Home » bubble (Page 5)
Category Archives: bubble
This is the Beginning, When People Will Be Opening their Eyes!
Nothing is quite as funny as the unintended humour of reality. The original position is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are imagining ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to the principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. The two principles of justice guarantee the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of good. The second principle provides fair equality of education and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and positions of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons. Persons in the original position give pride of place to their interest in the equal freedoms. The intuitive idea behind the precedence of liberty is that if the persons in the original position assume that their basic liberties can be effectively exercised, they will not exchange a lesser liberty for an improvement in the economic well-being, at least not once a certain level of wealth has been attained. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21
It is only when social conditions do not allow the effective establishment of these rights that one can acknowledge their restriction. Only if it is necessary to enhance the quality of civilization so that in due course the equal freedoms can be enjoyed by all can the denial of equal liberty can be accepted. The lexical ordering of the two principles is the long-run tendency of the general conception of justice consistently pursued under reasonably favourable conditions. Eventually there comes a time in the history of a well-ordered society beyond which the special form of the two principles takes over and holds from then on. What must be shown then is the rationality of this ranking from the standpoint of the parties in the original position. Clearly the conception of goodness as rationality and the principles of moral psychology have a part in answering this question. Now the basis for the priority of liberty is roughly as follows: as the conditions of civilization improve, the marginal significance for our god of further economic and social advantages diminishes relative to their interests of liberty, which become stronger as the conditions for the exercise of the equal freedoms are more fully realized. Beyond some point it becomes and then remains irrational from the standpoint of the original position to acknowledge a lesser liberty for the sake of greater material means and amenities of office. This is so because as the general level of well-being raises (as indicated by the index of primary goods the less favoured can expect) only the less urgent wants remain to be met by further advances, at least insofar as human’s wants are not largely created by institutions and social forms. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

At the same time the obstacles to the exercise of the equal liberties decline and a growing insistence upon the right to pursue our spiritual and cultural interests assert itself. Increasingly it becomes more important to secure the free internal life of the various communities of interests in which persons and groups seek to achieve, in modes of social union consistent with equal liberty, the ends and excellences to which they are drawn. In addition humans come to aspire to some control over the laws and rules that regulate their association, either by directly taking part themselves in its affairs or indirectly through representatives with whom they are affiliated by ties of culture and social situation. To be sure, it is not the case that when the priority of liberty holds, all material wants are satisfied. Rather these desires are not so compelling as to make it rational for the persons in the original position to agree to satisfy them by accepting a less than equal freedom. The account of the good enables the parties to work out a hierarchy among their several interests and to note which kinds of ends should be regulative in their rational plans of life. Until the basic wants of individuals can be fulfilled, the relative urgency of their interest in liberty cannot be firmly decided in advance. It will depend on the claims of the least favoured as seen from the constitutional and legislative stages. However, under favourable circumstances the fundamental interest in determining our plan of life eventually assumes a prior place. One reason for this I have discussed in connection with liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

And a second reason is the central place of the primary good of self-respect and the desire of human beings to express their nature in a free social union with others. Thus the desire for liberty is the chief regulative interest that the parties must suppose they all will have in common in due course. The veil of ignorance forces them to abstract from the particulars of their plans of life, thereby leading to this conclusion. The serial ordering of the two principles then follows. Now it might seem that even though the desire for an absolute increase in economic advantages declines, human’s concern for their relative place in the distribution of wealth will persist. In fact, if we suppose that everyone wishes a greater proportionate share, the result could be a growing desire for material abundance all the same. Since each strives for an end that cannot be collectively attained, society might conceivably become more and more preoccupied with raising productivity and improving economic efficiency. And these objectives might become so dominant as to undermine the precedence of liberty. Some have objected to the tendency to equality on precisely this ground, that it is thought to arouse in individuals an obsession with their relative share of social wealth. However, while it is true that in a well-ordered society there is most likely a trend to greater equality, its members take little interest in their relative position as such. As we have seen, they are not much affected by envy and jealousy, and for the most part they do what seems best to them as judged by their own plan of life without being dismayed by the greater amenities and enjoyments of others. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Thus there are no strong psychological propensities prompting them to curtail their liberty for the sake of greater absolute or relative economic welfare. The desire for a higher relative place in the distribution of material means should be sufficiently weak that the priority of liberty is not affected. Of course, it does not follow that in a just society everyone is unconcerned with matters of status. The account of self-respect as perhaps the main primary good has stressed the great significance of how we think others value us. However, in a well-ordered society the need for status is met by the public recognition of just institutions, together with the full and diverse internal life of the many free communities of interest that equal liberty allows. The basis for self-esteem in a just society is not then one’s income share but the publicly affirmed distribution of fundamental rights and liberties. And this distribution being equal, everyone has a similar and secure status when they meet to conduct the common affairs of the wider society. No one is inclined to look beyond the constitutional affirmation of equality for further political ways of securing one’s status. No one is inclined to look beyond the constitutional affirmation of equality for further political position from a strategic point of view. It would also have the effect of publicly establishing their inferiority as defined by the basic structure of society. This subordinate ranking in the public forum experienced in the attempt to take part in political and economic life, and felt in dealing with those who have a greater liberty, would indeed be humiliating and destructive of self-esteem. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

And so by acquiescing in a less than equal liberty one might lose on both counts. This is particularly likely to be true as society becomes more just, since equal rights and public attitudes of mutual respect have an essential place in maintaining a political balance and in assuring citizens of their own worth. Thus while the social and economic differences between the various sectors of society, the noncomparing groups as we may think of them, are not likely to generate animosity, the hardships arising from political and civic inequality, and from culture and ethnic discrimination, cannot be easily accepted. When it is the position of equal citizenship that answers to the need for status, the precedence of equal liberties becomes all the more necessary. Having chosen a conception of justice that seeks to eliminate the significance of relative economic and social advantages as supports for human’s self-confidence, it is essential that the priority of liberty be firmly maintained. So for this reason too the parties are led to adopt a serial ordering of the two principles. In a well-ordered society then self-respect is secured by the public affirmation of the status of equal citizenship for all; the distribution of material means is left to take care of itself in accordance with the idea of pure procedural justice. Of course doing this assumes the requisite background institutions which narrow the range of inequalities so that excusable envy does not arise. Now this way of dealing with the problem of status has several noteworthy features which may be brought out as follows. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

Suppose to the contrary that how one is valued by others depends upon one’s relative place in the distribution of income and wealth. In this case, having a higher status implies having more material means than a larger fraction of society. Thus not everyone can have the highest status, and to improve one person’s position is to lower that of someone else. Social cooperation to increase the conditions of self-respect is impossible. The means of status, so to speak, are fixed, and each human’s gain is another’s loss. Clearly this situation is a great misfortune. Persons are set at odds with one another in the pursuit of their self-esteem. Given the preeminence of this primary good, the parties in the original position surely do no want to find themselves so opposed. If not impossible, it would tend, for one thing, to make the good of social union difficult to achieve. Moreover, if the means of providing a good are indeed fixed and cannot be enlarged by cooperation, as mentioned in the discussion of envy, then justice seems to require equal shares, ceteris paribus. However, an equal division of all primary gods in irrational in view of the possibility of bettering everyone’s circumstances by accepting certain inequalities. Thus the best solution is to support the primary good of self-respect as far as possible by the assignment of the basic liberties that can indeed be made equal, defining the same status for all. At the same time, distributive justice as frequently understood, justice in the relative shares of material means, is relegated to a subordinate place. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Thus we arrive at another reason for factoring the social order into two parts as indicated by the principles of justice. While these principles permit inequalities in return for contributions that are for the benefit of all, the precedence of liberty entails equality in the social bases of esteem. Now it is quite possible that this idea cannot be carried through completely. To some extent human’s sense of their own worth may hinge upon their institutional position and their income share. If, however, the account of social envy and jealousy is sound, then, with the appropriate background arrangements, these inclinations should not be excessive, at least not when the priority of liberty is effectively upheld. However, if necessary, theoretically we can include self-respect in the primary goods, the index of which defines expectations. Then in applications of the difference principle this index can allows for the effects of excusable envy; the expectations of the less advantaged are lower the more severe these effects. Whether some adjustment for self-respect has to be made is best decided from the standpoint of the legislative stage where the parties have more information about social circumstances and the principle of political determination applies. Admittedly this problem is an unwelcome complication. Since simplicity it itself desirable in a public conception of justice, the conditions that elicit excusable envy should if possible be avoided. Expectations of the less advantaged can be understood so as to include the primary good of self-esteem. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

Now some may want to object to this account of the priority of liberty that societies have other ways of affirming self-respect and of coping with envy and other disruptive inclinations. Thus in a feudal or in a caste system each person is believed to have one’s allotted station in the natural order of things. One’s comparisons are presumably confined to within one’s own estate or caste, these ranks becoming in effect so many noncomparing groups established independently of human control and sanctioned by religion and theology. Humans resign themselves to their position should it ever occur to them to question it; and since all may view themselves as assigned their vocation, everyone is held to be equally fated and equally noble in the eyes of providence. This conception of society solves the problem of social justice by eliminating in thought the circumstances that give rise to it. The basic structure is aid to be already determined, and not something for human beings to affect. On this view, it misconceives human’s place in the World to suppose that the social order should match principles which they would as equals consent to. Now to this idea, parties re to be guided in their choice of a conception of justice by a knowledge of the general facts about society. They take for granted than that institutions are not fixed but change overtime, altered by natural circumstances and the activities and conflicts of social groups. The constraints of nature are recognized, but humans are not powerless to shape their social arrangements. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

