Home » Germany (Page 41)
Category Archives: Germany
The Highest-Quality of Power Comes from the Application of Knowledge
After wrestling throughout their lives with malfunctioning homes, schools, and medical institutions; after being fleeced by corrupt financial institutions and finally reaching retirement, American workers look ahead to their “golden years—the long-awaited time to take a breath, stroll to the mailbox and pick up one’s pension check. However, here Americans young and old face yet another institutional disaster—this one in the pension system. Critics of the current pension arrangements warn of a coming “financial meltdown.” Once considered heresy, such doubts have been attributed to no less an authority than a U.S. secretary of the Treasury. An underfunded pension plan is an employee benefit plan for retirement income that has fewer assets than liabilities, or what it owes in benefits. If a pension plan is underfunded, it is not on track to have enough money to pay out all its promised benefits and other expenses. Damage from corporate pension-plan losses has been piling up like a slow-motion train wreck. Once recent three-year period saw assets of U.S. private pension funds shrink by 15 percent, while liabilities soared nearly 60 percent. People who rely on their company pension plans to fund their retirement may be in for a shock: of the 200 biggest defined-benefit plans in the S&P 500 based on assets, 186 are not fully funded. Simply put, they do not have enough money to fund current and future retirees. A big part of the reason is the poor returns they got from their assets in the superlow interest rate environment that followed the financial crisis. It left a hole of $382 billion for the top 200 plans. Of course, the percentage of workers covered by traditional defined benefit plans—those that pay a lifetime annuity, often based on the years of service and salary—has been declining for decades as companies shift to defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s. However, each time a pension plan is terminated, canceled or altered, thousands of workers are affected.
The mothers of the under-funded pensions is no less a behemoth. General Electric Co. has a major problem. The company ended its defined benefit plan for new hires in 2012, but its primary plan, covering about 467,000 people, is one of the largest in the U.S.A. And at $31 billion, GE’s pension shortfall is one of the largest in the S&P 500. INTC US Equity, DAL US Equity, DLPH US Equity, AAL US Equity, APC US Equity, along with automakers, airlines and paper industries are also majorly underfunded. The good news is that the funded states of the 100 largest corporate defined benefit pension plans rose by $43 billion during March of 2022. The funded states surplus improved to $86 billion from $43 billion at the end of February 2022 thanks to liability gains, which improved due to an increase in the benchmark corporate bond interest rates used to value pension liabilities. As of March 31, the funded ratio rose to 105.2 percent, up from 102.5 percent at the end of February. March’s increase caps an impressive first quarter of 2022 which saw a $92 billion improvement in funded status. This is the highest funded ratio recorded by the Pension Funding Index (PFI) in nearly 15 years—since the end of 2007. The Milliman 100 PFI asset value fell by $16 billion to $1.738 trillion at the end of March due to investment losses of 0.56 percent. By comparison, the 2021 Milliman Pension Funding Study reported that the monthly median expected investment return during 2020 was 0.50 percent annualized. The projected benefit obligation (PBO), or pension liabilities, decreased to $1.652 trillion at the end of March. The change resulted from an increase of 26 basis points in the monthly discount rate to 3.62 percent for March from 3.36 percent for February 2022. March caps off the fourth consecutive month of discount rate increases.
The first quarter ending March 31, 2022, assets fell by $105 billion while plan liabilities decreased by $197 billion. Despite investments posting losses of 4.75 percent during the first quarter of 2022, discount rates rose 82 basis points and helped propel the funded status improvement, which totaled $92 billion by the end of the first quarter. The funded ratio of the Milliman 100 companies improved to 105.2 percent at the end of March from 99.7 percent at the beginning of 2022. The nation’s state retirement systems, however, finished the 2021 fiscal year in the best condition since the Great Recession of 2007-09. The gap between the cost of pension benefits that states have promised their workers and what they have set aside to pay for them dropped in 2021 to its lowest level in more than a decade. For the first time since 2008, approximately 80 percent of the state retirement systems are now funded. A decade of increasing pension contributions and the strong stock market rally of 2021 have combined to help stabilize state pensions funds. And total unfunded state pension obligations were less than $800 billion at the end of fiscal year 2021, the greatest progress in closing the state pension plan funding gap—the difference between plan liabilities and assets—this century. However, not all state pension funds are approaching long-term fiscal sustainability, defined as government revenue matching expenditures without a corresponding increase in public debt. As part of a larger project to develop a fiscal sustainability matrix highlighting the practices of successful state pension systems and presenting a critical 50-state data that facilitates comparative analyses and plan assessments, The Pew Charitable Trusts is producing individual state fact sheets. For example, California’s main pension plans—the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS)—are the nation’s largest state plans.
CalPERS requires that participating employers make the full actuarially recommended contributions but has been managing pension debt attributed to unfunded benefit increases offered in 1999. CalSTRS received less than the actuarially recommended contribution for several years, but reforms in 2014 strengthened the plan’s funding policy. The average state funded ratio as of 2019 is 71 percent. At the same time, some 40 percent of Americans cannot afford to come afford to come up with $400 dollars for an unexpected expense. If—or, more likely, when—they are confronted with such an expense, they would probably have to sell something or go into debt. Furthermore, roughly 46 percent of all Americans expect to retire in debt, and debt repayment is even harder on a fixed income and can threaten one’s retirement security. Maintaining enough cash on hand to cover recurring bills with interest is harder on a fixed income and adds another obstacle to the challenge of living comfortably. Debt can derail a lot of peoples’ retirement plans. These days, older Americas owe more than every before. The total debt burden for Americas over age 70 increased 614 percent through 2021 from 1999, to $1.27 trillion. Also, 43 percent of Americans fear their retirement dreams could be disrupted by Social Security going bankrupt. Already, the U.S. Department of the Treasury has said the Social Security trust fund will run out of money sooner than expected due to the COVID pandemic. A lot of people have been relying on credit cards to get through the pandemic, but this also has caused interest rates to rise. Your retirement income—monthly payments from investments and Social Security should cover debt payments and still afford one a comfortable lifestyle. Otherwise, one may need to work longer or find a supplement source of income from a part-time job.
California is becoming one of the nation’s most expensive states to live in with gas prices hitting $7 a gallon and a small basket of strawberries costing $8.00. If inflation increases by more than 7 percent between 2021 and 2022, the law says the minimum wage must increase to $15.50 per hour for everyone. However, official inflation figures will not be final until this summer. California has about 3 million minimum wage workers. The increase in the minimum wage will be about $3 billion, or less than 0.1 percent of the $3.3 trillion in personal income Californians are projected to earn. This is a mixed blessing. It means that people will get paid more, but they businesses will also hire or keep less employees. With that being the case, the employees they hire or retain will be those who are highly skilled, which should increase productivity. So, it is a huge benefit for big companies, but not so greater for incompetent workers, or customers who will have to pay higher prices. Yet, at this rate of pay, minimum wage will still be below market value. Analysis say it should be around $30 an hour, which would also mean that other workers are also underpaid. This is all due to globalization, sending our jobs and money overseas suppressed wages for American workers. Faced with a rapidly aging population and underfunded pensions, an intergenerational was is brewing among pensioners on one side and young workers on the other, who fear their will be nothing left for them by the time they retire. Confronted by failing institutions on all sides, many Americans seek help from charitable organizations, long regarded as ethically cleaner than the profit-making sector. That, however, was before some of the most prestigious nonprofits such as the United Way and the American Red Cross came under investigation for false accounting or misapplication of contributed funds.
Meanwhile, where did many Americans go to find out more about all these crises? The Internet, of course. However, as newspapers take pains to point out, much of what appears on the Net is unverified, biased or mistaken. What is needed, publishers say, is credible, accurate carefully checked and rechecked information. Yes. However, the print and broadcast media are themselves facing a credibility crisis that threatens their future, as journalistic scandals recently erupted at The New York Times, USA Today, NBC News, CNN, CBS News, Newsweek and other media outlets. It is not just that people are reading the newspaper less or watching the news less. These scandals take place against a background of declining readers and dwindling audiences, partly because people are busy, they do not trust the news, and they have digital content to watch. The estimated U.S. daily newspaper circulation (print and digital combined) in 2020 was 24.3 million from its 1983 peak of 63.3 million, while the U.S. population has grown by 100 million. A quarter of all U.S.A. newspapers have died in 17 years. At least 1,800 communities that had a local news outlet in 2004 were without one at the beginning of 2020. More than 300 newspapers have failed, bring the death toll to 2,100, of the 9,000 newspapers than were being published 17 years ago. The list of institutional breakdowns in superpower America could be extended to include the failure of the U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence agencies—in combination with the White House under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush—to present the 9/11 disaster despite various early warnings to correctly assess the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is not much different than the southern boarder crisis. While many people do not want to deport unregistered immigrants, they would like to stop the 18,000 the are coming into the country daily without being registered. That is approximately 7 million people a year, while many America institutions are running dry. Joe Biden has been warned about the danger of ignoring the crisis.
Crisis, it may be said, is in the eye of the beholder—or in the rhetoric of self-interested parties demanding dramatic change. However, even allowing for statistical inadequacy, simplistic trend extrapolation and exaggerated rhetoric, or for difference in their importance, intensity or immediacy, they very multiplicity of these cases tells us something important: The whole adds up to more than its parts. Until recently, most observers, America or not, have viewed all these institutional crises in the United States of America as unrelated. However, that view is no longer tenable. America’s seemingly separate and distinct crises are increasingly interconnected. Health care and pensions. Pension and the corporate crisis. Family and education. The political crisis and all the rest feed into one another. What is developing, therefore, inside the United States of America is a systemic breakdown of its vital institutional infrastructure at the very time when many believe its power in the World is diminishing. Most conventional assumptions about power, in Western culture at least, imply that power is a matter of quantity. However, while some of us clearly have less power than others, this approach ignores what may now be the most important factor of all: the quality of power. Powe comes in varying grades, and some power is decidedly low in octane. In the fierce struggles soon to sweep through our schools, hospitals, businesses, trade unions, and governments, those who understand “quality” will gain a strategic edge. No one doubts that violence—embodies in a mugger’s switchblade or nuclear missile—can yield awesome results. The shadow of violence or force, embedded in the law, stands behind every act of government, and in the end every government relies on soldiers and police to enforce its will. This ever-present and necessary threat of official violence in society helps keep the system operating, making ordinary business contracts enforceable, reducing crime, providing machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes. In this paradoxical sense, it is the veiled threat of violence that helps make daily life nonviolent.
However, violence in general suffers from important drawbacks. To begin with, it encourages us to carry a can of Mace, or to crank up an arms race that increases risks to everyone. Some people target shoot so often that they develop a callous on their thumb and seemed to be possessed by a feeling of wanting to look a man in the eye and rob him of his power and life. So, it is not the gun that is the problem, it is the individual who uses it to feel powerful that is the problem. Even when it “works” violence produces resistance. Its victims or their survivors look for the first chance to strike back. That is why it is not good to harm anyone nor get into an altercation, or even a car accident; some people will want to retaliate right then or later on. The main weakness of brute force or violence, however, is its sheer inflexibility. It can only be used to punish. It is, in short, low-quality power. Wealth, by contrast, is a far better tool of power. A fat wallet is much more versatile. Instead of just threatening or delivering punishment, it can also offer finely graded rewards—payments and payoffs, in cash or kind. Wealth can be used in either a beneficial or harmful way. It is, therefore, much more flexible than force. Wealth yields medium-quality power. The highest-quality of power, however, comes from the application of knowledge. Actor Sean Connery, in a movie set in Cuba during the reign of the dictator Batista, plays a British mercenary. In one memorable scene the tyrant’s military chief says: “Major, tell what your favorite weapon is, and I will get it for you.” To which Connery replies: “Brains.” High-quality power is not simply clout. Not merely the ability to get one’s way, to make others do what you want, though they might prefer otherwise. High quality implies much more. It implies efficiency—using up the fewest power resources to achieve a goal. Knowledge can often be used to make the other party like your agenda for action. It can even persuade the person that one originated it.
Of the three root sources of social control, therefore, it is knowledge, the most versatile, that produces what Pentagon brass like to call “the biggest bang for the buck.” It can be used to punish, reward, persuade, and even transform. It can transform enemy into ally. Best of all, with the right knowledge one can circumvent nasty situations in the first place, so as to avoid wasting force or wealth altogether. Knowledge also serves as a wealth and force multiplier. It can be used to augment the available force or wealth or, alternatively, to reduce the amount needed to achieve any given purpose. In either case, it increases efficiency, permitting one to spend fewer power “chips” in any showdown. Of course, maximum power is available to those in a position to use all three of these tools in cleaver conjunction with one another with one another, alternating the threat of punishment, the promise of reward, along with persuasion and intelligence. The truly skilled power players know intuitively—or through training—how to use and interrelate their power resources. To assess the different contenders in a power conflict—whether a negotiation or a war—therefore, it helps to figure out what commands access to which of the basic tools of power. Knowledge, violence, and wealth, and the relationships among them, define power in society. Francis Bacon equated knowledge with power, but he did not focus on its quality or on its crucial links to the other main sources of social power. Nor could anyone until now foresee today’s revolutionary changes in the relationships among these three. Authentic values are those by which a life can be lived, which can form a people that produces great deeds and thoughts. Moses, Jesus Christ, Homer, Buddha: these are the creators, the men who formed horizons, the founders of Jewish, Christian, Greek and Indian culture. It is not the truth of their thought that distinguished them, but its capacity to generate culture.
If it is life-preserving and life-enhancing, only then it is a value. The quasi-totality of men’s values consists of more or less pale carbon copies of the originator’s values. Egalitarianism means conformism, because it gives power to the sterile who can only make use of old values, other men’s ready-made values, which are not alive and to which their promoters are not committed. Egalitarianism is founded on reason, which denies creativity. Everything in Nietzsche is an attack on rational egalitarianism, and shows what twaddle the habitual talk about values is these days—and how astonishing is Nietzsche’s respectability on the Left. Since values are not rational and not grounded in the natures of those subject to them, they must be imposed. They must defeat opposing values. Rational persuasion cannot make them believe, so struggle is necessary. Producing values and believing in them are acts of the will. Lack of will, not lack of understanding, becomes the crucial defect. Commitment is the equivalent of faith when the living God has been supplanted by self-provided values. It is Pascal’s wager, no longer on God’s existence but on one’s capacity to believe in oneself and the goals one has set for oneself. Commitment values the values and makes them valuable. Not love of truth but intellectual honesty characterizes the proper state of mind. Since there is no truth in the values, and what truth there is about life is not lovable, the hallmark of the authentic self is consulting one’s oracle while facing up to what one is and what one experiences. Decisions, not deliberations, are the movers of deeds. One cannot know or plan the future. One must will it. There is no program. The great revolutionary must destroy the past and open up the future for the free play of creativity.
Politics are revolutionary; but unlike the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, the new revolutions should be unprogrammatic. They are to be made by intellectually honest, committed, strong-willed, creative men. Nietzsche was not a fascist; but this project inspired fascist rhetoric, which looked to the revitalization of old cultures or the foundation of new ones, as opposed to the rational, rootless cosmopolitanism of the revolution of the Left. Nietzsche was a cultural relativist, and he saw what that means—war, great cruelty rather than great compassion. War is the fundamental phenomenon on which peace can sometimes be forced, but always in the most precarious way. Liberal democracies do not fight wars with one another because they see the same human nature and the same rights applicable everywhere and to everyone. Culture fight wars with one another. They must do so because values an only be asserted or posited by overcoming others, not by reasoning with them. Cultures have different perceptions, which determine what the World is. They cannot come to terms. There is no communication about the highest things. (Communication is the substitute for understanding when there is no common World men share, to which they can refer when they misunderstand one another. From the isolation of the closed system of self and culture, there are attempts to “get in contact,” and “failures of communication.” How individuals and culture can “relate” to one another is altogether a mysterious business.) Culture means a war against chaos and a war against other cultures. The very idea of culture carries with it a value: man need culture and must do what is necessary to create and maintain cultures. There is no place for a theoretical man to stand. To live, to have any inner substance, a man must have values, must be committed, or engage. Therefore a cultural relativist must care for culture more than truth, and fight for culture while knowing it is not true.
This is somehow impossible, and Nietzsche struggled with the problem throughout his career, perhaps without a satisfactory resolution. However, he knew that the scientific view is deadly to culture, and that the political or moral cultural relativist of the ordinary sort is doomed to have no culture. Culture relativism, as opposed to relativism simply, teaches the need to believe while undermining belief. A difficulty with this concept of collective stability when applied to the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma is that it can be very hard actually to determine which strategies have it and which do not. Others have dealt with this difficulty by restricting the analysis to situations where the strategies are particularly simple, or by considering only some arbitrarily limited set of strategies. The problem has now been solved, making it possible to characterize all collectively stable strategies for the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. For present purposes, it is not necessary to be so general. It is sufficient to take a particular strategy and see under what conditions it can resist invasion by any other strategy. A good strategy to investigate is TIT FOR TAT. TIT FOR TAT cooperates on the first move, and then does whatever the other person did on the previous move. Thus a population of people using TIT FOR TAT will cooperate with each other. If another strategy is to invade this population, it must get a higher expected value than this. What kind of strategy might be able to get more than this when negotiating with a person using TIT FOR TAT? The first thing that can be said is that such a strategy must defect at some point. When it first does it will get the temptation, which is the highest payoff. However, then TIT FOR TAT will defect. Consequently, if the negotiation is likely to last long enough for the retaliation to counteract the temptation to defect, TIT FOR TAT can avoid being invaded by such a rule. If the discount parameter is sufficiently large, no rule can TIT FOR TAT.
Culture is the only framework within which to account for what is specifically human in humans. Humans are pure becoming, unlike any other being in nature; and it is in culture that one become something that transcends nature and has no other mode of existence and no other support than a particular culture. The actuality of plants and the other animals is contained in their potentialities; but this is not true of humans, as is indicated by the many cultural flowers, essentially unlike, produced from the same seed, man. Nietzsche’s contribution was to draw with perfect intransigence the consequences of that idea and try to live with them. If there are many cultures, unsolicited by one perfect or complete culture in which man is man, simply—without prefix such as Greek, Chinses, Christian, Buddhist (id est, if Plato’s Republic, outlining the one best regime, is simply a myth, a work of Plato’s imagination), then the very word “man” is a paradox. There are as many kinds of man as there are cultures, without any perspective from which man can be spoken of in the singular. This is true not only of one’s habits, customs, rituals, fashions, but above all of one’s mind. There must be as many different kinds of mind as there are cultures. If the mind itself is not included among the things that are relative to cultures, the observations of cultural relativism are trivial and have always been accepted. Yet everyone likes cultural relativism but wants to exempt what concerns one. The physicist wants to save one’s atoms; the historian, one’s events; the moralist, one’s values. However, they are all equally relative. If there is an escape from one truth from the flux, then there is in principle no reason why many truths are not beyond it; and then the flux, becoming, change, history or what have you is not what is fundamental, but rather, being, the immutable principle of science and philosophy.
Now let us go a step further. Please bring to mind a baseball game or a football game. Have you got one? Hold it for a moment. If you are like most Americans, you have actually been to a game. You have seen one directly and probably participated in one personally. You have probably also watched at least one of them on television. Here is the question: Which one did you bring to mind? The television version or the one you experienced directly? If only because it was the most recent, although the answers vary on this point, many people I have asked will report that the television image is one which springs to mind first Most will say the images rotate. Once images are inside your head, the mind does not really distinguish between the image that was gathered directly and the one that derived from television. Of course you can distinguish. When I asked you whether it was a television image or a firsthand image, you were certainly able to identify which was which. However, until I asked you, you may not have thought to do that. Have you ever met movie stars or famous television personalities? Whenever I have met them I have always remarked to myself upon the difference in the personal image they presented and the television or film image. I could recognize them when I saw them in person, I am only saying that it was different. The main point is this: When I think about them now, in retrospect, their television images are just as likely to spring into my mind as their real-life images. If I wish to, I can decide to bring up their real images, but if their names are mentioned in passing conversation, or I read a review of a production they have been in, I am actually more likely to bring up a media image than one of the real person I have met.
Have you every visited McDonald’s? Which images dominate in your mind, those from your actual visit or those from television? They rotate, do they not? They take on a certain equality in your memory banks. You can make the distinction between the direct image and the advertising image, but do you? If for some reason the subject of McDonald’s comes up in conversation, which image comes into your mind as you talk? Do you make the distinction? If you are like most people to whom I have asked this question, it is only with great effort that you are able to distinguish which one is the personal experience and which is the television experience. It takes a certain amount of effort to do so; one does not ordinarily bother. The television image can be as real in effect as the personally experienced image. The mind does not automatically distinguish which image is from direct experience and which has been imposed by the media. If I should now ask you to erase the television image of McDonald’s, leaving only the reality—the personally experienced direct contact—can you do that? See if you can. Please make an effort. We are left a very bizarre phenomenon. Television is capable of dominating personally derived imagery—from books or imagination—and it is also capable, at least some of the time, of causing confusion as to what is real experience and what is television experience. The mind is very democratic about its image banks, all are equally available for our recall and use. And so when we call on our images for whatever purpose we may have for them, we are as likely to produce an implanted image as the one which was originally our own. The root of this unfortunate problem lies with the fact that until very recently, human beings had no need to make distinctions between artificial images of distant events and life directly lived. The process of universalizing the art context goes back at least as far as Duchamp’s showing Readymades. Dada and Surrealism, of course, had their input. However, the tendency came to maturity in the middle to late 50s, when Alain Robbe-Grillet, for example, insisted that is art is going to by anything, it has to be everything.
At about the same time Yves Klein, extending the tradition of French dandyism, said, “Life, it self…is the absolute art.” Similarly, in America, Allan Kaprow suggested that “the line between art and life should be kept as fluid, and perhaps as indistinct, as possible.” Duchamp had appropriated by signature, as Klein did when, in about 1947, he signed the sky. Later Klein would designate anything as art by painting it with his patented International Klein Blue. Manzoni sometimes designated preexisting objects as art by singing them, and at other times by placing them on a sculpture base. In 1967 Dennis Oppenheim produced his “Sitemarkers,” ceremonial stakes used to mark off areas of the World as art. These procedures were sometimes employed in conscious parody of the theological concept of creation by the word. In 1960 Klein, imitating divine fiat, appropriated the entire Universe into his Theatre of the Void, as his piece for the Festival d’ Art d’ Avant-garde, in Paris. In the next year he painted a topographical globe International Klein Blue, thereby appropriating the Earth into his portfolio; soon Manzoni, responding, placed the Earth upon his Sculpture Base (Socle du monde, 1961), wresting it from Klein’s portfolio into his own. Of course there is a difference between fiat and appropriation. The purely linguistic procedure of forcefully expanding the usage boundaries of word does not create a wholly new reality, but shifts focus on an existing one. Any action that takes place in the appropriation sone is necessarily real as itself—yet semantically a kind of shadow-real. Insofar as the act’s prior category is remembered, it remains what it was, just a loan-word may retain a trace of its prior meaning—only it is reflected, as it were, into a new semantic category. Thus the process of universal appropriation has certain internal or logical limits; it is based on the assumption that a part can contain the whole, that art, for example, can contain life.
However, the only way that a part an contain its whole is by reflection, as a mirror may reflect a whole room, or by implication, as a map of a city implies the surrounding nation. The appropriation process, in other words, may rearrange the entire Universe at the level of a shadow or reflection, and this is its great power. At the same time, as with the gems strung together in the Net of Indra, only the shadowy life of a reflection is really at issue, and this is its great limit. The infinite regress implicit in such a procedure was illustrated when, in 1962, Ben Vautier signed Klein’s death and, in 1963, Manzoni’s, thereby appropriating both those appropriations of the Universe. The idea of signing a human being or a human life was in fact the central issue. In 1961 Manzoni exhibited a nude model on his sculpture base and signed her as his work. Later he issued his “Certificates of Authenticity,” which declared that the owner, having been signed by Manzoni, was now permanently an artwork. However, it was Klein who most clearly defined the central issue, saying, “The painter only has to create one masterpiece, oneself, constantly.” The idea that the artist is the work became a basic theme of the period in question. Ben acted it out, not long after the signing of Klein’s death, by exhibiting himself as a living sculpture. Soon Gilbert & George did the same thing. As early as 1959 James Lee Bryars had exhibited himself, seated alone in the center of an otherwise empty room. Such gestures are fraught with strange interplays of artistic and religious forms, as the pedestal has always been a variant of the altar. It was in part the Abstract Expressionist emphasis on the direct expression of the artist’s person was in fact the art. Through the survival in the art realm of the Romantic idea of the specially inspired individual, it was possible, though in a sort of bracketed parody, to confer on an artist the status of a royal or sacred being who is on exhibit to other humans.
When it comes to technologies, they can create problems for the spiritual life of medieval Europe. For example, the mills to which farmers flocked to have their grain ground became a favorite place for women of the evening to attract customers. The problem grew to such proportions that Saint Bernard, the leader of the Cistercian order in the twelfth century, tried to close down the mills. He was unsuccessful, because the mills had become too important to the economy. In other words, it is something of an oversimplification to say that tool-using cultures never had their customers and symbolic life reoriented by technology. And, just as there are examples of such cases in the medieval World, we can find queer but significant instance in technologically primitive societies of tools attacking the supremacy of custom, religion, or metaphysics. Egbert de Vries, a Dutch sociologist, has told of how the introduction of matches to an African tribe altered their habits of pleasures of the flesh. Members of this community believed it necessary to start a new fire in the fireplace after each act of pleasures of the flesh. This custom meant that each act of pleasures of the flesh was something of a public event, since when it was completed, someone had to go to a neighboring hunt to bring back a burning stick with which to start a fresh fire. Under such conditions, adultery was difficult to conceal, which is conceivably why the custom originated in the first place. The introduction of matches changed all this. It became possible to light a new fire without going to a neighbor’s hut, and thus, in a flash, so to speak, a long-standing tradition was consumed. In reporting on de Vries finding, Alvin Toffler raises several intriguing questions: Did matches result in a shift in values? Was adultery less or more frowned upon as a result? By facilitating the privacy of pleasures of the flesh, did matches alter the valuation of placed upon it?
