Although Dr. Freud has for many years paid little attention to the phenomenon of nonsexual aggression, Dr. Alfred Adler has put the tendencies in the center of his system. However, he deals with them not as sado-masochism, but as “inferiority feelings” and the “wish for power.” Dr. Adler sees only the rational side of these phenomena. While we are speaking of an irrational tendency to belittle oneself and make oneself small, he thinks of inferiority feelings as adequate reaction to actual inferiorities, such as organic inferiorities or the general helplessness of a child. And while we think of the wish for power as an expression of an irrational impulse to rule over others, Dr. Adler looks at it entirely from the rational side and speaks of the wish for power as an adequate reaction which has the function of protecting a person against the dangers springing from his or her insecurity and inferiority. Dr. Adler, here, as always, cannot see beyond purposeful and rational determinations of human behaviour; and though he has contributed valuable insights into the intricacies of motivation, he remains always on the surface and never descends into the abyss of irrational impulses as Dr. Freud has done. In psychoanalytic literature a viewpoint different from Dr. Freud’s has been presented by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, Dr. Karen Horney, and myself. Although Dr. Reich’s views are based on the original concept of Dr. Freud’s libido theory, he points out that the masochistic person ultimately seeks pleasure and that the pain incurred is a by-product, not an aim in itself. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Dr. Horney was the first one to recognize the fundamental role of masochistic strivings in the neurotic personality, to give a full and detailed description of the masochistic character traits, and to account for them theoretically as the outcome of the whole character structure. In her writings, as well as in my own, instead of the masochistic character traits being thought of as rooted in the sexual perversion, the latter is understood to be the sexual expression of psychic tendencies that are anchored in a particular kind of character structure. What is the root of both the masochistic perversion and masochistic character traits respectively? Furthermore, what is the common root of both the masochistic and the sadistic strivings? Both the masochistic and sadistic strivings tend to help the individual to escape one’s unbearable feeling of aloneness and powerlessness. Psychoanalytic and other empirical observations of masochistic persons give ample evidence that they are filled with a terror of aloneness and insignificance. Frequently this feeling is not conscious; often it is covered by compensatory feelings of eminence and perfection. However, if one only penetrates deeply enough into the unconscious dynamics of such a person, one finds these feelings without fail. The individual finds oneself “free” in the negative sense, that is, alone with one’s self and confronting an alienated, hostile World. In this situation, to quote a telling description of Mr. Dostoevski, in The Brothers Karamazov, he has “no more pressing need than the one to find somebody to whom he can surrender, as quickly as possible, that gift of freedom which he, the unfortunate creature, was born with.” #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The frightened individual seeks for somebody or something to tie one’s self to; one cannot bear to be one’s own individual self any longer, and one tries frantically to get rid of it and to feel security again by the elimination of this burden: the self. Masochism is one way toward this goal. The different forms which the masochistic strivings assume have one aim: to get rid of the individual self, to lose oneself; in other words, to get rid of the burden of freedom. This aim is obvious in those masochistic strivings in which the individual seeks to submit to a person or power which one feels as being overwhelmingly strong. (Incidentally, the conviction of superior strength of another person is always to be understood in relative terms. It can be based either upon the actual strength of the other person, or upon a conviction of one’s own utter insignificance and powerlessness. In the latter event a mouse or a leaf can assume threatening features.) In other forms of masochistic strivings the essential aim is the same. In the masochistic feeling of smallness we find a tendency which serves to increase the original feeling of insignificance. How is this to be understood? Can we assume that by making a fear worse one is trying to remedy it? Indeed, this is what the masochistic person does. As long as I struggle between my desire to be independent and strong and my feeling of insignificance or powerlessness I am caught in a tormenting conflict. If I succeed in reducing my individual self to nothing, if I can overcome the awareness of my separateness as an individual, I may save myself from this conflict. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

To feel utterly small and helpless is one way to this aim; to be overcome by the effects of intoxication still another. If all other means have not succeeded in bringing relief from the burden of aloneness, the phantasy of suicide is the last hope (but not an option). Under certain conditions these masochistic strivings are relatively successful. If the individual finds cultural patterns that satisfy these masochistic strivings (like the submission under the “leader” in Fascist ideology), one gains some security by finding oneself united with millions of others who share these feelings. Yet even in these cases, the masochistic “solution” is no more of a solution than neurotic manifestations ever are: the individual succeeds in eliminating the conspicuous suffering but not in removing the underlying conflict and the silent unhappiness. When the masochistic striving does not find a cultural pattern or when it quantitatively exceeds the average amount of masochism in the individual’s social group, the masochistic solution does not even solve anything in relative terms. It springs from an unbearable situation, tends to overcome it, and leaves the individual caught in new suffering. If human behaviour were always rational and purposeful, masochism would be as inexplicable as neurotic manifestations in general are. This, however, is what the study of emotional and mental disturbances has taught us: that human behaviour can be motivated by strivings which are caused by anxiety or some other unbearable state of mind, that these strivings tend to overcome this emotional state and yet merely cover up its most visible manifestations, or not even these. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Neurotic manifestations resemble the irrational behaviour in a panic. Thus an individual, trapped in a fire, stands at the window of his or her room and shouts for help, forgetting entirely that no one can hear one and that one could still escape by the staircase which will also be aflame in a few minutes. One shouts because one wants to be saved, and for the moment this behaviour appears to be a step on the way to being saved—and yet it will end in complete catastrophe. In the same way the masochistic strivings are caused by the desire to get rid of the individual self with all its shortcomings, conflicts, risks, doubts, and unbearable aloneness, but they only succeed in removing the most noticeable pain or they even lead to greater suffering. The irrationality of masochism, as of all other neurotic manifestations, consists in the ultimate futility of the means adopted to solve an untenable emotional suffering. These considerations refer to an important difference between neurotic and rational activity. In the latter the result corresponds to the motivation of an activity-one acts in order to attain a certain result. In neurotic strivings one acts from a compulsion which has essentially a negative character: to escape an unbearable situation. The strivings tend in a direction which only fictitiously is a solution. Actually the result is contradictory to what the person wants to attain; the compulsion to get rid of an unbearable feeling was so strong that the person was unable to choose a line of action that could be a solution in any other but a fictitious sense. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