This assumption is likewise part of the background of the theory of justice. It follows that certain ways of dealing with envy and other aberrant propensities are closed to a well-ordered society. For example, it cannot keep them in check by promulgating false or unfounded beliefs. For our problem is how society should be arranged if it is to conform to principles that rational persons with true general beliefs would acknowledge in the original position. The publicity condition of requires the parties to assume that as members of society they will also know the general facts. The reasoning leading up to the initial agreement is to be accessible to public understanding. Of course, in working out what the requisite principles are, we must rely upon current knowledge as recognized by common sense and the existing scientific consensus. However, there is no reasonable alternative to doing this. We have to concede that as established beliefs change, it is possible that the principles of justice which it seems rational to choose may likewise change. Thus when the belief in a fixed natural order sanctioning a hierarchical society is abandoned, assuming here that this belief is not true, a tendency is set up that points in the direction of two principles of justice inertial order. The effective protection of the equal liberties becomes increasingly of first importance. When God wants to punish people, he gives the unjust leaders. So the answer is for the people to repent, turn from their ways, be converted, and seek God. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21
Some people only care about power and what they can do with power. May the Lord come down to protect our people. Democracy is not prescribed in the Bible, and Christians can and do live under other political systems. However, Christians can hardly fail to love democracy, because of all systems it best assures human dignity, the essence of our creation in God’s image. If a candidate wins by cheating, he or she can only be forgiven by God if one renounced the office one has obtained by fraud. There will be no divine forgiveness for this act of injustice without a previous decision to repay the damage done. However, apparently God’s forgiveness is unimportant to some ruling. When politicians rig the vote, it means all the passion for democracy and all the prayers of the people are meaningless. A government that assumes or maintains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis. If it does not of itself freely correct the evil it has inflicted on the people, then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to make it do so. Nonetheless, there is enormous sin attached to fratricidal strife. As moral outrage grows, it is important to study the Bible. God has ordained government to preserve order, but even a bad government is better than no government—which results in chaos. Government’s authority comes from God; it is a delegation. Therefore, governments—all governments—whether they acknowledge it or not, rule under God. However, does God give an unrestricted delegation? Certainly not. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

As Jesus Christ made clear with the coin, there are two realms—and Caesar is not to usurp what belongs to God. Any government that violates the law that is higher than its own is exceeding the legitimate authority God has granted. Government must always be respected, otherwise anarchy results; but the nation may attempt to venerate a culture or race. “When the state is made to serve the aspirations of race or nation instead of the cause of justice for all, it becomes a demonic state warranting resistance and rejection by the Christian faith,” reports Donald Bloesch, Crumbling Foundations (Grand Paris, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984), 183. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, “If government persistently and arbitrarily violates its assigned task, then the divine mandate lapses.” In that case the state becomes evil incarnate, as in Nazi Germany. Instead of acting as God’s instrument for preserving life and order, it does the reverse, destroying life and order. Then the church must resist. Though as argued earlier, the church’s primary function is evangelization and ministering to spiritual needs; as the principle visible manifestation of the Kingdom of God, it must be the conscience of society, the instrument of moral accountability. Richard Neuhaus eloquently wrote that “the church can and should subject to moral questioning every political agenda or cause, thus keeping the entirety of human politics under the transcendent judgement of God.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

The church’s first duty then would be to publicly expose the state’s immorality. The government should not be involved in corruption, oppression, the deprivation of civil liberties, nor the taking of innocent lives. As a second step the church should refuse to have any part in the state’s immorality. The church must take the next more severe measures of resistance lest its words be rendered hollow. The great evangelist Charles Finney refused communion to slave-holders. Others organized the underground railroad and rescued fugitive slaves from prison. Many ministers broke the law, were arrested, and some imprisoned. However, that state’s evil, even as egregious as slavery, does not give an unrestricted license to disobey any law; only the unjust law can properly be contested. While active resistance may succeed, as it did with slavery and the Civil-Rights Movement, it may not, however, be enough in the face of the raw power modern totalitarian states have achieved. So, when all peaceable means fail, what does the Christian do? Is revolution ever justified? Scottish reformation theologians like John Knox and Samuel Rutherford believed they could be, advocating the right of Christians to rise up against ungodly rulers. Many ministers in the colonies agreed as well; when they preached that the people had the authority to resist the king when the king violated God’s commands, they were setting the stage for the American Revolution. After dumping tea in Boston Harbour the next step of resistance was the musket. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

A Boston preacher said that for a people to “arise unanimously and resist their prince, even to dethrone him, is not criminal but a reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights.” John Adams observed, “The revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.” Some Christian activists today loosely call for a new American Revolution just as the young radical youth movements did in the sixties. However, history reveals, revolution most often results, after the bodies are buried, in one form of tyranny replacing another. G.K. Chesterton summed it up well: “The real case against revolution is this: That there always seems to be much more to be said against the old regime than in favour of the new regime.” So for the Christian, revolution is never to be lightly regarded. It is the most extreme form of disobedience. It could only be contemplated on the same justification as a just war; that is, that there must be a better alterative as a result of the revolution. Its advantages must outweigh the suffering, and the evil employed in the revolution must prevent a far greater evil than the status quo. This was the reasoning that caused Albert Einstein to abandon his pacifism in the face of a dictator’s rise to power. “To prevent the greater evil, it is necessary that the lesser—the hated military—be accepted for the time being,” Einstein contended. It was this reasoning the caused Bonhoeffer to patriciate in the plot to assassinate this dictator. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21
For Christians to justify participation in revolution, therefore, they would have to be convinced that the state had become totally opposed to the purposes of God for the state and there was no other recourse to prevent massive evil. The Exodus from Egypt is often cited as a model for political action by liberation theologians, but they ignore the fact that in the Exodus, God did not overthrow the political system in Egypt. He extracted His own people from that system, taking them to Mount Sinai that they might worship Him. In the light of this, then, what about America? What lessons are to be drawn from it? We must be aware to prevent a regime’s refusal to allow free elections, the suspensions of civil liberties, the massive corruption of the governmental process, the trampling of human rights, and a leader’s own blasphemous, at times messianic pretensions, which give the church a mandate to act. The church should be mobilized to say no to evil. The first stage of an individua approach should be entirely biblical. By preaching repentance and conversion, one can encourage outbreaks of spiritual revival all across America. One should call for people to pray for their country. A courageous cardinal and ordinary citizens can open a crack of light in the dark canopy that envelops so much of planet Earth. Through peaceful actions and resistance to evil, the Kingdom of God will be made visible again. The Late Francis Schaeffer once wrote, “If here is no place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

The belief that government is autonomous, the ultimate repository of power, the solution to all of society’s ills, is the greatest imposter of the twenty-first century. Christians and the church have no higher calling than to expose it by every legitimate means. To some people the great trouble about any argument for the Supernatural is simply the fact that argument should be needed at all. If so stupendous a thing exists, ought it not be obvious as the sun in the sky? It is not intolerable, and indeed incredible, that knowledge of the most basic of all Facts should be accessible only by wire-drawn reasonings for which the vast majority of humans have neither leisure nor capacity? I have great sympathy with this point of view. However, we must notice two things. When you are looking at a garden from a room upstairs it is obvious (once you think about it) that you are looking through a window. However, if it is the garden that interests you, you may look at it for a long time without thinking of the window. When you are reading a book, it is obvious (once you attend to it) that you are using your eyes: but unless your eyes begin to hurt you, or the book is a text book on optics, you may read all evening without once thinking of eyes. When we talk we are obviously using langue and grammar: and when we try to talk a foreign language we may be painfully aware of the fact. However, we are talking English, we do not notice it. When you shout from the top of the stirs, “I am in half a moment,” you are usually conscious that you have made the singular am agree with the singular I. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21
There is indeed a story told about a Native American who, having learned several other languages, was asked to write a grammar of the language used by his own tribe. He replied, after some thought, that it had no grammar. The grammar he had sued all his life had escaped his notice all his life. He knew it (in once sense) so well that (in another sense) he did not know it existed. All these instances show that the fact, and through which alone you have access to all the other facts, may be precisely the one that is most easily forgotten—forgotten not because it is so remote or abstruse but because it is so near and so obvious. And that is exactly how the Supernatural has been forgotten. The Naturalists have been engaged in thinking about Nature. They have not attended to the fact that they were thinking. The moment one attends to this it is obvious that one’s own thinking cannot be merely a natural event, and that therefore something other than Nature exists. The Supernatural is not remote and abstruse: it is a matter f daily and hourly experience, as intimate as breathing. Denial of it depends on a certain absent-mindedness. However, this absent-mindedness is in on way surprising. You do not need—indeed you do not wish—to be always thinking about windows when you are looking at gardens or always thinking about eyes when you are reading. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

