Life is an adventure of beauty, love, curiosity, success, and more importantly, Significance. Significance means making contributions to others. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose. And never confuse yourself with someone else. Just because you handled situations in a particular way, and like certain things, does not mean you understand someone else. It is a lot like thinking you can see into the soul of Hollywood actors based on their movies and social media; until you spend a few years with one, and find out he or she is nothing like you ever imagined. Some people act on the silver screen, other do it in life and are so far out of touch with reality, and their living soul. Nonetheless, in our department of the genetic mechanisms there has been a conspicuous absence of qualifying statements such as “this is the way it works in the frog” or “the bacterial mechanisms look like this.” On the contrary, in several aspects of the preceding treatment it has been implied, and occasionally it has been specifically stated, that in the nucleic acid/enzyme mechanisms we seem to be dealing with a general biological principle applicable equally to amoeba or man. However, it would obviously be unreasonable to imagine that a mechanism as complex as that underlying the interplay between the giant molecules of nucleic acid and protein enzymes could have been independently developed for each of many different species by tortuous processes of evolution. Therefore, if the nucleic acid/enzyme mechanisms do indeed exist in all forms of modern organism, it would seem necessary to conclude that they originated early in the history of life—before much progress had been made in the evolutionary differentiation that has resulted in today’s large variety of living forms—and that they subsequently survived in all of those forms only because their possession proved to contribute to all types of host organism markedly superior to survival attributes. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

This hypothesis credits a single evolutionary discovery with such remarkably superior properties as to justify us in requiring of the biologists some rather strong evidence before we accept the current doctrine of the ubiquity of the nucleic acid/enzyme mechanisms. Let us therefore look at some of the recent research findings that suggest that we are here in fact dealing with a universal biological principle. Of course, the first discoveries attesting to the existence of the nucleic acid/enzyme control mechanisms could provide little evidence for their generality. Indeed, nearly all of the early work was done on bacteria or other microorganisms. It was not until 1962, for example, that messenger RNA was isolated from mammalian cells. However, unspecific, but highly suggestive, evidence pointing toward the broad applicability of the new discoveries was easy to come by. For example, DNA is always discovered in cell nuclei, when it is looked for. Similarly, the cytoplasm is always found to contain microsomes and RNA. And protein enzymes have been shown to control the chemical process that occur in the wide variety of plant and animal cells that have been investigated. One of the strongest reasons for believing that the nucleic acid/enzyme mechanisms might constitute a general principle of life was the neat solution they provided for a long-standing mystery of biochemistry—the precise architecture of protein molecules. A reasonable explanation of how, in nature, as distinct from the laboratory of the chemists, hundreds or thousands of different amino acid segments could be strung together in precisely ordered arrays, as was known to be required by the remarkable structure sensitivity of the enzyme molecules, filled a tremendous gap in biological theory. #RandolphHarris 2 of 23

For this reason the notion that all forms of living cells employ a system of control of their chemical processes of the general nature of that described in the preceding reports has from the first been attractive to biologists. However, no matter how attractive a theory might be, no good scientist would fail to put it to experimental test. And it was clearly important to do more than merely confirm the employment by various plant and animal species of similar broad principles of metabolic and genetic control. For the hypothesis that all living cells are controlled in their chemistry by a mechanism involving the interaction of nucleic acid and enzyme molecules, even if true, clearly need not imply identity in the details of the mechanisms employed by different organisms. Any ingenious scientist would encounter little difficulty in inventing variations of the nuclear DNA/messenger RNA/transfer RNA/microsome/protein enzyme scheme we have “derived” that would appear, from all that is known today, to be as workable as the particular scheme described. Thus an inevitable preoccupation of the research scientists has had to be not only to look for the existence of nucleic acid/enzyme mechanisms in various species but also to determine the extent of variation in these mechanisms from species to species. Determination of the similarities and differences among the molecular mechanisms of different species of organisms is not easy as it sounds, however. Scientific techniques are not yet advanced to the point where molecules of DNA in the nucleus or RNA in the cytoplasm can be sorted out and their precise dimension and structure catalogued. As is so usual in science, indirect methods of throwing light on the question at hand had to be sought. When considered in terms of modern knowledge, an experiment performed in 1928 seems to have first pointed the way toward a suitable investigation technique. #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