The implication of this for masochism is that the individual is driven by an unbearable feeling of aloneness and insignificance. One then attempts to overcome it by getting ride of one’s self (as a psychological, not as a physiological entity); one’s way to achieve this is to belittle oneself, to suffer, to make oneself utterly insignificant. However, pain and suffering are not what one wants; pain and suffering are the price one pays for an aim which one compulsively tries to attain. The price is dear. One has to pay more and more, like a peon, one only gets into greater debt without ever getting what one has paid for: inner peace and tranquility. The masochistic perversion proves beyond doubt that suffering can be something sought for. However, in the masochistic perversion as little as in moral masochism suffering is not the real aim; in both cases it is the means to an aim: forgetting one’s self. The difference between the perversion and masochistic character traits lies essentially in the following: In the perversion the trend to get rid of one’s self is expressed through the medium of the body and linked up with the sexual feelings. While in moral masochism, the masochistic trends get hold of the whole person and tend to destroy all the aims which the ego consciously tries to achieve, in the perversion the masochistic strivings are more or less restricted to the physical realm; moreover by their amalgamation with pleasures of the flesh they participate in the release of tension occurring in the sphere of pleasures of the flesh and thus find some direct release. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

The annihilation of the individual self and the attempt to overcome thereby the unbearable feeling of powerlessness are only one side of the masochistic strivings. The other side is the attempt to become a part of the bigger and more powerful whole outside of oneself, to submerge and participate in it. This power can be a person, an institution, God, the nation, conscience, or a psychic compulsion. By becoming part of a power which is felt as unshakably strong, eternal, and glamorous, one participates in its strength and glory. One surrenders one’s own self and renounces all strength and pride connected with it one loses one’s integrity as an individual and surrenders freedom; but one gains a new security and a new pride in the participation in the power in which one submerges. One gains also security against the torture of doubt. The masochistic person, whether one’s master is an authority outside of oneself or whether one has internalized the master as conscience or a psychic compulsion, is saved from making decisions, saved from the final responsibility for the fate of one self, and thereby saved from the doubt of what decision to make. One is also saved from the doubt of what the meaning of one’s life is or who “one” is. These questions are answered by the relationship to the power to which one has attached oneself. The meaning of one’s life and the identity of one’s self are determined by the greater whole into which the self has submerged. For centuries kings, priests, feudal lords, industrial bosses and parents have insisted that obedience is a virtue and that disobedience is a vice. However, human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.#RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Human history was ushered in by an act of disobedience according to the Hebrew and Greek myths. Adam and Eve, living in the Garden of Eden, were part of nature; they were in harmony with it, yet did not transcend it. They were in nature as the fetus is in the womb of the mother. They were human, and at the same time not yet human. All this changes when they disobeyed an order. By breaking the ties with Earth and mother, by cutting the umbilical cord, human emerged from a pre-human harmony and were able to take the first step into independence and freedom. The act of disobedience set Adam and Eve free and opened their eyes. They recognized each other as strangers and the World outside them as strange and even hostile. Their act of disobedience broke the primary bond with nature and made them individuals. “Original sin,” far from corrupting humans, set them free; it was the beginning of history. Humans had to leave the Garden of Eden in order to learn to rely on their own powers and become fully human. The prophets, in their messianic concept, confirmed the idea that humans had been right in disobeying; that they had not been corrupted by their “sin,” but freed from the fetters of pre-human harmony. For the prophets, history is the place where man and woman become human; during its unfolding they develop their powers of reason and of love until they create a new harmony between themselves, other humans and nature. This new harmony is described as “the end of days,” that period of history in which there is peace between man and man, and between man and nature. It is a “new” paradise created by humans, and one which they alone could create because they were forced to leave the “old” paradise as a result of their disobedience. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Just as the Hebrew myth of Adam and Eve, so the Greek myth of Prometheus sees all of human civilization based on an act of disobedience. Prometheus, in stealing the fire form the gods, lays the foundation for the evolution of humans. There would be no human history were it not for Prometheus’ “crime.” He, like Adam and Eve, is punished for his disobedience. However, he does not repent and ask for forgiveness. On the contrary, he proudly says: “I would rather be chained to this rock than be the obedient servant of the gods.” Humans have continued to evolve by acts of disobedience. Not only was their spiritual development possible only because there were humans who dared to say no to the power that be in the name of their conscience or their faith, but also their intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient—disobedient to authorities who tried to muzzle new thoughts and to the authority of long-established opinions which declared a change to be nonsense. If the capacity for disobedience constituted the beginning of human history, obedience might very well cause the end of human history. This is not symbolically nor poetically. There is the possibility, or even the probability, that the human race will destroy civilization and even all life upon Earth within the next five to tend years. There is no rationality or sense in it. However, the fact is that, while we are living technically in the Atomic Age, the majority of humans—including most of those who are in power—still live emotionally in the Stone Age; that while our mathematic, astronomy, and the natural sciences are of the twenty-first century, most of our ideas about politics, the state, and society lag far behind the age of science. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

If humankind commits suicide, it will be because people will obey those who command them to push the deadly buttons; because they will obey the archaic passions of fear, hate, and greed; because they will obey obsolete cliches of State sovereignty and national honor. The Soviet leaders talk much about revolutions, and we in the “free World” talk much about freedom. Yet they and we discourage disobedience—in the Soviet Union explicitly and by force, in the free World implicitly and by the more subtle methods of persuasion. However, this is not to say that all disobedience is a virtue and all obedience a vice. Such a view would ignore the dialectical relationship between obedience and disobedience. Whenever the principles which are obeyed and those which are disobeyed are irreconcilable, an act of disobedience to its counterpart, and vice versa. Antigone is the classic example of this dichotomy. By obeying the inhuman laws of the State, Antigone necessarily would disobey the laws of humanity. By obeying the latter, she must disobey the former. All martyrs of religious faiths, of freedom and of science have had to disobey those who wanted to muzzle them in order to obey their own consciences, the laws of humanity and of reason. If a human can only obey and not disobey, one is a slave; if one can only disobey and not only, one is a revel (not a revolutionary); one acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