We can be sure that some changes in cultural values occurred, although they could not have been as drastic as what happened to the Ihalmiut tribe early in the twentieth century, after the introduction of the rifle. The replacement of bows and arrows with rifles is one of the most chilling tales on record of a technological attack on a tool-using culture. The result in this case was not the modification of a culture but its eradication. However, people were also tired of sneak attacks, getting rob, having their livestock killed and stolen and their homes broken into. Nonetheless, after one acknowledges that no taxonomy ever neatly fits the realities of a situation, and that in particular the definition of a tool-using culture lacks precision, it is still both possible and useful to distinguish a tool-using culture from a technocracy. In a technocracy, tools play a central role in the thought-world of the culture. Everything must give away, in some degree, to their development. The social and symbolic Worlds become increasingly subject to the requirements of that development. Tools are not integrated into the culture; they attack the culture, but also provide new freedoms and protection. For the most part tools become the culture. As a consequence, tradition, social mores, myth, politics, ritual, and religion have to fight for their lives. With nanotechnology will mean for human life is beyond out predicting, but a good way to understand what it could mean is to paint scenarios. A good scenario brings together different aspects of the World (technologies, environments, human concerns) into a coherent whole. Major corporations use scenarios to help envision the paths that the future may take—not as forecasts, but as tools for thinking. In playing the “What if?” game, scenarios present trial answers and pose new questions. The following scenarios cannot represent what will happen, because no one knows. They can, however, show how post-breakthrough capabilities could mesh with human life and Earth’s environment. The results will likely seem quaintly conservative from a future perspective, however much they seem like science fiction today.
In Plumas, California, Jillian Harris flips on the light in her Cresleigh Home on a dark winter morning. The light comes on, powered by stored solar electricity. Nanotechnology can make solar cells efficient, as inexpensive as newspaper, and as tough as asphalt—tough enough to use for resurfacing roads, collecting energy without displacing any more grass and trees. Together with efficient, inexpensive storage cells, this will yield low-cost power (but no, not “too cheap to meter”). Jake Harris of Plumas, California, has been a bit hoarse for weeks, and just came down with a horrid head cold. For the past six months, he has been seeing ads for At Last! : The Cure for the Common Cold, so he spend his five dollars and takes the nose-spray and throat-spray doses. Within three hours, 99 percent of the viruses in his nose and throat are gone, and the rest are on the run. Within six hours, the medical mechanisms have become inactive, like a pinch of inhaled but biodegradable dust, soon cleared from the body. He feels much better and will not infect his friends at dinner. The human immune system is an intricate molecular mechanism, patrolling the body for viruses and other invaders, recognizing them by their foreign molecular coats. The immune system, though, is slow to recognize something new. For his five dollars, Justin bought 10 billion molecular mechanisms primed to recognize not just the viruses he had already encountered, but each of the five hundred most common viruses that cause cold, influenzas, and the like. Weeks have passed, but the hoarseness Justin had before his cold still has not gone away; it gets worse. He ignores it through a long vacation, but once he is back and caught up, Jake finally foes to see his doctor. He looks down his throat and says, “Hmmm.” He asked him to inhale an aerosol, cough, spit in a cup, and go read a magazine.
The diagnosis pops up on a screen five minutes after he pours the sample into his cell analyzer. Despite his knowledge, his training and tools, he feels chilled to read the diagnosis pops up on a screen five minutes after he pours the sample into his cell analyzer. Despite his knowledge, his training and tools, he feels chilled to read the diagnosis: a malignant cancer of the throat, the same disease that has cropped up all too often in his own mother’s family. He touches the “Proceed” button. In twenty minutes, he looks at the screen to check progress. Yes, Jake’s cancerous cells are all of one basic kind, displaying one of the 16,314 known molecular markers for malignancy. They can be recognized, and since they can be recognized, they can be destroyed by standard molecular machines primed to react to those markets. The doctor instructs the cell analyzer to prime some “immune machines” to go after the cancer cells. He tests them on cells from the sample, watches, and sees that they work as expected, so he has the analyzer prime up some more. Jake puts the magazine down and looks up. “Well Doc, what is the word?” he asks. “I found some suspicious cells, but this should clear it up,” he says. He gives him a throat spray and injection. “I would like you to come back in three weeks, just to be sure.” “Do I have to?” he asks. “You know,” he lectures him, “we need to make sure it is gone. You really should not let things like this go so far before coming in.” “Yes, fine, I will make an appointment,” he says. Leaving the office, Jake thinks fondly of how old-fashioned and conservative Dr. Buber is. The molecular mechanism of the immune system already destroys most potential cancers before they grow large enough to detect. With nanotechnology, we will build molecular mechanisms to destroy those that the immune system misses. God shows man the way to the righteous. To recognize God’s ways is to know. This knowing is developed in the realm of a relation of the soul to other beings, where the fact of mutuality changes everything.
Cresleigh Homes
Someone’s peeking out from behind the vase…do you spot the sloth?! 🦥 Could this bedroom be the nursery? 💖
Residence 2 at Meadows has 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms – in 2372 square feet of thoughtfully designed living space.
There’s room to decorate for each member of the family!
The Grounds Have their Share of Unexplained Mysteries
A mansion is not a mansion with its stately grounds, and Mrs. Winchester was just as attentive to the exterior of her estate as she was to the sprawling house. An avid gardener, she imported plans, flowers, trees, shrubs, and herbs from over 110 countries around the World. Mrs. Winchester employed eight to ten gardeners. Her head gardener was Mr. Nishiwara, who was responsible for seeing that the beautiful gardens, plus the tall hedge around the hose, were well maintained. The hedges were once so tall that only the top floor of the house was visible from the road! Mrs. Winchester loved to spend time in her gardens, and she had gazebos built where she could sit and enjoy her trees and flowers. It was a Saturday night, in January 1888, and Mrs. Winchester has, as usual, come home from the City early in the afternoon. It has been a black and foggy day, and the gas had been lighted in the streets and in the office where she worked from early morning. The fog was very bad at the time Mrs. Winchester returned home, and she congratulated herself on the fact that she had not to go out again that night. She sat with her puppy Zip in her sitting-room all the evening, with that comfortable feeling that she was able to relax until Monday morning, and that she need trouble about nothing outside the mansion. In due course, Zip went to bed, and then the maid Agnus reminded her of a letter that must be written and posted that night. Sufficient is it for Mrs. Winchester to say that the letter was to an elderly relative of some means who lived in Oakland, and who had taken great interest in her puppy Zip. The butler Martin remembered that the following day was the birthday of this relative, and that she should receive proper greeting by the Sunday morning post in the country town.
Frankly, Mrs. Winchester did not want the bother of it; but Agnus always knows best in these matters, and so Mrs. Winchester wrote the note and sealed it up. Mrs. Winchester had read nothing exciting during the evening—nothing to stir her imagination in any way. She stamped the letter and proceeded to the front door. Judge of her astonishment when, on throwing it open, she saw nothing but the gray wall of fog coming up to the very house; even the railings, not ten yards in the front of her grand estate, were blotted out completely. She called back into the house for the maid to come and look. “Don’t lose yourself, Mrs. Winchester,” she said, half laughing. “What a terrible night!” “I shall not lose myself,” Mrs. Winchester replied, laughing in turn. “The pillar-box is only at the end of the crescent; if I stick to the railing, I cannot possibly miss it. Do not wait here,” she added solicitously. “I will leave the door ajar, so that I can slip in easily when I come back. I have left my keys on my writing desk.” Angus went in, and Mrs. Winchester pulled the door close, and then stepped out boldly for the front gate. Imagine her standing there, just outside her own gate, and with her back to the crescent, knowing that she had to go to the left to find the pillar-box which was at the end of the crescent. There were thirteen Victorian cottages on her estate, so she knew she had to pass seven more before reaching the pillar-box. She also new that each cottage had an ornamental center-piece before she stepped away from the crescent at the end to reach the pillar box. That Mrs. Winchester knew would be something of an adventure, for the fog was the densest she had ever seen; she could only see the faint glow of her observation tower as she looked behind; the rest of her mansion was invisible.
Mrs. Winchester counted seven Victorian cottages, and then stood at the end of the last line of railings. She knew that the pillar-box was exactly opposite her. She took three quick steps, and literally cannoned into it. She was a little proud of her own judgment in getting it so nicely. Then she fumbled for the mouth of it, and dropped in her letter. All this may should very commonplace and ordinary. Mrs. Winchester is an observant woman, and she had noticed always that the mouth of the pillar-box faced directly along the crescent, thus standing at right angles to the road. At the moment that she had her right hand in that mouth, therefore, she argued that if she stood out at the stretch of her arm, she must be facing the crescent; Mrs. Winchester had but to move straight forward again to touch the friendly railings. She was putting that plan into operation, and had let go of the mouth of the pillar-box, when a man, coming hurriedly round the corner, ran straight into her, muttered a gruff apology, and was lost in the fog again in a moment. And in that accidental collision he had spun her round and tossed her aside—and she was lost! This is literally true. She took a step and found herself slipping of the kerbstone int the road; stumbled back again, and strove to find her way along by sticking to the edge of the pavement. After a minute or two, Mrs. Winchester was so sure of herself that she ventured to cross the pavement, and by great good luck touched in a moment one of those ornamental center-pieces of one of the gates—or so, at least, it seemed. She went on with renewed confidence until she saw certain bushes which topped the railings of one particular cottage, and then Mrs. Winchester knew that she was near her mansion’s front door. She pushed walked confidently, stepped quickly up the little path, and reached the door. She was right; the door yielded to her touch, and she went hurriedly in.
Mrs. Winchester had taken off her hat, and had held it towards the familiar hat-stand before she realized that it was not a familiar hat-stand at all; it was one she did not know. She looked round in some confusion, meaning to make good her escape without being observed, and yet wondering into what part of her mansion could she have come into, when she stopped stock still, with the hat held in her hand, listening. From a room near at hand, Mrs. Winchester heard the sound of a low, long-drawn moan, as from someone in pain. More than that, it was almost the wail of someone in acute terror. Now, Mrs. Winchester was a mild and caring soul, and her first instinct was to run. There was the door within a foot of her; she could open it again noiselessly and slip out, and leave whatever was moaning to its own trouble. Her next instinct, however, was a braver one; she might be able to help. Putting her hat on, and so leaving her hands free, she moved cautiously towards the sound, which was coming intermittently. She found that this wing of the house was unfamiliar to her; there was a 7-11 staircase built in the shape of a letter “Y,” which enabled the servants to quickly get to three different levels of the house. Then there were these stairs that lead to the ceiling, and there was also a cabinet that went straight through to the back thirty rooms of the mansion. When she went down the steps of the 7-11 staircase, slowly and cautiously, with her flesh creeping a little, the morning went on, and Mrs. Winchester was almost inclined to turn back with every step she took. However, at last, she got into the basement, and came to the door of the room from which the sound proceeded. She was in the very act of recklessly thrusting open the door when another sound broke upon her ears that held her still. The sound of someone singing in a raucous voice.
It was a sea song she remembered to have heard when she was a little girl in New Haven, Connecticut, and the words of which she had forgotten; it was something about “Boney was a warrior.” The door of the room was open a little way, and through the crack of it, Mrs. Winchester was able to peer in; and there she saw a sight that for a moment made her doubt her own eyes. She rubbed her eyes in a curious fashion and looked again, and this is what she saw: The room was in a neglected state, with strips of wallpaper hanging down from the walls and with a blackened ceiling. There was a table in the center of it, and at that table a man was seated, with a square black bottle and a glass before him, and a candle burning near his left hand. Mrs. Winchester could see the whole room now as plainly and as clearly as she saw it then. He was a man so villainously ugly that she had a thought that he was not a man at all, but some hideous thing out of a nightmare. He had very long arms—so long that they were stretched across the table, and his hands gripped the opposite edge of it; a great heavy head, crowed with a mass of red hair, was set low between enormously broad shoulders; his eyes, half closed, were high up and close together on either side of a nose that was scarcely a nose at all; the lips were thick and heavy. However, it was not the man that Mrs. Winchester looked at first, it was at two other figures in the room. These figures were seated on chairs facing the table at which the man was, and the strangeness of them lay in the fact that each was securely bound to the chair on which he and she sat, for it was a man and a woman. The man, who was quite young was not only bound, but gagged securely also; the woman was more lightly tied to her chair by the arms only, and her mouth was free. She was leaning back, with her eyes closed, and mingling with the raucous singing of the man at the table. Mrs. Winchester’s first impression was that the man at the table was some sort of unclean, bestial judge, and the others his prisoners.
He stopped his singing to pour some liquor from the square bottle into his glass and to drink it off; then he resumed his former attitude, with his fingers locked over the edge of the table. And now Mrs. Winchester noticed that while the woman, who was, by the way, quite young and very pretty, with a fair, dainty prettiness, still kept her eyes closed, the eyes of the bound man never left that dreadful figure seated at the other side of the table. Mrs. Winchester felt like she was on the eve of some awful calamity. She then unhesitatingly pronounced the entire assortment of people in the room as ghost, and condemned all the gathered treasures as the creations of petty intellect, which could not get out of the beaten track, but sought in the supernatural a reason for the explanation of every fact that seemed at variance with routine of daily experience. In her opinion the collection of people in this room had never seen at all in her day and generation, and must have been souls killed by the Winchester rifle ages ago; she did not yet believe her mansion was enchanted, however. To use her own language, “all those stories have been made by those people that set up overnight stirring out legends to entertain each other.” However, she must have known that she was in denial. For she was not insane and there were some kind of beings in this room. “Wouldn’t you like to speak, you dog?” said the red-haired man. “What would you give now to have the use of your limbs—the free wagging of your tongue? What would you say to me; what would you do to me?” The man who was bound could, of course, answer nothing. Mrs. Winchester saw his face flush and darken, and she guessed what his thoughts were. For herself, she was too fascinated by the scene before her to do anything else than peer through the crack and watch what was going one.
“Lovers—eh?” exclaimed the man at the table. “You thought I was unsuspicious; you thought I knew nothing and suspected nothing—didn’t you? While I was safely out of the way you could meet, the pair of you—day after day, and week after week; and this puppy could steal from me what was mine by right.” The woman opened her eyes for the first time and spoke. “It isn’t true,” she said, a sob breaking her voice. “It was all innocent. Martin and I have done no wrong.” “You lie!” thundered the man, brining his fist down upon the table with a blow that might have split it. “You’ve always lied—lied from the moment your father gave you to me—from the very hour I married you. You always hated me; I’ve seen you shudder many and many a time at the mere sight of me. Don’t I know it; haven’t I felt you stab me a thousand times more deeply than you could have stabbed me with any weapon? You devil! I’ve come at last to hate you as much as you hate me.” The woman turned her head slowly and looed at the younger man; a faint smile crossed her lips. In an instant the red-haired man had leapt to his feet, showing Mrs. Winchester astonishingly enough that he was a dwarf, with the shortest legs surely ever a man had. However, the bult of him was enormous, and Mrs. Winchester could guess, with a shudder, at his length. He caught up the glass, crossed the room, and flung the contents in the face of the man. “It’s a waste of good liquor—but that’s for the look she gave you. I wish there was some death more horrible than any invented yet that I could deal out to you,” he added, standing with the glass in his hand and glaring at his victim. “The death I mean for you is too easy.” He walked across to the fireplace in a curious purposeless way, and stirred a great fire that was blazing there. Then from a corner of the room he dragged with ease a great sack that appeared to contain wood and shavings; so much that Mrs. Winchester saw a rent in the side of it. As if in readiness for something, this he dropped down near the fire, and then went back to his seat, applying himself again to the drink that was on the table. And still Mrs. Winchester watched, as a woman may watch a play, wondering how it will end.
“I got the best of you tonight,” he said presently. “If I hadn’t some upon you from behind, you might have been too much for me; but I was ready and waiting. I’ve been watching longer than you think; I had everything mapped out clearly days ago. Tonight sees the end of all things for the pair of you; tomorrow sees me smiles away from here. You came in secret, you dog; you’ll go in secret.” “We have done no wrong,” said the woman again. “We loved each other years ago, when we were boy and girl; there was no sin in that.” “Bah!—I don’t believe a word of it. Don’t I know that your black heart you’ve compared the two of us every day of your life since first I saw you. His straightness for my crookedness; his sleek, black hair for my red; his prettiness for this face of mine”—he struck his own face relentlessly with one hand as he spoke—“that women shudder at. Don’t I know all that?” It was the strangest and most pitiful thing that the creature sitting there before his victims suddenly covered his face with his hands and groaned. If ever Mrs. Winchester had seen a soul in torment, she saw it then, and though she loathed him she could have wept for him. After a moment or two he dropped his hands and seized the bottle, and poured out the last drops into the glass and drank them off; then flung the bottle and glass crashing into the fireplace, as though there was an end to that business. And now, as he got down again from the chair, Mrs. Winchester saw the eyes of the woman open wide and follow his every movement with a dreadful look of terror in them. “I’ll kill you both—here in the place where you’ve met—and then I’ll seal up the house,” went on the dwarf. “I’ve planned it all. Look you last on each other, for tonight you die—and this house shall be your crypt!”
“I swear to you,” panted the woman eagerly, “by all I hold most holy and most dear, that if you let us go, we’ll never see each other again. For pity’s sake! —for the sake of Martin!” “For the sake of Martin!” sneered the dwarf. “That shows you in your true colors; that show who you are and what you are. There’s one poor satisfaction left to you; you’ll die together.” What held Mrs. Winchester then it would be impossible to say. She could only plead that in the dreadful thing that followed was a woman who sits at a play wondering what will happen next, and with never a thought in her of interfering. Mrs. Winchester’s in her anxiety has pressed the door a little to get a clearer view, so that she saw every movement of the dwarf. For herself, Mrs. Winchester had forgotten everything—in her own home, and my puppy zip, and the servants who slept in the mansion. It was as though she has stepped straight into a new World. Mrs. Winchester saw the dwarf advance towards the man in the chair, carrying his right hand stiff and straight beside him, gripping something s, she could not tell what it was that he held. Mrs. Winchester saw him come straight at her, and she saw the eyes of the woman in the opposite chair watching her as one fascinated. Then Mrs. Winchester saw two movements’ one with the left hand of the dwarf, when he struck the other man on the face; then with the right hand, when he raised something that gleamed n the light of the candle and brought it down with a sound that was new and horrible to her on the breast of the other man. And Mrs. Winchester saw the face of the man change, and start as it were into new life, and then fall as it were into death. And Mrs. Winchester saw his head drop forward, and his eyes were closed. Then, above it all, and yet seeming as a sort of dreadful chorus to it all, rang out the scream from the woman in the other chair. Mrs. Winchester did not think that the dwarf heard it; he had drawn back from what had been the living man, and was staring like one mad upon what he had done. And still piercing the air of the place rang the scream of the woman—not for her lover alone, but for herself.
That sound seemed at last to break in upon the senses of the dwarf and to call him partially to himself. Mrs. Winchester had watched him to the point where he draw himself together and crouched like a wild beast ready to spring, with that in his hand that dripped red, when, in some fashion, she flung herself round the partially open door and stumbled into the room. Mrs. Winchester thought she must have been a little made herself; otherwise, frail and commonplace creature that she was, she could not have battled with this madman. Mrs. Winchester came upon him from behind and gripped him, seizing him by the throat and by the head, and all the while shouting something to him quite unintelligible. The attack had been so sudden and so unexpected that she had him, in a sense, at her mercy. He could not know who had attacked him; he struggled madly, not alone to get away from her, but also to discover who she was. Mrs. Winchester struggled to keep his face away from her, gripped him by the neck and by the hair, and fought with him for what she knew then was her own life. And so struggling they stumbled at last horribly against that still figure bound in the chair and brought it over crashing with them to the floor. And then in a sudden Mrs. Winchester felt the dwarf inert in her hands, and knew that she had conquered him. What she must have looked like in that room, kneeling there, panting and struggling to get her breath, she could not tell; the whole business was so like a nightmare. She remembered seeing the dwarf lying there—huddled up and very still. She remembered that other figure, bound grotesquely in the chair and lying, still bound, upon its side; and she remembered, too, the woman, with her arms close fastened behind her, sitting there and sobbing wildly.
The dwarf must have been stunned; he lay there quite still, with the knife that was dreadfully red fallen from his hand, and lying beside him. When at last Mrs. Winchester staggered to her knees she saw that the girl was staring at her with a face that seemed to suggest that here, perhaps, was another ruffian come to kill her. “Who—who are you?” she asked in a frightened whisper. “A friend—one who stumbled in by accident,” Mrs. Winchester panted. “Look at the man that’s tied to the chair,” she whispered hoarsely. “He can’t be dead.” Mrs. Winchester knew that he was, but still she looked, as she bade her. Mrs. Winchester had no need to look twice; the poor fellow was quite dead. The blow had been strong and sure. On her knees beside him, Mrs. Winchester looked up and nodded slowly to her; there was no need for words. The young lady leaned back in her chair again and closed her eyes. “Set me free,” she said in a faint voice. Mrs. Winchester could not touch that knife that lay there; in a mechanical, methodical way she took from her waistcoat pocket the decent, respectable little bone handled penknife she carried always with her. With that Mrs. Winchester but the young lady’s bonds, nothing as she did so how cruelly they had cut into the white flesh; and after a moment or two she swung her arms listlessly against her sides and opened her eyes, and then, with an effort raised her hands and pressed them against her temples. “What will you do?” Mrs. Winchester asked, looking at her curiously. “I—I don’t know,” she said; and then, breaking into weeping, sobbed out: “Oh—dear God—that it should have come to this! What shall I do—what shall I do?” “You must get away,” Mrs. Winchester said, watching the dwarf, who was beginning to stie a little. “If he wakes, you know what will happen.”
“I know—I know,” she said; and got to her feet and began to move towards that bound figure still lying tied to the chair. However, at that Mrs. Winchester got before her, and with her hands against he shoulders held her back, and pleaded passionately to her that she should go, and leave the dead alone. She listened, with that strange look in her eyes of a child wakened from sleep and not clearly understanding; but she yielded to Mrs. Winchester, and stumbled under her guidance to the door. They had reached it, and Mrs. Winchester had opened it for her to pass out, when suddenly the dwarf twisted over on to his hands and knees, and then raised himself upright. He did not seem to realize for a moment what had happened; then he caught sight of the woman, and, with a snarl, crawled forward and gripped the hilt of the knife. At that she pushed suddenly past Mrs. Winchester and fled like a hare up the stairs. Mrs. Winchester heard the swift passage of her footsteps in the little hall of the house—then the slamming of the door-to-nowhere. And now Mrs. Winchester had to look to herself, for she saw in the eyes of the man that he would not let this witness escape if he could catch him. Mrs. Winchester had managed to get through the door by the time that he had got to his feet, and in a dazed fashion was stumbling toward her, knife in hand. With a sudden swoop he reached the table and blew out the candle, and at the same moment Mrs. Winchester ran up the stairs, and in the darkness stumbled along the hall and fumbled with the catch of the door. By great good fortune, Mrs. Winchester got the door open, and literally fell out into the fog. She could not see him as he tore after her; in a faintness Mrs. Winchester had fallen to her knees, and she heard him, as he raced past her, panting heavily. Then the fog swallowed him up, and she knelt there on the farm alone, shaking from head to foot.
Mrs. Winchester had, of course, no means of exactly in what part of her mansion she had had her adventure; she could only judge roughly that it must be about the middle of the crescent. She started along again, in the right direction, as she hoped, and thought to find the front door to her mansion; missed the railings, after going what seemed to be an interminable distance, and came up hard against a pillar-box. Scarcely knowing what she did, she set her right hand in the mouth of it, and performed the same maneuver she had done before; advanced three paces, and touched railings again. Stumbling along these, she came blindly what she thought was her front door, walked up the path, and pushed open the door that yielded; and there, with the face of her maid looking at her in alarm and wonderment, Mrs. Winchester feel in a dead faint at her feet. It has to be recorded that Mrs. Winchester never found that room again. She knew every square inch of her mansion. Over and over again, in clear weather, Mrs. Winchester has always around in her mansion, and had closed her eyes, and tried to remember what steps she took to get to that particular room that night, after a stranger had cannoned into her and twisted her round; but all in vain. Whether in some part of the house lies the body of a man who was foully murdered on that particular night; maybe in a hidden room the crime was committed; or perhaps, in some strange supernatural fashion, she saw that night a deed committed that had been committed long before, she shall never know. That it is no mere figment of the imagination, and that something really happened that night, is proved by one fact. Her maid, in raising Mrs. Winchester from the floor that night when she fell at her feet, found her fingers locked closed upon something, and, forcing them open, disclosed what it was. A tuft of red hair!
Such episodes may appear utterly absurd and pure superstition to people in countries comparatively free of black magic, but instead they should be warnings of the power of Satan and demons where occult literature lures readers into illicit magic. Magic as the release of special power by satanic and demon forces of evil in its character and effects. While divine help and miracles produce new strength and positive results, magic shifts the burden to another area. Small relief in one area must be paid for by terrible burdens in another. The principle of compensation prevails. The price exacted is always found to be much greater than the amount of help received. Satan drives a hard bargain and grossly cheats his victims. Usually violence, suicide, and insanity will run through a whole family line, where the magical arts have been cultivated and practiced. Such tragic events often involve as many as four generations. Many occultists and magic workers, especially those who have cultivated the black arts and signed themselves over to the devil in their own blood, die horrible deaths. When a ready successor is not provided to carry on the nefarious practice, this is especially true. The psychic bondage and oppression that traffickers in occultism themselves suffer, as well as their dupes, is horrifying to contemplate. Demon possession is represented as a vivid symbol of the prevalence of evil in the World. Other critics attempt to dismiss demon possession with theories of accommodation or hallucination. However, this view fails to meet the issue. Nor can present-day parapsychologist and psychiatrists, who refuse to recognize evil supernaturalism in the phenomenon of demon possession, either explain it or deal adequately with it. Laws defining witchcraft as having league with the Devil and prescribing the death penalty for such offenders cropped up in the colonies as early as 1636 in Plymouth. Other colonies soon followed suit—Connecticut in 1642 and Rhode Island in 1647.