That early experiment involved work with a certain type of pneumonia-causing bacterium. It has been found that this bacterium comes in two slightly different forms, or “strains.” One strain is characterized by a smooth coating surrounding the bacterial cell; this is called the smooth, or S, strain. Bacteria of the other strain possess no such coating. They are called the rough, or R, strain. The curious thing that was reported in 1928 about these two strains of bacteria was that, when a batch of dead S bacteria was added to living R bacteria, there would subsequently appear in the culture living members of the S strain. (It has been well established that a colony composed exclusively of R bacteria would produce only more R types, whereas S bacteria would also breed true.) Since it was inconceivable that dead S bacteria could come back to life, the 1928 experiment had always required the conclusion that something in the dead S bacteria had converted some live R bacteria into live S bacteria. Many years later, additional experiments succeeded in isolating this something and showing that it was pure nucleic acid. In terms of our present understanding of the nucleic acid mechanisms, the explanation of the behaviour of the pneumococci is not difficult. Evidently the S bacteria contain a molecule of DNA that, through the mechanisms we have studied, leads to the formation of an enzyme that results in the construction of the smooth coating that characterizes this particular strain. A bacterium of the R strain differs from one of the S strain in not possessing this particular strain. A bacterium of the R strain differs from one of the S strain in not possessing this particular piece of DNA. The treatment that killed the S bacteria did not destroy their DNA. When the live R bacteria were mixed with dead S bacteria, occasionally DNA from a dead cell was able to work its way into a living cell, thereby supplying the kind of nucleic acid needed for the formation of a smooth coat. Result: the R bacterium became an S bacterium instead. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

Clearly, this experiment constituted a step toward the establishment of generality in the genetic mechanisms; for it showed that the DNA from one type of pneumococcus bacterium could successfully operate the complex messenger RNA/transfer RNA/microsome apparatus of the other type of bacteria to produce a new and effective enzyme molecule. To be sure, if out theories are any good at all, they would have to account for the similarity of the genetic mechanisms among organisms so closely related as two strains of the same bacterial type. Nevertheless, the experiment was a step in the right direction. It suggested further steps. Was it possible to devise more advanced experiments to test for a similar kind of operation of the genetic mechanisms of one species by the nucleic acid from an entirely unrelated species of organism? Such a phenomenon, if it could be observed, would imply considerable similarity in the details s well as the general characteristics of the nucleic acid/enzyme mechanisms of unrelated species. It has indeed been found possible to devise experiments to test the proposed hypothesis. It is virus research that has provided this possibility. This work is important enough to our story to justify our digressing to study the characteristic of virus particles that are pertinent to an understanding of some of its implication. A virus particle is the simplest of all living structures. It consists of only two components: a quantity of nucleic acid surrounded by a shell, or “overcoat,” of protein material. There is no cellular structure—no nucleus, no cytoplasm, no microsomes, none of the other complex structures that we shall later see make of the modern living cell a complex piece of machinery. By itself, a virus particle appears to be a lifeless object: it does not eat, grow, reproduce or die; no chemical processes take place in its vitals; it is an inert capsule of protein-protected nucleic acid. #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

Certain virus particles may even form regular crystalline matrices, yielding microscopic structures of overall mechanical and optical properties grossly similar to those of salt or diamond, for example. In terms of such properties, viruses appear much more akin to lifeless minerals than to living organisms. Viruses are no more confused with their virions, but can be viewed as complex living entities that transform the infected cell into a novel organism—the virus—producing virions. A virus is a microscopic organism that can replicate only inside the cells of a host organism. Most viruses are so tiny they are only observable with at least a conventional optical microscope. Viruses infect all types of organisms, including animals and plants, as well as bacteria and archaea. Although viruses have no ability to metabolize on their own, they depend on a host organism for replication. Therefore, viruses are at the edge of life. Approximately 5,000 different viruses have been described in detail at the current time, although it is known that there are millions of distinct types. Viruses are found in virtually every ecosystem on Earth, and these minute life forms are thought to be the most abundant type of biological entity. The study of viruses is known as virology, a specialty within the field of microbiology. The common concept of viruses focuses on their role as pathogen. Actually, there are vast numbers of viral entities that are beneficial to individual species as well as providing ecosystems service. For example, a class of viruses known as bacteriophages can kill a spectrum of harmful bacteria, providing protection to humans as well as other biota. Since viruses are capable of self-replication, they are clearly some type of lifeform, and likely involved with the early evolutionary development of such other simple lifeforms as bacteria and protists. #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