However, in order to prevent a confusion of terms an important qualification must be made. Obedience to a person, institution or power (heteronomous obedience) is submission; it implies the abdication of my autonomy and the acceptance of a foreign will or judgment in place of my own. Obedience to my own reason or conviction (autonomous obedience) is not an act of submission but one of affirmation. If authentically mine, my conviction and my judgment are part of me. If I follow them rather than the judgment of others, I am being myself; hence the word obey can be applied only in a metaphorical sense and with a meaning which is fundamentally different from the one in the case of “heteronomous obedience.” However, this distinction still needs two further qualifications, one with regard to the concept of conscience and the other with regard to the concept of authority. The word conscience is used to express two phenomena which are quite distinct from each other. One is the “authoritarian conscience” which is the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing. This authoritarian conscience is what most people experience when they obey their conscience. It is also the conscience which Dr. Freud speaks of, and which he called “Super-Ego.” This Super-Ego represents the internalized commands and prohibitions of father, accepted by the son out of fear. Different from the authoritarian conscience is “humanistic conscience”; this is the voice present in every human being and independent from external sanctions and rewards. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Humanistic conscience is based on the fact that as human beings we have an intuitive knowledge of what is human and inhuman, what is conducive of life and what is destructive of life. This conscience serves our functioning as human beings. It is the voice which calls us back to ourselves, to our humanity. Authoritarian conscience (Super-Ego) is still obedience to a power outside of myself, even though this power has been internalized. Consciously I believe that I am following my conscience; in effect, however, I have swallowed the principles of power; just because of the illusion that humanistic conscience and Super-Ego are identical, internalized authority is so much more effective than the authority which is clearly experienced as not being part of me. Obedience to the “authoritarian conscience,” like all obedience to outside thoughts and power, tends to debilitate “humanistic conscience,” the ability to be and to judge oneself. Now, what is a fanatic? How can we recognize one? There is a tendency today, when genuine conviction has become so rare, to call “fanatic” anyone who has a deep faith in a spiritual or scientific conviction that differs radically from the opinions of others, and has not yet been proven. If this were so, then indeed, the greatest and most courageous men—Buddha, Isaiah, Socrates, William Wirt Winchester, William Randolph Hearst, Jesus, Galileo, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Einstein—would all have been “fanatics.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The question of who is a fanatic can often not be answered by judging the contents of an assertion. For instance, faith in man or woman and in his or her potentialities can not be proven intellectually, although it can be deeply rooted in the authentic experience of the believer. Again, in scientific thought, there is often quite a distance from the stage of hypothesis formation to valid proof, and the scientists needs to have faith in one’s thinking, until one can arrive at the stage of proof. True enough, there are many assertions that are clearly in contrast to the laws of rational thought, and anyone who holds an unshakable belief in them may be correctly called a fanatic. However, often it is not easy to decide what is irrational and what is not, and neither “proof” nor general agreement are sufficient criteria. In fact, it is easier to recognize the fanatic by some qualities in one’s personality rather than by the contents of one’s convictions. The most important—and usually an observable—personal quality in the fanatic is a kind of “cold fire,” a passion which at the same time has no warmth. The fanatic is unrelated to the World outside oneself; one is not concerned with anybody or anything—even though one may proclaim one’s concern as an important part of one’s “faith.” The cold glitter in one’s eyes often tells us more about the fanatical quality of one’s ideas than the apparent “unreasonableness” of the ideas themselves. Speaking in a more theoretical vein, the fanatic can be described as a highly narcissistic person who is disengaged from the World outside. One does not really feel anything since authentic feeling is always the result of the interrelation between oneself and the World. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

The fanatic’s pathology is similar to that of a depressed person who suffers not from sadness (which would be a relief) but from the incapacity to feel anything. The fanatic is different from the depressed person (and in some ways similar to the manic) inasmuch as one has found a way out of acute depression. One has built for oneself an idol, an absolute, to which one surrenders completely but of which one also makes oneself a part. One then acts, thinks, and feels in the name of one’s idol, or rather, one has the illusion of “feeling,” of inner excitement, while one has no authentic feeling. One lives in a state of narcissistic excitement since one has drowned the feeling of one’s isolation and emptiness in a total submission to the idol and in the simultaneous deification of one’s own ego, which one has made part of the idol. One is passionate in one’s idolatric submission and in one’s grandiosity; yet cold in one’s inability for genuine relatedness and feeling. One’s attitude may be described symbolically as “burning ice.” If the content of one’s idol is love, brotherliness, God, salvation, the country, the race, honour, et cetera, rather than frank destructiveness, hostility, or overt desire for conquest, one will be particularly deceptive to others. However, as far as human reality is concerned, it makes little difference what the nature of the idol is. Fanaticism is always the result of the incapacity for authentic relatedness. The fanatic is so seductive, and hence so dangerous politically, because one seems to feel so intensely and to be so convinced. Since we all long for certainty and passionate experience, is it surprising that the fanatic succeeds in attracting so many with one’s counterfeit faith and feelings? #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