In the same way the proper procedure for all limited and particular inquiries is to ignore the fact of your own thinking, and concentrate on the object. It is only when you stand back from particular inquiries and try to form a complete philosophy that you must take it into account. For a complete philosophy must get in all the facts. In it you turn away from specialized or truncated thought to total thought: and one of the facts total thought must think about is Thinking itself. There is thus a tendency in the study of Nature to make us forget the most obvious first of all. And since the Sixteenth Century, when Science was born, the minds of humans have been increasingly turned outward, to know Nature and to master her. They have been increasingly engaged on those specialized inquiries for which truncated thought is the correct method. It is therefore not in the least astonishing that they should have forgotten the evidence for the Supernatural. The deeply ingrained habit of truncated thought—what we call the “scientific” habit of mind—was indeed certain to lead to Naturalism, unless this tendency were continually corrected from some other source. However, no other source was at hand, for during the same period humans of science were coming to be metaphysically and theologically uneducated. That brings me to the second consideration. The state of affairs in which ordinary people can discover the Supernatural only by abstruse reasoning is recent and, by historical standards, abnormal. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21
All over the World, until quite modern times, the direct insight of the mystics and the reasonings of the philosopher percolated to the mass of the people by authority and tradition; they could be received by those who were no great reasoners themselves in the concrete form of myth and ritual and the whole pattern of life. In the conditions produced by a century or so of Naturalism, plain humans are being forced to bear burdens which plain humans were never expected to bear before. We must get the truth for ourselves or go without it. There may be two explanations for this. It might be that humanity, in rebelling against tradition and authority, has made a ghastly mistake; a mistake which will not be less fatal because the corruptions of those in authority rendered it very excusable. On the other hand, it may be that the Power which rules our species is at this moment carrying out a daring experiment. Could it be intended that the whole mass of the people should now move forward and occupy for themselves those heights which were once reserved only for the sages? Is the distinction between wise and simple to disappear because all are now expected to become wise? If so, our present blunderings would be but growing pains. However, let us make no mistake about our necessities. If we are content to go back and become humble plain humans obeying a tradition, well. If we are ready to climb and struggle on till we become sages ourselves, better still. However, the human who will neither obey wisdom in others nor adventure for her oneself is fatal. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21
A society where the simple many obey the few seers can live: a society where all were seers could live even more fully. However, a society where the mass is still simple and the seers are no longer attended to can achieve only superficiality, baseness, ugliness, and in the end extinction. On or back we must go; to stay here is death. One other point that may have raised doubt or difficulty is the advanced reasons for believing that a supernatural element in present in every rational human. The presence of human rationality in the World is therefore a Miracle. Human Reason an Morality have been mentioned not as instances of Miracle (at least, not of the kind of Miracle you wanted to hear about) but as prods of the Supernatural: not in order to show that Nature ever is invaded but that there is a possible invader. Whether you choose to call the regular and familiar invasion by human Reason a Miracle or not is largely a matter of words. Its regularity—the fact that it regularly enters by the same door, human pleasures of the flesh—may incline you not to do so. It looks as if it were (so to speak) the very nature of Nature to suffer this invasion. However, then we might later find that it was the very nature of Nature to suffer Miracles in general. Fortunately the course of our argument will allow us to leave this question of terminology on one side. We are going to be concerned with other invasions of Nature—with what everyone would call Miracles. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Our question could, if you liked, be put in the form, “Does Supernature every produce particular results in space and time except through the instrumentality of human brains acting on human nerves and muscles?” I have said “particular results” because, on our view, Nature as a whole is herself one huge result of the Supernatural: God created her. God pierces her wherever there is a human mind. God presumably maintains her in existence. The question is whether He ever does anything else to her. Does God, beside all this, ever introduce into her events of which it would not be true to say, “This is simply the working out of the general character which God gave to Nature as a whole in creating her”? Such events are what are popularly called Miracles: and it will be in this sense only that the word Miracle will be used from now on. Do not stand at my grace and weep, I am not there. I do not sleep. I am a though rays of light that glow. I am the diamond glint on snow. I am the moonlight on the shinning sea. I am the gentle autumn rain. When you wake in the morning hush, I am the swift, uplifting rush or quiet birds in circling flight. I am the soft starlight at night. Do not stand at my grace and weep. I am not there. I do not sleep. Our God and God of our fathers, we thank Thee for Thy Torah, our priceless heritage. May the portion we have ready today inspire us to do Thy will and to seek further knowledge of Thy word. Thus our minds will be enriched and our lives endowed with purpose. May we take to heart Thy laws by which humans truly live. Happy are all who love Thee and delight in Thy commandments. Amen. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21
Cresleigh Homes
There’s something irresistible about eating at the island; it’s casual, yet festive. Guests can be part of the food prep, and everyone gets to make merry together all evening long.
Meadows Res 1 shows just how well single story living suits the family who loves to entertain!
Residence One at Cresleigh Meadows holds 2,054 square feet of single story living. The open concept design includes three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a two car garage plus workshop. Through the charming front porch enter into the foyer, where two secondary bedrooms lead off to a Jack and Jill bathroom. The kitchen comes fully equipped with a large eat-in island, stainless steel appliances, and quartz counters. The great room is spacious and full of natural light. The Owner’s suite is nestled in the rear of the home separate from the secondary bedrooms, providing maximum privacy. Enjoy a spa like experience in the Owner’s bathroom with a large walk in shower and large soaking tub.
Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier. Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Mini to help connect everything together!
There is nothing more important than a good, safe, secure home. Come and see why Cresleigh is America’s Favourite.
#CresleighHomes
#PlumasRanch
Beneath the Surface Lies Beauty in Radiant Abundance in the Vast Oceans of Our Lives!

Losers have tons of variety. Champions take pride in just learning to produce the same old boring plays that win the game. If you do not have someone you can talk to about stressful events, you might try expressing your thoughts and feelings in writing. Several studies have found that students who write about their upsetting experiences, thoughts, and feelings are better able to cope with stress. They also experience fewer illnesses, and they get better grades. Writing about your feelings tends to leave your mind clearer. This makes it easier to pay attention to life’s challenges and come up with effective coping strategies. Thus, after you write about your feelings, it helps to make specific plans for coping with upsetting experiences. Stress is greatly affected by the views we take of events. Physical symptoms and a tendency to make poor decisions are increased by negative thoughts or “self-talk.” In many cases, what you say to yourself can be the different between coping and collapsing. The cause of disease with which conventional medicos deal are too often themselves the effects of still deeper causes. It is because unconventional healers recognize this that they are able to achieve so much higher a proportion of dramatically successful cures than the medicos can achieve. And their principal recognition is of the spiritual nature of humans, along with the mental emotional influence on the body. When plague broke like a wave over the heads of humankind in the fifteenth century and spread with startling rapidity through the nations of Europe, the obvious physical cases were in themselves but agents of the less obvious soul-causes, defects in the very character of humanity. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20
Insomnia and cancer, to take but two of the representative illnesses of our own epoch, are no less plaguelike in their menace to people of today, no less the products of causes inherent in imperfect human character, habit, or environment. Although we can often find the physical causes of physical ailments, behind these physical causes there are quite often maladies of the soul. Heal the soul and the bodily healing may follow. Obviously there are many cases where no success would result. The first step in healing, for both the healer and the patient, is to pray, to ask for enlightenment about the true and first cause of the sickness. What act or what thought of the patient was primarily responsible? Once learnt, it must be corrected. A disease may well be the outer expression of an inner conflict, or an inner weakness, or an inner misery. One may push the problem away for a time, but it will be only for a time. One day it will return and one will have to deal with it again. Those who violate the laws of their own being will suffer in health. When Jesus Christ told the woman he healed to sin no more, he added that it was her sinning which brought her ill-health upon her. Here then is one of the potent causes of sickness. So long as we remain alienated from the Overself, so long shall we suffer misery and spoil life. All the good we may recognize or desire is nothing in itself and leads nowhere unless it is strengthened in the thought of faithfulness. It is just like the hardening of metal. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

No one can explain how metal hardens. First it is weak and pliable, but then it becomes a hundred times as strong as it was before. Nor can we explain how every human virtue only achieves strength and fulfilment after it has been hardened on the anvil of faithfulness. While certain aspect of morality of authority are preserved at later stages for special occasions, we can regard the mortality of authority in its primitive for as that of the child. I assume that the sense of justice is acquired gradually by the younger members of society as they grow up. The succession of generations and the necessity to teach moral attitudes (however simple) to children is one of the conditions of human life. Now I shall assume that the basic structure of a well-ordered society includes the family in some form, and therefore that children are at first subject to the legitimate authority of their parents. Of course, in a broader inquiry the institution of the family might be questioned, and other arrangements might indeed prove to be preferable. However, presumably the account of the morality of authority, if necessary, be adjusted to fit these different schemes. In any event, it is characteristic of the child’s situation that one is not in a position to assess the validity of the precepts and injunctions addressed to one by those in authority, in this case one’s parents. One lacks both the knowledge and the understanding on the basis of which their guidance can be challenged. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Indeed, the child lacks the concept of justification altogether, this being acquired much later. Therefore one cannot with reason doubt the propriety of parental injunctions. However, since we are assuming that the society is well-ordered we my suppose, so as to avoid needless complications, that these precepts are on the whole justified. They accord with a reasonable interpretation of familial duties as defined by the principles of justice. The parents, we may suppose, love the child and in time the child comes to love and to trust one’s parents. How does this change in the child come about? The following psychological principles come into play: only if hey manifestly love the child first, the child comes to love its parents. This attachment is quite unconscious and instinctive. Thus the child’s actions are motivated initially by certain instincts and desires, and one’s aims are regulated (if at all) by rational self-interest (in a suitably restricted sense). Although the child has the potentiality for love, one’s love of the parents is a new desire brought about by one’s recognizing their evident love of one and one’s benefitting from the actions in which their love is expressed. The parents’ love of the child is expressed in their evident intention to care for one, to do for one as one’s rational self-love would incline, and in the fulfillment of these intentions. Their love is displayed by their taking pleasure in one’s presence and supporting one’s sense of competence and self-esteem. They encourage one’s efforts to master the tasks of growing up and they welcome one’s assuming one’s own place. One learns what one can do in that World. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20
Playing leads to the child developing a self-identity, it teaches them their separateness from others. Playing helps distinguish “me” from “you,” preparatory to building a strong “us.” Playing leads to the discover of the others as the other “really” is. I mean here the discovery of the other we cannot control, the other who exists regardless of our needs, hopes, fears, and wishes. Playing corrects our phantasies of what we imagine the other to be, using the evidence which we allow the other to present to our senses. Of course, we do not play with those we fear too much, and so we cannot discover who or what they “really” are in this sense. However, we do watch the late-night horror film; we play with what we fear a little, hoping to reduce our fear through finding less danger than we feared, or more sill in coping. The discovery of others who are the source of good things leads to gratitude and confidence. However, there must surely be many times when the child responds with ager to the discovery that it is not omnipotent but must put up with a delay before it will get what it wants. This anger has a special role: it can test and at times establish the reality of the other person’s separateness. Testing is a process which allows us to distinguish between the people and things we can imagine or phantasies about, and the people and things whose actions are not under our control. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