Viruses differ, however, from the simpler autonomous replication of chemical crystals. This is due to the fact that a virus can inherit a genetic mutation and is also subject to similar natural selection processes of cellular organisms. A virus cannot be labelled simply, therefore, as inanimate or lifeless. Here, we consider it a lifeform, but we adhere to current taxonomy and so not credit it with a parallel domain to other recognized cellular lifeforms. However, put the virus particles in contact with living cells of a suitable species of plant or animal and the situation changes dramatically. For now, life seems to appear. In a matter of minutes the number of virus particles will have doubled. Under suitable conditions, a few hours will suffice for a millionfold increase in their popular! This peculiar lifelike/nonlifelike dichotomy in the personality of the virus has caused considerable attention to be focused on it in recent years. Without doubt, Wendell M. Stanley heads the list of pioneers in the field. As early as 1935 he showed that the tobacco leaf, could be isolated in the form of pure crystals. For his work in this field, Stanley shared in the 1946 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Stanley’s pioneering work on the tobacco mosaic virus led to studies by many investigators of the curious reproductive processes of viruses. Some of the interesting discoveries have been made with the kinds of viruses that attack, and therefore reproduce in, plant cells—such as those studies by Stanley; other important discoveries have arisen out of work with the so-called bacteriophages—viruses that attack and reproduce in the cells of bacteria. A consistent picture has emerged from all of this work bearing on the way in which a virus particle is able to make use of the genetic mechanisms of the cell it infects in order to reproduce its own kind. In such viral groups as poxviruses, papillomaviruses, and tobamoviruses, molecular taxonomy aligns generally with the genetic relationships of their hosts. This suggests that the affiliations of those viral groups predate their present derivatives, and, in fact, that these three viral groups and their hosts likely coevolved. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

In addition, some other things we may want to consider, while on the topic of health and science, is community prevention programs. As we have seen, sociocultural theorists believe that psychological problems emerge in a social setting and are treated in a social context. Perhaps the most effective approach to substance-related disorders is to prevent them. The first drug-prevention efforts were conducted in schools. Today prevention programs are also offered in workplaces, activity centers, and other community settings, and even through the media. Some prevention programs argue for total abstinence from drugs, while others teach responsible use. Some seek to interrupt drug use; others try to delay the age at which people first experiment with drugs. Programs may also differ in whether they offer drug education, teach alternatives to drug use, try to change the psychological state of the potential users, seek to change relationships with peers, or combine these techniques. Before it begins—community prevention programs for substance-related disorders often target very young children. Children often pledge abstinence from drug use on Red Ribbion by wearing red, getting a sticker, and signing a contract. (They used to release balloons, but that has been showed to be dangerous, it can cause fires and harm fish and wildlife.) Substance use—illegal, legal, and medical must be controlled to keep people safe and sane. No drug should be viewed as cool, or “it is just,” if it was not prescribed to you by a doctor, leave it alone. Besides the out-of-scale physical environment and its complicated techniques, the social environment too is baffling and produces ineptitude and loss of the sense of causality. Think of a child trying to cope with Property Rights, a most abstract notion. There is no problem when it is a case of something being used by somebody else, when Leo tries to take Finn’s shovel out of his hand and Finn gets upset or complains to authority in no uncertain terms. #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

When it comes to obeying authority, the puzzlement comes when the shovel is idle and Mama say, “Leo, Leo, you mustn’t use that shovel, it’s Finn’s.” What impresses the child is no precise idea, but the grownup’s tone of conviction. The child “believes,” though there is no evidence of his senses. It is the beginning of what Karl Marx called the fetishism of commodities. What is sickening is that it is just this kind of influence that is wanted by priest, mayors, and tavern philosophers who declare that more home influence is the remedy for out troubles of youth. However, the social relationships of the grownups themselves are out of human scale, for in the corporate system of organization the puzzling has become altogether mysterious. It is disturbing to a child to sense that his mother is under the unseen thumb of religion or his father of the boss. However, the top managers in our semimonopolies are quite anonymous. This is part of the new managerial code, as described by Fortune itself. A child cannot use them as model heroes, for they are invisible. This is exactly why Jackie Robinson’s proposal to import the TV personalities as ersatz models is so unfortunate, for these visible “heroes” are puppets. With the increasing concentration of management and control, there is less relation even to Property Rights. Consider it. If one is put upon or abused, with whom shall one be angry? One cannot vent rage against an abstract system. However, there is no need to vent feeling, for it is a matter of the grievance committee and other regular channels. In the Middle Status, the heart of the organized system, the situation is not the same as in a bureaucracy, with which it is usually compared; for a bureaucracy has written code and a definite pecking-order; but organization protects everybody’s personal dignity, and its subtle interpersonal feuding and competition cannot be codified, for it is without any objective utility to give a principle. Even that mighty systems the State is more material: it has banners, soldiers, elections, postmen and women, police. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