One of the fascinating features of actual negotiation is the fact that a great deal of it is nonverbal, proceeding by gesture, posture, facial expression, grunts, sighs, smiles, cheers, snorts, and sneers. Many arguments advanced by literate and rational means are met not in kind but by ridicule, indifference, browbeating, threat, or suppression. Yet the outcome may be agreed to by all concerned. Some of the ideological justifications offered in defense of group interests are often discounted at far below face value without either party dropping its mask of seriousness in speaking or hearing them. On the other hand, profoundly sincere statements of devotion to community interest may be brutally condemned as window-dressing, without preventing later acceptance of highly formal and moral prembles to final agreements. These necessary qualifications to practice, however, do not obviate the frequently pressing practical problem of when to terminate discussion. Where, between utter unanimity at one pole and outright conflict t the other, is the best point for decision? Th principle of majority rule should not mean that as soon as 51 percent of the participants in a decision-making body make up their mind, no more discussion is required. If attention is kept on the fact that, for planning operations, the essential function of the policy phase is to produce a binding commitment for a specified period of time, the attainment of a majority for a proposal may be quite an insufficient guide as to when to terminate discussion. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

 Indeed, when affairs of this sort are well-handled in practice, they proceed quite the other way around; the termination of discussion is the moment to take the vote which officially and ceremonially signifies the reaching of the decision. When all relevant facts have been presented, when all possibilities have been explored, when all compromises and concessions have been bargained out, then it will be noticed that participants, if they have anything more to say at all, will begin to repeat themselves. Or, they cease to engage in discussion, and commence to talk only to delay actions. Experienced discussants are quite able to discern this moment. To ask for a vote on the question prior to this point is to court later nonco-operation from dissident minorities; to postpone discussion after this point is to build up unnecessary impatience and hostile feelings. When the vote is taken, if the proposal wins, the bigger the majority for it, the better the chances of later getting the co-opertion of the losing minorities. Also, the less chance of having to reopen the policy before its term of commitment runs out. When minorities have had their day in court, as it were, and have lost their case fairly after full debate, they become obligated to abide by the decision of the majority. Until there has been a full debate there is not likely to be mutual understanding, and a consensus on the nature of the specific differences between majority and minority (“agreement to disagree”), which, while not constituting unanimous agreement, yet preserves the integrity of the community. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

As long as the conditions of discussion are maintained, minorities can become majorities in the future, especially when periodic opportunities for evaluation and reconsideration are given, along with the customary opportunities for re-election for officers. There is likely to be a series of issues, each of which divides the public in diverse ways. Opponents on one issue become allies on others, so that permanent alienation of any group is rare. The activities and the resulting relationships and outcomes with an enforcement intermediary are important. If for instance, an investigation is done, and election fraud has been uncovered, it is important to do more than keep a record of this. Immediate punishment needs to be inflicted on the cheater. If the punishment is drastic enough, authority’s threat of inflicting it is credible, then it deters cheating. However, if authorities make threats to punish others and allow people who have no authority threaten to punish law abiding citizens and does nothing to punish them, and at the same time protects criminals, the state then is a sponsor and coconspirator of terrorism. However, a state that is about law and order, threatens to inflict an immediate punishment and does not rely on any repeated gams with cheaters and does not share any responsibility for their actions. Among the legal privileges of corporations…are the right to sue and the “right” to be sued. Who wants to be sued! However, the right to be sued is the power to make a promise…a prerequisite to doing business. One has to be a part of a mutually reinforcing system—this right is valuable to you in deals with others, and others will credibly reciprocate your honesty. It is also important to purchase protection against oneself. The phenomenon is also similar to the idea of “giving hostages” to guarantee one’s own good behaviour. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

In saving the man and woman, God calls him into co-action with Himself, to work out one’s own salvation, for it is the Holy Spirit who work with and in one, to enable one to will and to do God’s pleasure. God give to the man or woman in the hour of one’s regeneration the decisive liberty of will to rule over oneself, as one walks in fellowship with God. And by this restoration of a will free to act in choosing for God. The ultimate negative loses one’s power. The ultimate negative is the god of this World, and one rules the World through the will of humans enslaved by one—enslaved not only directly but indirectly, by one’s inciting humans to enslave one another and to covet the power of “influence,” whereas they should work with God to restore to every human the freedom of one’s own personal volition, and the power of choice to do right because it is right—the power obtained for them at Calvary. In this direction we can see the working of the World-rulers of darkness in the realm which they govern, directly in atmospheric influence and indirectly through humans, in hypnotic suggestions, mind reading, manipulation of the will, and other forms of invisible force, sometimes employed for the supposed good of others. The danger of all forms of healing by “suggestion,” and all kindred methods of seeking to benefit humans in physical or mental ways, lies in their bringing about passivity of the will and mental powers which lays them open to influences of psychopathological offenders. We, for the moment, avoid the word “church” since it is too closely associated with the ambiguities of religion. Instead, we speak of the Spiritual Community which is the community of the New Being. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

The Community of the New Being is neither organized religion, nor hierarchical authority, nor social organization; it is primarily a group of people who express a new reality by which they have been grasped. The clue to understanding the connection between the New Being and the Spiritual Community is the nature of revelation, which includes a divine manifestation plus its reception as such by an individual or a group. Christology emphasizes final revelation in the Christ; ecclesiology, its reception in faith. As the Christ is not the Christ without those who receive Him as the Christ, so the Spiritual Community is the creation of the Spirit which opens the eyes of faith to a recognition of the New Being. However, it is the New Being in Jesus as the Christ that is the criterion of the Spiritual Presence and the measure of the marks of the Spiritual Community. The story of the ecstatic event of Pentecost a graphic illustration of the marks of the Spiritual Community. The first mark of faith, for the individuals who constitute the community are grasped by the Spiritual Presence. Within the Spiritual Community there is room for an unlimited variety of “faiths,” even conflicting ones, as long as they are all animated by the Spirit. The second mark is love, for the New Being manifest in the Spiritual Community reunited those who are separated. The third and fourth marks, unity and universality, follow naturally upon the faith and love generated by the Spirit. The Spiritual Community, holy though it is, is not the ultimate fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. In the Spiritual Community one participates in unambiguous life, but only fragmentarily. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And please be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

MAGNOLIA STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA | low $600s

Now Selling!

Models now open at Magnolia Station! Located at the corner of Rancho Cordova Parkway and Douglas Road, residents of Cresleigh Ranch will benefit from a brand new neighborhood with convenient access to the new Raley’s Shopping Center, Sunrise Boulevard, and much more!

