just the right extent. It is as if the price were a “fine” I had to pay to compensate the rest of society for using up its resources. On the other side of the picture, the baker, representing the rest of society, is compensated for his costs in supplying the bread that I value, and therefore has just the right incentive to produce it. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

The simplicity, the clarity, we daresay the beauty of this argument explain its appeal. In fact the clarity carries with it an equally clear message about its limitations. The invisible hand at best applies only to situations in which everything has a price. In many instances outside of economics, and even in many within, people are not charged a fine for doing harm to the rest of society, nor given a reward for doing good to someone else. For example, manufacturers are rarely charged an adequate price for using up clean air, nor compensated for training a worker who might then quit and find other employment. Here pollution is an unpriced good (actually a bad), and the problem is that there is no economic incentive to temper the firm’s selfish interest in supplying a large amount of pollution. When a firm trains a worker, this good is not traded on  market, so there is no price to guide the firm’s action; the firm must equate its own costs with benefits and cannot capture the willingness of others to pay for this service. In the prisoners’ dilemma, when one prisoner confesses, he harms his colleague but is not fined. Because many unpriced or non-marketed activities matter, it is no wonder that individuals acting selfishly often do too much hard to others, and too little good. Within this broad theme, the failures of the invisible hand can occur in many ways. Everyone might do the individually best thing, but this ends up worst from their collective viewpoint, as in the prisoners’ dilemma. Too many people might do the wrong thing, or everyone might do too much of the wrong thing. Some of these problems are amenable to social policies; others, less so. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

In 1975 a Palestinian consultant to the Iraqi government was given a blunt message. Iraq, in the process of switching its political orientation from the Soviet Union to the West, was in the market for sixty military aircraft, then worth about $300 million. The consultant, Said K. Aburish, tried to negotiate the purchase with a British firm, but the government would not guarantee that spare parts would be available. The Iraqis thus turned to the French, who agreed to sell them F-1 Mirages and to guarantee spare parts. However, the Iraqis sense the French were overcharging them. According to Mr. Aburish, he was then called in by the Iraqis and told: “Drop whatever you are doing, and find out what the bastards charged other countries. You have unlimited expenses—use them to bribe, buy or bully anyone.” Ironically, as he tells the story, he ultimately found the information he needed in the files of the Peace Institute in Stockholm, not exactly a friend of warplane merchant. When France’s then-Prime Minister Jacques Chirac visited Baghdad shortly thereafter, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi strongman, shoved a paper in front of him with the prices charged other countries. According to Mr. Aburish, Mr. Chirac “volunteered, on the sport, a reduction of $1,750,000 in the price of each plane.” The planes went on to fly during Iran-Iraq war that ended in 1988. This was traditional commercial intelligence activity carried out on behalf of a government. The size of the return—id et, $1.75 million times 60 plane, or a bit over $100 million—against the modest bribe Aburish claims he paid indicates the immense profit possibilities inherent in economic intelligence gathering. It is frequently a low-risk, high-return operation. However, the Aburish case is small potatoes. It is an example of what might be termed “micro-intelligence.” #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Compare the potential rewards of “macro-intelligence.” When Britain negotiated its entry into the Common Market in 1973, its negotiators were armed with information from the intercepted messages of the other European countries. It is impossible to measure the bargaining edge thus gained, but it would make Iraq’s $100 million look like petty cash. That was macro-intelligence. Today the National Security Agency and the British GCHQ both maintain so-called “watch lists” of companies or organizations they monitor with more than routine interests. These include banks, petroleum companies, and commodity traders whose activities might swing the World price of, day, oil or gain. The Soviets, too, pay a lot of attention to economic data. Says, Raymond Tate, a former official of the National Security Agency, “The Soviet Union has for many years manipulated a lot of commercial markers in the World” by using its intelligence capabilities. However, it is the Japanese, according to Lionel Olmer, a former Under Secretary of Commerce in the United States of America, who “have the most refined and organized system of economics intelligence in the World through a network of ‘operatives’—a word I do not use disparagingly—in their export trade offices. JETRO [the Japanese External Trade Organization] s the main collector. However, Japanese trading companies live and die on information, and they are active everywhere, from Africa to Eastern Europe. We do not know how much of the information they collect is shared with governments, but we assume almost all of it is.” #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