In a child, the systems of the State rouses awe and fear. However, the organize system exists only in the bland front of its brand-name products and advertising. There is no knowing how it is run or who determines. It is in these circumstances that young persons grow up convinced that everything is done with mirrors, by “influence.” Not even the personal influence of nepotism, but something more like the astrological influence of the planets. The sense of initiative, causality, skill has been discouraged. Merit is a train of “personality.” Learning is the possession of the Diploma. Usefulness is a Business Card. Justification is Belonging. Turning to the “sectarian” understanding of conscience, we find the Franciscan idea of the immediate knowledge of the natural law in the depth of the human soul. However, no two new elements supported and transformed this tradition: the so-called “German mysticism,” with its emphasis on the divine spark in the human soul, and the “spiritual enthusiasm” awakened by the Reformation, with its emphasis on the individual possession of the Spirit. Thomas Muenzer and all his sectarian followers taught that the divine Spirit speaks to us out of the depth of our own soul. We are not speaking to ourselves, but God within us. “Out of the abyss of the heart which is from the living God,” wrote Muenzer, we receive the truth if we are opened to it by suffering. Since the enthusiasts understood this divine voice within us in a very concrete sense, they identified it with the conscience. In this way conscience became a source of religious insight and not simply a judge of moral actions. The conscience as the expression of the inward light has revealing character. However, the question arose immediately: what is the content of such a revelation through conscience? Luther asked Muenzer, and Cromwell asked Fox: what is the difference between practical reason and the inward light? Both of the could answer: the ecstatic character of the divine Spirit! #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

However, they could be asked again: what bearing has the ecstatic form of revelation on its content? And then the answer was difficult. Muenzer referred to practical decisions in his daily life, made under the inspiration of the Spirit; and Fox developed an ethics of unconditional honesty, bourgeois righteousness, and pacifism. It was easy to ask again whether reasonableness and obedience to the natural moral law could not produce the same results. The “revealing conscience” is a union of mysticism with moral rationality. However, it does not reveal anything beyond biblical and genuine Christian tradition. An important result arising from this transformation of the concept of conscience is the idea of tolerance and its victory in the liberal era. The quest for “freedom of conscience” does not refer to the concrete ethical decision, but to the religious authority of the inward light that expressed itself through the individual consciences. And since the inward light could hardly be distinguished from practical reason, freedom of conscience meant, actually, the freedom to follow one’s autonomous reason, not only in ethics, but also in religion. The “religion of conscience” and the consequent idea of tolerance are not a result of the Reformation, but of sectarian spiritualism and mysticism. Florence Nightingale also had a religious state of mind when it came to the conscience. Although she was living in despair at the futility of existence under her parents’ roof, the privileged thirty-one-year-old’s life was confined to an endless round of social visits, teas, and parties. Florence loathed it all, even the “charity” balls and concerts where “people bamboozle their consciences and shut their eyes.” Over a decade earlier, on February 7, 1837, God had spoken and called her to his service. However, unlike the message Joan of Arc had received, Florence’s had been vague about what this service entailed. In any case, her parents rejected their daughter’s desire for a career or profession. #RandolphHarris 11 of 23

In Victorian, England, women like Florence were supposed to marry. She was an excellent catch—attractive, wealthy, clever, fluent in several languages, widely read, dynamic, witty. She had “adored” her longtime suitor, Monckton Miles, but after nine years of courtship, she had rejected him. Afterward, she suffered terribly when he would scarcely speak to her, but she never regretted her decision. Monckton would have satisfied her intellectual and passionate nature, Florence Explained, but “I have a moral, an active, nature which requires satisfaction and that would not find it in his life…I could be satisfied to spend a life with him in combining our different powers in some great object. I could not satisfy this nature by spending life with him in making society and arranging domestic things.” God, she believed, had marked her out to be one of the single women, whom He “organized…accordingly for their vocation.” The Nightingales were furious. Florence had turned down the perfect husband. Family quarrels escalated into bitter battles. On her thirtieth birthday, Florence confronted her life: “Today I am thirty—the age Christ began his mission. Now no more childish things. No more love. No more married. Now Lord let me think only of Thy Will, Oh Lord Thy Will, Thy Will.” Slowly, this will was revealed to her: she should devote her life to nursing, the profession of slatterns, drunks, women of the evening, and criminals. Hospitals in Florence’s day were cesspools of filth, degradation, abuse, and death. Only the most destitute and desperate would go to an institution where the floors were slimly with vomit, feces, blood, where patients were jammed together in filthy, linenless beds, and surgeons routinely seceded the degenerate nurses. Florence was able to convince her parents to let her go to Germany for a training session at a medical establishment, Kaiserwerth Institute on the Rhine. The family fought her every inch of the way. Her sister, Parthe, flung bracelets into her face with such force that Florence passed out. Despite it all, she went to Kaiserwerth. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