Magnolia Station will  include 81 homesites  and five distinct plans ranging from 2,200 – 3,700 square feet; including three single story plans! Each plan has been thoughtfully designed to include features such as: Generations Suite, Optional Offices/Dens, Extended Great Rooms, and more! #CresleighHomes

Many people in the United States of America recognize communism as an overwhelming threat to values, which have been central to their own lives and families. Values shape what men and women see as important in life, how priorities are to be established, and how they create their own places within a given historical context. It is the intensity of commit to a set of values that provides sources of meaning in what otherwise would be a drab and mundane World. This intensity ranges along a continuum from the vigor and fervor of true believer to only qualified confidence in their own beliefs and commitments. To some, values are at the center of self-identities. There are several criteria that form the core values of American families. Americans have drawn upon the values of individualism, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, and equality, which are noteworthy in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in shaping their historical destiny. The rights and privilege prominently emphasized in the Constitution were designed to place limits on what our government could or could not do. The equality of opportunity is formally inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and also a prominent part of the value system of America. The core values of American life are deeply embedded in historical experiences and traditions. All modern nations are required to create and maintain their society as a moral community. It is through deployment of many aspects of their core values that they are able to achieve this purpose. The values that are drawn upon in this process do not endure very long without modifications. Each generation finds it necessary to take the data from the past and rework it to fit the need of their time. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

Other core values were selected as a result of the extensiveness with which they are held in the general population and for the direction in which society is moving. For example, the importance of intimate relationships is primarily emphasized in individual hopes and aspirations for having a “good marriage.” Other prominent values include consumerism, materialism, and technology. These beliefs and values are clearly evident in lifestyles that continue to be accentuated with the passing of time. No claims are made for the exclusiveness of the values selected. Americans hold the view that the ultimate social reality resides with the individual personally, rather than with the community, the family, or the broader society. Accordingly, the essential feature of social life is that social groups are made up of interacting individuals. We belong to social groups because it is practical and expedient to do so. If it is no longer in our best interests to belong to a particular group, we have a right to disaffiliate. The prominent place of the individual is evident in the right of and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The norm calling for recognizing the dignity and worth of each individual is advocated to offset stereotypes based on race, gender, and national origin. Ideas about individualism hold that individuals are unique, have special talents and abilities, and if they work hard enough, they can be successful in life. However, freedom is conditional and dependent upon the options that have been made available to us. How we make choices among options is shaped by our social condition of desires and preferences. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

In the subsequent creation of a civil society, certain basic rights or entitlements grew out of what it means to be human or to be a citizen of the state. The personal freedom accorded to the individual included freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the rights of assembly. The major advantages of political democracy were seen as deriving from permitting citizens to become engaged in civic participation on a widespread basis. The developments during childhood consist of an enormous amount of social learning in order for the child to find his or her place within the complexity of the modern World. Learning to belong requires an awareness of the rules that regulate social conduct. The child must learn that there is a time and place, both for talking and remaining silent; that certain rights of others must be respected; that activities are structured in some prearranged sequence and that performances are evaluated and rewarded or punished accordingly. Belonging and membership reflect the qualities of family bonds, friendship ties, love, career commitments, and other cohesive relationships that offer support for one’s identity. If these relationships are rewarding, then one may proceed with a relatively high degree of confidence in developing personal goals, and plans for the future. However, if one views significant others as being indifferent and unsupportive, experiences of loneliness are likely to follow and the feeling develops that one must rely exclusively on personal resources in times of trouble. “Communism,” its original manifesto stated, “does not propose to ‘capture’ the bourgeois state, but to conquer and destroy it.” #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

The major problem confronting the people of the United States of America and free peoples everywhere in the first quarter of the 21^st century is the threat to peace and freedom presented by the militant aggressiveness of international communism. As society moves away from traditional ideas such as family units, private property, basic human rights, and freedom, the road to a communist regime is already being paved like the crack of doom. Communism pours the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. American has never witnessed anything like this before. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out. Communists are lawless, they are teaching kids to question their gender, and they have a strong hatred for America and traditional America values. It is America that have saved the World. Underneath their skin, communism and liberalism are blood brothers. Sadism to many observers seemed less of a puzzle than masochism. That one wished to hurt others or to dominate them seemed, though not necessarily “good,” quite natural. Mr. Hobbes assumed as a “general inclination of all mankind” the existence of “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in Death.” For him the wish for power has no diabolical quality but is a perfectly rational result of man’s desire for pleasure and security. From Mr. Hobbes to Mr. Hitler, who explains the wish for domination as the logical result of the biologically conditioned struggle for survival of the fittest, the lust for power has been explained as a part of human nature which does not warrant any explanation beyond the obvious. Masochistic strivings, however, tendencies directed against one’s own self, seem to be a riddle. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

How should one understand the fact that people not only want to belittle and weaken and hurt themselves, but even enjoy doing so? Does not the phenomenon of masochism contradict our whole picture of the human psyche as directed toward pleasure and self-preservation? How can one explain that some people are attracted by and tend to incur what we all seem to go to such length to avoid: pain and suffering? There is a phenomenon, however, which proves that suffering and weakness can be the aim of human striving: the masochistic perversion. Here we find that people quite consciously want to suffer in one way or another and enjoy it. In the masochistic perversion, a person feels sexual excitement when experiencing pain inflicted upon one by another person. However, this is not the only form of masochistic perversion. Frequently it is not the actual suffering of pain that is sought for, but the excitement and satisfaction aroused by being physically bound, made helpless and weak. Often all that is wanted in the masochistic perversion is to be made weak “morally,” by being treated or spoken to like a little child, or by being scolded or humiliated in different ways. In the sadistic perversion, we find the satisfaction derived from corresponding devices, that is, from hurting other persons physically, from tying them with ropes or chains, or from humiliating them by action or words. The masochistic perversion with it conscious and intentional enjoyment of pain or humiliation caught the eye of psychologist and writers earlier than the masochistic character (or moral masochism). #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