By testing I can discover what is under my control and so “mine,” and what is in the World known as “shared reality” and which is not under my control. I think that quite a lot of such discoveries happen in a painless way in the process of playing and exploring. When things (or persons) are no longer subject to omnipotence—no longer imagined to be under the child’s control but discovered to be part of shared reality—they cease to be part of the child and become separated out. The loss of omnipotence may frustrate and anger the baby, but it has a focus for its anger—the (m)other. The distress of deprivation becomes the anger of frustration, anger which may be so great that the child fears it will destroy the (m)other in its rage. However, it is not in shared reality and so it is bound to learn that destroying people in phantasy does not destroy them in shared reality, thank goodness. And so, when the rage subsides, the child discovers that the (m)other is still there and so is the baby itself. Thus, the child discovers a class of objects not destroyed by rage, to which it can then begin to attend in a new way. When you can stop thinking of yourself as omnipotent, powerful, and destructive in a World which has other powerful and destructive people in it, the World is a safer place. The (m)other has been tested and survived. The subject says to the object “I destroyed you,” and the object is there to receive the communication. From now on the subject says “Hullo object! I destroyed you. I love you. You have value for me because of your survival of my destruction of you.” #RandolphHarris 6 of 20
So, gradually, either through playing or more perilously through testing, other people become more real as other people. They have been discovered as able to survive both love and hate. This makes realistic ambivalence possible. In phantasy, the good and the bad can be kept separate. We can have a phantasy goo mother, who comes when wanted, separate from a phantasy bas mother, who never comes when wanted. In shared reality, we have to put up with the fact that mothers (and others) are both good and bad together. To some extent they will be just as we imagined them; and to some extent they remain obstinately their own selves. This is why transitional objects—bears, dolls, imaginary playmates—are normally not tested to destruction, however savagely the child treats them. The child could destroy them—they are sufficiently under the child’s control to be capable of destruction—but this is not what the child normally wants to do to is transitional objects. It is partly because the child does not normally test its transitional objects to destruction that it eventually turns more to other people and things: transitional objects cannot be “discovered,” the way other people and things can be discovered, to be either the sort of person or thing we hoped for, or not. There is a particular gratification or disappointment which comes from relating to real people and things in shared reality. Transitional objects, by contrast, are useful because they help the child comes to terms with the discovery of its own limitations: they put the child in touch with the possibility (disillusioning? comforting?) that is not omnipotent. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

So we have been considering a developmental period when the child feels strong enough to discover the real people to relate to in an honest way taking the rough with the smooth, as regards itself, and as regards others. In general, to love another means not only to be concerned for one’s wants and needs, but to affirm one’s sense of worth of one’s own person. Eventually, then, the love of the parents for the child gives rise to one’s love in return. The child’s love does not have a rational instrumental explanation: one does not love them s a means to achieve one’s initial self-interested ends. With this aim in view one could conceivably act as if one loved them, but one’s doing so would not constitute a transformation of one’s original desires. By the stated psychological principle, a new affection is in time called into being by the evident love of the parents. By the stated psychological principle, new affection is in time called into being by the evident love of the parents. There are several ways in which this psychological law may be analyzed into further elements. Thus it is unlikely that the child’s recognition of parental affection causes directly a returning sentiment. We may conjecture several other steps as follows: when the parents’ love of the child is recognized by one on the basis of their evident intentions, the child is assured of one’s worth as a person. One is made away that one is appreciated for one’s own sake by what are to one the imposing and power persons in one’s World. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

One experiences parental affection as unconditional; they care for one’s presence and spontaneous acts, and the pleasure they take in one is not dependent upon disciplined performances that contribute to the well-being of others. In due course, the child comes to trust one’s parents and to have confidence in one’s surroundings; and this lead one to launch out and to test one’s maturing abilities, all the while supported by their affection and encouragement. Gradually one acquires various skills and develops a sense of competence that affirms one’s self-esteem. It is in the course of this whole process that the child’s affections for one’s parents develops. One connects them with the success and enjoyment that one has had in sustaining one’s World, and with one’s sense of one’s own worth. And this brings about one’s love for them. We must now consider how the child’s love and trust will show itself. At this point it is necessary to keep in mind the peculiar features of the authority situation. The child does not have one’s own standards of criticism, since one is not in a position to reject precepts on rational grounds. If one loves and trusts one’s parents, one will tend to accept their injunctions. One will also strive to be like them, assuming that they are indeed worthy of esteem and adhere to the precepts which they enjoin. They exemplify, let us suppose, superior knowledge and power, and set forth appealing examples of what is demanded. The child, therefore, accepts their judgment of one and one will be inclined to judge oneself as they do when one violated their injunctions. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20
At the same time, of course, one’s desires exceeds the bounds of what is permitted, for otherwise there would be no need for these precepts. Thus parental norms are experienced as constraints and the child may rebel against them. After all, one may see no reason why one should comply with them; they are in themselves arbitrary prohibitions and one has no original tendency to do the things one is told to do. Yet if one does love and trust one’s parents, then, once one has given in to temptation, one is disposed to share their attitude toward one’s misdemeanors. One will be inclined to confess one’s transgression and to seek reconciliation. In these various inclinations are manifested the feelings of (authority) guilt. Without these and related inclinations, feelings of guilt would not exist. However, it is also true that the absence of these feelings would indicate a lack of love and trust. For given the nature of the authority situation and the principles of moral psychology connecting he ethical and the natural attitudes, love and trust will give rise to feelings of guilt once the parental injunctions are disobeyed. Admittedly in the case of the child it is sometimes difficult to distinguish feelings of guilt from the fear of punishment, and especially from the dread of the loss of parental love and affection. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The child lacks the concepts for understanding moral distinctions and this will reflect itself in one’s behaviour. I have supposed, however, that even in the child’s case we can separate (authority) guilt feelings from fear and anxiety. Because the child is still tiny and when the mother is good enough, and has arranged things just as the child imagined them, as a consequence the child begins to believe in external reality, which appears and behaves as by magic, and which acts in a way that does not clash with the infant’s omnipotence. On this basis the infant can gradually abrogate its sense of omnipotence. The True Self has a spontaneity and this has been joined up with the World’s events. The child can now begin to enjoy the illusion of omnipotent creating and controlling, and can then gradually come to recognize the illusory element, the fact of playing and imagining. Disillusionment is the process of discovering that you are not omnipotent after all, that phantasy does not by itself create what you want, that there had been someone all along who was not under your control, who had been letting you believe that you were in control, and who is now no longer letting you believe that. The child can enjoy the illusion of omnipotent creating and controlling, and can then gradually come to recognize the illusory element. The illusory element is, in my view, the merged selfobject state which is he precursor of the experience of “us.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 20
The emergence of the distinct concepts of “you” and “I” creates a gap which does not exist in the selfobject state. The experience of “us” is the bride across that gap. How I need that bridge, that sense of union, after losing the phantasy of well-being and omnipotence which characterized a good selfobject state! Illusory it may have been, but it felt safe. His safety is now being rebuilt in the relationship called “us,” or to put it in a different way, this safety is being re-established as part of the concept of “us.” After ego-relatedness—“us”-relatedness. In that safety, the fortune baby can discover the World of other people and things not under its control, but in shared reality. The third part of the life of a human being, part that we cannot ignore, an intermediate area of experiencing, to which both inner reality and external life contribute. It is a resting place for the individual engaged in the perpetual task of keeping inner and outer reality separate yet interrelated. The intermediate area to which I am referring is the area that is allowed to the child between primary creativity and objective perception based on reality-testing. This intermediate area is in between the mother and the infant and is some thing, or some activity, or sensation. This is the “third part”—the part thought of as a transitional or a potential space. How else may we think of it, this “between” thing or activity to sensation? To my mind it is best thought of in two ways, one to do with people and one to do with creativity. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

The “intermediate area between people” seems to me an experience of “us,” and is not a space but a process. This process, the experience of “us,” developing as it does in favourable circumstances from selfobject states, requires the differentiation of “you” from “me”: we are then separate yet interrelated. To maintain that way of relating is indeed “a perpetual task”; to be in such a relationship is indeed to be in a resting place. In the light of this sketch of the development of the morality of authority, it seems that the conditions favouring its being learned by the child are these. First the parents must love the child and be worthy objects of one’s admiration. In this way they arouse in one a sense of one’s own value and the desire to become the sort of person that they are. Secondly, they must enunciate clear and intelligible (and of course justifiable) rules adapted to the child’s level of comprehension. In addition they should set out the reasons for these injunctions so far as these can be understood, and they most also follow these precepts insofar as they apply to them as well. The parents should exemplify the morality which they enjoin, and make explicit its underlying principles as time goes on. Doing this is required not only to arouse the child’s inclination to accept these principles at a later time, but also to covey how they are to be interpreted in particular cases. If parental injunctions are not only harsh and unjustified, but enforced by punitive and even physical sanctions, presumably moral development fails to take place to the extent that these conditions are absent. The child’s having a morality of authority consists in one’s being disposed without the prospect of reward or punishment to follow certain precepts that not only may appear to one largely arbitrary but which in no way appeal to one’s original inclinations. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