Eventually Florence triumphed, and in 1853, she was named superintendent of the Institution for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen. Though she despised the charitable matrons in charge, dismissing them as “Fashionable” Mules, she overrode her family’s hostility and accepted the position. After she was installed, the Fashionable Mules were horrified at her energy and zeal. She reorganized their operation from the revolutionary perspective that the patient was paramount and forced the Institution’s directors to agree to accept all sick women, not just Anglicans. Florence was driven, compassionate, but cold near-saint. Her soft voice and gentle mannerisms belied her unyielding character and her irresistible force of personality. She had causes rather than friends, and she hovered somewhere between God and the rest of humankind. One of Florence’s attributes was strict celibacy, easy to abide by after her momentous decision not to marry. For her, it was a cheap price to pay for her freedom from marriage. She harmoniously incorporated this chastity and the chance to pursue the profession to which God had called her into her increasingly austere lifestyle. Even her intense relationships with the men who revered her seemed to lack a sensual dimension. Instead, she always ensured their admiration was sublimated into unremitting toil for her current cause. This nonthreatening fervor enabled Florence to deal openly with the most important officials of the day—doctors, politicians, and military officers—without the least whiff of scandal. This extended even to her brother-in-law, who married her sister Parthe only after Florence had turned him down. The next stage of Florence’s mission saw her orchestrate a move from Harley Street to Scutari in Turkey, as superintendent of nurses in the hospital there. With a ragtag band of nurses and nuns, she arrived in 1854 to an edifice groaning with wounded soldiers dying of malnutrition, gangrene, even a festering corpse, but innocent of furniture, operating tables, cooking utensils, or supplies. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

In the basement, two hundred starving women were crammed together, quarreling, sickening, and dying. Outside, stopped-up latrines over flowed and poisoned the air. Despite these horrendous conditions, Florence’s worst enemy was officialdom, for the doctors refused to even acknowledge her existence. Barred from the wards, she waited it out until and influx of casualties following the Battle of Balaclava shook hostile doctors into enlisting her. War wounds, cholera, frostbite, and dysentery ravaged the troops. Nearly three out of every four soldiers will ill or injured. Florence threw herself into the struggle to save them, scrubbing, feeding, soothing, hearing them, raising funds, visiting them at night with one of her famous Turkish Lanterns—the Lady with the Lamp. Finally, mortality at the Scutari Hospital dropped from 42 percent to 2.2 percent. Florence was a hero to her patients and to the general public. She knew, however, that if it were not for the public support making it too awkward for the War Office to get rid of her, many a military doctor or official would sacrifice her like Joan of Arc. She had accomplished miracles, but only be defying authority, recruiting support from influential individuals, including Queen Victoria, and imposing her system and values with an iron will. Florence has also driven her own slight body too far, with sleepless nights, insufficient food, and no relief from relentless nursing, management, and intrigue. Twice she fell gravely ill, perhaps as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, and never really recovered. Back in England, she adopted nunlike clothing—simple black dresses and prim caps. She was emaciated from illness and her abstemious diet. Her quiet melancholy stemmed from grief at leaving so many soldiers in their Crimean graves, as well as lingering memories of the war. However, the wounds and blood and dysentery, the cold and heat and hunger, did not haunt her as much as “intoxication, drunken brutality, demoralization and disorder on the part of the inferior; jealousies, meanness, indifferent, selfish brutality on the part of the superior. #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