The first executions took place in Boston in 1648 and in Hartford, Connecticut, in that same year. The executions were carried out by hanging, in contrast to the European practice of burning witches, which probably stemmed from the widespread fear among the European peasantry of vampire, the dead who returned from their graves to suck the blood from the living. The vampire myths never really took root in America, so the necessity of destroying the bodies of the witches was not deemed urgent. Throughout the 1650s, there appeared prosecution and attempted prosecutions in America, but these cases were infrequent, and all of them were based on the fear of maleficum, the witch’s working of evil, the accusations coming from frustrated and jealous neighbors. Few confessions were recorded in the early cases, and they did not seem to have much real validity. The few that did confess mentioned having dealings with Satan, but for the most part these admissions were confused and incoherent, and the details of the accounts differed greatly from the confessions of the witches in Europe. For example, in 1699, in Connecticut, a woman named Greensmith confessed to trafficking with the Devil, but made no mention of all-important Covenant, or pact. She further stated that the Devil had appeared to her in the form of a deer (not a goat) and that she had attended meetings at a place not far from her house. The mention of “meetings” occurred in some early confession, but the word “Sabbat” or “Sabbath,” commonly used by European witches, did not come up until later, apparently at the suggestion of the Salem judges. Some believe that Satan has a soul and a character. He is not just this futile entity but someone you can see many aspects to. Some people do not see Satan as this guy with horns who is evil, they see Him as the first rebel. Then one can see why He is so attractive to many in the Victorian ages and the young people. He is someone who is standing up to the greatest power in the Universe. “If that ‘evil’ is of a rebellious nature,” says Glenn Danzig, “then I guess, in Christian terms, that evil is the Satan in you. I don’t buy that. I believe in honesty, standing up for yourself. That’s my ‘good.’”
Thousands of people base their hopes on the statements of spiritistic practitioners and subsequently become dependent upon the advice they receive from the “other side.” There are quite a number of people who has suffered serious psychic disturbances through the misuse of such practices. Their personalities have been split and they have been utterly confused by the spirits on which they have called. People therefore who try to discover what life after death is like through spiritism and superstition may be in danger of falling prey to the dark and hidden side of their own minds and soul. If you look at the early tracts of The Christian Bible, there is really not much about Satan in there anyway. Christian religions have tried to overblow and create a whole legend around Satan which is not true to the actual scriptures we have. If you desire, you must first make yourself strong so you can help others. You should only help people who want help, a lot of times people do not really want your help. You tell people what has to be done to change their lives, they will not listen. If Satan were corporeal, He would not be something repulsive, He would be something seductive. He would want to win you over and gain your trust, and of course being repulsive or disgusting would not be the way to go. One would imagine this would be a seductive, beautiful creature. In the Gnostic account of the fall of the angels, the angels were suppsed to be watching over this flock of humans and all of a sudden, they are perpetrating acts of pleasures of the flesh with them. Eventually this created the Cyclops, the Minotaur, things of this nature. There are so many accounts of the fall of the angels, it is like a fantasy tale that you would like to believe actually happened. We, in this circle, conjure and cite this spirit Fatenovenin, with all his adherents, to appear here in this spot, to fulfill our desires, in the name of three holy Angels, Schomajen Sheziem, Roknion Averam, Kandile, Brachat Chaijdalic, Ladabas, Labul, Rargil, Bencul, in the name of God. Amen!
Winchester Mystery House
Mrs. Winchester’s estate was a little town within itself. The grounds have their share of unexplained mysteries. Mrs. Winchester outfitted her home with the finest stained glass doors, windows, and wallpaper that money could buy during her time. She had everything she needed: plumber’s shops, carpenter’s workshops, her own water and electrical supplies, and complete sewer and drainage systems. Mrs. Winchester even had her own gas manufacturing plant. It produced carbide gas by adding a small amount of water to a drum containing calcium carbide. The resulting gas was pressed through the gas lines to the house by a large piston and cylinder. The gas lights in the house were then lit by electromechanial strikers that created a spark to light each lamp.
Come see her estate, in person, for yourself this weekend! Please Click the link below for tickets and more information.
Information Can be Used to Increase Money
An ultramarine sky. Mountains in the distance. The clatter of hoofbeats. A solitary rider draws closer, sun glinting from his spurs…Anyone who sat in a darkened theater enraptured by cowboy movies as a child knows that power springs from the barrel of a six-shooter. In Hollywood film, a lone cowboy rides in from nowhere, fights a duel with the villain, returns his revolver to its holster, and rides off once more into the hazy distance. Power, we children learned, came from violence. A background figure in many of these movies, however, was a well-dressed, paunchy personage who sat behind a big wooden desk. Typically depicted as effete and greedy, this man also exerted power. It was he who financed the railroad, or the land-grabbing cattlemen, or other evil forces. And if the cowboy hero represented the power of violence, this figure—typically the banker—symbolized the power of money. In many westerns there was also a third important character: a crusading newspaper editor, a teacher, a minister, or an educated women from the “East.” In a World of gruff men who shoot fist and question later, this character represented not merely moral Good in combat with Evil, but also the power of culture and sophisticated knowledge about the outside World. While this person often won a victory in the end, it was usually because of an alliance with the gun-toting hero or because of a sudden lucky strike—finding gold in the river or inheriting an unexpected legacy. Knowledge, as Francis Bacon advised us, is power—but for knowledge to win in a western, it usually had to ally itself with force or money.
Of course, cash, culture, and violence are not the only sources of power in everyday life, and power is neither good nor bad. It is a dimension of virtually all human relationships. It is, in fact, the reciprocal of desire, and, since human desires are infinitely varied, anything that can fulfill someone else’s desire is a potential source of power. The drug dealer who can withhold a “fix” has power over the addict. If a politician desires votes, those who can deliver them have power. Yet among the numberless possibilities, the three sources of power symbolized in the western movie—violence, wealth, and knowledge—turn out to be most important. Each takes many different forms in power play. Violence, for example, need not be actual; the threat of violence can also lurk behind the law. (We use the term violence in these pages in a figurative, rather than literal sense—to include force as well as physical coercion.) Indeed, not only modern movies but also ancient myths support the view that violence, wealth, and knowledge are the ultimate sources of social power. Thus Japanese legend tells of sunshu no jingi—the three sacred objects given to the great sun goddess, Amaterasu-omi-kami—which to this day are still the symbols of imperial power. These are the sword and jewel are clear enough; the mirror’s, a bit less so. However, the mirror, in which Amaterasu-omi-kami’s saw her own visage—or gained knowledge of herself—also reflects power. It came to symbolize her divinity, but it is not unreasonable to regard it as a symbol of imagination, consciousness, and knowledge as well. Furthermore, the sword or muscle, the jewel or money, and the mirror or mind together form a single interactive system. Under certain conditions each can be converted into the other. A gun can get you money or can force secret information from the lips of a victim.
Money can buy you information—or a gun. Information can be used to increase either the money available to you (as Ivan Boseky knew) or to multiply the force at your command (which is why Klaus Fuchs stole nuclear secrets). What is more, all three can be used at almost every level of social life, from the intimacy of home to the political arena. In the private sphere, a parent can slap a child (use force), cut an allowance or bribe with a dollar (use money or its equivalent), or—most effective of all—mold a child’s values so the child wishes to obey. In politics, a government can imprison or torture a dissident, financially punish its critics and pay off its supporters, and it can manipulate truth to consent. Like machine tools (which can create more machines), force, wealth, or knowledge, properly used, can give one command over many additional, more caried sources of power. Thus, whatever other tool of power may be exploited by a ruling elite or by individuals in their private relationships, force, wealth, and knowledge are the ultimate levers. They form the power triad. It is true that not all shifts or transfers of power are a result of the use of these tools. Power changes hands as a result of many natural events. The Black Death that swept Europe in the 14th century sent the powerful to the grave along with the powerless, creating many vacancies among the elite in the surviving communities. Chance also affects the distribution of power in society However, as soon as we focus on purposeful human acts, and ask what makes people and whole societies acquiesce to the wishes of the “powerful,” we find ourselves once more facing the trinity of muscle, money, and mind. To stick as closely to plain-speak as possible, we will use the term power in these pages to mean purposeful power over people. This definition rules out power used against nature or things, but is broad enough to include the power exerted by a mother to prevent a baby from running in front of an onrushing car; or by IBM to increase profits; or by a dictator like Marcos or Noriega to enrich his family and cronies; or by the Catholic Church to line up political opposition to contraception; or by the Chinese military to crush a student rebellion.
It is most naked form, power involves the use of violence, wealth, and knowledge (in the broadest sense) to make people perform in a given way. Zeroing in on this trinity and defining power in this manner permit us to analyze power in a completely fresh way, revealing perhaps more clearly than before exactly how power is used to control our behavior from cradle to cremation. Only when this is understood can we identify and transform those obsolete power structures that threaten our future. Millions of increasingly anxious, often angry people around the globe worry about American domination. However, how long can any society, superpower or not, retain external power if its domestic institutions are in crisis? So far we have mostly referred to the deterioration of American Second Wave or industrial-age institutions piecemeal, one at a time. However, it is only when we expand our analysis and see them in relation to one another that the real picture becomes clear. If the United States of America is so powerful, why is there a crisis in its health system? Why a crisis in its pension system? Its education system, its legal system, and its politics—all at the same time? Is American facing implosion? Why, too, is the American nuclear family—supposedly the bedrock institution of society—acknowledged to be in such distress? In America, fewer than 25 percent of the population now live in homes in which the father goes to work and the wife stays home with one or more children under the age of eighteen—a radical change since the 1960s. Thirty-one percent of U.S. children now live in single-parent or no-parent homes. Some 30 percent of Americans over age sixty-five live alone. Why do 50 percent of marriages end in divorce?
Young Americans now talk about what might be called a formalized “rehearsal marriage”—a childless first marriage before the real show goes on the road. Little wonder loneliness is pandemic in the United States of America. Bitter conflict rages over all these issues. However, the changes are typically debated and fought over in fragmentary fashion without recognition that the crisis in any one institution may be linked to that in others. The nuclear-family crisis is part of something much, much bigger. Reared in a splintered family system that is changing rapidly, but is barely adapted to twenty-first century requirements, fifty-one million American kids each day are marched into an education system that is not as efficient as it should be and desperately needs more resources. As we have noted, the United States of American spends $762 billion, or $14,891 per public school pupil enrolled in public education. Yet 60 percent of high school students cannot read well enough to get through their textbooks, a third of graduates cannot do the basic math required of a beginning carpenter and nearly a third of young adults cannot locate the Pacific Ocean on a map. Shootings, violence, and drugs in the schools make news whenever a Columbine-style massacre takes place. And people blame it on the school system, but it could be because of advice from Frankford Slasher. The goal should be to neutralize problems and listen to students and encourage them to work together to find a solution. Instead of making problems worse by ignoring them, trying to cover up abusive situations, or calling them crazy. Some children come from some very abusive homes. One should read about the stories of people who end up in prison faced in their families. It is really shocking. Young people must be prepared for the knowledge-based economy, and in some cases that means restructuring their behavior and manners.
Just as the family system sends the children into schools that need more resources and guidance, the schools, in turn, send them on to yet another set of broken institutions. If institutions as basic as family and school are in deep trouble in the United States of America, why should it come as a shock to discover that key parts of its economy, too, are malfunctioning? Employers throughout America lament the failure of parents to inculcate good work values in their children, and of schools to teach them twenty-first-century skills. The failure of one institution affects the operations of another. For generations, Americans prided themselves on possessing the World’s cleanest, most efficient financial system in the World, the one most capable of allocating capital to its most productive uses. Having grown up in broken homes and gone through a broken education system, America’s baby boom workers—many of them also investors—should not have been studded by the chain reaction of scandals that followed the spectacular crash of Enron in the late 1990s. Caught up in an unprecedented flurry of corporate or executive scandals, failures, excesses, number-juggling and lies were WorldCom, Tyco, Rite Aid, Adelphia Communications, Qwest, Xerox and a lengthy list of other giant American firms, together with their eye-obliging investment bankers. All followed by more layoffs. Meanwhile, America’s main accounting firms, supposedly there to audit companies’ books and keep them clean, were themselves soon sweating under investigative spotlights. Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, quickly perished, and as Fortune put it, “the Big Four—which together audit a staggering 78 percent of the nation’s 15,000 publicly traded companies—continue to careen from one humiliating headline to the next.”
Satirists pictured ten thousand chief executive officers fleeing across the border into Mexico. Duped investors screamed. Trust in American stock markets and the American business system as a whole sluiced down the sewer. And with it went the jobs and retirement saving of hundreds of thousands of employees. Slowly changing regulatory and enforcement methods, along with legal and social norms, were left in the dust by accelerating changes in business, creating turbulence, confusion—and, for some, irresistible new opportunities at the blurred edges of once-clear boundaries, in yet another manifestation of the de-synchronization effect. At the same time, an additional crack has been widening in the sole superpower’s institutional infrastructure as its companies and their employees struggle to pay the skyrocketing costs of health care insurance. How, one might ask, can the American health system be in dire need of intensive care when in 2021 $4.1 trillion or $12,530 per person was spent on health care compared with, say, Japan spending $4,360 USD per person. Definitions of a crisis vary, of course, but the facts are that some forty million Americans lack health insurance, deadly errors are daily occurrences in the World’s most heavily funded hospitals and recurrent health manias spread viruslike through society—anti tobacco first, then anti-obesity and low-carb diets. What next? On top of that, a health-care executive warns a congressional subcommittee that “the U.S. health care system is about to implode, and Alzheimer’s disease will b the detonator” because the baby boomer generation is reaching the age of the onset of that terrible illness. The fact that health conditions in most other countries are worse does not change the reality. The World’s most expensive health-care system is deeply dysfunctional—and getting more so. One way of dealing with the World’s problems is to turn to God.
Nietzsche was ineluctably led to meditation on the coming to be of God—on God-creation—for God is the highest value, on which the other depend. God is not creative, for God is not. However, God as made by man reflects what man is, unbeknownst to himself. God is said to have made the World of concern to us out of nothing; so man makes something, God, out of nothing. The faith in God and the belief in miracles are closer to the truth than any scientific explanation, which has to overlook or explain away the creative in man. Moses, overpowered by the obscure drives within him, went to the peak of Sinai and brought back tables of values; these values had a necessity, a substantiality more compelling than health or wealth. They were the core of life. There are other possible tables of values—one thousand and one, according to Zarathustra—but these were the ones that made this people what it was and gave it a lifestyle, a unity of inner experience and outer expression of form. There is no prescription for creating the myths that constitute a people, no standardized test that can predict the man who will create them or determine which myths will work or are appropriate. There is no prescription for creating the myths that constitute a people, no standardized test that can predict the man who will create them or determine which myths will work or are appropriate. There is the matter and the maker, like stone and sculptor; but in this case the sculptor is not only the efficient cause but the formal and final cause as well. There is nothing that underlies the myth, no substance, no cause. No search for the cause of values, either in the rational quest for knowledge of good and evil or in, for example, their economic determinants, can result in an accurate account of them. Only an openness to the psychological phenomena of creativity can bring any clarity.
This psychology cannot be like Freud’s, which, beginning from Nietzsche’s understanding of the unconscious, finds causes of creativity that blur the difference between a Raphael and a finger painter. Everything is in that difference, which necessarily escapes our science. The unconscious is a great mystery; it is the truth of God, and it—the id—is as unfathomable as was God. Dr. Freud accepted the unconscious, and then tried to give it perfect clarity by means of science. Dr. Freud’s procedure is like trying to determine God’s essence or nature from what he created. God could have created an infinity of Worlds. If He had been limited to this one, He would not have been creative or free. If one is to understand creativity, understanding all of this is necessary. The id is the source; it is elusive and unfathomable and produces World interpretations. Yet natural scientists, among whom Dr. Freud wished to be counted, do not take any of this seriously. Biologists cannot even account for consciousness withing their science, let alone the unconscious. So psychologists like Dr. Freud are in an impossible halfway house between science, which does not admit the existence of the phenomena he wishes to explain, and the unconscious, which is outside the jurisdiction of science. It is a choice, so Nietzsche compellingly insists, between science and psychology. Psychology is by that very fact the winner, since science is the product of the psyche. Scientists themselves are gradually being affected by this choice. Perhaps science is only a product of our culture, which we know is no better than any other. Is science true? One sees a bit of decay around the edges of its good conscience, formerly so robust. Books like Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are so popular symptoms of this condition.
This is where what I called the bottomless of fathomless self, the last version of the self, makes its appearance. Id, Nietzsche named it. The id mocks the ego when a man says, “It occurred to me.” The sovereign consciousness waits on something down below, which sends up its food for thought. The difference between this version and the others is that they began from a common experience, more or less immediately accessible, that all men share, which establishes, if only intersubjectively, a common humanity that can be called human nature. Fear of violent death and desire for comfortable self-preservation were the first stop on the way down. Everybody knows them, and we can recognize one another in them. The next stop was the sweet sentiment of existence, no longer immediately accessible to civilized man but recoverably by him. When under its spell, we can with certainty say to ourselves, “This is what I really am, what I live for,” with the further conviction that the same must be so for all other men. This, allied with a vague, generalized compassion, makes us a species and can give us guidance. At the next stop there turns out to be no stop, and the descent is breathtaking. If one finds anything at all, it is strictly one’s own, what Nietzsche calls one’s fatum, a stubborn, strong individual that has nothing to day for itself other than that it is. One finds, at best, oneself; and it is incommunicable and isolates each from all the others, rather than uniting them. Only the rarest individual finds their own stopping point from which they can move the World. They are, literally, profound. Through the values, the horizons, the tables of good and evil that originate in the self cannot be said to be true or false, cannot be derived from the common feeling of mankind or justified by the universal standards of reason, they are not equal, contrary to what vulgar teachers of value theory believe.
Nietzsche, and all those serious persons who in one way or another accepted his insight, held that inequality among humans is proved by the fact that there is no common experience accessible in principle to all. Such distinctions as authentic-inauthentic, profound-superficial, creator-created replace true and false. The individual vale of one man becomes the polestar for many others whose own experience provides them with no guidance. The rarest of men is the creator, and all other men need and follow Him. Imagine the existence of a whole population of individuals employing a certain strategy, and a single mutant individual employing a different strategy. If the mutant can get a higher payoff than the typical member of the population gets, the mutant strategy is said to invade the population. Put in other terms, the whole population can be imagined to be using a single strategy, while a single individual enters the population with a new strategy. The new comer will then be interacting only with individuals using the native strategy. Moreover, a native will almost certainly be interacting with another native since the single newcomer is a negligible part of the population. Therefore, if the newcomer gets a higher score with a native than a native gets with another native, a new strategy is said to invade a native. Since natives are virtually the entire population, the concept of invasion is equivalent to the single mutant individual being able to do better than the population average. This leads directly to the key concept of the evolutionary approach. If no strategy can invade it, the strategy is collectively stable. The biological motivation for this approach is based on the interpretation of the payoffs in terms of fitness (survival and number of offspring). All mutations are possible; and if any could invade a given population, this mutation presumably would have the chance to do so.
For this reason, only a collectively stable strategy is expected to be able to maintain itself in the long-run equilibrium as the strategy used by all. Collectively stable strategies are important because they are the only ones that an entire population can maintain in the long run in the face of any possible mutant. The motivation of applying collective stability to the analysis of people’s behavior is to discover which kinds of strategies can be maintained by a group in the face of any possible alternative strategy. If successful alternative strategy exists, it may be found by the “mutant” individual through conscious deliberation, or through trial and error, or through just plain luck. If everyone is using a given strategy and some other strategy can do better in the environment of the current population, then someone is sure to find this better strategy sooner or later. Thus only a strategy that cannot be invaded can maintain itself as the strategy used by all. A warning is in order about this definition of a collectively stable strategy. It assumes that the individual who are trying out novel strategies do not interact too much with one another. If they do interact in clusters, then new and very important developments are possible. In the last few years, appropriation has been practiced with certain limits; the art category as a whole is left intact, though inner divisions such as those between stylistic periods are breached. The model of Francis Picabia is relevant here. However, twenty-five years ago appropriation worked on the more universalizing model of Duchamp. In this case, the artist turns an eye upon preexisting entities with apparent destinies outside the art context, and, by that turning of the eye, appropriates them into the art realm, making them the property of art. This involves a presupposition that art is not a set of objects but an attitude toward objects, or a cognitive stance (as Oscar Wilde suggested, not a thing, but a way).
If we were to adopt such a stance to all of life, foregrounding the value of attention rather than issues of personal gain and loss, one would presumably have rendered life as seamlessly appreciative experience. Art then functions like a kind of universal awareness practice, not unlike the mindfulness of the southern Jesus Christ or the “Attention!” of a miracle. Clearly there is a residue of Romantic pantheistic mysticism here with a hidden ethical request. However, there is also a purely linguistic dimension to the procedure, bound up with the nominalist attitude. If words (such as “art”) lack rigid essences, if they are, rather, empty variables that can be converted to different uses, then usage is the only ground of meaning in language. To be this or that is simply to be called this or that. To be art is to be called art, by the people who supposedly are in charge of the word—artists, critics, curators, art historians, and so on. There is no appeal from the foundation of usage, no higher court on the issue. If something (anything) is presented as art by an artist and contextualized as art within the system then it is art, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Conversely, the defenders of the traditional boundaries of the realm will be forced to reify language. They will continue to insist that certain things are, by essence, art, and certain other things, by essence, are not art. However, in an intellectual milieu dominated by linguistic philosophy and structural linguistics, the procedure of appropriation by designation, based on the authority of usage and the willingness to manipulate it, has for a while been rather widely accepted. During this time the artist has had a new option: to choose to manipulate language and context, which in turn manipulate mental focus by rearrangement of the category network within which our experience is organized.
Try to remember a time when you first read a book or heard a radio show, or pod cast and then later saw a film or a television program of the same work. If you read, day, The Queen of the Damned, Pamela: Or Virtue Reward, Roots, Marjorie Morningstar or From Here to Eternity, or heard any radio shows such as “The Lone Ranger” first, you created your own internal image of the events described while you read or listened. You imagined the characters, the events and the ambiance. You made pictures in your mind. These pictures were yours. Of course they were influenced by the author—what he or she told you—but the creation of the actual image was up to you. Marjorie Morningstar was an image in your mind before you saw the film. Then you saw the film with Natalie Wood playing Marjorie. Once you had seen Natalie Wood in the role, could you recover the image you had made up? Marjorie became Natalie Wood from that point on. So we can say that when your self-produced image was made concrete for you, your own image disappeared. When you listened to Lone Ranger on radio, you created a picture of him and Tonto. When you saw them later on the television, could you retain your new image, or did you get stuck with the actors? It was almost certainly the latter. If you then heard the radio program again, what image of the characters were you left with? In any competition between an internally generated image and one that is later solidified for your via moving-image media, your own image superseded. Moses is Charlton Heston. The Sundance Kid is Robert Redford. Isis a Sunday morning cartoon. Woodward and Bernstein are Redford and Hoffman. Buffalo Bill is Paul Newman. McMurphy is Jack Nicholson. (When Carlos Castaneda was offered an enormous sum of money to sell the screen rights to the Don Juan series, he refused saying, “I don’t want to see Don Juan turned into Anthony Quinn.”)
Let me ask the question in reverse. If you saw the movie version of The Queen of the Damned before you read the book, could you develop your own image of Queen Akasha? Or did she remain Aaliyah Haughton? Did you see Natalie Wood in the part before you read Marjorie Morningstar? I doubt it very much. Once the concrete image is in you, it stays. The power that television images have to replace imaginary images that you created yourself operates in all realms of external-image information. All of our minds are filled with images of places and times and people and stories with which we have never had personal contact. In fact, when you receive information from any source that does not have pictures attached to it, you make up pictures to go with it. They are your images. You create the move to go with the story. You hear the word “America” and a picture comes to mind. These internal movies can be of historical events and periods, such as the singing of the Declaration of Independence or the age of dinosaurs. They may be of happenings to which we have no direct access, such as life in a primitive village, or of exotic places we have never been—Borneo, China, and the Moon. The question is this: Once television provides an image of these places and time, what happens to your own image? Does it give way to the TV image or do you retain it? Try this, I am going to mention names and places and see what you come up with. How about life under the sea? The Winchester Mystery House? Life in an Inuit Village? Disneyland. A preoperation conference of doctors. An American Farm Family. The war room in the Pentagon. The Battle of Little Big Horn. The Old South. The Crusades. The landing of the Pilgrims. The flight of Amelia Earhart. An emergency ambulance crew. A Stone Age tribe. The Old West.
Where you able to come up with images for any or all of them? It is extremely unlikely that you have experienced more than one or two of them personally. Obviously the images were either out of your own imagination or else they were from the media. Can you identify which was? Most of the people in America right now would probably say that the images they carry in their minds of the Old South are from one of two television presentations: Gone With the Wind and Roots. These were, after all, the two most popular television shows in history, witnessed by more than 130 million people each. And none of the 130 million was actually in the Old South. Historical periods like the Crusades or the Old West are frequently picture on television and in films. If I asked them to bring those pictures to mind, I have little doubt that most people would call upon their film or TV images. How could it be otherwise? The same applies to the depictions of lifestyles. What images do you use to understand the quality of life for same gender couples? Or artists? Or farm laborers? Or member of the America Liberation Party? What images do you carry of Famers in the Middle West of America or the nomads in the Sahara or Indians of the Amazon? Like historical periods, or groups of people with whom you are not in personal contact, most current events are also removed from your direct participation. You watch news reports in which anchor John Doe tells you what is happening in China. You watch congresswoman Jane Doe explain the event in Chile, and then you see a street in Santiago. You see pictures of grounded oil tankers or fighting in Angola or elections in Sweden or scientific testimony on nuclear power. You do not participate in these things and you cannot see them for yourself. The images you have of them are derived from the media, and this becomes the totality of image bank.