If one acquires the desire to abide these prohibitions, it is because one sees them as addressed to one by powerful persons who have one’s love and trust, and who also act in conformity with them. One then concludes that they express forms of action that characterize the sort of person one should want to be. In the absence of affection, example, and guidance, none of these processes can take place, and certainly not in loveless relationships maintained by coercive threats and reprisals. The child’s morality of authority is primitive because for the most part it consists of a collection of precepts, and one cannot comprehend the larger scheme of right and justice within which the rules addressed to one are justified. However, even a developed morality of authority in which the basis of the rules can be understood shows many of the same features, and contains similar virtues and vices. There is typically an authoritative person who is loved and trusted, or at least who is accepted as worthy of one’s position, and whose precepts it is one’s duty to follow implicitly. It is not for us to consider the consequences, this being lefts for those in authority. The prized virtues are obedience, humility, and fidelity to authoritative persons; the leading vices are disobedience self-will, and temerity. We are to do what is expected without questioning, for not so to act expressed doubt and distrust, and a certain arrogance and tendency to suspicion. Clearly the morality of authority must be subordinate to the principles of right and justice which alone can determine when these extreme requirements, or analogous constraints, as justified. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

The child’s morality of authority is temporary, a necessity arising from one’s peculiar situation and limited understanding. Moreover, the theological parallel is a special case which, in view of the principle of equal liberty, does not apply to the basic structure of society. Thus the morality of authority has but a restricted role in fundamental social arrangements and can be justified only when the unusual demands of the practice in question make it essential to give certain individuals the prerogatives of leadership and command. In all cases, the scope of this morality is governed by the principles of justice. The trouble is that such personal tactics become less effective with every passing day. As the rate of change climbs, it becomes harder for individual to create the personal stability zones they need. The cost of non-change escalate. We may stay in the old-hose—only to see the neighbourhood transformed. We may keep the old car—only to see repair bills mount beyond reach. We may refuse to transfer to a new location—only to lose our job as a result. For while there are steps we can take to reduce the impact of change in our personal lives, the real problem lies outside ourselves. To create an environment in which change enlivens and enriches the individual, but does not overwhelm one, we must employ not merely personal tactics but social strategies. If we are to carry people through the accelerative period, we must begin now to build “future shock absorbers” into the very fabric of super-age of information society. And this requires a fresh way of thinking about change and non-change in our lives. It even requires a different way of classifying people. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

Today we tend to categorize individuals not according to the changes they happen to be undergoing at the moment, but accord to their status or position between changes. We consider a union man as someone who has joined a union and not yet quit. Our designation refers not to joining or quitting, but to the “non-change” that happens in between. Welfare recipients, college students, Methodist, executive—all refer to the person’s condition between changes, as it were. There is, however, a radically different way to view people. For example, “one who is moving to a new residence” is a classification into which more than 100,000 Americans fit on any given day, yet they are seldom thought of as a group. The classification “one who is changing one’s job” or “one who is joining a church,” or “one who is getting a divorce” are all based on temporary, transitional conditions between transitions. This sudden shift of focus, from thinking about what people “are” to thinking about what they are “becoming,” suggests a whole array of new approaches to adaptation. One of the most imaginative and simplest of these comes from Dr. Herbert Gerjuoy, a psychologist on the staff of the Human Resources Research Organization. One terms it “situational grouping,” and like most good ideas, it sounds obvious once it is described. Yet it has never been systematically exploited. Situational grouping may well become one of the key social services of the future. Dr. Gerjuoy argues that we should provide temporary organizations—“situational groups”—for people who happen to be passing through similar life transitions at the same time. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Such situational groups should be established, Dr. Gerjuoy contends “for families caught up in the upheaval of relocation, for men and women about to be divorced, for people about to lose a parent or a spouse, for those about to gain a child, for men preparing to switch to a new occupation, for families that have just moved into a community, for those about to marry off their last child, for those facing retirement—for anyone, in other words, who faces an important change. Membership in the group would, of course, be temporary—just long enough to help the person with the transitional difficulties. Some groups might meet for a few months, others might not do more than hold a single meeting.” Some people cannot see beauty because they do not care about anything. By bringing together people who are sharing, or are about to share, a common adaptive experience, we help equip them to cope wit it. A human required to adaptive to a new life situation loses some of one’s bases for self-esteem. One begins to doubt one’s own abilities. If we bring one together with others who are moving through the same experience, people one can identify with and respect, we strength one. The members of the group come to share, even if briefly, some sense of identity. They see their problems more objectively. They trade useful ideas and insights. Most important, they suggest future alternatives for one another. That which I call the Overself is intermediate between the ordinary human and the World-Mind. It includes human’s higher nature but stretches into what is above one, the divine. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

That which connects the individual human to the Universal Spirit, I call the Overself. This connection can never be broken. Its existence is the chief guarantee that there is hope of salvation for all, not merely for those who think their group alone will be granted it. It is one’s own greater self, one’s Overself, that one thus experiences, although one ay be so overwhelmed by its mysterious Power, so awed by its ethereality, that one usually believes—and names—it God. And in one mode of meaning, one’s belief is not without justification. For at the core of the experience, one, the atom within the World-Mind, receives the revelation that it is ever there and, more, ever supporting one. It is this, the deepest part of one’s being, one’s final essential self, which is human’s Overself, and which links one with the World-Mind. It is this Presence within which evokes all one’s spiritual quality. This is the essential being of humans, where one’s link with God lies. Do you know that you carry God within you? You are a distinct portion of the essence of God and contain a part of Him within yourself. We like to focus on the future in group meetings. They should not be devoted to hashing over the past, or to griping about it, or to soul searching self-revelation, but to discussing personal objectives, and to planning practical strategies for future use in the new life situation. Members might watch movies of other similar groups wresting with the same kinds of problems. They might hear from others who are more advanced in the transition than they are. People are given the opportunity to pool their personal experiences and ideas before the moment of change is upon them. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

In essence, here is nothing novel about this approach. Even now certain organizations are based on situational principles. A group of Peace Corps volunteers preparing for an overseas mission is, in effect, just such a situational grouping, as are pre- and postnatal classes. Many American tows have a “Newcomers Club” that invites new residents to casserole dinners or other socials, permitting them to mix with other recent arrivals and compare problems and plans. Perhaps there ought to be an “Outmovers Club” as well. What is new is the suggestion that we systematically honeycomb the society with such “coping classrooms.” It is interesting how the lack of understanding by a few can innocently or purposely misguide many. Judging another’s heart and conscience is probably best lest to the righteous judge of us all. Surely the final determination as to who is a true disciple of Christ will be left to the Savior, who said, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep,” reports John 10.14. So, if we, even in our weak and stumbling way, are earnestly striving to live a Christlike life, how others choose to characterize us should be of little consequence. The responsibility for our Christianity is ours. Others may characterize us as they will, but the true and righteous Judge will judge us as we are. Our discipleships is for us to determine, not someone else. I would hope that our fruits would merit the term Christian, and that our deeds, our actions, our hearts, and our countenances exemplify the teachings of the Saviour and display our gratitude for His great sacrifice for all of us. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

Christ is the Redeemer of the World. He is our Lord, our Light, and out Saviour. He was ordained from on high to descend below all, to suffer above all! He is the focus of all that we teach and all we do. As a Church we are individual Christians, trying to prove our discipleship to the Saviour. It is not an institutional matter, it is a personal matter. Almighty Father, on this day, as we approach Thine altar to gain inspiration from Thy Torah, we pray that Thou wilt open our hearts unto Thy Law to the end that we may fulfill Thy holy precepts. Thou who didst bring order out of chaos, who didst establish harmony among the Heavenly bodies, do Thou bring order and harmony into our lives and the lives of all humankind. May the portion of the Torah we read today inspire us to dedicate ourselves wholeheartedly to all that makes for just and righteous living. Hasten the day when Thy Law shall guide the lives of all the peoples of the Earth, when all humans shall live together as brothers recognizing Thee, the Father of all. Amen. Our God and God of our fathers, we stand before the open Ark of Thy Covenant to acknowledge Thy sovereignty. Before Thee and before the glory of Thy Law do we bow at all times. For Thou art Truth and Thy Torah is Truth, and Thy prophets are prophets of Truth, and Thou doest abound in mercy and in truth. Do Thou enlighten our eyes that we may behold the sonders of Thy Torah. Endow us with wisdom that we may understand its precepts, and inspire us with courage that we may hold aloft the banner of Thy Law in the eyes of all humans. We need freedom in our thought to elude what we have been taught to find what we have sought. May we just let go so we may know the flow of true being. It is worth seeing a Heavenly view. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes Plumas Ranch is now selling! Register to join our interest list and stay up to date with all the latest information. Plumas Ranch offers three distinct communities to choose from: Riverside, Meadows, and Bluffs.
Home sizes range from 1,740 to over 3,400 square feet with up to five bedrooms, three and one half bathrooms, and three-car garages available. Like all Cresleigh floorplans, their layouts are creative, versatile, and envisioned to maximize every available foot of space. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-plumas-ranch/
The community offers a selection of all-new home designs with varied exteriors and outstanding included features set amidst a picturesque landscape.
These grand single- and two-story home designs blend seamlessly indoor-outdoor living, taking advantage of sweeping views and the surrounding open space.
Learn more today!
Is this the New Phenomenon? Running Away from America and Running Away from Emotion?