At the end of her long life, Florence had not a single regret about her decision to nurse rather than marry. She was also very firm about advising other women “to keep clear of the jargon, namely, about the ‘rights of women,’ which urges women to do nothing that men do, merely because they are women. Surely women should bring the best she has, whatever this is, to the work of God’s World, without attending to either of these cries.” To the end, her ever-active, analytical mind was impatient with ideology and rote thought. Personal rebellion had been the price of her success, but when she died, aged ninety, she had enormous accomplishments to her credit. Apart from these successes, Florence was admired by and corresponded with the highest in the realm, including Queen Victoria. She measured her friendships and her life in goals achieved—nothing else mattered. Life was not a journey but a destination. This was true from her earliest years, when she had refused to be submerged within a stifling Victorian marriage and, in defiance of her genteel World’s natural order, embraced celibacy and freedom. Is the true patriot only the human who puts one’s faith in brute force, harsh violence, and tragic destruction? Is there no love of country in gentler ways? I venture the claim that the human who keeps oneself above negativity, who seeks and finds the Overself’s inner peace and then distributes it in one’s country’s mental atmosphere, is worth more to the State than the human who places one’s reliance on violent ways. The problem of our proper reaction to war is a difficult one. The duty of defending ourselves against, or rescuing the victims of, a murderous assault seems to be a sacred duty. It seems right and reasonable to believe that open aggression should be resisted and even, to a certain extent, punished. However, with the advent of the atomic and hydrogen bombs the methos of fighting for any cause, even a righteous one, has become the greater of two evils where formerly it was the lesser. Where self-defense may lead to certain and suicidal self-destruction, we begin to pause, to consider, and to hesitate. #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

Any investigation of the destiny of nations from a philosophic point of view shows that the appearance of an aggressive invader on a people’s borders must haves some underlying Universal Law which is deeper than the obvious political or economic one. Just as the appearance of a certain unpleasant event in an individual’s life is often due to corresponding faults or weaknesses in one which need to be remedied, so the invader’s appearance points to deficiencies or errors in the invaded nation’s inner life. They too need correction. There is no escape from this inner duty, and so long as the weaknesses remain so long will troubles appear or assaults threaten. Until the nations achieve this moral development, they can hope only to restrict the violence and area of war, not to eradicate it. Such a restriction can be brough about by external means only be in international policing army, just as society’s crimes is restricted by local police. This single army to replace the many armies implies some kind of a World government. Yet national feelings are everywhere still unwilling to sacrifice themselves to a supernational government, and there is some ground for the refusal. There is no other prospect of its arrival than through a third World War, whose aftermath would unquestionably be the birth of a World government to control international relations, leaving the separate peoples free to pursue their own policies in regard to internal ones. This is the only alternative path to peace, terrible though it be. Meanwhile what is the duty of the spiritually awakened individual, as apart from the unwakened nations? Has the time come for one to practise a new approach? Does the old one of meeting violence with violence belong to the animal World? Then what is the new one which belongs to the human World? Must one cease to take life, withdraw from this course of endless slaughter, and seek protection from the higher powers by offering up even the will to live itself if needs be? #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

The individual alone can test the truth and worth of this newer moral concept. For support of it offers no early likelihood of attaining sufficient strength as a political power. Philosophy can give no lead in the matter. The decision is a personal one. Each must decide for oneself. The need for new political institutions exactly parallels our need for new family, educational, and corporate institutions as well. It is deeply wired into our search for a new energy base, new technologies, and new industries. It reflects the upheaval in communications and the need to restructure relationships with the non-industrial World. It is, in short, the political reflection of accelerating changes in all these different spheres. Without seeing these connections, it is impossible to make sense of the headlines around us. For today the single most important political conflict is no longer between the affluent and less affluent, between dominate and non-dominate ethnic groups, or even between capitalist and non-capitalist. The decisive struggle today is between those who try to prop up and preserve industrial society and those who are ready to advance beyond it. This is the super-struggle for tomorrow. Other, more traditional conflicts between classes, races, and ideologies will not vanish. They may even—as suggested earlier—grow more violent, especially if we undergo large-scale politico and economical turbulence. However, all these conflicts will be absorbed into, and play themselves out within, the super-struggle as it rages through every human activity from art and pleasure of the flesh to business and balloting. This is why we find two political wars raging around us simultaneously. At one level, we see a politics-as-usual clash of Second Wave groups battling each other for immediate gain. At a deeper level, however, these traditional Second Wave groups cooperate to oppose the new political forces of the Third Wave. This analysis explains why our existing political parties, as obsolete in structure as in ideology, seem so much like blurry mirror images of one another. #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