More and more, however, one recognized how closely the masochistic tendencies of the kind we described first are akin to the sexual perversion, and that both types of masochism are essentially one and the same phenomenon. Certain psychologists assumed that since there are people who want to submit and to suffer, there must be an “instinct: which has this very aim. Sociologists, like Dr. Vierkand, came to the same conclusion. The first one to attempt a more thorough theoretical explanation was Dr. Freud. He originally thought that sado-masochism was essentially a sexual phenomenon. Observing sado-masochistic practices in little children, he assumed that sado-masochism was a “partial drive” which regularly appears in the development of the sexual instinct. He believed that sado-masochism tendencies in adults are due to a fixation of a person’s psychosexual development on an early level or to a later regression to it. Later on, Dr. Freud became increasingly aware of the importance of those phenomena which he called moral masochism, a tendency to suffer not physically, but mentally. He stressed also the fact that masochistic and sadistic tendencies were always to be found together in spite of their seeming contradiction. However, he changed his theoretical explanation of masochistic phenomena. Assuming that there is a biologically given tendency to destroy which can be directed either against others or against oneself, Dr. Freud suggested that masochism is essentially the product of this so-called death-instinct. If directed against one’s own person, he further suggested that this death-instinct, which we cannot observe directly, amalgamates itself with the sexual instinct and in the amalgamation appears as masochism, and as sadism if directed against others. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

Dr. Freud assumed that this very mixture with the sexual instinct protect humans from the dangerous effect the unmixed death-instinct would have. According to Dr. Freud, if one fails to amalgamate destructiveness with pleasures of the flesh, then humans have only the choice of either destroying themselves or destroying others. This theory is basically different from Dr. Freud’s original assumption about sado-masochism. There, sadomasochism was essentially a sexual phenomenon, but in the newer theory it is essentially a nonsexual phenomenon, the sexual factor in it being only due to the amalgamation of the death-instinct with the sexual instinct. One of the more extreme forms of pathological thinking, is paranoid thinking. The case of an individual suffering from paranoic delusions is clear to the psychiatrist and to most laymen as well. The man or woman who tells us that everybody is “after him,” or “after her,” this is one’s colleagues, one’s friends, and even one’s spouse are conspiring to murder one is typically recognized by most as being insane, but this is not always the case. On what basis is this considered insanity? Quite obviously not because the accusations one makes are logically impossible. It could be that one’s enemies, one’s acquaintances, even one’s family have united to destroy one; in fact such things have happened. We can not truthfully answer the unfortunate patient and say that what one assumes is not possible. We can only argue that it is very unlikely; that it is unlikely due to the infrequency of such events in general and the character of one’s spouse and friends in particular. (However, character is very important, as there are people who are around a lot of seedy people, whom they cannot trust, and this is not always by choice.) #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Yet we shall not convince the patient. For one, reality is based on logical possibility not on probability. This attitude is exactly the basis of one’s illness. One’s contact with reality rests on the small basis of its compatibility with the laws of logical thinking, and does not require the examination of realistic probability. It does not require it because the paranoic is not capable of making this examination. As with every psychotic patient, one’s contact with reality is exceedingly thin and brittle. Reality, for one, is mainly what exists within oneself, one’s own emotions, fears, and desires. The World outside is the mirror or the symbolic representation of one’s inner World. However, in contract to the schizophrenic person, many paranoid persons have preserved one aspect of the sane thinking: the requirement of logical possibility. They have merely relinquished the other, the other, the aspect of realistic probability. If only possibility is required as a condition for truth, it is easy to achieve certainty. If, on the other hand, probability is required, there are relatively few thins to be certain of. This is indeed what makes paranoid thinking so “attractive” in spite of the suffering it causes. It saves man from doubt. It guarantees a sense of certainty, which transcends most insights to which sane thinking can lead. It is easy for people to recognize paranoid thinking in the individual case of a paranoid psychotic. However, to recognize paranoid thinking when it is shred by millions of other people and approved by the authorities who lead them, is more difficult. A case in point is the conventional thinking about Russia. Most Americans today think about Russia in a paranoid fashion; namely, they ask what is possible rather than what is probable. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

Indeed, it is possible that President Putin wants to conquer us by force. It is possible that he makes peace proposals in order to make us unaware of the danger. It is also possible that his whole argument with the Chinese Communists about coexistence is nothing but a trick to make us believe that he wants peace in order to al the better surprise us. If we think only of possibilities, then indeed there is no chance for realistic and sensile political action. Sane thinking means not only to think of possibilities, which in fact are always relatively easy to recognize, but to think also of probabilities. That means to examine the realistic situations, and to predict to some extent an opponent’s probable action by means of an analysis of all the factors and motivations that influence one’s behaviour. To make this point perfectly clear, I want to state that my emphasis on sane versus paranoid thinking does not imply judgment that the Russians might not have all the sinister and deceptive plans just mentioned. Instead, it insists that we must conduct a thorough and dispassionate examination of the facts and that logical possibilities as such proves nothing and means little. Another pathological mechanism which threatens realistic and effective political thinking is that of projection. Everyone is familiar with this mechanism in its cruder forms when it appears in individual cases. Everybody knows the hostile and destructive person who accused everybody else of being hostile and pictures oneself and being innocent and victimized. There are thousands of marriages that continue to exist on the basis of this projective mechanism. Each of the partners accuses the other of what in reality is one’s own problem, and hence succeeds in being entirely occupied with the problem of one’s partner instead of facing one’s own. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Again what is easily seen in individual cases is not seen when the same projective mechanism is shared by millions and supported by their leaders. For example, during the First World War, the peoples in the allied countries believed that the Germans were vile Huns, killing innocent babies and that they were the true personification of all evil to the extent that even the music of Mr. Bach and Mr. Beethoven became part of the Devil’s territory. On the other hand the accusers of the Huns were fighting only for the noblest purposes, for freedom, for peace, for democracy, and so on. The Germans, strangely enough, believed exactly the same things about the allies. What is the result? The enemy appears as the embodiment of all evil because all evil that I feel in my self is projected on to him or her. Logically, after this has happened, I consider myself as the embodiment of all good since the evil has been transferred to the other side. The result is indignation and hatred against the enemy and uncritical, narcissistic self-glorification. This can create a mood of common mania and shared passion of hate. Nevertheless, it is pathological thinking, dangerous when it leads to war and deadly when war means destruction. Our attitudes toward communism, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are, to a considerable extent demonstrations of projective thinking. Indeed, the Stalinist terror system was inhuman, cruel, and revolting, although no more so than the terror in a number of countries that we call free—no more so, for instance than was the terror of Mr. Trujillo or Mr. Batista. #RandlphHarris 10 of 18