Every time you win, you are reborn; when you lose, you die a little. Becoming number one is easier than remaining number one. The definition of the good is purely formal. It simply states that a person’s good is determined by the rational plan of life that one would choose with deliberative rationality from the maximal class of plans. Although the notion of deliberative rationality and the principles of rational choice rely upon concepts of considerable complexity, we still cannot derive from the definition of rational plans alone what sorts of ends these plans are likely to encourage. In order to draw conclusions about these ends, it is necessary to take note of certain general facts. First of all, there are the broad features of human desires and needs, their relative urgency and cycles of recurrence, and their phases of development as affected by physiological and other circumstances. Second, plans must fit the requirements of human capacities and abilities, their trends of maturation and growth, and how they are best trained and educated for this or that purpose. Moreover, I shall postulate a basic principle of motivation which I shall refer to as the Aristotelian Principle. Finally, the general facts of social interdependency must be reckoned with. The basic structure of society is bound to encourage and support certain kinds of plans more than others by rewarding its members for contributing to the common good in ways consistent with justice. #RandolphHarris 1 of 24
Taking account of these contingencies narrows down the alternative plans so that the problem of decision becomes, in some cases anyway, reasonably definite. To be sure, as we shall see, a certain arbitrariness still remains, but the priority of right limits it in such a way that it is no longer a problem from the standpoint of justice. Taking account of these contingencies narrows down the alterative plans so that the problem of decision becomes, in some cases anyway, reasonably definite. To be sure, as we shall see, a certain arbitrariness still remains, but the priority of right limits it in such a way that it is no longer a problem from the standpoint of justice. The general facts about human needs and abilities are perhaps clear enough and I shall assume that common sense knowledge suffices for our purpose here. Before taking up the Aristotelian Principle, however, I should comment briefly on the human goods (as I shall call them) and the constraints of justice. Given the definition of a rational plan, if not a central place in our life, we may think of these goods as those activities and ends that have the features whatever they are that suit them for an important. Since in the full theory rational plans must be consistent with the principles of justice, the human goods are similarly constrained. Thus the familiar values of personal affection and friendship, meaningful work and social cooperation, the pursuit of knowledge and the fashioning and contemplation of beautiful objects, are not only prominent in our rational plans but they can for the most part be advanced in a manner which justice permits. #RandolphHarris 2 of 24

Admittedly to attain and to preserve these values, we are often tempted to act unjustly; but achieving these ends involves no inherent injustice. In contrast with the desire to cheat and to degrade others, doing something unjust is not included in the description of the human goods. The social interdependency of these values is shown in the fact that not only are they good for those who enjoy them but they are likely to enhance the good of others. In achieving these ends we generally contribute to the rational plans of our associates. In this sense, they are complementary goods, and this accounts for their being singled out for special commendation. For to commend something is to praise it, to recount the properties that make it good (rational to want) with emphasis and expressions of approval. These facts of interdependency are further reasons for including the recognized values in long-term plans. For assuming that we desire the respect and good will of other persons, or at least to avoid their hostility and contempt, those plans of life will tend to be preferable which further their aims as well as our own. Turning now to our present topic, it will be recalled that the Aristotelian Principle runs as follows: others things equal, human beings enjoy the exercise of their realized capacities (their innate or trained abilities), and this enjoyment increases the more the capacity is realized, or the greater its complexity. #RandolphHarris 3 of 24

Aristotelian Principle denotes that enjoyment and pleasure are not always by any means the result of returning to a healthy or normal state, or of making up deficiencies; rather many kinds of pleasure and enjoyment arise when we exercise our faculties; and that the exercise of our natural power is a leading human good. Further, the idea that the more enjoyable activities and the more desirable and enduring pleasures spring from the exercise of greater abilities involving more complex discriminations is not only compatible with Aristotle’s conception of the natural order, but something like it usually fits the judgments of value he makes, even when it does not express his reasons. The intuitive idea here is that human beings take more pleasures in doing something as they become more proficient at it, and of two activities they do equally well, they prefer the one calling on a larger repertoire of more intricate and subtle discriminations. For example, chess is a more complicated and subtle game than checkers, and trigonometry is more intricate than algebra. Thus the principle say that someone who can do both generally prefers playing chess to playing checkers, and that one would rather study trigonometry than algebra. We need not explain here why the Aristotelian Principle is true. Presumably complex activities are more enjoyable because they satisfy the desire for variety and novelty of experience, and leave room for feats of ingenuity and invention. They also evoke the pleasures of anticipation and surprise, and often the overall form of the activity, its structural development, is fascinating and beautiful. #RandolphHarris 4 of 24
Moreover, simpler activities exclude the possibility of individual style and personal expression which complex activities permit or even require, for how could everyone do them in the same way? If we are to find our way at all, that we should follow our natural bent and the lessons of our past experience seems inevitable. Each of these features is well illustrated by chess, even to the point where grand masters have their characteristic style of play. Whether these considerations are explanations of the Aristotelian Principle or elaboration of its means, I shall leave aside. I believe that nothing essential for the theory of the good depends upon this question. It is evident that the Aristotelian Principle contains a variant of the principle of inclusiveness. Or at least the clearest cases of greater complexity are those in which one of the activities to be compared includes all the skills and discrimination of the other activity and some further ones in addition. Once again, we can establish but a partial order, since each of several activities may require abilities not used in the others. Such an ordering is the best that we can have until we possess some relatively precise theory and measure of complexity that enables us to analyze and compare seemingly disparate activities. I shall not, however, discuss this problem here, but assume instead that our intuitive notion of complexity will suffice for our purposes. #RandolphHarris 5 of 24
The Aristotelian Principle is a principle of motivation. It accounts for many of our major desires, and explains why we prefer to do some things and not others by constantly exerting an influence over the flow of our activity. Moreover, it expresses a psychological law governing changes in the pattern of our desires. Thus the principle implies that as a person’s capacities increase over time (brought about by physiological and biological maturation, for example, the development of the nervous system in a young child), and as one trains these capacities and learns how to exercise them, one will in due course come to prefer the more complex activities that one can now engage in which call upon one’s newly realized abilities. The simpler things one enjoyed before are no longer sufficiently interesting or attractive. If we ask why we are willing to undergo the stresses of practice and learning, the reason may be (if we leave out of account external rewards and penalties) that having had some success at learning things in the past, and experiencing the present enjoyments of the activity, we are led to expect even greater satisfaction once we acquire a greater repertoire of skills. As we witness the exercise of well-trained abilities by others, these displays are enjoyed by us and arouse a desire that we should be able to do the same things ourselves. We want to be like those persons who can exercise the abilities that we find latent in our nature. #RandolphHarris 6 of 24
Thus it would appear that how much we learn and how far we educate our innate capacities depends upon how great these capacities are and how difficult is the effort of realizing them. There is a race so to speak, between the increasing satisfaction of exercising greater realized ability and the increasing strains of learning as the activity becomes more strenuous and difficult. Assuming that natural talents have an upper bound, whereas the hardships of training can be made more severe without limit, there must be some level of achieved ability beyond which the gains from a further increase in this level are just offset by the burdens of the further practice and study necessary to bring it abut and to maintain it. Equilibrium is reached when these two forces balance one another, and at this point the effort to achieve greater realized capacity ceases. It follows that if the pleasures of the activity increase too slowly with rising ability (an index let us suppose of a lower level of innate ability), then the correspondingly greater efforts of learning will lead us to give up sooner. In this case we will never engage in certain more complex activities not acquire desires by taking part in them. When we combine the effects of decisional stress with sensory and cognitive overload, we produce several common forms of individual maladaptation. For example, one widespread response to high-speed change is outright denial. The Denier’s strategy is to “block out” unwelcome reality. #RandolphHarris 7 of 24

When the demand for decisions reaches crescendo, one flatly refuses to take in new information. Like the disaster victim whose face registers total disbelief, Th Denier, too, cannot accept the evidence of one’s senses. Thus one concludes that things really are the same, and that all evidences of change are merely superficial. One finds comfort in such cliches as “young people were always rebellious” or “there is nothing new on the face of the Earth,” or “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” An unknowing victim of future shock, The Denier sets oneself up for personal catastrophe. One’s strategy for coping increases the likelihood that wen one finally is forced to adapt, one’s encounter with change will come in the form of a single massive life crisis, rather than a sequence of manageable problems. A second strategy of the future shock victim is specialism. The Specialist does not block out all novel ideas or information. Instead, one energetically attempts to keep pace with change—but only in a specific narrow sector of life. Thus we witness the spectacle of the physician or financier who makes use of all the latest innovations in one’s profession, but remains rigidly closed to any suggestion for social, political, or economic innovation. The more universities undergo paroxysms of protest, the more ghettos go up in flames, the less one wants to know about them, and the more closely one narrows the slits through which one sees the World. Superficially, one copes well. However, one, too, is running the odds against oneself. One may awake one morning to find one’s specialty obsolete or else transformed beyond recognition by events exploding outside one’s field of vision. #RandolphHarris 8 of 24