Democrats and Republicans, as well as Tories and Labourites, Christian Democrats and Gaullists, Liberals and Socialists, Communists and Conservatives, are all—despite their differences—parties of the Second Wave. All of them, while jockeying for power within it, are basically committed to preserving the dying industrial order. Put it differently, the most important political development of our time is the emergence in our midst of two basic camps, one committed to Second Wave civilization, the other to Third. One is tenaciously dedicated to preserving the core institutions of industrial mass society—the nuclear family, the mass education system, the giant corporation, the mass trade union, the centralized nation-state, and the politics of pseudorepresentative government. The other recognizes that today’s most urgent problems, from energy, war, and poverty to ecological degradation and the breakdown of familial relationships, can no longer be solved within the framework of an industrial civilization. The lines between these two camps are not yet sharply drawn. As individuals, most of us are divided, with a foot in each. Issues still appear murky and unconnected to one another. In addition, each camp is composed of many groups pursuing their own narrowly perceived self-interest, without any overarching visions. Nor does either side have a monopoly on moral virtue. There are decent people ranged on both sides. Nevertheless, the differences between these two subsurface political formations are enormous. The defenders of the Second Wave typically fight against the power of marginalized groups; they scoff at direct democracy as “populism”; they resist decentralization, regionalism, and diversity; they oppose efforts to de-massify the schools; they fight to preserve a backward energy system; they deify the nuclear family, pooh-pooh ecological concerns, preach traditional industrial-era nationalism, and oppose the move toward a fairer World economic order. #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

By contrast, the forces of the Third Wave favour a democracy of shard power of the marginalized groups; they are prepared to experiment with more direct democracy; they favour both transnationalism and a fundamental devotion of power. They call for a crack-up of the giant bureaucracies. They demand a renewable and less centralized energy system. They want to legitimate options to the nuclear family. They fight for less standardization, more individualization in the schools. They place a high priority on environmental problems. They recognize the necessity to restructure the World economy on a more balanced and just basis. Above all, while the Second Wave defenders play the conventional political game, Third Wave people are suspicious of all political candidates and parties (even new ones), and sense that decisions crucial to our survival cannot be more within the present political framework. The Second Wave camp still included a majority of the nominal power-holders in our society—politicians, businessmen and women, union leaders, educators, the heads of the mass media—although many of them are deeply troubled by the inadequacies of the Second Wave World view. Numerically, the Second Wave camp undoubtedly still claims the unthinking support of most ordinary citizens as well, despite fast-spreading pessimism and disillusionment in their ranks. The advocates of the Third Wave are more difficult to characterize. Some head up major corporations while others are zealous anticorporate consumerists. Some are worried environmentalists; others are more concerned with the issues of gender roles, family life, or personal growth. Some focus almost exclusively on the development of alternative energy forms; others are mainly excited by the democratic promise of the communications revolution. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

 Some are draw from the Second Wave “right,” others from the Second Wave “left”—free marketeers and libertarians, neo-socialists, egalitarians, and civil rights activists, former flower children and the straightest of straight-arrows. Some are long-times activists in the peace movement; others have never marched or demonstrated for anything in their lives. Some are devoutly religious, others diehard atheists. Scholars may debate at length over whether or not so seemingly formless a group constitutes a “class,” or whether, if so, it is the “new class” of educated information-workers, intellectuals, and technicians. Surely many of those in the Third Wave camp are college-educated, middle-class people. Surely many are directly engaged in the production and dissemination of information, or in the services, and, by twisting the term, one could probably call them a class. Yet to do so obscures more than it reveals. For among the key groups pressing toward the de-massification of industrial society are relatively uneducated marginalized groups, many of whose members hardly fit the picture of the attaché-case-carrying knowledge-worker. How does one characterize women struggling to break out of confining roles in Second Wave society? How, moreover, does one describe the fast-expanding millions in the self-help movement? And what about many of the “psychologically oppressed”—the millions of victims of the epidemic of loneliness, the broken families, the single parts, the underrepresented gender groups—who do not fit neatly into the notion of class? Such groups come from virtually all the ranks and occupations of society, yet are important sources of strength for the Third Wave movement. Indeed even the term movement can be misleading—partly because it implies a higher level of shared consciousness than so far exists, partly because Third Wave people properly mistrust all the mass movements of the past. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

Nevertheless, whether they comprise a class, a movement, or simply a changing configuration of individuals and transient groups, all of them share a radical disillusionment with the old institutions—a common recognition that the old system is now broken beyond repair. The super-struggle between these Second and Third Wave forces, therefore, cuts like a jagged line across class and party, across age and ethic groups, preferences in pleasures of the flesh and subcultures. It reorganizes and realigns our political life. And, instead of a harmonious, classless, conflict-free, non-ideological future society, it points toward escalating crises and deep social unrest in the near-term future. Pitched political battles will be waged in many nations, not merely over who will benefit from what is left of industrial society but over who participates in shaping, and ultimately controlling, its successor. This sharpening super-struggle will decisively influence the politics of tomorrow and the very form of the new civilization. It is as a partisan in this super-struggle, aware or unwitting, that each of us plays a role. That role can be either destructive or creative. Meanwhile, every morning, millions of people around the World blink their eyes open and immediately check the Web for stock-market prices, scan the business pages of on their tablet computer, tune in to the latest business news on the Internet—or do all three. Only then do they worry about breakfast. Some, no doubt would be willing to embed a microchip in their brain if it would automatically alter them to the latest twitch in interest rates or changes in their stock portfolio. Before long, some will. Until then, housewives in Shanghai, cabdrivers in New York, and currency traders in Frankfurt will have to make do with the close-to-real-time information pumped out, 86,400 second a day, by Reuters, Bloomberg, NHK, and their partners and rivals around the World. Providing all this news, online and off, has itself become a global industry. #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