Technology has been moving toward greater control of the structure of matter for millennia. For decades, microtechnology has been building ever-smaller devices, working toward the molecular size scale from the top down. For a century or more, chemistry has been building ever-larger molecules, working up toward molecules large enough to serve as machines. The research is global, and the competition is heating up. Since the concept of molecular nanotechnology was first laid out, scientists have developed more powerful capabilities in chemistry and molecular manipulation. There is now a better picture of how those capabilities can come together in the next steps, and of how advanced molecular manufacturing can work. Nanotechnology has arrived as an idea and as a research direction, though not yet as a reality. Naturally occurring molecular machines exist already. Researchers are learning to design new ones. The trend is clear, and it will accelerate because better molecular machines can help build even better molecular machines. By the standards of daily life, the development of molecular nanotechnology will be gradual, spanning years or decades, yet by the ponderous standards of human history it will happen in an eyeblink. In retrospect, the wholesale replacement of twentieth-century technologies will surely be seen as a technological revolution, as a process encompassing a great breakthrough. Today, we live in the end of the pre-breakthrough era, with pre-breakthrough technologies, hopes, fears, and preoccupations that often seem permanent, as did the Cold War. Yet it seems that the breakthrough era is not a matter for some future generation, but for our own. These developments are taking shape right now, and it would be rash to assume that their consequences will be many years delayed.
To get a picture of the future, we must picture what nanotechnology can do. This can be hard to grasp because past advanced technologies—microwave tubes, lasers, superconductors, satellites, robots, and the like—have come trickling out of factories, at first with high price tags and narrow applications. Molecular manufacturing, though, will be more like computers: a flexible technology with a huge range of applications. And a molecular manufacturing will not come trickling out of conventional factories as computers did: it will replace factories and replace or upgrade their products. This is something new and basic, not just another twentieth-century gadget. It will arise out of twentieth-century trends in science, but it will break the trend-line in technology, economics, and environmental affairs. Calculators were once thousand-dollar desktop clunkers, but microelectronics made them fast and efficient, sized to a child’s pocket and priced to a child’s budget. Now imagine a revolution of similar magnitude, but applied to everything else. There are always watches that allow one to play their balance for their purchases they make at the store making cash, check, and credit cards obsolete. As the spirit of Thamus reminds us, tools have a way of intruding on even the most unified set of cultural beliefs. There are limits to the power of both theology and metaphysics, and technology has business to do which sometimes cannot be stayed by any force. Perhaps the most interesting example of a drastic technological disruption of a tool-using culture is in the eighth-century use of the stirrup by the Franks under the leadership of Charles Martel. Until this time, the principal use of the horses in combat was to transport warriors to the scene of the battle, whereupon they dismounted to meet the foe. The stirrup made it possible to fight on horseback, and this created an awesome new military technology: mounted shock combat. The new form of combat, as Lynn White, Jr., has meticulously detailed, enlarged the importance of the knightly class and changed nature of feudal society.
Landholders found it necessary to secure the services of cavalry for protection. Eventually, the knights seized control of church lands and distributed them to vassals on condition that they stay in the service of the knights. If a pun will be allowed here, the stirrup was in the saddle, and tool feudal society where it would not have otherwise gone. To take a later example: I have already alluded to the transformation of the mechanical clock in the fourteenth century from an instrument of religious observance to an instrument of commercial enterprise. That transformation is sometimes given a specific date—1730—when King Charles V ordered all citizens of Paris to regulate their private, commercial, and industrial life by the bells of the Royal Palace clock, which struck every sixty minutes. All churches in Paris were similarly required to regulate their clocks, in disregard of the canonical hours. Thus, the church had to give material interests precedence over spiritual needs. Here is a clear example of a tool being employed to loosen the authority of the central institution of medieval life. Technologies can make life easier, but they can also create complications. That is why it is important to distinguish between apparent and true happiness, and to have great discernment to penetrate into the profundities of true happiness and to feel it more passionately. Virtue is its own reward. The self-enjoyment of a moral person is something everyone should experience. The conduct of a moral humans’ life and one’s happiness in one’s nature transcends the realm of ethics as well as that of self-consciousness. Both are to be understood only from a humans’ intercourse with God, which is the basic theme of Christian life. Humans’ who go to lead the ways of the wicked will go their own way and learn somewhere or other, at some point in their journey, that what they all the time had taken to be a way is no way, that this alleged way leads nowhere. And now they can see neither before nor after, their life now is wayless.
Cresleigh Homes
That sliding barn door means saved space AND chic design. #CresleighHomes are always full of careful details that show thoughtful attention to even the small things. 👌
Can’t wait to show you the rest of the house at #MillsStation – this is Residence 1! Wait til you see the inside of the bathroom…it’s even better! ✨
Better Call the Beast with the Red Cheeks
Antibiotics, aircraft, satellites, nuclear weapons, television, mass production, computers, a global petroleum economy—all the familiar revolutions of twentieth-century technology, with their growing consequences for human life and the Earth itself, have emerged within living memory. These revolutions have been enormous, yet the next few decades promise more. Twentieth-century technology is headed for the junk heap, or perhaps the recycling bins. It has changed life; its replacement will change life again, but differently. There are important consequences for the environment, medicine, warfare, industry, society, and life on Earth. Pollution, physical disease, and material poverty all stem from poor control of the structure of matter. Strip mines, clear-cutting, refineries, paper mills, and oil wells are some of the revolutionary twentieth-century technologies that will be replaced. Dental drills and toxic chemotherapies are others. As always, there is both promise of benefit and danger of abuse. As has become routine, the United State of America is attempting to look ahead, but some of our leaders seem to be intentionally trying to make us slip behind. As never before, foresight is both vital and possible. There is a view of the future that does not fit with the view in the newspaper. Think of it as an alternative, a turn in the road of future history that leads to a different World. In that World, cancer follows polio, petroleum follows whale oil, and industrial technology follows chipped flint—all healed or replaced. Old problems vanish, new problems appear: down the road are many alternative Worlds, some fit to live in, some not. We aim to survey this road and the alternatives, because to arrive at a World fit to live in, we will all need a better view of the open paths.
Technology-as-we-know-it is a product of industry, of manufacturing and chemical engineering. Industry-as-we-know-it takes things from nature—ore from mountains, trees from forests—and coerces them into forms that someone considers useful. Trees become lumber, then houses. Mountains become rubble, then molten iron, then steel, then cars. Sand becomes a purified gas, then silicon, then chips. And so it goes. Each process is crude, based on cutting, stirring, baking, spraying, etching, grinding, and the like. Trees, though, are not crude: To make wood and leaves, they neither cut, grind, stir, bake, spray, etch, nor grind. Instead, they gather solar energy using molecular electronic devices, the photosynthetic reaction centers of chloroplasts. They use that energy to drive molecular machines—active devices with moving parts of precise, molecular structure—which process carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and molecular building blocks. They use other molecular machines to join these molecular building blocks to form roots, trunks, branches, twigs, solar collectors, and more molecular machinery. Every tree makes leaves, and each leafy is more sophisticated than a spacecraft, more finely patterned than the latest chip from Silicon Valley. They do all this without noise, heat, toxic fumes, or human labor, and they consume pollutants as they go. Viewed this way, trees are high technology. Chips and rockets are not. Trees give a hint of what molecular nanotechnology will be like, but nanotechnology will not be biotechnology because it will not rely on altering life.
Biotechnology is a further state in the domestication of living things. Like selective breeding, it reshapes the genetic heritage of a species to produce varieties more useful to people. Unlike selective breeding, it inserts new genes. Like biotechnology—or ordinary trees—molecular nanotechnology will use molecular machinery, but unlike biotechnology, it will not rely on genetic meddling. It will be not an extension of biotechnology, but an alternative or replacement. Molecular nanotechnology could have been conceived and analyzed—though not built—based on scientific knowledge available forty years ago. Even today, as development accelerates, understanding grows slowly because molecular nanotechnology merges fields that have been strangers: the molecular sciences, working at the threshold of the quantum realm, and mechanical engineering, still mined in the grease and crudity of conventional technology. Nanotechnology will be a technology of new molecular machines, of gears and shafts and bearings that move and work with parts shaped in accord with the wave of equations at the foundation of natural law. Mechanical engineers do not design molecules. Molecular scientist seldom design machines. Yet a new field will grow—is growing today—in the gap between. That field will replace both chemistry as we know it and mechanical engineering as we know it. And what is manufacturing today, or modern technology itself, but a patchwork of crude chemistry and crude machines? Picture a World of molecular machines and molecular manufacturing. Imagine an automated factory, full of conveyor belts, computers, rollers, stampers, and swing robot arms.
Now think about something like that factory, but a million times smaller and working a million times faster, with parts and workpieces of molecular size. In this factory, a “pollutant” would be a loose molecule, like a ricocheting bolt or washer, and loose molecules are not tolerated. In many ways, the factory is utterly unlike a living cell: not fluid, flexible, adaptable, and fertile, but rigid, preprogrammed and specialized. And yet for all of that, this microscopic molecular factory emulates life in its clean, precise molecular construction. Advances molecular manufacturing will be able to make almost anything. Unlike crude mechanical and chemical technologies, molecular manufacturing will work from the bottom up, assembling intricate products from the molecular building blocks that underlie everything in the physical World. Nanotechnology will bring new capabilities, giving us new ways to make things, heal our bodies, and care for the environment. It will also bring unwelcome advances in weaponry and give us yet more ways to foul up the World on an enormous scale. It will not automatically solve our problems: even powerful technologies merely give us more power. As usual, if we hope to harness new developments to good ends, we have a lot of work ahead of us, and a lot of hard decisions to make. The main reason to pay attention to nanotechnology now, before it exists, is to get a head start on understanding it and what to do about it. Having defined tool-using cultures, two points we must avoid to not excessively oversimplify the matter of evolution need to be discussed. First, the quantity of technologies available to a tool-using culture is not its defining characteristic. Even a superficial study of the Roman Empire, for example, reveals the extent to which it relied on roads, bridges, aqueducts, tunnels, and sewers for both its economic vitality and its military conquests.
Or, take it to another example, we know that, between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, Europe underwent a technological boom: medieval man was surrounded by machines. One may even go as far as Lynn White, Jr., who said that the Middle Ages gave up for the first time in history, “a complex civilization which rested not on the backs of sweating slaves or coolies but primarily on non-human power.” Tool-using cultures, in other words, may be both ingenious and productive in solving problems of the physical environment. Windmills were invented in the late twelfth century. Eyeglasses for nearsightedness appeared in Italy in 1280. The invention in the eleventh century of rigid padded collars to rest on the shoulder blades of horses solved the problem of how to increase the pulling power of horses without decreasing their ability to breathe. In fact, as early as the ninth century in Europe, horseshoes were invented, and someone figured out that, when horses are hitched, one behind the other, their pulling power is enormously amplified. Corn mills, paper mills, and fulfilling mills were part of medieval culture, as were bridges, castles, and cathedrals, The famous spire of Strasbourg Cathedral built in the thirteenth century, rose to a height of 466 feet, the equivalent of a forty-story skyscraper. And, to go further back in time one must not fail to mention the remarkable engineering achievements of Stonehenge and the Pyramids (whose construction, Lewis Mumford insisted, signifies the first example of a megamachine in action). Given the fact, we must conclude that tool-using cultures are not necessarily impoverished technologically, and may even be surprisingly sophisticated.
Of course some tool-using cultures were (and still are) technologically primitive, and some have even displayed a contempt for crafts and machinery. The Golden Age of Greece, for example, produced no important technical inventions and could not even devise ways of using horsepower efficiently. Both Plato and Aristotle scorned the “base mechanic arts,” probably in the belief that nobility of mind was not enhanced by efforts to increase efficiency or productivity. Efficiency and productivity were problems for slaves, not philosophers. We find a somewhat similar view in the Bible, which is the longest and most detailed account of an ancient tool-using culture we have. In Deuteronomy, no less an authority than God Himself says, “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, and abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and set it up in secret.” Tool-using cultures, then, may have many tools or few, many be enthusiastic about tools or contemptuous. The name “tool-using culture” derives from the relationship in a given culture between tools and the belief system or ideology. The tools are not intruders. They are integrated into the culture in ways that do not pose significant contradictions to its World-view. If we take the European Middle Ages as an example of a tool-using culture, we find a very high degree of integration between its tools and its World-view. Medieval theologians developed an elaborate and systematic description of the relation of man to God, man, man to nature, man to man, and man to his tools. Their theology took as a first and last principle that all knowledge and goodness come from God, and that therefore all human enterprise must be directed toward the service of God. Theology, not technology, provided people with authorization for what to do or think. Perhaps this is why Leonardo da Vinci kept his design of submarine secret, believing that it was too harmful a tool to unleash, that it would not gain favor in God’s eyes.
A revolutionary new system for creating wealth cannot spread without triggering personal, political, and international conflict. Change the way wealth is made and you immediately collide with all the entrenched interests whose power arose from the prior wealth-system. Bitter conflicts erupt as each side fights for control of the future. It is this conflict, spreading around the World today, that helps explain the present power shake-up. To anticipate what might lie ahead for us, therefore, it is helpful to glance briefly backward at the last such global conflict. Three hundred years ago the industrial revolution also brought a new system of wealth creation into being. Smokestacks speared the skies where fields once were cultivated. Factories proliferated. These “dark Satanic mills” brought with them a totally new way of life—and a new system of power. Peasants freed from near-servitude on the land turned into urban workers subordinated to private or public employers. With this change came changes in power relations in the home as well. Agrarian families, several generations under a single roof, all ruled by a bearded patriarch, gave way to stripped-down nuclear families from which the elderly were soon extruded or reduced in prestige and influence. The family itself, as an institution lost much of its social power as many of its functions were transferred to other institutions—education to the school, for example. Sooner or later, too, wherever steam engines and smokestacks multiplied, vast political changes followed. Monarchies collapsed or shriveled into tourist attractions. New political forms were introduced.
If they were clever and farsighted enough, rural landowners, once dominant in their regions, moved into the cities to ride the wave of industrial expansion, their sons becoming stockbrokers or captains of industry. Most of the landed gentry who clung to their rural way of life wound up as shabby gentility, their mansions eventually turned into museums or into money-raising lion parks. Against their fading power, however, new elites arose: corporate chieftains, bureaucrats, media moguls. Mass production, mass distribution, mass education, and mass communication were accompanied by mass democracy, or dictatorships claiming to be democratic. These internal changes were matched by gigantic shifts in global power, too, as the industrialized nations colonized, conquered, or dominated much of the rest of the World, creating a hierarchy of World power that still exists in some regions. The appearance of a new system for creating wealth undermined every pillar of the old power system, ultimately transforming family life, business, politics, the nation-state, and the structure of the global power itself. Those who fought for control of the future made use of violence, wealth, and knowledge. Today a similar, though far more accelerated, upheaval has started. The changes we have recently seen in business, the economy, politics, and at the global level are only the first skirmishes of far bigger power struggles to come. For we stand at the edge of the deepest powershift in human history. The real message that America sends, ore important than its ideological and commercial rhetoric, is Gospel of Change. It is the dominant message now being delivered to billions of people in rigid societies around the World: Change is possible—and not just in some blue-sky future but soon, in your own lifetime or that of your child.
This gospel does not specify whether change will be good or bad. That will be interpreted differently and fought over. However, the very idea that change is possible is still revolutionary for many populations on this planet—especially for the World’s poorest young people. And, as innumerable examples show, when people regard change as impossible, they seldom take the future in their hands. If the emergent generation is inspired by the Gospel of Change, the changes to come will not necessarily please America and Americans. In the Middle East, it could take the form of popularly elected theocratic-fascist regimes duly voted into power. In Africa and Latin America, it might take completely different forms. The Gospel of Change is most dangerous to established institutions and order precisely because it is not inherently right-wing or left-wing, democratic or authoritarian. Its implicit meta-message is that all our societies, all out current ways of life and even our beliefs are inherently temporary. It is not the message of Adam Smith or Karl Marx. It is not the message of the French or American revolutionists. It is the message of that most revolutionary of all philosophers, Heraclitus—whose best-know statement still sums it up: “You cannot step in the same river twice, because by the second step it will already have changed.” All is process. All is change. Heraclitus implies that all ideologies, and all religions, like all institutions, are historically transient. That is the real message emanating from the United States of America. And that is what, at the deepest level, disturbs the dreams—and triggers the nightmares—of billions of human beings. The United States of America cannot help but transmit that message because it itself exemplifies change. Many countries today have begun the transition from an industrial wealth system and civilization to a knowledge-based wealth system—without appreciating that a new wealth system is impossible without a correspondingly new way of life. America is on the razor edge of that all-encompassing change.
That is why even the present and former allies are increasingly troubled by America’s role in the World. Even as they, too, undergo significant transformation—the recent enlargement of European Union and the rejection by some countries of its proposed constitution, for example—their overall pace is slower and less revolutionary. As they struggled to build their own future, they see the United States of American pulling away, speeding into the unknown—and pulling other cultures and countries in its turbulent wake. However, if everything is in fact temporary, so is American power. The United States of American has become famous for its obsession with the next year’s elections and the next quarter’s profits, and the future be damned. Nonetheless, we are writing for normal human beings who feel that the future matters—ten, twenty, perhaps even thirty years from now—for people who care enough to try to shift the odds for the better. Making wise choices with an eye to the future requires a realistic picture of what the future can hold. What if most pictures of the future today are based on the wrong assumptions? Here are a few of today’s common assumption, some are so familiar that they are seldom stated: Industrial development is the only alternative to poverty, many people must work in factories, greater wealth means greater resource consumption, logging, mining, and fossil-fuel burning must continue, manufacturing means pollution, Third World development would doom the environment. These assumptions all depend on a more basic assumption: Industry as we know it cannot be replaced. Some further assumptions: The twenty-first century will basically bring more of the same. Today’s economic trends will define tomorrow’s problems. Spaceflight will never be affordable for most people. Forests will never grow beyond Earth. More advanced medicine will always be more expensive. Even highly advanced medicine will not be able to keep the people healthy. Solar energy will never become really inexpensive. Toxic wastes will never be gathered and eliminated. Developed land will never be returned to wilderness. There will never be weapons worse than nuclear missiles. Pollution and resource depletion will eventually bring war of collapse. These, too, depend on a more basic assumption: Technology as we know it will never be replaced.
These commonplace assumptions paint a future full of terrible dilemmas, and the notion of that a technological change will let us escape from them smacks of the idea that some technological fix can save the industrial system. The prospect, though, is quite different: the industrial system will not be fixed, it will be junked and recycled. The prospect is not more industrial wealth ripped from the flesh of the Earth, but green wealth unfolding from processes as clean as a growing tree. Today, our industrial technologies force us to choose better quality or lower costs or greater safety or cleaner environment. Molecular manufacturing, however, can be used to improve quality and lower costs and increase safety and clean the environment. The coming revolutions in technology will transcend many of the old, familiar dilemmas. And yes, they will bring fresh, equally terrible dilemmas. Molecular nanotechnology will bring thorough and inexpensive control of the structure of matter. We need to understand the molecular nanotechnology in order to understand the future capabilities of the human race. This will help us see the challenges ahead, and help us plan how best to conserve values, traditions, and ecosystems through effective policies and institutions. Likewise, it can help us see what today’s events mean, including business opportunities and possibilities for action. We need a vision of where technology is leading because technology is part of what human beings are, and will affect what we and our societies can become. The consequences of the coming revolutions will depend on human actions. As always, new abilities will create new possibilities both for good and for ill. However, our political and economic pressures can be harnessed to achieve good ends. Still, the answers will not be satisfactory, but they are at least a beginning.
Society is made up of rules. Exactly what is meant by “uncalled for” is not precisely determined. However, some people deliberately disobey the rules to see what they can get away with. TRANQUILIZER illustrates a mor subtle way of taking advantage of many rules, and hence a more subtle challenge. It first seeks to establish a mutually rewarding relationship with another individual, and only then does it cautiously try to see if it will be allowed to get away with something. By waiting until a pattern of mutual cooperation has been developed, it hopes to lull the other side into being forgiving of occasional defections. If the other individua continues to cooperate, the defections become more frequent, but still tries to avoid pressing one’s luck too far. What it takes to do well with challenging rules like these is to be ready to retaliate after an “uncalled for” defection. So while it pays to be nice, it also pays to be retaliatory. What seems to happen is an interesting interaction between people. If others are going to be nice and forgiving, it pays to tr to take advantage of them. The reason is that in trying to exploit other rules, they often eventually get punished enough to make the whole situation less rewarding for both parties than pure mutual cooperation would have been. At first, poor decisions and good decisions, in anything such as a business or in Congress, are represented in equal proportions. However, as time passes, the poorer ones begin to dropout and the good ones thrive. Success breeds more success, provided that the success derives from interactions with other successful rules. If, on the other hand, a decision rule’s success derives from its ability to exploit other rules, then as these exploited rules die out, the exploiter’s base of support becomes eroded and the exploiter suffers a similar fate.
We have to remember that the United State of America and most corporations are, in the long run, are still relatively new. By the two hundredth generation or so, things began to take a noticeable turn. Less successful programs usually become extinct, which means that there are fewer and fewer prey for them to exploit. Soon a predator cannot keep up with the successful nice rules, and by the one thousandth generation, predators become extinct as do the exploitive rules on which they preyed. This is why older societies, like the Native Americans, were able to live in harmony and protect the land. They were much older than the “New World,” and were in harmony with their people and environment. The ecological analysis shows that doing well with rules that do not score well themselves is eventually a self-defeating process. Not being nice may look promising at first, but in the long run it can destroy the very environment it needs for its own success. By the one-thousandth generation, a society is usually most successful and still growing at a faster rate than any other rule. I supposed this is why some people do not like immigration very much. The want to acclimate with the people who are already here, establish peace and prosperity before adding new people to the melting pot. Immigration does bring a lot of knowledge and technology, but it also brings some disharmony and instability with it. However, parts of its success might be that other rules anticipate its presence and are designed to do well with it. And any rule that tries to take advantage of the situation, will only hurt itself because it will upset society. For that reason, a country benefits from its own nonexploitability because mutual feelings are salient. Aggression is easy to recognize. And once recognized, mutual nonexploitability is easy to appreciate. People generally like to live in peace in the communities.
While exploitation is occasionally fruitful, over a wide range of environments the problems with trying to exploit others are manifold. In the first place, if a rule defects to see what it can get away with, it risks retaliation from the rules that are provocable. In the second place, once mutual recriminations set it, it can be difficult to extract oneself. Being able to exploit the exploitable without paying too high a cost cannot always be accomplished. Generally, for a robust success of a nation or corporation and even a family is that one needs a combination of being nice, retaliatory, forgiving, and clear. Its niceness prevents it from getting into unnecessary trouble. Its retaliation discourages the other side from persisting whenever defection is tried. Its forgiveness helps restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes it intelligible to other individuals, thereby eliciting long-term cooperation. The disenchantment of God and nature necessitated a new description of good and evil. To adapt a formula of Plato about the gods, we do not love a thing because it is good, it is because we love it. It is our decision to esteem that makes something estimable. Man is the esteeming being, the one capable of reverence and self-contempt, “the beast with the red cheeks.” Nietzsche claimed to have seen that the object of men’s reverence in no sense compel that reverence; frequently the objects do not even exist. Their qualities are projections of what is most powerful in man and serve to satisfy his strongest needs or desires. Good and evil are what make it possible for men to live and act. The character of their judgments of good and evil shows that they are. To put it simply, Nietzsche says that modern man is losing, or has lost, the capacity to value, and therewith his humanity. Self-satisfaction, the desire to be adjusted, the comfortable solution to his problems, the whole program of the welfare state, are the signs of the incapacity to look up toward the Heaven of man’s possible perfection or self-overcoming.
However, the surest sign is the way we use the word “value,” and in this Nietzsche not only diagnosed the disease but exacerbated it. He intended to point out to men the danger they are in, the awesome task they face of protecting and enhancing humanity. If they believed God ss he understood it, men in our current decrepitude could take it easy because nature or history provides value. Such belief was salutary as long as the objectified creations of man were still noble and vital. However, in the present exhaustion of the old values, men must be brought to the abyss, terrified by their danger and nauseated by what could become of them, in order to make them aware of their responsibility for their fate. They must turn within themselves and reconstitute the conditions of their creativity in order to generate values. The self must be a tense bow. It must struggle with opposites rather than harmonize them, rather than turn the tension over to the great instruments of the last manhood—the skilled bow unbenders and Jesuits of our days, the psychiatrists, who, in the same spirit and as part of the same conspiracy of modernity as the peace virtuosos, reduce conflict. Chaos, the war of opposites, is, as we know from the Christian Bible, the condition of creativity, which must be mastered by the creator. The self must also bring forth arrows out of its longing. Bow and arrow, both belonging to man, can shoot a start into the Heavens to guide man. Stripping away the illusions about values was required, so Nietzsche thought, by our situation, to disenchant all misleading hopes of comfort or consolation, thereby to fill the few creators with awe and the awareness that everything depends on them.
Nihilism is a dangerous but a necessary and a possibly salutary stage in human history. In it man faces his true situation. It can break him, reduce him to despair and spiritual or bodily suicide. However, it can hearten him to a reconstruction of the World of meaning. Nietzsche’s works are a glorious exhibition of the soul a man who might, if anybody can, be called creative. They constitute the profoundest statement about creativity, by a man who had a burning need to understand it. The development of the conceptual and performance genres changed the rules of art till it became virtually unrecognizable to those who had thought that it was theirs. The art activity flowed into the darkness beyond its traditional boundaries and explored areas that were previously as unmapped and mysterious as the other side of the Moon. In recent years a tendency has been underway to close the book on those investigations, to contract again around the commodifiable aesthetic object, and to forget the sometimes frightening visions of other side. Yet it if one opens the book—and it will not go away—the strange record is still there, like the fragmentary journals of explorers in new lands, filled with apparently unanswerable questions. When Piero Manzoni, in 1959, canned his feces and put in on sale in an art gallery for its weight in gold; when Chris Burden had himself shot in the arm and crucified to the roof of a Volkwagen (in 1971 and 1974 respectively); when two American performance artists, in separate events, had pleasures of the flesh with corpses—how did such activities come to be called art? In fact the case at hand is not unique. Similar movements have occurred occasionally in cultural history when the necessary conditions were in place. Perhaps the most striking parallel is the development, in the Cynic school of Greek philosophy, of “performance philosophy” that parallels the gestures of performance art in many respects. If this material is approached with sympathy and with a broad enough cultural perspective it will reveal its inner seriousness and meaning.