A third common response to future shock is obsessive reversion to previously successful adaptive routines that are now irrelevant and inappropriate. The Reversionist sticks to one’s previously programmed decisions and habits with strict doctrines and covenants desperately. The more change threatens from without, the more meticulously one repeats past modes of action. One’s social outlook is regressive. Shocked by the arrival of the future, one offers hysterical support for the not-so-status quo, or one demands, in one masked form or another, a return to the glories of yesteryear. The Barry Goldwaters and George Wallaces of the World appeal to one’s quivering gut through the politics of nostalgia. Police maintained order in the past; hence, to maintain order, we need only supply more police. Authoritarian treatment of children worked in the past; hence, the troubles of the present spring from permissiveness. The middle-aged, right-wing reversionst yearns for simple, ordered society of the small town—the slow-paced social environment in which one’s old routines were appropriate. Instead of adapting to the new, one continues automatically to apply the old solutions, growing more and more divorced from reality as one does so. If the older reversionist dreams of reinstating a small-town past, the youthful, left-wing reversionst dreams of reviving an even older social system. #RandolphHarris 9 of 24
This accounts for some of the fascination with rural communes, the bucolic romanticism that fills the posters and the poetry of the hippie and post-hippie subcultures, the deification of Che Guevara (identified with mountains and jungles, not with urban or post-urban environments), the exaggerated veneration of pre-technological societies and the exaggerated contempt for science and technology. For all their fiery demands for change, at least some sectors of the left share with the Wallacites and Goldwaterites a secret passion for the past. Just as their Indian headbands, their Edwardian capes, their Deerslayer boots and gold-rimmed glasses mimic various eras of the past, so, too, their ideas. Turn-of-the-century terrorism and quaint Black Flag anarchy are suddenly back in vogue. The Rousseauian cult of the noble savage flourishes anew. Antique Marxist ideas, applicable at best to yesterday’s industrialism, are hauled out as knee-jerk answers for the problems of tomorrow’s super-industrialism. Reversionism masquerades as revolution. Finally, we have the Super-Simplifier. With old heroes and institutions toppling, with strikes, riots, and demonstrations stabbing at one’s consciousness, one seeks a single neat equation that will explain all the complex novelties threatening to engulf one. Grasping erratically at this idea or that, one becomes a temporary true believer. This helps account for the rampant intellectual faddism that already threatens to outpace the rate of turnover in fashion. McLuhan? Prophet of the electric age? Levi-Strauss? Wow! Marcuse? Now I see it all! The Maharishi of Whatchmacallit? Fantastic! Astrology? Insight of the ages! #RandolphHarris 10 of 24
The Super-Simplifer, groping desperately, invests every idea one comes across with universal relevance—often to the embarrassment of its author. Alas, no idea, not even mine or thine, is omni-insightful. However, for the Super-Simplifer nothing less than total relevance suffices. Maximization of profits explains America. The Communist conspiracy explains race riots. Participatory democracy is the answers. Permissiveness (or Dr. Spock) are the root of all evil. This search for a unitary solution at the intellectual level has its parallels in action. Thus the bewildered, anxious student, pressured by parents, uncertain of one’s draft status, nagged at by an educational system whose obsolescence is more strikingly revealed every day, forced to decide on a career, a set of values, and a worthwhile life style, searches wildly for a way to simplify one’s existence. By turning on to LSD, Methedrine or heroin, one performs an illegal act that has, at least, the virtue of consolidating one’s miseries, but that will only make them worse and lead to jail, addiction, and possibly death. One trades a host of painful and seemingly insoluble troubles for one big problem, thus radically, if temporarily, simplifying existence. The teenage girl who cannot cope with the daily mounting tangle of stresses may choose another dramatic act of super-simplification: running for homecoming queen. Like drug abuse, being homecoming queen may vastly complicate her life later, but it immediately plunges all her other problems into relative insignificance. #RandolphHarris 11 of 24

Violence, too, offers a “simple” way out of burgeoning complexity of choice and general overstimulation. For the older generation and the political establishment, police truncheons and military bayonets loom as attractive remedies, a way to end dissent once and for all. Many political extremists and racial vigilantes both employ violence to narrow their choices and clarify their lives. For those who lack an intelligent, comprehensive program, who cannot cope with the novelties and complexities of blinding change, terrorism substitutes for thought. Terrorism may not topple regimes, but it removes doubts. Most of us can quickly spot these patterns of behaviour in others—even in ourselves—without, at the same time, understanding their causes. Yet information scientists will instantly recognize denial, specialization, reversion and super-simplification as classical techniques for coping with overload. All of the dangerously evade the rich complexity of reality. They generate distorted images of reality. The more the individual denies, the more one specializes at the expense of wider interests, the more mechanically one reverts to past habits and policies, the more desperately one’s super-simplifies, the more inept one’s responses to the novelty and choice flooding into one’s life. The more one relies on these strategies, the more one’s behaviour exhibits wild erratic swings and general instability. Every information scientist recognizes that some of these strategies may, indeed, be necessary in overload situations. #RandolphHarris 12 of 24

Yet, unless the individual begins with a clear grasp of relevant reality, and unless one begins with cleanly defined values and priorities, one’s reliance on such techniques will only deepen one’s adaptive difficulties. These preconditions, however, are increasingly difficult to meet. Thus the future shock victim who does employ these strategies experiences a deepening sense of confusion and uncertainty. Caught in the turbulent flow of change, called upon to make significant, rapid-fire life decisions, one feels not simply intellectual bewilderment, but disorientation at the level of personal values. As the pace of change quickens, this confusion is tinged with self-doubt, anxiety and fear. One grows tense, tires easily. One may fall ill. As the pressures relentlessly mount, tension shades into irritability, anger, and sometimes, senseless violence. Little events trigger enormous responses; large events bring inadequate responses. Pavlov many years ago referred to this phenomenon as the “paradoxical phase” in the breakdown of the dogs on whom he conducted his conditioning experiments. Subsequent research has shown that humans, too, pass through this stage under the impact of overstimulation, and it may explain why riots sometimes occur even in the absence of serious provocation, why, as though for no reason, thousands of teenagers at a resort will suddenly go on the rampage, smashing windows, heaving rocks and bottles, wrecking cars. It may explain why pointless vandalism is a problem in all of the techno-societies, to the degree that an editorialist in the Japan Times passionately reported: “We have never before seen anything like the extensive scope that these psychopathic acts are indulged in today.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 24
And finally, the confusion and uncertainty wrought by transience, novelty and diversity may explain the profound apathy that de-socializes millions, old, and young alike. This is not the studied, temporary withdrawal of the sensible person who needs to unwind or slow down before coping anew with one’s problems. It is total surrender before the strain of decision-making in conditions of uncertainty and overchoice. Affluence makes it possible, for the first time in history, for large numbers of people to make their withdrawal a full-time proposition. The family man who retreats into his evening with the help of a few martinis and allows televised fantasy to narcotize him, at least works during the day, performing a social function upon which others are dependent. One’s is a part-time withdrawal. However, for some (not all) hippie dropouts, for many of the surfers and lotus-eaters, withdrawal is full-time and total. A check from an indulgent parent may be the only remaining link with the larger society. On the beach at Matala, a tiny sun-drenched village in Crete, are forty or fifty caves occupied by runaway American troglodytes, young men and women who, for the most part, have given up any further effort to cope with the exploding high-speed complexities of life. Here decisions are few and time plentiful. Here the choices are narrowed. No problem of overstimulation. No need to comprehend or even to feel. A reporter visiting them in 1968 brought them news of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Their response: silence. “No shock, no rage, no tears. Is this the new phenomenon? Running away from America and running away from emotion? I understand uninvolvement, disenchantment, even noncommitment. But where has all the feeling gone?” #RandolphHarris 14 of 24

If he understood the impact of overstimulation, the apathy of COVID-19 and guerrilla wars going on in American cities, the blank face of the disaster victim the intellectual and emotional withdrawal of the culture shock victim, the reporter might understand where all the feeling has gone. For these young people, and millions of others—the confused, the violent, and the apathetic—already evince the symptoms of future shock. They are its earliest victims. In order to free the fiction of the sovereign State—in other words, the whims of the chieftains who manipulate it—from every wholesome restriction, all sociopolitical movements tending in this direction invariably try to cut the ground from under religion. For, in order to turn the individual into a function of the State, one’s dependence on anything else must be taken from one. Religion means dependence on and submission to the irrational facts of experience. These do not refer directly to social and physical conditions; they concern far more individual’s psychic attitude. However, it is possible to have an attitude to the external conditions of life only when there is a point of reference outside them. Religion gives, or claims to give, such a standpoint, thereby enabling the individual to exercise one’s judgment and one’s power of decision. It builds up a reserve, as it were, against the obvious and inevitable force of circumstances to which everyone is exposed who lives only in the outer World and has no other ground under one’s feet except the pavement. If statistical reality is the only one, then that is the sole authority. There is then only one condition, and since no contrary condition exists, judgment and decision are not only superfluous but impossible. Then the individual is bound to be a function of statistics and hence a function of the State or whatever the abstract principle of order may be called. #RandolphHarris 15 of 24
Religion, however, teaches another authority opposed to that of the “World.” The doctrine of the individual’s dependence on God makes just as high a claim upon one as the World does. It may even happen that the absoluteness of this claim estranges one from the World in the same way as one is estranged from oneself when one succumbs to the collective mentality. One can forfeit one’s judgment and power of decision in the former case (for the sake of religious doctrine) quite as much as in the latter. This is the goal which religion openly aspires to unless it compromises with the State. When it does do, I prefer to call it not “religion” but a “creed.” A creed gives expression to a definite collective belief, whereas the word religion expresses a subjective relationship to a certain metaphysical, extramundane factors. A creed is a confession of faith intended chiefly for the World at large and is thus an intermundane affair, while the meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) or to the path of salvation and liberation (Buddhism). From this basic fact all ethics is derived, which without the individual’s responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality. Since they are compromises with mundane reality, the creed have accordingly seen themselves obliged to undertake a progressive codification of their views, doctrines, and customs, and in so doing have externalized themselves to such an extend that the authentic religious element in them—the living relationship to and direct confrontation with their extramundane point of reference—has been thrust into the background. #RandolphHarris 16 of 24
The denominational standpoint measures the worth and importance of the subjective religious relationship by the yardstick of traditional doctrine, and where this is not so frequent, as in Protestantism, one immediately hears talk of pietism, sectarianism, eccentricity, and so forth, as soon as anyone claims to be guided by God’s will. A creed coincides with the established Church or, at any rate, forms a public institution whose members include not only true believers but vast numbers of people who can only be described as “indifferent” in matters of religion and who belong to it simply by force of habit. Here the difference between a creed and a religion becomes palpable. Let no one imagine that contact with the Overself is a kind of dreamy reverie or peasant, fanciful state. It is a vital relationship with a current of peace, power, and goodwill flowing endlessly from the invisible center to the visible self. Although it is true that the Overself is the real guardian angel of every human being, we should not be so foolish as to suppose its immediate intervention in every trivial affair. On the contrary, its care is general rather than particular, in the determination of long-term phases rather than day-by-day events. Its intervention, if that does occur, will be occasion by or will precipitate a crisis. There is a knowing element in man, the real knower which makes intellectual knowing possible and which is Consciousness-by-itself. #RandolphHarris 17 of 24