No one can pretend to understand how the media and its unprecedented output of information (and misinformation) influence and distort stock markets and the World money economy. Nonetheless, amid all the clamour, experts confidently attribute an astonishing variety of stock-market swings, business shifts and economic ups and downs to changes in what they call “fundamentals.” General Motors’ chief economist allows that “mainstream economic fundamentals remain strong.” The chairman of Warner Telecom attributes its success in a weak economy to its “sound business fundamentals” despite the odd fact that its stock price had plummeted 90 percent in the previous twelve months. Investors should look at Russia’s economic fundamentals, rather than its recent history. A high level Chinese officials ascribes the strong export market to “economic fundamentals.” Since the pandemic, many countries, including Japan, have seen a significant growth in the trade deficit. What exactly the term “economic fundamentals” means, however, remains extremely hazy. Depending on who does the talking, it includes factors like “low inflation,” “sound credit quality” and “World prices for gold and cooper.” Or maybe not. During the wild run-up of the U.S. stock market during Trump’s presidency, economists threw into the definitional gumbo such supposedly fundamental variables as a balanced government budget, a strong manufacturing sector, the presence of absence of a global central bank, the disparity between stock prices and profits, levels of personal borrowing and the percentage of low-age jobs, not to mention increased bankruptcies. No doubt some of these variables are important—sometimes. However, what if, in fact, by focusing on them we miss some things that are even more important? What is all such factors depend, directly or not, on a deeper set of forces—“deep fundamentals,” so to speak, that shape the more superficial fundamentals themselves? #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

What if the fundamentals tell us one thing and the deep fundamentals another? And what if these more basic, more potent factors are themselves changing at high speed? Not only is it impossible that anything should be created by God, but it is necessary to say that all things were created by God. For when anyone makes one thing from another, this latter thing from which one makes is presupposed to one’s actions, and is not produced by his action; thus the craftsman works from natural things, as wood or brass, which are caused not by the action of art, but by the action of nature. So also nature itself causes natural things as regards their for, but presupposes matter. If therefore God did only act from something presupposed, it would follow that things presupposed would not be caused by Him. Now it has been shown, that nothing can be, unless it is from God, Who is the Universal cause of all being. Hence it is necessary to say that God brings things into being from nothing. In safety and in Bliss may all creatures be of a blissful heart whatever breathing beings there may be frail or firm…long or big…short or small…seen or unseen, dwelling far or near. Existing or yet seeking to exist, may all creatures be of a blissful heart. O God, please scatter of ignorance and darkness, please grant me your strength. May all beings regard me with the eye of a friend, and I all beings! With the eye of a friend may each single being regard all others. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of Thy thunder they hasted away; they ascended the mountains and flowed into valleys, unto the place which Thou hadst founded for them; thou didst set a bound for the waters, that they might not return to cover the Earth. Thou sendest forth springs into the valleys; they run between the mountains; they give drink to every beast of the field, that all creatures may quench their thirst. Besides them  dwell the fowl of Heaven, from among the branches they raise their son. Thou sendest down rain upon the mountains from Thy reservoirs, the Earth is full of the fruit of Thy works. #RandolphHarris 23 of 23

Cresleigh Homes

Whether you’re just meeting up with a friend or hosting a client meeting, you can turn the den or flex room into a business center.

Having fun AND practical amenities is our favorite thing about living in a Cresleigh Home. You’ll love it, too!

Chances are’ cause I wear a silly grin, the moment you come into view, changes are you think that I’m in love with you.

Just because my composure sort of slips, the moment your eyes meet mine, chances are you think my heart’s your Valentine.

In the magic of the moonlight when I sigh, chances you believe the stars that fill the skies are in my eyes. Guess you feel you’ll always be the one and only one for me.

And if you think you could, well, chance are your chances are awfully good. Guess you feel you’ll always be the one and only home for me. Cresleigh Homes are awfully good. #CresleighHomes