One of the necessary conditions for activities of this type is the willingness to manipulate linguistic categories at will. This willingness arises from a nominalist view of language which holds that words lack fixed ontological essences that are their meanings; meanings, rather, are seen to be created by convention alone, arbitrary, and hence manipulable. Ferdinand de Saussure pointed toward this with his perception of the arbitrariness of the link between signifier and gained. Even more, Ludwig Wittgenstein, by dissolving fixed meaning into the free-for-all of usage, demonstrated a culture’s ability to alter its language games by rotations of reshapings of the semantic field. By manipulating semantic categories, by dissolving their boundaries selectively and allowing the contents of one to flow into another, shifts in cultural focus can be forced through language’s control of affection and attitude. In the extreme instances, a certain category can be declared universal, coextensive with experience, its boundaries being utterly dissolved until its content melts into awareness itself. This universalization of a single category has at different times taken place in the areas of religion, philosophy, and, in our time, art. A second necessary condition is a culture that is hurtling through shifts in awareness so rapidly that, like the tragic hero in Sophocles just before the fall, it becomes giddy with prospects of new accomplishments hardly describable in known terms. At such moments the boundaries of things seem outworn; the contents flow into and around one another dizzyingly. In a realm like that, the art some twenty-five years ago, feels its inherited boundaries to be antiquated and ineffective, a sudden overflow in all directions can occur. Television, some might argue, is another form of art, and it is the most important single source of images in the World today. If people are ingesting television images at the rate of four hours a day, then it is clear that whatever uses people have for the images they carry in their heads, television is now the source.
When one is watching television all categories of one’s own image-making capacities go dormant, submerged in the television image. TV effectively intervenes between one and one’s personal images, substituting itself. When one is watching TV, one is not daydreaming, or reading, or looking out the window at the World. One has opened one’s mind, and someone else’s daydreams have entered. The images come from distant places one has never been, depict events one can never experience, and are sent by people one does not know and never has met. One’s mind is the screen for their microwave pictures. Once their images are inside one, they imprint upon one’s memory. They become yours. What is more, the images remain in one permanently. I can easily prove this to you. Please bring to mind any of the following: John F. Kennedy, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Howdy Doody, Justin Bieber, Captain Kirk, Archie Bunker, Johnny Carson, Tomi Lahren, Henry Kissinger. Did any of these images appear in your mind? Were you able to make a picture of them in your head? If so, that is proof that once they have entered your brain, they remain in there. They live in there together with all the memories of one’s life. Yet one does not know these people. And some of them are fictional characters. Now would you make the effort, please, to erase these TV people from your mind? Make them go away. Erase Johnny Carson or Justin Bieber. Can you do that? If so, you are a most unusual person. Once television places an image inside your head, it is yours forever. Happiness, more precisely, true happiness, they truly happy person. Happiness which is not obvious to all eyes, which is perhaps not even properly credible, since common experience knows nothing of it. There is a secret happiness hidden by the hands of life itself, which balances and outbalances all unhappiness. You do not see it, but it is true happiness, the only true happiness. That is why one can dare to explain, in face of everyday appearances, which show the abundant failures of the good, that everything done by this human succeeds.
Cresleigh Homes
No complaints over laundry when you’ve got plenty of room for folding and more storage than you can imagine! We’re already mentally assembling an army of stain-removers in those cabinets…muddy soccer uniforms have nothin’ on us! 💪
A home that fits YOUR lifestyle is priceless, that’s for sure!
#Havenwood
#CresleighHomes
The United States of America, they Feel, is Seducing their Kids
The actions people take in life are not necessarily even conscious choices. A person who sometimes returns a favor, and sometimes does not, may not think about what strategy is being used. There is no need to assume deliberate choice at all. Nor is it necessary to assume, as the sociobiologist do, that important aspects of human behavior are guided by one’s genes. Many times, the approach being used is strategic rather than genetic for certainly no intelligent person should make an important choice without trying to the complicating factors of the situation into account. The value of an analysis is that one can help to clarify some of the subtle features of the interaction—features which might otherwise be lost in the maze of complexities of the highly particular circumstances in which choice must actually be made. It is the very complexity of reality which makes the analysis of an abstract interaction so helpful as an assistant to understanding. The theory of Cooperation in biological systems can occur even when the participants are not related, and even when they are unable to appreciate the consequences of their own behavior. What makes this possible are the evolutionary mechanisms of genetics and survival of the fittest. An individual able to achieve a beneficial response from another is more likely to have offspring that survive and that continue the pattern of behavior which elicited beneficial responses from others. Thus, under suitable conditions, cooperation based upon reciprocity proves stable in the biological World. Potential applications are spelled out for specific aspects of territoriality, mating, and disease. The conclusion is that Darwin’s emphasis on individual advantage can, in fact, account for the presence of cooperation between individuals of the same or even different species. As long as the proper conditions are present, cooperation can get started, thrive, and prove stable.
While foresight is not necessary for the evolution of cooperation, it can certainly be helpful. If the facts of Cooperation Theory are known by participants with foresight, the most promising finding is that the evolution of cooperation can be speeded up. The most important kingmaker is based on an “outcome maximization” principle originally developed as a possible interpretation of what human subjects do in the Prisoner’s Dilemma laboratory experiments. This rule is called DOWNING, is a particularly interesting rule in its own right. It is well worth studying as an example of a decision rule which is based upon a quite sophisticated idea. Unlike most of the others, its logic is not just a variant of TIT FOR TAT. Instead it is based on a deliberate attempt to understand the other player and then to make the choice that will yield the best long-term score based upon this understanding. The idea is that if the other individual does not seem responsive to what DOWNING is doing, DOWNING will try to get away with whatever it can by defecting. If the other individual does seem responsive, on the other hand, DOWNING will cooperate. To judge the other’s responsiveness, DOWNING estimates the probability that the other individual cooperates after it (DOWNING) cooperates, and also the probability that the other individual cooperates after DOWNING defects. For each move, it updates its estimate of these two conditional probabilities and then selects the choice which will maximize its own long-terms payoff under the assumption that it has correctly modeled the other individual. If the two conditional probabilities have similar values, DOWNING determines that it pays to defect, since the other player seems to be doing that same thing whether DOWNING cooperates or not.
Conversely, if the other individual tends to cooperate after a cooperation but not after a defection by DOWNING, then the other individual seems responsive, and DOWNING will calculate that the best thing to do with a responsive player is to cooperate. Under certain circumstances, DOWNING will even determine that the best strategy is to alternate cooperation and defection. Schizophrenic writing is not infrequently possessed of genius since it emerges from a dialogue between inner soul and outer surroundings unmediated by the burden of “correct” societal conduct. In the World of advertising and mass media, the post-hypnotic magic of the suggestive ad slogan or the metabolic programming of muzak blurs the distinction between the perceived and the perceiver. Vide the recent Citibank slogan: “We’re thinking what you’re thinking.” The schizophrenic takes this sort of programming seriously enough to believe that one is being spoken to as an individual and might even reverse the syllogism to read, “I’m thinking what Citibank is thinking.” Forgiveness of a rule can be informally described as its propensity to cooperate in the moves after the other individual has defected. Of all the nice rules, the one that scored the lowest was also the one that was least forgiving. This is FRIEDMAN, a totally unforgiving rule that employs permanent retaliation. It is never the first to defect, but once the other defects even once, FRIEDMAN defects from then on. In contrast, the winner, TIT FOR TAT, is unforgiving for one move, but thereafter is totally forgiving of that defection After one punishment, it lets bygones be bygones. One of the main reasons why the rules that are not nice do not do well is that most of the rules are not very forgiving. The cause of war is individual and collective maladjustment of men and women in social space. Release from Magnetic Straitjacket Seclusion by Gravity, Restriction, Vacuum, Constant Observation. They are free-showing me how capitalism crushes communism.
Society appears to be largely composed of extremists and habitual criminals not normal human animals subjects or citizens of respectable states. This magnetic phenomenon not only is to be viewed as the predisposing cause of way, may be considered likewise to qualify as a predisposing influence in the cause of cancer, an explanation of the galactic hiss” noted by astronomers in extraterrestrial radio reception, the source of the “voices” complained of by patients in mental institutions and certainly the “magnetic straitjacket” painfully endured by all ordinary patients in such confinement, as well as many other distressing conditions and infirmities. The single fundamental issues is: the relation between reason, or science, and the human good. When one speaks of happiness and the last man, one does not mean that the last man is unhappy, but that one’s happiness is nauseating. An experience of profound contempt is necessary in order to grasp our situation, and our capacity for contempt is vanishing. Those who have esteem or revere and are therefore not self-satisfied, those who have values or, to say the same thing, have gods, in particular those who create gods or found religion have learned that the sacred is the most important human phenomenon. “God is dead,” Nietzsche proclaimed. However, he did not say this on a note of triumph, in the style of earlier atheism—the tyrant has been overthrown and man is now free. Rather he said it in the anguished tones of the most powerful and delicate piety of its proper object. Man, who loved and needed God, has lost his Father and Savior without possibility of resurrection. The joy of liberation one finds in Marx has turned into terror at man’s unprotectedness. Honesty compels serious men, on examination of their consciences, to admit that the old faith is no longer compelling.
It is the very peak of Christian virtue that demands the sacrifice of Christianity, the greatest sacrifice a Christian can make. Enlightenment killed God; but like Macbeth, the men of the Enlightenment did not know that the cosmos would rebel at the deed, and the World became “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Consider the case of JOSS, a sneaky rule that tries to get away with an occasional defection. This decision rule is a variation of TIT FOR TAT. Like TIT FOR TAT, it always defects immediately after the other individuals defect. However, instead of always cooperating after the other individual cooperates, 10 percent of the time it defects after the other individual cooperates. Thus it tries to sneak in an occasional exploitation of the other individual. This decision rule seems like a fairly small variation of TIT FOR TAT, but in fact its overall performance was much worse, and it is interesting to see exactly why. A major lesson in this situation is the importance of minimizing echo effects in an environment of mutual power. When a single defection can set off a long string of recriminations and counterrecriminations, both sides suffer. A sophisticated analysis of choice must go at least three levels of analysis is the direct effect of a choice. This is easy, since a defection always earns more than a cooperation. The second level considers the indirect effects, taking into account that the other side may or may not punish a defection. This much of the analysis was certainly appreciated by many of the entrants. However, the third level goes deeper and takes into account the fact that in responding to the defections of the other side, one may be repeating or even amplifying one’s own previous exploitative choice. Thus a single defection may be successful when analyzed for its direct effects, and perhaps even when its secondary effects are taken into account. However, the real costs may be in the tertiary effects when one’s own isolated defections turn into unending mutual recriminations.
With the other play serving as a mechanism to delay the self-punishment by a few moves, this aspect of self-punishment was not picked up by many of the decision rules. Despite the fact that none of the attempts at more or less sophisticated decision rules was an improvement on TIT FOR TAT, it was easy to find several rules that would have preformed substantially better than TIT FOR TAT in the environment of the situation. The existence of these rules should serve as a warning against the facile belief that an eye for an eye is not necessarily the best strategy. Nietzsche replaces easygoing or self-satisfying atheism with agonized atheism, suffering its human consequences. Longing to believe, along with intransigent refusal to satisfy that longing, is, according to him, the profound response to our entire spiritual condition. Marx denied the existence of God but turned over all His functions to History, which is inevitably directed to a goal of fulfilling of man and which takes the place of Providence. If one is so naïve, one might as well be a Christian. Prior to Nietzsche, all those who taught that man is a historical being presented his history as in one way or another progressive. After Nietzsche, a characteristic formula for describing out history is “the decline of the West.” Nietzsche surveyed and summed up the contradictor strands of rule in culture or soul, that it cannot defend itself theoretically and that its human consequences are intolerable. This constitutes a crisis of the West, for everywhere in the West, for the first time ever, all regimes are founded on reason. Human founders, looking only to universal principles of natural justice recognizable by all humans through their unassisted reason, established governments on the basis of the consent of the governed, without appeal to revelations or tradition.
However, reason has also discerned that all previous cultures were founded by and on gods or belief in gods. Only if the new regimes are enormous successes, able to rival the creative genius and splendor of other cultures, could reason’s rational foundings be equal or superior to the kinds of foundings that reason knows were made elsewhere. However, such equality or superiority is highly questionable; therefore reason recognizes its own inadequacy. There must be religion, and reason cannot found religions. This was already implicit in the first wave of criticism of Enlightenment. Rousseau said a civil religion is necessary to society, and the legislator has appeared draped in the colors of religion. Tocqueville concentrated on the centrality of religion to America. With the failure of Robespierre’s kind of civil religion, there was a continuing effort to promote a revised or liberal Christianity, inspired by Rousseau’s Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar. The very idea of culture was a way of preserving something like religion without talking about it. Culture is a synthesis of reason and religion, attempting to hide the sharp distinction between the two poles. Nietzsche examines the patient, observes that the treatment was not successful, and pronounces God is dead. Now there cannot be religion; but inasmuch as man needs culture, the religious impulse remains. No religion but religiosity. This suffuses Nietzsche’s analysis of modernity, and, unnoticed, it underlies the contemporary categories of psychology and sociology. He brought the religious question back to the center of philosophy. The critical standpoint from which to view modern culture is its essential atheism; and that more repulsive successor of the bourgeois, the last man, is the product of egalitarian, rationalist, socialist atheism.
Thus the novel aspects of the crisis of the West is that it is identical with a crisis of philosophy. Reading Thucydides shows us that the decline of Greece was purely political, that what we call intellectual history is of little importance for understanding it. Old regimes had traditional roots; but philosophy and science took over as rulers in modernity, and purely theoretical problems have decisive political effects. One cannot imagine modern political history without a discussion of Locke, Rousseau, and Marx. Theoretical implausibility and decrepitude are, as everyone knows, at the heart of the Russian malaise. And the Free World is not far behind. Nietzsche is the profoundest, clearest, most powerful diagnostician of the disease. He argues that there is an inner necessity for us to abandon reason on rational grounds—that therefore our regime is doomed. There is, however, a much larger sense in which changes in knowledge are causing or contributing to enormous power shifts. The most important economic development of our lifetime has been the rise of a new system for creating wealth, based no longer on muscle but on mind. Labor in the advanced economy no longer consists of working on “things,” writes historian Mark Poster of the University of California (Irvine), but of “men and women acting on other men and women, or…people acting on information and information acting on people.” The substitution of information or knowledge for brute labor, in fact, lied behind the trouble General Motors (GM) once faced and the rise of Japan as well. For while GM still was tied to the economy, that is why leaders say, “What’s good for GM is Good for America.” At the same time, Japan was exploring its edges and discovering otherwise. As early as 1970, when American business leaders, and even the general public, were being bombarded by books, newspaper articles, and television programs heralding the arrival of the “information age” and focusing on the 21st century.
While the end-of-industrialism concept was dismissed with a shrug in the United States of America, it was welcomed and embraced by Japanese decision-makers in business, politics, and the media. Knowledge, they concluded, was the key to economic growth in the 21st century. It was hardly surprising, therefore, that even though the United States of America started computerizing earlier, Japan moved more quickly to substitute the knowledge-based technologies of the Third Wave for the brute muscle technologies of the Second Wave past. Robots proliferated. Sophisticated manufacturing methods, heavily dependent on computers and information, began turning out products whose quality could not be easily matched in the World markets. Moreover, recognizing that its old smokestack technologies were ultimately doomed, Japan took steps to facilitate the transition to the new and to buffer itself against the dislocations entailed in such a strategy. The contrast with General Motors—and American policy in general—could not have been sharper. If we also look closely at many of the other powers shifts cited above, it will become apparent that in these cases, too, the changed role of knowledge—the rise of the new wealth-creation system—either caused or contributed to major shifts of power. The spread of this new knowledge economy is, in fact, the explosive new force that has hurled the advanced economies into bitter global competition, confronted the socialist nations with their hopeless obsolescence, forced many “developing nations” to scrap their traditional economic strategies, and is not profoundly dislocating power relationships in both personal and public spheres. In a prescient remark, Winston Churchill once said that “empires of the future are empires of the mind.” Today that observation has come true. What has not yet been appreciated is the degree to which raw, elemental power—at the level of private life as well as at the level of empire—will be transformed in the decades ahead as a result of the new role of the “mind.”
For centuries, the word Timbuktu has been used in the West as shorthand for the remotest possible place. Not long ago or Australian friend, the renowned author/adventurer Paul Raffaele, visited Timbuktu after a two-day drive another from Bamako, the capital of Mali in West Africa. He later e-mailed of this account. Little has changed in Timbuktu for centuries…Nomads herd donkey trains to market, while turbaned Tuareg men in robes an veils, hiding all but their eyes, stride through the alleys and past the fourteenth-century mud mosque….But ahead I see something that looks like a mirage. Scores of teenagers, black, white, and brown, clad in American ghetto-style clothing, are streaming along the street. The boys wear dark gym pants, high-tech sneakers, and long, loose basketball shirts boasting the names of teams like the Lakers…The girls wear tight jeans, sneakers and T-shirts. They are heading toward City Hall, and Paul joins them. “We’re having a rap competition,” a body explains. Timbuktu’s young people, he tells Paul, “discovered rap a couple of years ago, but now it’s their favorite music…Timbuktu now has cable TV, and we see rap all the time on MTV.” Inside the hall, hundreds of similarly dressed kids—Arab, Tuareg, Fulani and Songhai—are screaming and foot-stomping as four young men clutch the mikes. Over the next two weeks, however, Paul seldom saw anything but traditional garb in the streets of Timbuktu and in the desert. “On that one afternoon,” he wrote, “when the kids of Timbuktu flaunted their addiction to modern garb and music, did I get a glimpse of the future?” Raffaele’s question echoes that millions of parents around the World who see their cultures under attack. The United States of America, they feel, is seducing their kids.
However, it might be asked, away from what? Paul offers one powerful clue: “I ask [a boy] why there seem to be no girls older than sixteen in the audience. ‘That’s when their parents marry them off and they spend most of their time inside the house.’ I ask whether the girls choose whom they marry. ‘Of course not,’ he replies. ‘Marriage is too important for the girl or boy to make the choice. Our parents always decide.’” So Paul’s account makes clear, there are strict limits on Timbuktu’s conversion to the American Way. While Hollywood sent its message that freedom means unrestrained hedonism, Wall Street was sending a parallel message contending that unrestrained business and trade offer the best path to wealth. Washington, echoing this theme, chanted the mantra that the unrestrained freed trade and a “level playing field” benefit everyone. This, as we have seen, was combined with a magic formula: liberalization + globalization = democracy. For several decades America thus told the whole World—and itself—that laissez-faire (especially privatization and deregulation) would deliver democracy—as though any mechanistic, one-size-fits-all formula would work everywhere, overriding all differences in religion, culture, history and levels of economic and institutional development. If what America represents to the World is an across-the-board lack of restraint—and if that is its definition of freedom—it is hardly surprising that adults in other culture see it not as freedom but as chaos. Unrestrained hedonism and free-marketism are not, however, inherent or inevitable accompaniments of Third Wave economic development. Instead, they reflect the fact that the process of moving from an industrial economy and society to a knowledge-based economy and society is unprecedented. No previous generation has undergone, let alone completed, a similar transition. No model exists.
America, therefore, arrogant though it often seems, is shaken and uncertain as it experiments with novel ideas, social structures and values. It may well jettison some of today’s lack of restraint as unworkable models of behavior are tried and abandoned. When critics around the World complain that the United States of America is attempting to dominate and homogenize their culture, they fail to understand that the thrust towards homogeneity comes not from the advanced Third Wave sectors of America’s economy and society but from Second Wave holdovers. The mass-media, mass-marketing and mass-distribution methods that lie behind America’s exports of mass culture and values are perfect expressions of yesterday’s industrial mass society, not tomorrow’s knowledge economy based, if anything, on the customization and de-massification. In fact, the very variety that comes with knowledge-based development ensures that other countries will adopt quite different economic, social and political pathways to the future. They will not look like America. However, then, neither will tomorrow’s America. In Myth America, Carol Wald and Judith Papachristou detail a history of the images of women from 1865 to 1945, as presented in print media. They argue that the images, created exclusively by men, formed the operative visual myths about women in America and that as the images spread and entered people’s minds, they became mirrors of reality. Men wanted their women to be that way; women, seeing only those images, attempted to and eventually did become like the images. It was a kind of alchemy in which the image finally produced the reality. “To the degree that pictures seem real, people were inclined to accept what the [male] artist saw in good faith…Through such an arrangement, the myth becomes apparent…Myths prevail. Here, all the expected roles of women are illustrated, from romatic elopement, blushing bride, and honeymoon to household drudge and nagging wife…All are expression of [male] feeling made visible through art.”
The authors are careful to point out that the images of women had little to do with the reality of women’s lives, which were filled with hardship, and the need to solve problems against enormous odds, many times on their own. Nonetheless, because the images were everywhere, they began to dominate the reality, making women wish to be like men’s images of women, encouraging men to perceive women in those terms and helping institute a power arrangement between the genders that is only now being challenged. The images become the mirror against which the whole society compared women’s behavior, and because of their power they succeeded in becoming a personal and also a political and economical reality. Yet, those were print images, which are not nearly so powerful as the moving images that have since achieved an even greater presence in everyone’s mind. The women’s movement of today, like all other movements that are interested in recovering self-definition—African American, Asian, Indian, worker, homosexual and others—has discovered that its struggle must be waged not only against the creators of the images—the people and the media who purvey them—but also against the very mental images women already carry with their own behavior. Because of this, many political movements have taken on aspects of personal therapy movements. The goal is to rid oneself of what are called “tapes.” This phrase, heard equally from political people and people involved in many therapy systems—from “radical psychiatry” to, yes, est—is used quite literally. The tape is the image, the picture one carries in one’s mind that is continually replicated, unconsciously, however useless, self-destructive, or idiotic it may be. When women carry inside their heads the image of the idealized subservient housewife-mother-secretary, they automatically tend to imitate the image. This continues until the moment when they say, “Wait, I did not create this person in my head; who did?”
When Marvin Gaye invented the image “Black is beautiful,” and “I’m Black and I’m proud,” the points were to destroy a previous image carried in the minds of Americans alike that black was not beautiful. Only then could personal change be made, leading to political results. The suppression of Indian people in this country, at first achieved with guns, was later accelerated and confirmed by the media images of the Indian savage who needed to be saved by Agent Wonder Bread, the Blue-Eyed Wonder, who was Western educated, and had morality and a lifestyle of appropriate means. The critical ingredient in this was the implantation within young Indians themselves of the belief that this image was a correct one. With that came self-hatred. Only by realizing that the image carried in the mind—the tape—is real and implanted is possible to disconnect oneself from the cycle of taped replay and subvert an otherwise inevitable process whereby the image is translated into reality. You may be among those who believe that the evolution of image into reality takes place via the mysterious process implied by Hermes, the Tantras, the Cabbala or the Rosicrucians. Or you may be impressed with the biophysiological evidence that images are carried in the cells. Or you may believe that the emulation process is the primary way image becomes reality. Or you may believe, as I do, that the evolution of image into reality involves all these routes and others. However, whichever is most important, the result is the same. We evolve into the images we carry around in our minds. We become what we see. And in today’s America, what most of us see a lot of television. However, such prejudices are not always apparent at the start of a technology’s journey, which is why no one can safely conspire to be a winner in technological change. Who would have imagined, for example, whose interests and what World-view would be ultimately advanced by the invention of the mechanical clock?
The clock had its origin in the Benedictine monasteries of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The impetus being the invention was to provide a more or less precise regularity to the routines of the monasteries, which required, among other things, seven periods of devotion during the course of the say. The bells of the monastery were to be rung to signal the canonical hours; the mechanical clock was the technology that could provide precision to these rituals of devotion. And indeed it did. However, what the monks did not foresee was that the clock is a means not merely of keeping track of the hours but also of synchronizing and controlling the actions of men. And thus, by the middle of the fourteenth century, the clock had moved outside the walls of the monastery, and brought a new and precise regularity to the life of the workman and the merchant. “The mechanical clock,” as Lewis Mumford wrote, “made possible the idea of regular production, regular working hours and a standardized product.” In short, without the clock, capitalism would have been quite impossible. The paradox, the surprise, and the wonder are that the clock was invented by men who wanted to devote themselves more rigorously to God; it ended as the technology of greatest use to men who wished to devote themselves to the accumulation of money. In the eternal struggles between God and Mammon, the clock quite unpredictably favored the latter. Unforeseen consequences stand in the way of all those who think they see clearly the direction in which a new technology will take us. Not even those who invent a technology can be assumed to be reliable prophets, as Thamus warned. Gutenberg, for example, was by all accounts a devout Catholic who would have been horrified to hear that accursed heretic Luther described printing as “God’s highest act of grace, whereby the business of the Gospel is driven forward.”