I do not mention non-communist cruelty or callousness as being extenuating factors in judging the Stalin regime, because obviously cruelties and inhumanities do not cancel out each other. I mention them to show that the indignation of many people against Mr. Stalin is not as genuine as they believe it to be. If it were, they would feel just as indignant about other cases of cruelty and callousness, whether the perpetrators happen to be their political enemies or not. However, more than that the Stalin regime has gone. Russia is not a conservative police regime, which is by no means a desirable thing if one cherishes freedom and individuality, but which also should not arose the kind of deep human indignation that the Stalinist system merited. It is fortunate that the Russian regime has changed from cruel terrorism to the methods of a conservative police state, but the conflict in Ukraine is causing friction and even dividing families of mixed ethnicities.  It also shows lack of sincerity in those lovers of freedom who are most vocal in their hatred of the Soviet Union that they seem hardly to be aware of the considerable change that has occurred. Many still continue to believe that communism is the epitome of evil, and that we, the free World, including our allies, are the personification of all that is good. The result is the narcissistic and unrealistic picture of the West as the fighter for good, for freedom, and for humanity, and of communism as the enemy of all that is human and decent. The Communist Chinese, especially in their way of looking at the West, follow the same mechanism. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

If projection is mixed with paranoid thinking, as is the cause during a war and also in the “cold war,” we have, indeed, a dangerously explosive psychological mixture, which prevents sane and anticipatory thinking. The difference between the various answers is the difference between mental health and mental sickness, between suffering and joy, between stagnation and growth, between life and death, between good and evil. All answer that can be qualified as good have in common that they are consistent with the very nature of life, which is continuous birth and growth. All answers that can be qualified as bad have in common that they conflict with the nature of life, that they are conducive to stagnation, and eventually to death. Indeed, at the moment man or woman is born, life ask one’s a question, the question of human existence. One must answer this question at every moment of one’s life. One must answer it, not one’s mind, or one’s body, but he or she, the real person, one’s feet, one’s hands, one’s eyes, one’s stomach, one’s mind, one’s feeling, one’s real—not an imagined or abstracted—person. There are only a limited number of answers to the question of existence. We find these answers in the history of religion, from the most primitive to the highest. We find them also in the variety of characters, from the fullest sanity to the deepest psychosis. Each individual represents in oneself the whole of humanity and its evolution. We find individuals who represent human beings on the most primitive level of history, and others who represent humankind as it will be thousands of years from now. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

The answer to life that correspond to the reality of human existence is conducive to mental health. What is generally understood by mental health, however, is negative, rather than positive; the absence of sickness, rather than the presence of well-being. Actually there is even very little discussion in the psychiatric and psychological literature of what constitutes well-being. Well-being is the ability to be creative, to be aware, and to respond; to be independent and fully active, and by this very fact to be one with the World. To be concerned with being, not with having; to experience joy in the very act of living, and to consider living creatively as the only meaning of life. Well-being is not an assumption in the mind of a person. It is expressed in one’s whole body, in the way one walks, talks, in the tonus of one’s muscle. Certainly, anyone who wants to achieve this aim must struggle against many basic trends of modern culture. One, the idea of a split between intellect and affect, an idea which has been prevalent from Mr. Descartes to Dr. Freud. In this whole development (to which there are, of course, exceptions) the assumption is made that only the intellect is rational and that affect, by its very nature, is irrational. Dr. Freud has made this assumption very explicitly by saying that love by its very nature is neurotic, infantile, irrational. His aim was actually to help humans succeed in dominating irrational affect by intellect; or, to put it into his own words, “Where there was Id, there shall be Ego.” Yet this dogma of the split between affect and thought does not correspond to the reality of human existence, and is destructive of human growth. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

We cannot understand human beings fully nor achieve the aim of well-being unless we overcome the idea of this split, restore to man and woman his and her original unity, and recognize that the split between affect and thought, body and mind, is nothing but a product of our own thought and does not correspond to the reality of man or woman. The other obstacle to the achievement of well-being, deeply rooted in the spirit of modern society, is the fact of man’s dethronement from his supreme place. The nineteenth century said “God is dead”; the twentieth century could say “Man is dead”; and the twenty first century could say, “Man is a parasite peculiar to Earth, which tolerates his presence for a little while. He exists nowhere else in the cosmos, and he does not exist here for long. A while, a few chessboard wars, which he fights himself—You begin to understand.” Means have been transformed into ends, the production and consumption of things has become the aim of life, to which living is subordinated. We produce things that act like men and men that act like things. Man has transformed himself into a thing and worships the products of his own hands; he is alienated from himself and has regressed to idolatry, even though he uses God’s name. Mr. Emerson already saw that “things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” Today many of us see it. The achievement of well-being is possible only under one condition: if we put man back into the saddle. Good faith: This means willingness to be bound by an agreement into which one has voluntarily entered. However, this in turn is necessarily conditional on the good faith of the other parties to the agreement. It seems to be not only an explicit principle of law but a feature of the way in which conscience develops that a person does not feel morally bound—does not disapprove one’s own actions—if one violates an agreement extracted by another party through force or fraud. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