It is that part of man which is fundamental, real, undying, and truly knowing. This is the element in the human being that is covered with mystery, which is why, to some extent, the ancient pagan religious secret or semi-secret organized institutional attempts to penetrate it were titled “The Mysteries.” What could be closer to a human than one’s own be-ing? What could be more inward than the core of one’s self-awareness? Knowledge of law, language, or history can be collected and becomes a possession but knowledge of the Overself is not at all the same. It is something one must be: it owns us, we do not have it. Stillness is both a sign that sense and thought, body and intellect, have been transcended and a symbol of the consciousness of the presence of the Overself. “As I have loved you, so you must love one another,” reports Jesus Christ. This commandment is a central law of the Kingdom. This law of the Kingdom is what motivates Christians to serve the good of society. Certainly it motivated Christians of the nineteenth center when they spearheaded most of our nation’s significant works of mercy and moral betterment. They founded hospitals, colleges, and schools; they organized social choice programs and fed the hungry; they campaigned to end abuses ranging from dueling to slavery. Though much of this work has now been taken over by government agencies, Christians provided the original impetus. Today, Christians still contribute the bulk of resources for private charities of compassion. #RandolphHarris 18 of 24
This is not to say that all good deed are done by Christians or that all Christians do good deeds. Sacrificial deeds are often done for other than religious motives, of course. However, in those instances the actions depend on the individual’s personal reasons. Motive is crucial. In one instance it is an individual choice—a choice that often wavers or falters. For the Christian it is a matter of obedience to God’s commandments; it is not choice, but necessity. It is, in fact, their dual citizenship that should, as Augustine believes, make Christians the best of citizens. Not because they are more patriotic or civic-minded, but because they do out of obedience to God that which others do if they choose or if they are forced. And their very presence in society means the presence of a community of people who live by the Law behind the law. Even as unreligious a figure as modern educator John Dewey recognized that “the church-going classes, those who have come under the influence of evangelical Christianity form the backbone of philanthropic and social interest, of social reform through political action, of passivism, of popular education. They embody and express the spirit of kindly good will towards [those] in economic disadvantage.” A study shows that forty-six percent of those in the United States of America who describe themselves as “highly spiritually committed” work among the poor, the infirm, or the elderly—twice as many as those describing themselves as “highly uncommitted” spiritually. #RandolphHarris 19 of 24
The Holy Ghost was called by Origen “the active force of God.” This is its mystery, that seeing all, it is itself seen by none. Whatever humans may say about it will not be enough to describe it properly, justly, accurately. All such efforts will be clumsy but they will not be useless. They will be suggestive, offer clues perhaps, each in its own way. What is its consciousness like? If we use our ordinary faculties only, we may ponder this problem for a lifetime without discerning its solution for it is evident that we enter a realm where the very questioner oneself must disappear as soon as one crosses the frontier. The personal “I” must be like a mere wave in such an ocean, a finite center in incomprehensible infinitude. It would be impossible to realize what mind-in-itself is so long as we narrow down the focus of attention to the personal “I”-thought. For it would be like a wave vainly trying to collect and cram the whole ocean within itself, while refusing to expand its attention beyond its own finite form. All that one knows and experiences are things in this World of five senses. The Overself is not within their sphere of operation and therefore not to be known and experienced in the same way. This is why the first real entry into it must necessarily be an entry into no-thing-ness. The mystical phenomena and mystical raptures happen merely on the journey to this Void. It is a consciousness where the “here” is universal and the “now” is everlasting. There is a sense of the total absence of time, a feeling of the unending character of one’s inner being. #RandolphHarris 20 of 24

The being which one finds at the end of this inner search is an anonymous one. One may ask for a name but one will not get one. One must be satisfied with the obscure response: “I Am That I Am!” The Overself is there, but it is hidden within our conscious being. Only there, in this deep atmosphere, do we come upon the mirage-free Truth, the illusion-free Reality. There are deep places in human’s hearts and minds into which they rarely venture. And yet treasures are hidden there—flashes of intuition, important revelations, extra strengths, and above all a peace out of this World. It is Conscious Silence. The Knowing or Self-awareness of the Overself is never absent; it is always seeing. Yes, your guardian angel is always present and always the secret witness and recorder of your thoughts and deeds. Whether you go down into the black depths of hell or ascend to the radiant heights of Heaven, you do not walk alone. “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in Heaven,” reports Matthew 5.16. To accomplish works of mercy and justice, however, Christians do not rely on government, but on their own penetration of society as “salt and light.” This too is in obedience to a command of God that orders them to be the “salt of the Earth” and “light of the World”—the great cultural commission of the Kingdom. In Hebrew times salt was rubbed into meat to prevent it from spoiling. In the same way the citizen of the Kingdom is “rubbed in” to society as its preservative. #RandolphHarris 21 of 24
Citizens of the Kingdom, therefore, form what Edmund Burke called “the little platoons,” mediating structures between the individual and government that carry out works of justice, mercy, and charity. The presence of Christians in society also helps break the endless cycle of evil and violence in the World. For example, the generations-old conflicts of Northern Ireland and the Middle East and American thrive on fake news, hatred and bigotry, the basest of human instincts, which in turn beget violence, which begets more violence. Only forgiveness and love can break this cycle, and only the Kingdom of God orders its citizens to take such radical steps. God commands His people to forgive those who hurt or wrong hem and to love their enemies. Though “turning the other cheek” may sound like weakness, or impractical idealism, in reality, it takes raw courage and is the most powerful weapon for restoring civil tranquility—far surpassing any bayonet or legislation. No conquering army can destroy evil; at best it can suppress it. However, when men and women are reconciled by the Law of the Kingdom, evil is defeated. Wherever they happen to be, in wide-scattered countries, widely different climates, and far-apart centuries, humans have experienced this divine presence. What does this show? That it is not dependent on place and hour, not subject to the laws of space-time. #RandolphHarris 22 of 24

Deep down in the mind and feeling of humans is the mysterious Godlike Essence seemingly too deep—alas!—for the ordinary human, who therefore lets oneself be content with hearing from others about it and thus only at second hand. If we believe in or know of the reality of the Overself, we must also believe or know that our everyday, transient life is actively rooted in its timeless being. It is the life-giving, body-healing, or occult-power-bestowing force in humans. It is not a theoretical conception but a quickening, transforming power. Thee I invoke, the Bornless one. Thee, that didst create the Earth and the Heavens: Thee, that didst create the Night and the Day. Thee, that didst create the Darkness and the Light. Thou art Osorronophris: Whom no human has seen at any time. Thou art Jabas. Thou art Japos: Thou hast distinguished between the Just and the Unjust. Thou didst make the Female and the Male. Thou didst produce the Seed and the Fruit. Thou didst form Men to love one another, and to hate one another. I am Mosheh Thy Prophet, unto Whom Thou didst commit Thy Mysteries, the Ceremonies of Ishrael: Thou didst produce the moist and the dry, and that which nourisheth all created Life. Hear Thou Me, for I am the Angel Paphro Osorronophris: this is Thy True Name, handed down to the Prophets of Ishrael. Hear Me, and make all Spirits subject unto Me: so that every Spirit of the Firmament and of the Ether; upon the Earth and under the Earth: on dry Land and in the Water: of Whirling Air, and of rushing Fire: and every Spell and Scourge of God may be obedient unto Me. #RandolphHarris 23 of 24
I invoke Thee, the Almighty and Invisible God: Who dwellest in the Void Place of the Spirit:–the Lord is my strength and my song, there is not a part of Thou not rich in offering: each eye a fest, your grace a banquet, you blessings soft rubies in the night. For those who wish to stare back in time and gaze upon the earliest moments of the Universe, I say, look no father than God to witness all the marvels unfolding in creation. For in the Heaven are embodied bits of the floating soul like galactic wonder in brief eclipse, and God has become my salvation. Hark! Rejoicing and triumph in the tents of the righteous: “The right hand of the Lord doeth valiantly. The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right had of the Lord doeth valiantly.” I shall not die, but live, and recount the works of the Lord. The Lord hath indeed chastened me, but He hath not given me over unto death. Open to me the gates of victory; I will enter them; I will give thanks unto the Lord. This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter it. I will give thanks unto Thee, for Thou hast answered me and art become my salvation. The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief cornerstone. By the grace of the Lord has this been done; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; on it we will rejoice and be glad. We beseech Thee, Lord, do Thou save us! We beseech Thee, O Lord, do Thou save us! We beseech Thee, O Lord, do Thou prosper us! We beseech Thee, O Lord, do Thou prosper us! Blessed be one that comes in the name of the Lord; we bless you from the house of the Lord. #RandolphHarris 24 of 24
CRESLEIGH HOMES AT PLUMAS RANCH

Plumas Ranch is now selling! Register to join our interest list and stay up to date with all the latest information. Plumas Ranch offers three distinct communities to choose from: Riverside, Meadows, and Bluffs. Home sizes range from 1,740 to over 3,400 square feet with up to five bedrooms, three and one half bathrooms, and three-car garages available. Like all Cresleigh floorplans, their layouts are creative, versatile, and envisioned to maximize every available foot of space.

Popular design elements include open floor plans, large kitchen islands, and flex spaces are staples in Cresleigh homes. Additional game rooms, bedroom space and three-car garages provide other custom possibilities.
Gain the freedom of large home sites and the extra space and flexibility with Cresleigh Riverside. Homeowners will love the convenient commuter access to nearly Sacramento and Yuba City.

Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier. Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Go. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-riverside-at-plumas-ranch/
The Cresleigh Homes Plumas Ranch Collection includes award-winning single-family home designs featuring warm, modern styling. Choose from a variety of flexible floor plans built with Cresleigh’ commitment to quality, value, and sophisticated architecture.


























































