Luther understood, as Gutenberg did not, that the mass-produced book, by placing the Word of God on every kitchen table, makes each Christian one’s own theologian—one might even say one’s own priest, or, better, from Luther’s point of view, one’s own pope. In the struggle between unity and diversity of religious belief, the press favored the latter, and we can assume that this possibility never occurred to Gutenberg. Humans must be taught to distinguish the right way from the wrong way. The right way, the way of God, is followed by “the proven ones.” Those who continue on their own way, and refuse to do that way, are called “the wicked,” those who miss that way again and again are called sinners. The real struggle of the direction is therefore with the wicked, whereas the “good” and “upright” God again and again directs sinners the way that is, helps them to find their ways back. LOOK AHEAD is inspired by techniques used in artificial intelligence programs to play chess. It is interesting that artificial intelligence techniques have inspired a rule which was in fact better than any of the riles designed by theorists specifically for the Prisoner’s Dilemma. It allows one to envision the future based on what strategy one may use to solve a problem and see what all outcomes of their choices may be. There is a lot to be learned about coping in an environment of mutual power. Even expert strategists from political science, sociology, economics, psychology, and mathematic have made the systemic errors of being too competitive for their own good, not being forgiving enough, and being too pessimistic about the responsiveness of the other wide. The effectiveness of a particular strategy depends not only on its own characteristics, but also on the nature of the other strategies with which it must interact. For this reason, the results of a single situation are not definitive. This is not a wish and not a promise. It is not that humans deserve happiness or that one may be certain of being happy whether in this Earthly life or another, future life. It is a joyful cry and a passionate statement—“how happy this person is!”
WELCOME TO CRESLEIGH RANCH
Four distinct communities in one iconic neighborhood.
Thank you for your interest in this highly coveted community. While homes at Brighton Station are no longer available, its neighboring community, Mills Station, is still actively selling with two new communities coming soon.
We look forward to meeting you!
The Time of the World Disappears Before Eternity
Revolutionary wealth is not just about money. Civilization is one of those big, stuffy words that may intrigue philosophers and historians but puts most people to sleep. Unless it is used in a sentence like “Our Civilization is threatened”—at which point large numbers of people prepare to defend themselves. Today many people do, in fact, believe that their civilization is threatened—and that the United States of America may be doing the threatening. And it is. However, not in the way most of us think. Around the World, critics of the United States of America point to its military and its economy as the main sources of its predominance. It is, however, knowledge in the broadcast sense and new technologies based on it that integrate America’s military and financial power and propel both forward. It is true that America’s technological lead is threatened. According to the National Science Board, foreign students earn nearly 50 percent of all U.S. doctorates in mathematics, computer sciences and engineering. And American youth are showing less and less interests in these fields. NASA officials complain that there are three times as many scientists over sixty as there are under thirty in the space agency. Shirley Ann Jackson, then president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has cautioned that “centers of technology-based activity, training, and entrepreneurialism are rapidly spreading throughout the globe. Thus even the status quo for the U.S. represents a declining share of the global marketplace for innovation and ideas.” Nevertheless, America still leads in most fields of digital technology, in microbiology and in science generally. It spends 44 percent of the World budget for research and development. By most criteria, the United States of America is still the undisputed leader in the performance of basic and applied research. In addition, many international comparisons put the United States of America as a leader in applying research and innovation to improve economic performance.
In the latest IMD International World Competitiveness Yearbook, the United States of America ranks first in economic competitiveness, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore. The survey compares economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency, and infrastructure. Larger economies are further behind, with Zhejiang (China’s wealthiest province), Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany ranked 20 though 23, respectively. An extensive review by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) concludes that since World War II, US leadership in science and engineering has driven its dominant strategic position, economic advantage, and quality of life. And at least for now, the United States of America remains the Word’s scientific powerhouse. Perhaps even more important is the speed with which scientific and technical findings from everywhere are converted into marketable applications or products and widely dispersed into manufacturing, finance, agriculture, defense, biotech and other sectors. All of which boosts economic productivity, further accelerates change, and increasing the U.S. ability to compete at the global level. However, knowledge is not only a matter of bits and bytes or science and technology. Part of the knowledge economy is the production of art and entertainment, and America is the World’s biggest exporter of popular culture. That culture include fashion, music, TV programming, books, movies and computer games. Americans have always been told that their most important message to the World is one of democracy, individual freedom, tolerance, concern for “the rights of man” and—more recently—the rights of women. In the last three decades, however, a U.S. media spread into formerly closed or nonexistent foreign markets, a very different set of messages has been communicated. Much of it targeted at young people.
Certainly not all, but a considerable amount of this material has disgustingly glorified pimps, gangster, drug lords, drug pushers, and hollow-eyed drug users. It has celebrated extremes of violence marked by unending car chases, over-the-top special effects and songs dripping with sexist venom. The impact of all this has been further intensified in the hard-sell, over-the-edge advertising used to promote these products. Hollywood, for example, has painted a fantasy America in which adolescent hedonism reigns supreme and authority figures—police, teachers, politicians, business leaders—are routinely satirized. Film after film, and TV shows one after another, tell young viewers what many of them hunger to hear: that adults are bumbling fools; that being “dumb and dumber” is okay; that “we do not need education”; that to be “bad” is really good; and that pleasures of the flesh, in infinite variety, is or should be nonstop. In this fantasy World, women are readily available, but they can also leap over giant buildings in a single bound (like Superman), shoot and kill (like James Bond) and practice martial arts (Like Jet Li). Extremes, we are repeatedly told, are good and restraint is bad; and, by the way, America is so rich that event its secretaries, police, clerks, and other ordinary working people live in high-rise penthouse apartments or Malibu mansions—images that set adolescent glands tingling from Taipei to Timbuktu. What few foreign critics of American’s pop culture seem to know is that ironically enough, many of the ostensibly American firms producing and disseminating the interesting and unusual of these programs either are, or were financed not by America, but by European and Japanese capital. Nor is it widely understood that shows are often made by, say, a European director with an Australian stary, a Chinese martial-arts consultant, an anime cartoonist from Japan or other foreign contributors.
In the meantime, however, the influence of these intriguing programs is so powerful that other societies fear for the survival of their own culture. Only if art threatens action, then terrorism can be advanced through art. For such a phenomenon as Aesthetic Terrorism to occur, aesthetic pursuit must become symbolic not of its own decadently solipsistic pleasures (exemplified in madness of des Esseintes in Huysmans’ Against Nature), but of action taken beyond the pale of art World confines. Terrorism is art is called the avant-garde. However, if this was once the case, it is no longer. Most avant-garde art is viewed and created today as simply an enfolding reaction to its own history. This disingenuous game-playing guarantees that the avant-garde art is viewed and created today as simply an enfolding reaction to its own history. This disingenuous game-playing guarantees that the avant-garde can no longer stimulate or even provoke. Dada and Futurist actions, which attempted to lead art out of the classroom and museum and into the streets, are simply appropriated by postmodernist facsimiles which capture the letter but little of the original essence. It hardly matters anyway. Avant-garde art has evolved into nothing more than a cultural benchwarmer, corporate tax write-off and public relations smokescreen. Art which openly espouses anti-corporate ideology is embraced as long as it hews to arbitrary standards invented by those taste-making and fortune-telling hirelings, the art critics. What could be wrong, after all, with a business World that allows people to say what they want (because it does not matter)? Aesthetic Terrorism is a term more realistically applied to the faceless regime of consumer culture than the avant-garde. The onslaught of Muzak, ad jingles, billboards, top 40 tunes, commercials, corporate logos, etcetera, all fit the terrorist dynamic of intrusion and coercion.
One almost forgets that aesthetics once implied a consensual relationship between the creators and appreciators of art. How often is it that one hears someone admitting a fondness for a media product “in spite” of oneself? How many times have you heard a slogan or rancid tune ring in your ears like a brain-eating mantra? When consumer terror’s avant-garde correlative, Pop Art, became indistinguishable from the object of its supposed social satire, it erased from big business its pejorative taint. Many of today’s avant-garde stars have emerged from or entered the business World, some enormously successful in the arcane number-juggling or speculation and commodities scams. Even freeloading on the state and private foundations is fair game only for those whose bureaucratic aptitude is matched by their shameless butt-kissing. It is not surprising that most grant recipients excel in little more than lawyerristic logorrhea and ingrained artistic timidity. Critic-centered postmodernism spawned the phrase-art hybrid of Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer in which an advertising-style slogan is combined with an implied message or visual cue (usually swiped from some old magazine). Their posture is a hip cynicism which is supposed to subvert the “thrall” of the advertising command. Kruger and Holzer play the market like skillful double-agents, boosting themselves into the public eye through clever steals from Madison Avenue behaviorist techniques yet simultaneously troweling on crypto-Marxist jive to secure the perks of critical and academic currency. Their self-promotions worked when they were at the sidelines of the establishment. However, not the social commentary grows increasingly hollow. Currently being groomed for jet-setting prominence by Soho millionairess Mary Boone, Kruger’s contribution to the Whitney Biennial in 1987, for which she is paid a handsome sum, featured nothing more than a socialite princess joke, “I Shop Therefore I Am.” Winking at and wagging the tail of establishment hierarchy is part of that I-rib-you-gently-you-pay-me-off confidence game artists have been playing the Renaissance courts.
These contemporary court artists, like many of the past centuries, smugly pretend t spit in the eye of the exploiters while allowing themselves to be pampered de-loused—and when they are not looking—de-clawed. There are, of course, those artists, usually fresh out of university, who are unaccomplished at filling out grant forms, and therefore consider themselves “subversives.” The majority of these art and rock magazines-styled rebels are playing out rebellion psychodramas to package and merchandize to consumerist sycophants. This strategy is (forgive them term) the simulacra of terrorism: the content seizes in the frozen attitudinizing of pose and goes no further. We must look to the true outsiders and not the would-be insiders for an artist truly capable of effective counter-terror against the insidious mantras of consumerist brainwash. Terror means a threat, and the outsider’s version of Aesthetic Terrorism belongs to those performances or arrangements of words and pictures that unleash the reactionary impulses of police and bourgeois artist/critic alike. The kind of art that evokes this wrath, fear and condemnation rejoices in its pagan spirit of schadenfreude which controverts the humanist piety of “enlightened victim.” Anti-social sadism rarely receives patronage, however. Outside the corrupting realm of societal handouts, the Aesthetic Terrorist—much as this definition may grate on him—is the last bastion of aesthetic purity. Operation Sun Devil is the name for a government action against computer wizards and assorted sharpies and super-smarts who were resourceful enough to figure out how to hack into the electronic files of Ma Bell. Those who know, claim the Sun Devil gambit as a terrified overreaction against intelligence by the plodding and stupid bureaucracy.
John Perry Barlow (Whole Earth Review, Fall 1990) describes a typical Sun Devil action against a teenage hacker: [A] father in New York […] opened the door at 6.00 a.m. and found a shotgun at his nose. A dozen agents entered. While one of the kept the man’s wife in a choke-hold, the rest made ready to shoot and entered the bedroom for their sleeping 14-year-old. Before leaving, they confiscated every piece of electronic equipment, including all the telephones. Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure are unheeded by the government agents who claim nerd computer hackers are terrorists and have “the ability to access and review the files of hospital patients. Furthermore, they could have added, deleted, or altered vital patient information, possibly causing life-threatening situations.” Meacorporate interests have staked claim to the entirety of cyberspace, and they are not about to tolerate the presence of digital interlopers. This may scare off some, but other pirates like the mysterious Legion of Doom and NuPrometheus league (who illegally circulated highly protected Macintosh computer source code) will rise to the challenge now that they have been provided a clearly delineated enemy to innovation, the individual, and personal freedom. It may come as a surprise to learn that a few artists are now producing work which finds itself classified as a thought crime, punishable by expulsion into a Siberia of non-distribution, and in some cases by litigation and imprisonment. Pure magazine, from Chicago, a xeroxed vehicle which extols child torture, murder, and extreme misogyny, tweaked too many civic-minded noses, and its editor, Peter Sotos, was tailed for nine months and underwent a lengthy trial process in which he was finally convicted for possession of some very illegal magazine. Soto’s case was the first successfully prosecuted new Illinois state law, enacted under the influence of the Meese Commission Report on pornography, an example of First Amendment revisionism par excellence.
Soto’s case is particularly disquieting because it proves that prison is in the offing for simple possession of controversial material. No doubt this legal precedent was established to open the doors for future roundups of other thought criminals. The expertly managed Gulf War (massacre), in which networks censored war casualty footage that might provoke a “Vietnam War syndrome,” provides a small window into the dynamics of mass control to come. Any thoughtful individual is undeniably malnourished by the current information diet. Whether this is due to a direct conspiracy of State or by design of the oligarchic marketplace matters little. However, it has upped the ante for a new American Samizdat in which “disreputable,” “crazy,” “hateful,” or “dangerous” topics are broached by individuals or small, autonomous groups that are not compromised or swayed by institutional priorities. Can “offensive interests become the political crime of future? Apparently so. When looking at the previous sentences one can compare and see that musicians have been arrested for obscene lyrics, anarchist individuals have been collared for burning the flag; parents have been arrested for photographing their toddlers in their birthday suits; painter and performer Joe Coleman was arrested in Boston for operating an “infernal machine” and in New York for killing a rat: museum curators were threatened with arrest for hanging homoerotic photos; G.G. Allian was jailed for some consensual sadomasochism with a girlfriend; the FBI have been “monitoring” certain groups who practice unorthodox pleasures of the flesh; and on and on. Even many of the books you read have come under widely publicized attack by authors such as Carl A. Raschke who advocated the revocation of First Amendment rights from those who spread “cultural terrorism.” Even globalization could be considered cultural terrorism.
It has become increasingly obvious that the aesthetic terrorist hobgoblins are nothing more than symbolic scapegoats to divert attention away from the real issues. For Americans, fear is not another form of awareness, it is just another form of gossip. As Charles Manson has stated, true subversive terror can only be actualized by turning off the TV sets. Until then, aesthetic terrorism will be orchestrated by those already in command against insubstantial or non-existent villains. And in the future, while the dumb show of bohemianism plays itself out in the cookie cutter shape of the politically correct martyr/victim, aesthetic terrorism will be orchestrated by those already in command against insubstantial or non-existent villains. And in the future, while the dumb show of bohemianism plays itself out in the cookie cutter shape of the politically correct martyr/victim, aesthetic terrorists will not involve themselves in the dubious rewards of celebrity. The best of them will work alone, already a part of the enemy camp, and in a chameleon-like stye master the fifth-column algorithms to subvert the ancient regime. We will not know them by name but their compensation will be to affect the outcome of the planet. Until then, there is a lot of work to be done. Under what conditions will cooperation emerge in a World of egoists without central authority? This question has intrigued people for a long time. And for good reason. We all know that people are not angels, and that they tend to look after themselves and their own first. Yet we also know that cooperation does occur and that our civilization is based upon it. However, in situations where each individual has an incentive to be selfish, how can cooperation ever develop? The answer each of us gives to this question has a fundamental effect on how we think and act in our social, political, and economic relations with others. And the answers that others give have a great effect on how ready they will be to cooperate with us.
The most famous answer was given over three hundred years ago by Thomas Hobbes. It was pessimistic. He argued that before governments existed, the state of nature was dominated by the problem of selfish individuals who competed on such ruthless terms that life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1651/1962, p. 100). In his view, cooperation could not develop without a central authority, and consequently a strong government was necessary. Ever since, arguments about the proper scope of government have often focused on whether one could, or could not, expect cooperation to emerge in a particular domain if there were not an authority to police situation. Today nations interact without central authority. Therefore the requirements for the emergence of cooperation have relevance to many of the central issues of international politics. The most important problem is the security dilemma: nations often seek their own security through means which challenge the security of others. This problem arises in such areas as escalation of local conflicts and arms races. Related problems occur in international relations in the form of competition with alliances, tariff negotiations, and communal conflict places like Cyprus. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has presented the United States of American with a typical dilemma of choice. If the United States of American continued business as usual, Russian might be encouraged to try other forms of noncooperative behavior later one. On the other hand, any substantial lessening of United States of America’s cooperation risks some form of retaliation, which could then set off counter-retaliation, setting up a pattern of mutual hostility that could be difficult to end. Much of the domestic debate about international policy is concerned with problems of just this type. And properly so, since these are hard choices.
In everyday life, if they never invite us over in return, we may ask ourselves how many times we will invite acquaintances for dinner. An executive in an organization does favors for another executive in order to get favors in exchange. A journalist who has received a leaked news story gives favorable coverage to the source in the hope that further leaks will be forthcoming. A business firm in an industry with only one other major company charges high prices with expectation that the other firm will also maintain high prices—to their mutual advantage and at the expense of the consumer. For me, a typical case of the emergence of cooperation is the development of patterns of behavior in a legislative body of the United States Senate. Each senator has an incentive to appear effective to his or her constituents, even at the expense of conflicting with other senators who are trying to appear effective to their constituents. However, this is hardly a situation of completely opposing interests, a zero-sum game. On the contrary, there are many opportunities for mutually rewarding activities by two senators. These mutually rewarding actions have led to the creation of an elaborate set of norms, or folkways, in the Senate. Among the most important of these is the norm of reciprocity—a folkway which involves helping out a colleague and getting repaid in kind. It includes vote trading but extends to so many types of mutually rewarding behavior that “it is not an exaggeration to say that reciprocity is a way of life in the Senate” (Matthews 1960, p. 100; see also Mayhew 1975). Washington was not always like this. Early observers saw the members of the Washington community as quite unscrupulous, unreliable, and characterized by “falsehood, deceit, treachery” (Smith 1906, p. 190). In the 1980s the practice of reciprocity is well established. Even the significant changes in the Senate over the last two decades, tending toward more decentralization, more openness, and more equal distribution of power, have come without abating the folkway of reciprocity.
As will be seen, it is not necessary to assume that senators are more honest, more generous, or more public-spirited than in earlier years to explain how cooperation based on reciprocity has emerged or proved stable. The emergence of cooperation can be explained as a consequence of individual senators pursuing their own interest. We are investigating how individual pursuing their own interests will act, followed by an analysis of what effects this will have for the system as a whole. Put another way, the approach is to make some assumptions about individual motives and then deduce consequences for the behavior of the entire system. The case of the U.S. Senate is a good example, but the same style of reasoning can be applied to other settings. The object of this enterprise is to develop a theory of cooperation that can be used to discover what is necessary for cooperation to emerge. By understanding the conditions that allow it to emerge, appropriate actions can be taken to foster the development of cooperation in a specific setting. The Cooperation Theory that is presented here is based upon an investigation of individuals who pursue their own self-interest without the assistance of a central authority to force them to cooperate with each other. The reason for assuming self-interest is that it allows an examination of the difficult case in which cooperation is not completely based upon a concern for other or upon the welfare of the group as a whole. It must, however, be stressed that this assumption is actually much less restrictive than it appears. If a sister is concerned for the welfare of her brother, the sister’s self-interest can be thought of as including (among many other things) this concern for the welfare of her brother. However, this does not necessarily eliminate all potential for conflict between sister and brother.
Likewise a nation may act in part out of regard for the interests of its friends, but this regard does not mean that even friendly countries are always able to cooperate for their mutual benefit. So the assumption of self-interest is really just an assumption that concern for others does not completely solve the problem of when to cooperate with them and when not to. A good example of the fundamental problem of cooperation is the case where two industrial nations have erected trade barriers to each other’s exports. If barriers were eliminated, because of the mutual advantages of free trade, both countries would be better off. However, if either country were to unilaterally eliminate its barriers, it would find itself facing terms of trade that hurt its own economy. In fact, whatever one country does, the other country is better off retaining its own trade barriers. Therefore, the problem is that each country has an incentive to retain trade barriers, leading to a worse outcome than would have been possible had both countries cooperated with each other. This basic problem occurs when the pursuit of self-interest by each leads to a poor outcome for all. To make headway in understanding the vast array of specific situations which have this property, a way is needed to represent what is common to these situations without becoming bogged down in the details unique to each. Fortunately, there is such a representation available: the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma game. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, there are two players. Each has two choices, namely cooperate of defect. Each must make the choice without knowing what the other will do. No matter what the other does, defection yield a higher payoff than cooperation. If both defect, the dilemma is that both do worse than if both had cooperated. Cases typically result in one of four possible outcomes in the matrix. If both players cooperate, both do fairly well. Both get a reward for mutual cooperation.
However, if one player cooperates but the other defects, the defecting play get the temptation to defect, while the cooperating players gets the sucker’s payoff. If both defect, both get the punishment for mutual defection. What would you do in such a situation? That is basically the gamble of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is simply an abstract formulation of some very common and very interesting situations in which what is best for each person individually leads to mutual defection, whereas everyone would have been better off with mutual cooperation. The definition of Prisoner’s Dilemma requires that several relationships hold among the four different potential outcomes. The second part of the definition of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is that the players cannot get out of their dilemma by taking turns exploiting each other. This assumption means that an even chance of exploitation and being exploited is not as good an outcome for a player as mutual cooperation. It is therefore assumed that the reward for mutual cooperation is greater than the average temptation and the sucker’s payoff. This assumption, together with the rank ordering of the four payoffs, defines the Prisoner’s Dilemma. We have come back to the point where we began, where values take the place of good and evil. However, now we have made at least a hasty tour of the intellectual experiences connected with modern politics that made such a response compelling. How it looked to thoughtful Germans is most revealingly expressed in a famous passage by Max Weber, about God science and the irrational: Finally, although a naïve optimism may have celebrated science—that is, the technique of the mastery of life founded on science—as the path which would lead to happiness, I believe I can leave this entire question aside in light of the annihilating critique which Nietzsche has made of “the last men” who “have discovered happiness.” Who, then, still believes in this with the exception of a few big babies in university chairs or in editorial offices?
So penetrating and well informed an observer as Weber could say in 1919 that the scientific spirit at the heart of Western democracy was dead for all serious men and that Nietzsche had killed it, or had at least given it the coup de grace. The presentation of “the last man” in Thus Spake Zarathusta was so decisive that the old-style Enlightenment rationalism need not even be discussed anymore; and, Weber implies, all future discussion or study must proceed with the certainty that the perspective was a “naïve” failure. Reason cannot establish values, and its belief that it can is the stupidest and most pernicious illusion. This means, simply, that almost all Americans at that time, thinking American in particular, were “big babies” and remained so, long after the Continent had grown up. One need only think of John Dewey to recognize that he fits Weber’s description to a T, and then remember what his influence here once was. And not only Dewey, but everyone from the beginning of our regime, especially those who said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” shared the rationalist dream. Weber’s statement is so important because he made as much as more than anyone brought us into contact with the most advanced Continental criticisms of liberal democracy, and was the intermediary between Nietzsche and us Americans who were the most recalcitrant to one’s insight, perhaps because according to it we represent the worst or most hopeless and are therefore loath to see ourselves in that mirror. A very dark view of the future has been superimposed on our incorrigible optimism. We are children playing with adult toys. They have proved too much for us to handle. However, in our defense, we are probably not the only ones for whom they are too much. Perhaps you have caught yourself kissing another person as you first saw kissing in the movies or on television. My children have a phrase to describe this: “television kiss.”
It is fortunate for them that they have noted that there are television kisses and other kinds, because it will help protect them from absorbing it, taking it into themselves where it will come back out ten years, like a replay. Most of us did not make that distinction as we sat in darkened rooms or theaters as children. Since we did not see all that much real kissing, the media kiss became our image of kissing. We found ourselves producing that model of kiss later in life. I was fourteen-year-old when I tried to kiss for the first time. I imitated Brad Pitt’s kiss, but I did not feel it. Only later did I realize that perhaps Brad Pitt did not feel it either; he was merely kissing the way the director said he should. So there I was imitating a kiss that was never real in the first place, worried that there might be something wrong with me for lacking the appropriate feeling and failing to obtain the appropriate response. The journalist Jane Margold was driving home one night in Berkeley with her brother, Harlan. Suddenly a man crawled into the street right in front of them. They screeched to a stop and then, stunned, just sat there for a moment. They finally got out and cautiously went up to the man to find out that he had been stabbed several times in his upper body, was bleeding profusely and was in danger of dying right there. The man’s assailant was nowhere to be seen. In describing the event to me, Jane said that she instantly flipped into a media version of herself. She had never faced anything like it before and had no direct feelings. Instead, playing through her mind were images of similar events she had seen on television or in films. The media superseded her own responses, even to the point of removing her from the event. She was there, but sue did not experience herself as being there. She was seeing the event, but between her and it, floating in her mind, was an image of an implanted reality which would not get out of the way. Jane thought such thoughts as: “This is real; there is a wounded man lying here in from of me, bleeding to death, yet I have no feeling. It seems like a movie.”
In fact, it was they very movielike quality that eventually got her into action. Without feeling, she performed mechanical acts. She and her brother comforted the man, directed traffic, dispatched people to summon the police and an ambulance. She became extremely efficient, but throughout, she had the sense of performing a script. Apart from their economic implications, technologies create the ways in which people perceive reality, and such ways are the key to understanding diverse forms of social and mental life. As individual express their life, so they are. There are three stages in the development of technology: the age of technology of chance, the age of technology of the artisan, the age of technology of the technician. Cultures may be classified into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies. At the present time, each type may be found somewhere on the planet, although the first is rapidly disappearing: we must travel to exotic places to find a tool-using culture. If we do, it is well to go armed with the knowledge that, until the seventeenth century, all cultures were tool-users. There was, of course, considerable variation from one culture to another in the tools that were available. Some had only spears and cooking utensils. Some had water mills and coal- and horsepower. However, the main characteristic of all tool-using cultures is that their tools were largely invented to do two things: to solve specific and urgent problems of physical life, such as in the use of waterpower, windmills, and the heavy-wheeled plow; or to serve the symbolic World of art, politics, myth, ritual, and religion, as in the construction of castles and cathedrals and the development of the mechanical clock. In either case, tools did not attack (or, more precisely, were not intended to attack) the dignity and integrity of the culture into which they were introduced.
With some exceptions, tools did not prevent people from believing in their traditions, in their God, in their politics, in their methods of education, or in the legitimacy of their social organization. These beliefs, in fact, directed the invention of tools and limited the uses to which they were put. Even in the case of military technology, spiritual ideas and social customs acted as controlling forces. It is well known, for example, that the uses of the sword by samurai warriors were meticulously governed by a set of ideals known as Bushido, or the Way of the warrior. The rules and rituals specificizing when, where, and how the warrior must use either his two swords (the katana, or long sword, and the wakizashi, or short sword) were precise, tied closely to the concept of honor, and included the requirement that the warrior commit seppuku or hara-kiri should his honor be compromised. This sort of governance of military technology was not unknow in the Western World. The use of the lethal crossbow was prohibited, under threat of anathema, by Pope Innocent II in the early twelfth century. The weapon was judged to be “hateful to God” and therefore could not be used against Christians. That it could be used against Muslims and other infidels does not invalidate the point that in a tool-using culture technology is not seen as autonomous, and is subject to the jurisdiction of some binding social or religious system. This is why power, which to a large extent defines us as individuals and as nations, is itself being redefined. A clue to this redefinition emerges when we look more closely at some of the unrelated changes. For we discover that they are not as random as they seem. Whether it is Japan’s meteoric rise, GM’s impressive rebound, or the American doctor’s fall from grace, a single common thread unites them.