When Olmer was at Commerce, he says, “We spent a year once trying to prove that the Japanese were secretly manipulating the value of the yen—in the period around 1983. We could find no hard evidence to demonstrate that the government was orchestrating up and down moves in the value of the currency. However, we certainly would have like to know.” That is macro-intelligence. In 1988-89 a major commercial tug-of-war broke out between Japan and the United States of America over terms for the joint production of the FSX fighter plane. In those negotiations, says Olmer, “It would have been very helpful if our government were better informed as to the Japanese government’s true intentions. Was it looking to the FSX project as a springboard to help Japan develop a commercial passenger jet business in competition with out own? All we got were a lot of inconsistences.” Here, too, what was at stake was not the sale of a few planes, but the fate of whole industries. These are only the opening skirmishes, however, of an economic intelligence war that will grow more systematic, more central to government policy and corporate strategies alike in the decisive decades ahead. The World’s leading intelligence producers are being driven deeper into economic espionage by several converging factors. First, with the breakup of the Cold War, all the major agencies are searching for new missions to justify their budgets. Second, as the new wealth-creation system forces more industries to globalize, more and more companies have overseas interests to nurture or protect. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

These firms step up the pressure on governments for political backup and economic intelligence that may be beyond the reach of an individual firm. Whether or not public intelligence should be sued for private gain, these pressures can only mount as globalization proceeds. Beyond this, however, is a startling, largely overlooked fact. As companies, in order to operate in the new super-symbolic economy, become ever more dependent on electronics, building extensive, Earth-spanning networks, transmitting data across borders, exchanging data directly between their computers and those of other companies, the entire business system becomes more vulnerable to electronic penetration by outfits like the NSA or GCHQ, Chobetsu, and their Soviet counterparts. Immense flows of fine-grained business data, once less accessible, will present a vast, irresistible target for intelligence agencies. Finally, as the stake rise in global trade rivalries, intelligence rivalries will heat up in parallel, leading to the intelligence equivalent of the arms race. A breakthrough by one country’s spy service will immediately set all the others racing to outdo it, raising the stakes at each move. Spying, to greater extent than at any time in the past century, will be pressed into service in support not only of government objectives but of corporate strategy as well, on the assumption that corporate power will necessarily contribute to national power. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

That is why we must expect more refined monitoring crops and mining activities in target nations, more eavesdropping on crucial trade negotiations, more stealing of engineering software, more purloined bidding data, and so on. The entire armamentarium of electronic surveillance may be pressed into commercial service, along with armies of trained human operatives determined to answer precisely the kind of questions Mr. Olmer found unanswerable during his years in the U.S.A. Commerce Department. All of this will led to a boom in cryptography or coding and code-breaking, as companies and individuals seek to protect their secrets from prying eyes and ears. It will also open the door to corruption—the back-door sale of government-acquired data to private parties by agents or former agents. In the absence of enforceable international law, it will also spark bitter international conflicts. That is why it is very important to pay close attention to technology. Potential accidents with nanotechnology richly deserve the attention they will get, and we have confidence that this attention will suffice to make nanotechnology a force for improved human and environmental safety. Abuse is the greater danger, and harder to deal with. When considering a proposed policy, the first question should be, “How will this affect the long-term likelihood of serious abuse?” Guiding technology means making many choices, and being able to deal with the consequences. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

Cresleigh Homes

Welcome to the newest addition to the #CresleighHomes family – #MagnoliaStation! 🎊

This beautiful neighborhood offers five incredible for plans perfect for any family and any lifestyle. 👏

We are getting a sneak peek on the blog today – click the link in our bio to take a look!