This does not apply to inherited loyalties, until they move into the area of deliberate and self-conscious choice. In the agreements made in actual life, threats are often used which come close to the use of force, bargaining occurs parties of unequal power, and biased misrepresentations are made which approach willful deception. The perfectly free and equal agreement is therefore an ideal, but one very useful as a standard for judging the quality of agreements, particularly for predicting their durability as a basis for planning. Good faith must be manifest in the process of discussion itself, in the consistent maintenance of the conditions of genuine discussion. Filibustering, willful postponement of decision by calling for more facts and study, frustration of parliamentary procedure, and persistent arguments ad hominem which impugn the good faith of others—these tactics soon dissipate the mutual trust without a minimum of which discussion cannot long continue. In industrial relations, where bargaining in good faith is required by law, the government defines good faith as the willingness to continue to talk. This seems to imply very little, but over time it has come to accomplish a lot. As trust in the good faith of others increases, discussion is facilitated by the greater ease with which clashes of interests can be confronted and dealt with in a matter-of-fact manner. Although these five preconditions for genuine discussion may occur, they offer no guarantee that the discussion which follows will produce agreement and a binding commitment. Discussion may break down through the clash of vital interest which appear to be irreconcilable. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Or a decision may be necessary due to the force of events, before there can be thorough discussion, so that some are forced into compliance by others. In some instances, through timidity or lack of interest, one party will submit to the proposal of another without discussion. Contrary to the naïve notion that deciding means only to take a vote, the many whose interests are only slightly affected may willingly defer to the few to whom the outcome is vital. In those cases where discussion is not completed before decision and action must be taken, or where passive compliance takes the place of vigorous participation and agreement, it would be wrong to speak of a breakdown of the discussion. No doubt many discussions fall short in one way or another of the model described above, and this is only one of the imperfections to be expected. Rarely, for example, does a discussion end in unanimity, except in the proximate sense the marginalized groups consent to majority rule as long as their vital interests are not too severely transgressed. It is not defensible to insist that genuine discussion can only occur within the confines of some fixed rules of etiquette, any more than within fixed rules of grammar—although some etiquette and some grammar are indispensable. Attempts to mange discussion through the imposition of rules from without usually have the opposite effect from the improvement intended; any deliberative body almost by definition must be the custodian of its own rules of discussion. That discussion can and does improve is evident in many examples. It has done so, however, only where it has been pursued as a value by participants who have retained their sovereign equality and the other minimum conditioned noted above. To set up an independent power to compel arbitration as a means of guaranteeing agreement in discussion is to destroy discussion and the whole principle of moral commitments to voluntary agreements. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

The history of World religions manifests the Spiritual Presence in as an anticipation of the New Being. Spirit Christology elucidates the unique presence of the Spirit in Jesus who is the Christ. However, our concern here is with the Spiritual Community, with those who receive the New Being At first the regenerated human is but a “babe in Christ,” manifesting many of the characteristics of the natural human in jealousy, strife, et cetera, until one apprehends the need of a fuller reception of the Holy Spirit to dwell in one’s regenerated spirit—making it God’s sanctuary. The unregenerate human is wholly dominated by soul and body. The regenerate human has one’s spirit quickened, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet may be governed by soul and body because one’s spirit is compressed and bound. The spiritual human has one’s spirit liberated from bondage to the soul to be the organ of the Holy Spirit in mind and body. It is then that, by the Holy Spirit’s power, one’s volition is brought into harmony with God in all His laws and purposes, and the whole outer human into self-control. This it is written, “The fruit of the Spirit…is self-control” reports Galatians 5.23. It is not only love, joy, peace, longsuffering, and gentleness, manifested through the channel of the soul—the personality—but in a true dominion over the “World” of oneself the fruit is: every thought brought into captivity, in the same obedience to the will of the Father as was manifested in Christ; His spirit “ruled” also from the chamber of the will, so that one is of a “cool spirit” and well as what is in one’s mind; and one’s body so obedient to the helm of the will that it is a disciplined and alert instrument for God to energize and empower—an instrument to be handled intelligently as a vehicle for service, and not any longer master of the man, or the mere tool of the ultimate negative and unruly desires. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

If we recall that all ambiguities of life are rooted in the separation and interplay of essential and existential elements of being, it would seem that, once a transcendent reunion of these elements is achieved by the Spiritual Presence, there is always New Being in History. Ambiguity seems banished; in fact, rendered impossible. However, such is not the case, for existence cannot be denied, and the conditions of existence postulate ambiguity. We reconcile unambiguous life with de facto existential ambiguity by point out the fragmentary character of the unambiguous life produced by the Spirit. It is fragmentary because subject to time and space. It is incomplete in the sense that it is anticipatory. Thus, the No of the existential condition is maintained, not by injecting ambiguity into unambiguous life, but by show the anticipatory and hence fragmentary nature of our reception of and participation in the New Being. The possession of unambiguous life integrally, id est, beyond time and space, is the problem of eschatology. And God said: Let the Earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after its kind. And it was so…and God saw it was good. When a tree is wantonly cut down, its voice rings from one end of the Earth to the other. When you besiege a city, do not destroy the trees thereof; you may eat them but you must not cut them down. A humans’ life is sustained by trees. Just as others planted for you, plant for the sake of your children. If you had a sapling in your hand and were told that the Messiah had come, first plant the sapling, then go out to greet him. And pleasure be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, as they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

MAGNOLIA STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA | low $600s

Now Selling!

Models now open at Magnolia Station! Located at the corner of Rancho Cordova Parkway and Douglas Road, residents of Cresleigh Ranch will benefit from a brand new neighborhood with convenient access to the new Raley’s Shopping Center, Sunrise Boulevard, and much more!

Magnolia Station will  include 81 homesites  and five distinct plans ranging from 2,200 – 3,700 square feet; including three single story plans! Each plan has been thoughtfully designed to include features such as: Generations Suite, Optional Offices/Dens, Extended Great Rooms, and more! https://cresleigh.com/magnolia-station/

#CresleighHomes