Take the punctured power of the god-in-a-white coat. Throughout the heyday of doctor-dominance in America, physicians kept a tight choke-hold on medical knowledge. Prescriptions were written in Latin, providing the profession with a semi-secret code, as it were, which kept most patients in ignorance. Medical journals and texts were restricted to professional readers. Medical conferences were closed to the laity. Doctors controlled medical-school curricula and enrollments. Contrast this with the situation today, when patients have astonishing access to medical knowledge. With a personal computer and a WiFi, anyone from home can access data bases like Index Medicus, and obtain scientific papers on everything from Addison’s disease to zygomycosis, and, in fact, collect more information about a specific aliment or treatment than the ordinary doctor has time to read. Copies of the 2,354-page book knows as the PDR or Physicians’ Desk Reference are also readily available to anyone. Once a week on the Lifetime cable network, any televiewer can watch twelve uninterrupted hours of highly technical television programming designed specifically to educate doctors. Many of these programs carry a disclaimer to the effect that “some of this material may not be suited toa general audience.” However, that is for the viewer to decide. The rest of the week, hardly a single newscast is aired in America without a medical story or segment. A video version of the material from the Journal of the American Medical Association is now broadcast by three hundred stations on Thursday nights. The press reports on medical malpractice cases. Inexpensive paperbacks tell ordinary readers what drug side effect to watch for, what drugs not to mix, how to raise or lower cholesterol levels through diet. In addition, major medical breakthroughs, even if television news almost before the M.S. has even taken his subscription copy of journal out of the in-box. In short, the knowledge monopoly of the medical profession has been thoroughly smashed. And the doctor is no longer a god.
This case of the dethroned doctor is, however, only one small example of a more general process changing the entire relationship of knowledge to power in the high-tech nations. In many other fields, too, closely held specialists’ knowledge is slipping out of control and reaching ordinary citizens. Similarly, inside major corporations, employees are winning access to knowledge once monopolized by management. And as knowledge is redistributed, so, too, is the power based on it. A human is a “beast” and purifies one’s heart, and behold, God holds one by the hand. That is not a kind of humans. Purity of heart is a state of being. A man is not pure in kind, but one is able to be or become pure, rather one is only essentially pure when one has become pure, and even than one does not thereby belong to a kind of humans. The “wicked,” that is, the bad, are not contrasted with good humans. The good is to draw near Hod. One does not say that those near to God are good. However, one does call the bas those who are far from God. In the language of modern thought that means that there are humans who have no share in existence, but there are no humans who possess existence. Existence cannot be possessed, but only shared in. One does not rest in the lap of existence, but one draws near to it. Nearness is nothing but such a drawing and coming near continually and as long as the human person lives. The dynamic of fairness and nearness is broken by death when it breaks the life of the person. With death there vanished the heart, that inwardness of humanity, out of which arises the pictures of the imagination, and which rises up in defiance, but which can also be purified. Separate souls vanish, separation vanished. Time which has been lived by the soul vanished with the soul, we know of no duration in time. Only the rock in which the heart is concealed, only the rock of human hearts does not vanish. For it does not stand in time. The time of the World disappears before eternity, but existing humans die into eternity as into the perfect existence.
CRESLEIGH MEADOWS AT PLUMAS RANCH
Plumas Lake, CA |
Now Selling!
Cresleigh Meadows is now selling! Found just north of Feather River Boulevard, Cresleigh Meadows is home of the largest neighborhood in Plumas Ranch as well as the popular Bear River Park. With four floor plans available, ranging from approximately 2,000 – 3,500 square feet offering, three to five bedrooms, we are certain you will find the home that fits your needs and lifestyle.
Popular design elements include open floor plans, large kitchen islands, and flex spaces are staples in Cresleigh homes. Multi-generational living options also available in select homes.
Homeowners will love the convenient commuter access to nearby 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-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/
Restore to Him the Throne of the Universe
I would not necessarily say we have conjured demons that have entered members of the audience, but I would not deny it either. Every mythology has its good and evil spirits which are objects of adoration and subjects of terror, and often both classes are worshipped from opposite motives; the good, that the worshipper may receive benefit; the evil, that one may escape harm. Sometimes good deities are so benevolent that they are neglected, superstitious fear directing all devotion towards the evil spirits to propitiate them and avert the calamities they are ready to bring upon the human race; sometime the malevolent deities have so little power that they prayer of the pious is offered up to the good spirits that they may pour out still further favors, for man is a worshipping being, and will prostrate himself with equal fervor before the altar whether the deity be good or bad. Midway, however, between the good and evil beings of all mythologies there is often one whose qualities are mixed; not wholly good nor entirely evil, but balanced between the two, sometimes doing a generous action, then descending to a petty meanness, but never rising to nobility of character nor sinking to the depths of depravity; good from whim, and mischievous from caprice. As enshrined in legend, there are many mysteries to be solved involving the Winchester Mansion. Believe it or not, the key to the massive front door was made of solid gold and diamonds and the keys for the other 2,000 doors of this Eight Wonder of the World filled two water buckets. Mrs. Winchester never disclosed the spot where the “pot o’ goold” was concealed, but it was certainly not in her safe. Travellers who would go to her mansion, which was not often visited, at once became objects of intense suspicion. You are driving along a retired country road; at the turn of the hill a policeman heaves in sight. He speaks pleasantly, and if nothing arouses his suspicion, he will pass on and you see him no more; but if the slightest distrust of you or your business finds lodgment in his mind, he marks you as a possible victim.
He temporarily vanishes; look round you proceed on your journey, and you may, by chance, catch a glimpse of him a mile or two away, peeping over a wall after you, but when you appear at the Winchester mansion, he reappears, and the local policeman, after his coming, will be sure to observe you with some degree of attention. Step out on the street, and here comes the policeman, ascertains your name, takes a mental inventory of your effects, makes a not of the railway and hotel labels on your trunks, and goes away to report. A sharp detective is the policeman. He knows articles of American manufacture at a glance, and need only to see your satchel to tell whether it came from America or was made in England. Talk with him, and he will chat cordially about the weather, the crops, the state of the markets, but all the time he is trying to make out who you are and what is your business. His eyes ramble from your hat to your shoes, and by the time the conversation is ended, he has prepared for the “sergeant” who many say was the very Mrs. Winchester, a report of your personal appearance and apparel. There was also a legend that he was one of the spirits from the mansion, but no one can say for sure. From the day he puts on his neat blue uniform and saucerlike cap, the constable, on or near the mansion, carries his life in his hand. Every hedge he scrutinized with a careful eye; behind it may lurk an assassin. Every division wall is watched for suspicious indications, his alertness being quickened by the knowledge that he is guarding his own life. He watched the mansion with a love stronger than death, knowing that Mrs. Winchester was a widow, and the gentle soul, with an untiring devotion, spent her life reciting the prayers for the dead. Mrs. Winchester often times wondered who was she? What was she? And where was she? Those questioned remained unanswered. It was no matter for her to let them go.
“It was lonely,” said Mrs. Winchester. “Monotonous Tedious, in fact. The birds and horses and things are pleasant company, and they love me and I love them; but here lately they seem somehow insufficient. I lack something, I do not know what it is. If only they could see how pretty I am, and how rounded and smooth, and how daintily formed are my limbs. Possibly they do; sometimes I think they do; but at most they only look it, they do not say it—at least in any language that I can understand. I begin to feel sure that that is what I lack—to hear it said. So I am happier than I once was. I try to put away from me that thought—the thought of my husband and new born daughter—and in the day I succeed, and am content, and do not feel my pain. But at night I dream—and dream.” By the late 1880s, practices of sorcery in California had become so widespread. A long list of canons forbade the use of sacraments or holy objects in magical rituals or divination with holy water or blessed candles. The practice of sorcery with profane objects, it was decided, did not come under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition but was to be handled by secular authorities. There were some priests who were especially noted for their corruption and for their singular devotion to money. Members of the group were often found to be conducting rites too wild for the Catholic hierarchy to condone and were excommunicated. It was from this body of clergy that the modern Black Mass was to emerge. Monks who were renegades of the Franciscan order, were reported to have held nocturnal conventicles at which, after the service, indiscriminate events took place. When a baby was the inadvertent product of one of these gatherings, its body was supposedly burned, the ashes being mixed with blood that was served as a sacrament during the admission ceremonies of new members of the church. Such reports of disaffected renegade priests conducting illicit Masse were not infrequent at the time.
Sometimes the victims were obtained either by outright abduction or by buying them from their peasant parents, who were glad enough to sell the children, thinking that they were being taken as servants and would have a much easier life on the estate of a rich nobleman than plowing the fields. Now one may see why the Winchester mansion and Mrs. Winchester were so heavily guarded. In one church in particular, at the altar stood a statue of a hideous demon, presumably Satan. One room contained copper vessels filled with the blood of his sacrificial victims, the vessels all bearing neat labels revealing the dates of execution. In the center of the room was a black marble table, upon which was the body of a child who have been freshly slaughtered. These ritual Masses called from blood sacrifices to Astaroth and Asmodue, demons of love and lust. The blood was poured into a chalice. To that blood, flour was assed and a wafer made. The operators, seeking personal gain, sought to get what they wished from any source that would give it to them, and they were willing to prostrate themselves before any deity, good or evil, to accomplish their goals. It seems obvious that officials within the Church and without believed in the existence of such practices by renegade priests, which caused a sharp break in man’s attitude toward man and toward religion to occur. For the first time in centuries man began to look at himself and his society less seriously. With this new perspective, man’s religion also changed, and Satanism did, too. Therefore, it is no wonder that Mrs. Sarah Winchester’s arrival to the valley was a sensational event. People were thrilled by this dramatic entrance of a millionairess; by those freight cars sidetracked in Satan Clara, uploading rich imported furnishing; by building activity that mushroom a farm house into a mansion with over 500 rooms, and as many as 125,000 square feet.
Here was fair came for all! They talked about Mrs. Winchester! Talk begat rumor and as the years passed and new towers and wings arouse, so did the colossal, ominous figure of Satan, which had struck men dumb with terror and awe. The people of the valley could not tell if it was an optical illusions or material. When President Theodore Roosevelt’s entourage passed the Winchester House in 1903 to plant the City of Campbell’s famous redwood tree, he expressed desire to visit this now World-famous dwelling. At the great front door our nation’s leader was more than astonished when the ominous figure told him, “Mrs. Winchester is not at home!” As he left, a procession of white-and-red-robed, torch-bearing monks were seen floating down the misty nine-story tower of the Winchester Mansion. The ubiquitous inverted crucifix and black candles were present. There was a Mass taking place before an altar surmounted by a cross, on top of which was the sign of the tetragram, a traditional magical symbol representing the four elements and used in the conjuration of the elementary spirts. Mrs. Winchester was locked in her mansion in a life-and-death struggle with evil, spirits killed by the Winchester rifle. A cross was made in the fields. There was a goat trampling on the crucifix and a ghostly priest wearing a black robe and performing a ceremony. That night, passers by heard ghostly music wafting from the dark mansion. It was described as unholy sounds as the Devil’s Tritone. While God had invented music, Satan was the first musician, and many claimed to feel his presence. Classical music composers who were supposedly in attendance that night, he been denounced by the Church for making actual pacts with the Devil. And that night, these spirits in black and red robes insisted on all genuine creativity, including the music, which was the result of an implicit pact with the infernal. Shortly after the music started, witches assembled on the estate, there to jabber and disport themselves pending Satan’s arrival. When he appeared, they formed a circle around his throne and glorified him.
When he felt sufficiently stimulated by the praise, he gave the signal for the sabbath to begin. But this dark exuberance proved too much for the party. The night ended when the bell in the belfry high in the gables tolled at an ungodly hour to warn these visitors to return to their sepulchres. Mrs. Winchester felt such a demonic force that night…she dreamt of witches. She woke up screaming and screaming…and said, “I have seen the Devil.” And still a ghostly violin was playing as legions of restless souls still wandered in the mansion. The very act of hearing this music indicates that its intended purposes worked. This particular exercise was also intended to awaken dormant regions of the human mind. Ghosts playing certain frequencies would make unbelievable things happen the next day. It released adrenal energy, and the next day dead bodies were discovered mining in a cave in San Francisco. Mrs. Winchester fainted when she saw that the walls in her Daisy bedroom were done in scarlet black, and black candles surrounded the altar, on which a figure of Satan majestically sat. She found that her Bible was partially destroyed, there was a broken chalice, and inverted cross craved into the floor. Similar events took place all over the Bay Area that night. Weird animal sacrifices turned up with alarming frequency. Churches were vandalized, graves disturbed, and mysterious magical symbols were inscribed on church wall. It was as if the dead had been risen. I remember Mrs. Winchester telling me once of a visitation she had from her husband, William Wirt Winchester, deceased nearly ten years, and the shock of seeing him again, nearly killed her. This true story of these awful and inexplicable events—an experience that in one short day changed the colour of her hair from brown to white, and carved lines on her face that nothing would ever erase, haunted her with the recollection of the most fearful ordeal she ever went through and emerged alive to speak of it. Mrs. Winchester invited a Medium to her home to conduct a séance in the blue séance room. They heard such a melody as the World had never yet heard the equal to, note by note. A sort of ecstatic trance, and the most wonderful tunes ravished the air as if invisible hands swept over piano keys.
It seemed to tell her an unearthly story, faintly imagined and seen, shadow-like as in a dream, and awe-struck and bewildered, she crouched down on the cold stone floor, covering her ears, for she knew such a melody was never meant for human ears to hear. How long it lasted, she could not say, but it gradually died away as gently and imperceptibly as a summers breeze, and as it did so, the clock in the tower slowly struck 1.13 A.M. Then action came to her, and Mrs. Winchester sprang to her feet, she flew to the door and fumbled with the key. The rain was falling heavily without as she tore open the door, and she felt that strange soft wind she had felt thirteen times before pass her from behind! It passed her—passed her into the night was gone. But the sequel to that strange night’s experience came two hours later. A telegram came for Mrs. Winchester, that Reuben Gallon, a police officer known for guarding her estate was found dead outside her estate near the six-foot hedge with his horse laying by his side. The cause of death was apparently from fright. A priest who possessed a great deal of occult literature and practiced magic resented Mrs. Winchester because his mansion was much vaster and more beautiful than his church. He was envious of Mrs. Winchester’s zeal and determined to silence her and stop her building. He threated to cast a spell upon her which would upset her mentally, and perhaps this night of horrors was the result. Many charms are used to stir up love or hate, and some magicians specialize in this area of magic. Causing the death of human beings and animals. This type of black magic belongs to the darkest sphere of occultism. Such episodes may appear utterly absurd and pure superstition to people in countries comparatively free of black magic, but instead they should be warnings of the power of Satan and demons where occult literature lures readers into illicit knowledge. The satanists worshipped Lucifer, the fallen angel, who they believe has always had more power on Earth than God. Their goal is to restore him to “the throne of the Universe,” these strains echoing the tenets of the old Luciferins. In an honest moment, the priest confessed: “I didn’t want to curse Mrs. Winchester, but I was driven to do it. The devil drives me. I can never find rest.” By sympathy of your hearts for sin, more evil impulses inexhaustively than human power have stained the Earth. Such tragic events oftehn involve as many as four generations.
Unlock the secrets of these dark halls, where the magical arts have been cultivated and praticed.
A Guided tour through 110 of the 160 rooms. Guests will be able to see the infamous rooms of Sarah’s stately mansion, known around the world as the Winchester Mystery House®, and see the bizarre attributes that give the mysterious mansion its name.
Tour Duration: 1 Hour, 5 Minutes
Prices: $41.99 adults, $34.99 seniors 65+, $19.99 children 5-12.
Save by bundling both tours together! www.winchestermysteryhouse.com
Another Dish of Free Lunch–Eat Your Cake and Have it, Too!
If you considered that around three thousand years ago our precious planet Earth was infected with only fifty million copies (while, certainly, a single specimen would already have been too many) of the unfortunate human species; if you imagine having had at that time a pile of good H-bombs at your disposal and having used them to crumble the crust of this damned planet Earth and possibly to convert it into a second chain of asteroids, a first large ring of such little celestial bodies being located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter; and if you considered then what a litany of unspeakable horrors which still continue and are synonymous with humanity would not have occurred!! What philosopher would have dreamed, thirty-five years ago, of thus attacking the so sick matter which we all are? What philanthropist? What man of good will? However, now we absolutely must not miss the chance—and to have such a chance is too good to be true—finally to bring an end at last this infamous litany of abominations that we all are (collectively and individually); and I mean by that, obviously, in a complete atomic-nuclear way! The tragedy, the true catastrophe—is that humanity continues while the divine benediction would be qualified as thermonuclear or some equivalent thereof. If not stark mad, not to be of this opinion is to be selfish, criminal, monstrous. Now, Rousseau, for all the adaptations made by the legislator, in order for his legislation to sit particular times and places, was still pursuing the same universal goal as were the thinkers of the Enlightenment: to secure the equal natural rights of all men within civil society. He simply argued that Hobbes and Locke did not succeed in doing so, that self-interest is not enough to found political morality on. The political solution was more complicated and demanding.
Kant, who invented culture as part of a historical teaching, also had a similar universal goal. Although natural rights had become human rights in his teaching, those rights were the same ones, founded on a new basis; and the historical process he discerned in Rousseau’s teaching moved toward the effective establishment of those rights in civil society. Universality and rationality were the hallmarks of all these teachings. However, very quickly culture—which was for Kant and, speaking anachronistically, for Rousseau, singular—became cultures. That there were Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, and Chinese was clear. That there is a cosmopolitan culture, either existing or coming into being, is unclear. The various unions of nature with the acquisitions of civilization are rare and difficult enough; that they should tend to the same end is improbable; we should cherish these creations and be happy that there is any culture at all. A charm was discovered in this diversity. Rousseau introduced rootedness as a condition of attaining the simple rational human goal. His historicist and romantic successors argued that such a goal undermined rootedness; rootedness became the goal. Here again we live with two contradictory understandings of what counts for man. One tells us that what is important is what all men have in common; the other that what men have in common is low, while that they have from separate cultures gives them their depth and their interest. Both agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, id est, the interests of health and preservation, are what men share. The difference between them is the weight they give to being French or Chinese, Jewish or Catholic, or the rank order of these particular cultures in relation to the natural needs of the human body. One is cosmopolitan, the other is particularistic.
Human rights are connected with one school, respect for cultures with the other. Sometimes the United States of America is attacked for failing to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to impose “the American way of life” on all people without respect for their cultures. To the extent that it does the latter, the United States of America does so in the name of self-evident truths that apply to the good of all humans. However, its critics argue that there are no such truths, that they are prejudices of American culture. On the other hand, the Ayatollah was initially supported by some here because he represented true Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating human rights. What he does is in the name of Islam. His critics insist that there are universal principles that limit the rights of Islam. When the critics of the U.S.A in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights, are the same persons, which they often are, they are persons who want to eat their cake and have it, too. Why, it might be asked, cannot there be a respect for both human rights and culture? Simply because a culture itself generates it own way of life and principles, particularly its highest ones, with no authority above it. If there were such an authority, the unique way of life born of its principle would be undermined. The idea of culture was adopted precisely because it offered an alternative to what was understood to be the shallow and dehumanizing universality of rights based on our animal nature. The folk mind takes the place of reason. There is a continuing war between the universality of the Enlightenment and the particularly that resulted from the teachings of Enlightenment and the particularity that resulted from the teachings of Enlightenment’s critics. Their criticism appealed to all the old attachments to family, country and God that were uprooted by Enlightenment, and gave them a new interpretation and a new pathos. Such criticism provided a philosophic basis for resisting philosophy.
The questions is whether reasonings really take the place of instincts, whether arguments about the value of tradition or roots can substitute for immediate passions, whether this whole interpretation is not just a reaction unequal to the task of stemming a tide of egalitarian, calculating individualism, which the critics themselves share, and the privileges of which they would be loath to renounce. When one hears newly divorced persons extolling the extended family, unaware of all the sacred bonds and ancestral tyranny that it required in order to exist, it is easy to see what they think is missing form their lives, but hard to believe they are aware of what they would have to sacrifice to achieve it. When one hears men and women proclaiming that they must preserve their culture, one cannot help wondering whether this artificial notion can really take the place of the God and country for which they once would have been willing to die. The “new ethnicity” or “roots” is just another manifestation of the concern with particularity, evidence not only of the real problems of community in modern mass societies but also of the superficiality of the response to it, as well as the lack of awareness of the fundamental conflict between liberal society and culture. This attempt to preserve old cultures in the New World is superficial because it ignores that fact that real differences among men are based on real differences in fundamental conflict between liberal society and culture. This attempt to preserve old cultures in the New World is superficial because it ignores the fact that real differences among men are based on real differences in fundamental beliefs about good and evil, about what is highest, about God. Differences of dress or food are either of no interest or are secondary expression of deeper beliefs.
The “ethic” differences we see in the United States of America are but decaying reminiscences of old differences that caused our ancestors to kill one another. It has been thought throughout time that man is a killing organism. He must kill to survive. He must kill to advance for one must show the World who is the natural elite. Who is the World’s greatest killer? Man. Eve knew this when she described that aftermath of the Fall and Abel’s death. There was also a link between Eden and the Flood, a connection that is both moral and historical, as well as a symbol of the fate of humanity in the years to come. The animating principle, their soul, has disappeared from them. The ethnic festivals are just superficial displays of clothes, dances and foods from the old country. One has to be quite ignorant of the splendid “cultural” past in order to be impressed or charmed by these insipid folkloric manifestations (which, by the way, unite the meanings of culture—people an art). And the blessing given the whole notion of cultural diversity in the United States of America by the culture movement has contributed to the intensification and legitimization of group politics, along with a corresponding decay of belief that the individual rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence are anything more than dated rhetoric. No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear; for fear being an apprehension of pain or death, it operates in a manner that resembles actual pain. Whatever is terrible, therefore, with regard to sight, is sublime, too. This is the age in which our triumphant politicians and hopeful students boast of “slow but steady progress through science and education.” Thanks very much for such “progress!” The very sight of it is enough to confirm us in our belief in the immoral cyclic theory of history, illustrated by the myths of all ancient, natural religions (the Christians—borrowed the story of the Garden of Eden; perfection at the beginning of Time.)
It impresses upon us the fact that human history, far from being a steady ascension towards the better, is an increasingly hopeless process of bastardization, emasculation and demoralization of humankind; an inexorable “fall.” It rouses in us the yearning to see the end—the final crash that will push into oblivion both the worthless “isms” that are the product of decay of thought and character, and the no less worthless religions of equality which have slowly prepared the grounds for them; the coming of Kalki, the divine Destroyer of evil; the dawn of a new Cycle opening, as all time-cycles ever did, with a “Golden Age.” Never mind how bloody the final crash may be! Never mind what old treasures may perish for ever in the redeeming conflagration! The sooner it comes, the better. We are waiting for it—and for the following glory—confident in the divinely established cyclic Law that governs all manifestations of existence in Time: the law of Eternal Return. We are waiting for it, and for the subsequent triumph of the Truth persecuted today; for the triumph under whatever name, of the only faith in harmony with the everlasting laws of being; of the only modern “ism” which is anything but “modern,” being just the latest expression of principles as old as the Sun; the triumph of all those men who, throughout the centuries and today, have never lost the vision of the everlasting Order, decreed by the Sun, and who have fought in a selfless spirit to impress that vision upon others. We are waiting for the glorious restoration, this time, one a Worldwide scale, of the New Order, projection in time, in the next, as in every recurring “Golden Age,” of the everlasting Order of the Cosmos. The end of the World does not come suddenly and without warning. To imagine it does is to be fooled by popular misconception and thus fail to recognize the larger picture.
The end of the World is an ongoing process. It starts slowly, imperceptibly, and blossoms unnoticed in our very midst, until it has engulfed all that there is and none is free from its grasp. If life is to continue, all that humankind thinks is great and mighty is but a disease upon the life and must be made to perish. That which modern man has worshipped as being grand and noble is but an affliction. All that has given the appearance of granting freedom to humankind, has in fact ordained its enslavement, impairing and crippling from within while outwardly bearing the banner of liberty. The body of humanity has been poisoned, and even more as it strives for new horizons and constant advancement, rigor mortis has preceded the approach of death and the lives of men are dragged into the grave along with it. Seek now those motions that sow for humanity the seeds of death as they harvest for you the bounty of life. And man, self-castrated and self-frustrated, flees down the corridors of nightmares, pursued by monstrous machines, overwhelmed by satanic powers, haunted by vague guilts and terrors all created of his own imagination. He escapes into absurdity, drowns his spirit in pretence, worships tin gods of success. Then, shamed by his pretenses and frustrated by his self-denial, he frenziedly projects his horror on imagined enemies, seeks release in scapegoats and false issues, and propitiates anthropoid gods, the blacked and shattered eidolons of his spirit, with sacrifices of blood. Humanity is mean and corrupt, a liar blinded by its own deception, yet cunning within the confines of its ignorance. And humanity is weak, and yet strong in its weakness, for humanity by its cunning can suck the strength from the truly strong and bring them down with it. And humanity breeds death, the death of the soul, and gives life to the torturous conflicts of the mind in which the soul has trapped itself.
And humanity destroys all that promises to bring the spirit of purity and oust corruption. And humanity charms with a sweet façade which hides a treacherous heart. And humanity talks of love, and leaves the scars of hatred in its wake. And humanity cries peace, and brings war. And humanity speaks of glory and a magnificent destiny, and leads deeper into death and degradation. And humanity is brimful of promises and so-called good intentions, yet behind it is a trail of abject failure and betrayal. And humanity is afraid for it and is steeped in evil. And as with all things, by its fruits shall we know humanity. And humanity’s fruits are foul, bruised and bitter, and rotten to the core. And humanity’s home is the Earth, and the Earth is Hell. Now there is nothing more evil in the Universe than man. His World is Hell, and he himself is the Devil. Children’s games are largely based on their experiences. If they live in the country, their games will involve animals. If they go to movies, their games will reflect that. If they watch television, you can see it in their games. In all cases, the characters and creatures they are imitating are based upon the pictures of them which they carry in their minds. I have watched my kids after they have seen Star Trek on TV. Leo, the older, becomes Captain Kirk—efficient, “manly,” determined, in charge, unafraid, coplike. Annie, the younger, is second in command. She plays Lieutenant Nyota Uhura, affecting her behaviour: quick, intelligent, highly efficient, caring, and reasonable. The games continue for hours. Often they replay the same story a few times, as though they were rehearsing it or attempting to memorize it. This, of course, is exactly what they are doing—rehearsing it, to ingrain it in themselves.
Another day, I noticed that Leo was taking giant leaps around the garden and making a clicking sound with his tongue against the roof of his mouth. I realized that his noise was one he made frequently while doing something active and that it was an imitation of the electronic sound that accompanies all of the bionic acts of the Bionic Man. Later that week I watched the program with my kids. During one sequence the Bionic Man is shown running at bionic speed across a field, to the accompaniment of the clicks. The movements are shown in slow motion, so they become especially vivid. I asked my kids about this. Leo said that he runs around imagining that he is the Bionic Man and tries to run like him. Annie said she does, too. She also wanted to know if that was bad. How to answer that? Is it bad? It is bad for kids to do a natural thing—emulation, imitation—which is how children for millions of years have learned about the World? That is certainly not bad. However, in this case, they were imitating a mechanical person. I cannot tell them that it is bad because I do not want them to doubt their own learning processes, and yet the more they practice and maintain their bionic images, the more they imitate them. Slowly, they assume the role in real life. The role in real life. The Bionic Man slowly becomes real in the person of….my kids! I told them it was not bad and changed the subject. Emulation is a method used by human beings to understand and integrate nature into themselves. To get an idea of the naturalness of the process, just think of way in which you are like your parents or your children are like you. I believe that a parent may have less to do with the characteristics a child picks up from the parent than the kid does, because of simple evolutionary emulation processes that continue constantly.
We attempt to train children in one area, only to discover that they have picked up parts of ourselves that we had rather they had not noticed. My daughter Annie has begun to walk with her toes spread slightly outward, ducklike, as I do, and also as my father does. I can remember the moment as a child when I chose to imitate my father’s walk, out of a simple desire to be closer to him, to know how he is inside. Now, twenty-two years later, I walk exactly as he did at this age, even though it is not a desirable way of walking. One’s balance is not ideal, physical spontaneity is limited and movement possibilities narrow. The manner of walking amplifies a certain static emotional condition that my father had to struggle with and which, finding it also in myself, I do not much like. In retrospect, I can see that this way of walking is illustrative of an instinct to “hide” rather than “act,” and perhaps its roots go all the way back to his childhood in the Warsaw ghetto. Who knows? It hardly matters by now. And yet the walk has passed through four generations and is beginning to reappear in Annie. Therefore, imitation from generation to generation is automatic. The tool used is the image of the person being imitated. As I walk, I imagine my father’s walk. This makes it possible for me to repeat it. Without the image I could not repeat it. After many years, of course, the image has submerged though the walk remains. We tend to speak of image emulation as applicable only to children, as though at some fixed age one ceases to learn in this way. This is absurd. As there are way in which my children imitate me, there are also ways in which I imitate them. Annie, for example, has a gentle and efficient ways of speaking and moving, and I have often caught myself copying. Leo has an energy and enthusiasm—a brightness—which I have learned to call upon myself. He teaches me how by merely being that way. I copy him as the student copies the teacher. I become more like both of my children just as they also become more like me.
The same applies to husband and wife. It is a subject of scholars that husbands and wives (and even pets) begin to resemble each other after years together. I have seen countless examples of it, and I believe my wide and I are such an example. After living with someone over a decade, one picks up his or her mannerisms, facial expressions, even lines on the face and body attitudes. There is no way to avoid doing this. It is automatic. Humans are hopeless emulators. If we wish to, we cannot stop. We look around us, and whatever is there day after day becomes the environment for our ingestion whether it is the Bionic Man or one’s own family. We absorb it, take it into ourselves, turn into it. We become each other’s mirrors or reflections or mandalas. Slowly we turn into what we see. It is a basic way of learning how to be. The process goes on for our whole lives. San Francisco, unlike New York, achieves its primary cultural influence not from Europe but from Asia. An example of this occurs in many city parks from about six A.M. daily to eight A.M. I walk through one such park each day about seven-thirty A.M. The scene is this: about forty people, half of them Western, half Chinese, are facing a mature Chinese man who is doing Tai Chi. I have watched the way he teaches. He never speaks (he knows no English). He merely faces his “class” and moves. They copy his movements. If there is something particularly difficult, he does it several times. There is no discussion of theory; the movement itself is the theory. Once you have absorbed the movement inside yourself, the meaning of the movement invades your consciousness. So the teaching method is 100 percent imitation. After the class is over, the students practice with the image of him in their minds. The idea of culture was established in an attempt to find the dignity of humans within the context of modern science. That science was materialistic, hence reductionist, and deterministic. If their status is not special, if they are not essentially different from the brutes, humans can have no dignity.
There must be something else in humans to account for the fullness of their being and prevent political and economic arrangements that presupposed their brutishness from reducing one to it. Those who attempt to establish the dignity of humans did not hope of try to transform the new from natural science. It was a question of coexistence. They invented dualism with which we still live—nature-freedom, nature-art, science-creativity, natural science-humanities—in which the latter term of the pair is supposed to be of higher dignity, but the groundedness of which has always turned out to be problematic. Freedom is a postulate, a possibility in Kant, not a demonstration; and that remains the difficulty. Culture, although it claims to be comprehensive, to include all of man’s higher activities, does not really include natural science, which did not need the notion, which was doing just fine in the older democratic arrangement it has helped to found, and by which it was encouraged. Psychology today includes an important school for which man is nothing other than a brute, exempli gratia, B. F. Skinner’s behaviouralism; another in which the fact that man is an animal practically disappears, exempli gratia, Dr. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, which wants to found itself on biology and at the same time to account for spiritual phenomena, to the detriment of both. In general, everyone wants to be scientific and at the same time to respect the dignity of man. Therefore, may your refuge for “safety” in your Lord—you are sheltered in Him. And now, still turned to God, you will speak word about the task which is joined to all this, and which one has set oneself, which God has set him—“To tell of all Thy works.” Formerly one was provoked to tell of the appearance, and one resisted. Now one knows, one has the reality to tell of: the works of God. The first of one’s telling, the tale of the work which God as preformed with you.
The entire World watched awestruck as a half-century-old empire based on Soviet power in Eastern Europe suddenly came unglued in 1989. Desperate for the Western technology needed to energize its rust-belt economy, the Soviet Union itself plunged into a period of near chaotic change. Slower and less dramatically, the World’s other superpower also went into relative decline. So much has been written about America’s loss of global power that it bears no repetition here. Even more striking, however, have been the many shifts of power away from its once-dominant domestic institutions. Nearly forty years ago, General Motors (GM) was regarded as the World’s premier manufacturing company, a gleaming model for managers in countries around the World and a political powerhouse in Washington. Today, says a high GM official, “We have made a strong comeback.” Shares of General Motors Co. GM slipped 2.90 percent to $37.10 on Monday, May 16, 2022, and this proved to be an all-around mixed trading session for the stock market, with the Down Jones industrial Average DJIA rising 0.08 percent to 32,223.42 and the S&P 500 Index SPX falling 0.39 percent to 4,008.01. General Motors Co. closed $30.11 short of its 52-week high ($67.21), which the company reached on January 5th, 2022. The stock demonstrated a mixed performance when compared to some of its competitors Monday, May 16, 2022, as Tesla Inc. TSLA fell 5.88 percent to $724.37, Toyota Motor Corp. ADR TM fell 1.13 percent to $159.21, and Honda Motor Co. Ltd. ADR HMC fell 3.86 percent to $24.64. Trading volume (16.3 M) remained 1.9 million below its 50-day average volume of 18.2 M. GM still have a market value of $55.7 billion; shares outstanding, 1.46 billion. GM sold 512,846 vehicles in the United States of America in the first quarter of 2022, with improved semiconductor supplies supporting higher production and market share in key truck segments. “Our ability to meet pent-up demand improved dramatically thanks to a tremendous effort by our supply chain and manufacturing teams to keep our plants operating at close to normal levels,” said Steve Carlisle, executive vice president and president, GM North America. “Supply chain distributions are not fully behind us, but we expect to continue outperforming 2021 production levels, especially in the second half of the year.”
According to GM Chief Economist Elaine Buckberg, industry light vehicle volumes will grow this year and top 2021 levels, thanks to a strong labour market, higher vehicle production and pent-up demand. “Ordinarily, a U.S. economy this strong would translate into light vehicle sales in the 17-million range,” she said. “Improvements in the supply chain should lift auto sales as the years progresses, despite headwinds from higher inflation and fuel prices.” About forty years ago, IBM had only the feeblest competition and the United States of America probably had more computer than the rest of the World combined. Today computer power has spread rapidly around the World, the U.S. share has sagged, and with its annual revenue decline of 6 percent since 2011, IBM faces stiff competition from companies like NEC, Hitachi, and Fujitsu in Japan; Groupe Bull in France; ICL in Britain, and many others. Industry analysts speculate about the post-IMB era. Nor is all this a result of foreign competition. Forty years ago, three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, dominated the American airwaves. They faced no foreign competition at all. Yet today they are shrinking so fast, their very survival is in doubt. Forty years ago, to choose a different kind of example, medical doctors in the United States of America were white-coated gods. Patients typically accepted their word as law. Physicians virtually controlled the entire American health system. Their political clout was enormous. Today, by contrast, American doctors are under siege. Patients talk back. They sue for malpractice. Nurses demand responsibility and respect. Pharmaceutical companies are less deferential. And insurance companies, “managed care groups,” and government doctors, who now control the American health system.
Across the board, then, some of the most powerful institutions and professions inside the most powerful of nations saw their dominance decline in the same twenty-year period that saw America’s external power, relative to other nations, sink. Lest these immense shake-up in the distribution of power seem a disease of the aging superpowers, a look elsewhere proves otherwise. While U.S. economic power faded, Japan’s skyrocketed. However, success, too, can trigger significant power shifts. Just as in the United States of America, Japan’s most powerful Second Wave or rust-belt industries declined in importance as new Third Wave industries rose. Even as Japan’s economic heft increased, however, the three institutions perhaps most responsible for its growth saw their own power plummet. The first was the governing Liberal-Democratic Party. The second was the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), arguably the brain behind the Japanese economic miracle. The third was Keidanren, Japan’s most politically potent business federation. Today the LDP is in retreat, its elderly male leaders embarrassed by financial and sexual scandals. It is face, for the first time, by outraged and increasingly active women voters, by consumers, taxpayers, and farmers who formerly supported it. To retain the power it has held since 1955, it will be compelled to shift its base from rural to urban voters, and deal with a far more heterogenous population than ever before. For Japan, like all the high-tech nations, is becoming a de-massified society, with more actors arriving on the political scene. Whether the LDP can make this long-term switch is at issues. What is not at issues is that significant power has switched away from the LDP. As for MITI, even now many American academics and politicians urge the United States of America to adopt MITI-style planning as a model. Yet today, MITI itself is in trouble.
Today MITI is a fast-fading power as the corporations themselves have grown strong enough to thumb their noses at it. Japan remains economically powerful in the outside World but politically weak at home. Immense economic weight pivots around a shaky political base. Even more pronounced has been the decline in the strength of Keidanren, still dominated by the hierarches of the fast-fading smokestack industries. Even these dreadnoughts of Japanese fiscal power, the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance, whose controls guided Japan through the high-growth period, the oil shock, the stock market crash, and the yen rise, now find themselves impotent against the turbulent market forces destabilizing the economy. Still more striking shifts of power are changing the face of Western Europe. Thus power has shifted away from London, Paris, and Rome as German economy has outstripped all the rest. Today, as East and West Germany progressively fuse their economies, all Europe once more fears German domination of the continent. To protect themselves, France and other West European nations, with the exception of Britain, are hastily trying to integrate the European community politically as well as economically. However, the more successful they become, the more of their national power is transfused into the veins of the Brussels-based European Community, which has progressively stripped away bigger and bigger chunks of their sovereignty. The nations of Western Europe thus are caught between Bonn or Berlin on the one side and Brussels on the other. Here, too, power is shifting rapidly away from its established centers. The list of such global and domestic power shifts could be extended indefinitely. They represent a remarkable series of changes for so brief a peacetime period. Of course, some power shifting is normal at any time. Yet only rarely does an entire globe-girdling system of power fly apart in this fashion. When all the rules of the power game change at once, and they so very often do, it is an even rarer moment in history.
Yet that is exactly what is happening today. Power, which to a large extent defines us as individuals as nations, is itself being redefined. As we have have seen, there are at least a dozen important channels through which prosumers and prosuming interact with the money economy, shifting value back ad forth. They will be more and more important in the days ahead. It helps, therefore, to recap them here, starting with the simplest. Prosumers perform unpaid work through “third jobs” and self-service activities. By using an ATM or checking themselves out in the supermarket, they reduce labour cost—and the number of entry-level jobs—in the money economy. The same, with minor adjustment, is true when they personally care for the ill or elderly or when they cook, clean house, home school and perform other tasks themselves, instead of paying others to do them. Prosumers buy capital goods from the money economy. They purchase everything from chain saws to computers and digital cameras that help them create value for themselves and others in the non-money economy. In doing so, they themselves constitute a market within the money economy. Prosumers lend their tools and capital to users in the money economy–another dish of free lunch. Examples, as we have seen, include allowing other the free use of excess computer capacity for medical and environmental research, astronomical observation and many other socially important purposes. Prosumers improve the housing stock. They raise its value in the national money economy. They do this every time they paint, reshingle their roof, make their lawns green, groom their yards, add rooms or plant trees, substituting their own labour for jobs in the construction industry. The value of the housing stock, in turn, affects mortgages, interest rates and other variables in the money economy.
Prosumers “marketize” products, services, and skills. They do this when, having developed a skill, a product or a services for their personal use, they put it up for sale—sometimes creating new companies and business sectors in the process. Linux, created by prosumers outside the market, generates important commercial piggyback products inside the for-pay marketplace. Prosumers also “de-marketize” products or services. They drive existing goods and services out of the marketplace by offering users all-but-free alternatives. The very threat from outside the money economy leads to new, often less expensive, products inside it. Check VoIp calling, iPods, and the like. Prosuming can accelerate the cycle of de-marketization and marketization. Prosumers create value as volunteers. They offer free help in emergencies. Less dramatically, on a day-to-day basis they work in senior centers, provide medical care and many other services to society. They fight youth gangs, for or maintain neighbourhood associations, churches and other groupings that contribute to social cohesion—the absence of which imposes huge money costs for additional police, prisons, and the like. Prosumers provide valuable free information to for-profit companies. Prosumers do this by beta-testing new products, by filling out surveys, by helping businesses identify new customer needs, by “viral marketing” and by performing other unremunerated services for them. Prosumers increase the power of consumers in the money economy. They do this by sharing information about what to buy or not buy. They share experiences with respect to various health problems and medications, for example, often empowering patients in their relationships with doctors.
Prosumers accelerate innovation. Serving as unpaid gurus, teachers, and consultants, prosumers train one another to use the latest technologies as quickly as they appear, thus increasing the rate of technological change and raising productivity in the paid economy. They are not merely productive but productive. Prosumers rapidly create knowledge, disseminate it and store it in the cybersphere for use in the knowledge-based economy. Much of the data, information and knowledge available in cyberspace has been contributed for free by software writers, financial experts, sociologists, anthropologists, scientists, technicians and others in all walks of life. The accuracy of this content varies widely, and much of it may someday be marketized, but it is routinely drawn upon by investors, businesspeople, managers and others at work in the money economy—another free input. Prosumer raise children and reproduce the labour force. Prosumers provide monumental contributions as parents and caregivers, dwarfing all these other interactions. By socializing their children, giving them the gift of language and by including values consonant with those demanded by the dominant economy, they prepare generation after generation to create wealth. Without the free lunch they provide, there would soon be no paid economy. In addition to this, it is not always clear, at least in the early stages of technology’s intrusion into a culture, who will gain most by it and who will lost most. This is because the changes wrought by technology are subtle if not downright mysterious, one might even say wildly unpredictable. Among the most unpredictable are those that might be labeled ideological. When he warned that writers will come to rely on external signs instead of their own internal resources, and that they will receive quantities of information without proper instruction, this is the sort of change Thamus had in mind.
Thamus meant that new technologies change what we man by “knowing” and “truth”; they alter those deeply embedded habits of thought which give to a culture its sense of what the World is the natural order of things, of what is reasonable, of what is necessary, of what is inevitable, of what is real. For example, if a number can be given to the quality of thought, then a number can be given to the qualities of mercy, love, hate, beauty, creativity, intelligence, even sanity itself. When Galileo said that the language of nature is written in mathematics, he did not mean to include human feeling or accomplishment or insight. However, most of us are now inclined to make these inclusions. Our psychologists, sociologist, and educators find it quite impossible to do their work without numbers. They believe that without numbers, they cannot acquire or express authentic knowledge. That is peculiar. What is even more peculiar is that so many of us do not find the idea peculiar. To say that someone should be doing better work because he has an IQ of 134, or that someone is a 7.2 on a sensitivity scale, or that this man’s essay on the rise of capitalism is an A- and that man’s is a C+ would have sounded like gibberish to Galileo or Shakespeare or Thomas Jefferson. If it makes sense to us, that is because our minds have been conditioned by the technology of numbers so that we see the World differently than they did. Our understanding of what is real is different. Which is another way of saying that embedded in every tool is an ideological bias, a predisposition to construct the World as one thing rather than another, to value one thing other another, to amplify one sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another. This is what Marshal McLuhan meant by his famous aphorism “The medium is the message.” This is what Marx meant when he said, “Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with nature” and creates the “conditions of intercourse” by which we relate to each other.
It is what Wittgenstein meant when, in referring to our most fundamental technology, he said that language is not merely a vehicle of thought but also the driver. And this is what Thamus wished the inventor Theuth to see. This is, in short, an ancient and persistent piece of wisdom, perhaps most simply expressed in the old adage that to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Without being too literal, we may extend the truism: To a man with a pencil, everything looks like a list. To a man with a camera, everything looks like an image. To a man with a computer, everything looks like data. And to a man with a grade sheet, everything looks like a number. This represents a kind of prejudice. There is a simple way to represent these types of situations that give rise to real problems. This is to use a particular kind of game called the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. The game allows the players to achieve mutual gains from cooperation, but it also allows for the possibility that neither will cooperate. As in most realistic situations, the players do have strictly opposing interest. This approach differs from sociobiology. Sociobiology is based on the assumption that important aspects of human behaviour are guided by our genetic inheritance. Perhaps so. However, the present approach is strategic rather than genetic. It used an evolutionary perspective because people are often in situations where effective strategies continue to be used and ineffective strategies are dropped. Sometimes the selection process is direct: a member of Congress who does not accomplish anything is interactions with colleagues will not remain a member of Congress.
Cresleigh Homes
Whether it’s PB & J’s after school, late night glasses of premium cranberry juice and ambrosia or early morning cups of coffee, ☕ this kitchen island has a front row seat to some family togetherness.
And don’t forget the birthday parties, anniversaries, and holiday celebrations! 🎉 There’s nothing like a welcoming kitchen and living room space to keep those bonds strong.
And you will always have natural light into your home with large windows throughout your new Cresleigh home. This is a place where you can have your cake, and eat it, too.
Enchanted Words of the Black Forest
Legend has it that the Winchester Mansion was built in one night by angels without human assistance, the work being done at the solicitation of Mrs. Winchester, who watched and prayed while, while the angels toiled. However, the nine-story observation tower was built in one night by a demon, whom she summed by chanting, “I, Sarah Winchester, a servant of God, call upon thee, desire and conjure thee, O Spirit Anoch, by the wisdom of Solomon, by the obedience of Isaac, by the blessing of Abraham, by the piety of Jacob and Noe, who did not sin before God, by the serpents of Moses, and by the twelve tribes, and by the most terrible words: Dallia, Dollia, Dollion, Corfuselas, Jazy, Agry, Ahub, Tilli, Adoth, Suna, Eoluth, Also, Dilu, and by the words through which thou canst be compelled to appear before me in a beautiful, human form, and give what I desire. By sweating of blood in the Garden, by the lashes Jesus bore, by his bitter suffering and death, by his Resurrection, Ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit, Druj Nasu and all legions under the command of Az-Jahi feed upon the imposed limitations of the astral body which have been constructed by the programming of the World, and over the land raise a tower that will withstand the ravages of time. The tower being divided into stories about ten feet high, each story lighted by a single window, the highest compartment having invariably four lancet windows opening to the cardinal points of the compass. The roof conical, made of overlapping stone slabs, and a circle of grotesquely carved heads and zigzag ornamentation found beneath the projecting cornice, and every figure known to the geometrician to be found in the stones of this single tower.” The tower was indisputably of pagan origin, and of antiquity so great as to precede written history.
There is no doubt that the early Americans were sun and fire worshippers, and many excellent reasons may be given for the belief that the tower was built for the purposes of religion. However, when the Earthquake of 1906 struck, it toppled the nine-story tower directly on Mrs. Winchester’s bedroom. The servants rescued her and terrified, she fled to Redwood City, to build a palatial barge, (called the Ark) on which she lived for the next six years. While Mrs. Winchester was away from her estate, Druids moved in, and were worshipping Satan. A Black Mass took place inside. The alter was a coffin, there were religious artifacts, including the ritual chamber, which was black. The priests wore black robes, with cowls. The Black Mass not only existed, at least in not only in the Satanic ritual, but it also existed on a dual plane, with two different frames of social reference both in practice and in function. At this ritual, there was a sacrificing of a human at crossroads, and an incubus demon, a tall black-haired stranger, appeared in the form of a man. The Lord’s prayer was read backward, and Mrs. Winchester was summoned back home. The demon claimed her would give her a fortune so large that even her inheritance would pale in comparison. Mrs. Winchester entertained him. His name was Zairich, he was the demon of thirst. This spirit was useful for forging the will toward one cause, making one thirsty to achieve a specific objective. The cost was that Mrs. Winchester would become emotionally cold toward others during the period of working with this demon. This was because the majority of her mental and emotional energy would be harnessed by the demon and funneled into the desire of achieving the objective. Mrs. Winchester was quite willing to help him for as the evening advanced Zairich’s attentions great increasingly nauseating, and she was thankful to escape to her room, though the loud voices and coarse laughter below invariably kept her awake till long after midnight.
Mrs. Winchester, at the time, was thoroughly miserable. She had given her love to her Husband, William Wirt Winchester, and he and her new born baby had died, leaving her full of grief. The future without him seemed dark and hopeless, and she was also tormented with a fearful suspicion, which was justified when the 1906 earthquake struck at 5.13am. That sorrow came—it left her sitting up every night looking at the sparkling fields and the lovely myriads to the black sky, doubled by the blur of tears in her eyes. When she looked at her Victorian Garden, it was a dream to her. It was beautiful, surpassingly beautiful, enchantingly beautiful, but she was lost. She wished the secrets of this wonderful World could make her happy again and she could thank the Giver of it all for devising it. The garden gate clicked, and Zairich headed up the drive. There was a curious-looking packet for her sewn up with red cotton in dirty wax-cloth. She tore it open with shaky fingers and searched desperately for the contract she thought would be inside, but what she found was a diamond necklace that startled her with its brilliance—it seemed to be made of captive lightning. Mrs. Winchester looked enchanting: her cheeks were flushed with emotion; her eyes dreamy with memories of her lost husband and child; her white gown threw up the brilliance of her hair and added to the shapeliness of her slight figure; the gorgeous diamond necklace lay around her throat. Zairich told her, that if she kept continual construction on her mansion, and never stopped building it, she would never run out of money and would have eternal life. Zairich then departed in a haze of black smoke. There was a rush of unsteady footsteps down the hallway, a loud slam, a helpless giggling laugh from the butler Baetzhold, as he blundered into his own room, and then all was quiet.
Mrs. Winchester shuddered and turned wearily to the open window; she leaned out and inheld the fragrance of the flowers beneath, the cool sweetness of the night air; little white moths brushed past her face, and now and then a bird called from the trees at the end of the garden. A faint hint of the rising moon was stealing over the sky, and Mrs. Winchester sat motionless and inert while the weird light slowly increased and clove the darkness into blocks of shadow. Suddenly the sound of a muffled cry within the house made her start and draw back her head. Again she heard it, and her heart beat quickly with apprehension. She opened the door and listened; in this room at the end of the passage, Baetzhold seemed to be running violently to and fro and calling hoarsely for help, but before she could dart across to rouse the butler, a dishevelled figure with a white terrified face and wild eyes rushed past her and down the stairs. She heard the hall-door bang, and thud of running feet over the lawn. There were pentagrams on the floor, and black magical chants and prayers. She was powerless to rouse Baetzhold from his heavy stupor, and Mrs. Winchester ran in bewilderment back to her open window. The moonlight was streaming over the smooth grass; and, in and out among the bushes, as though pursued by a relentless enemy, ran Baetzhold, stooping, doubling, dodging. His heavy steps and painting breath throbbed on the night air, and once or twice he half fell, recovering himself with a low hunted cry. It was a sickening sight, but Mrs. Winchester’s courage rose unexpectedly, as sometimes happens with timid natures in a sudden crisis. She lent out of the window and called to him. At the sound of her voice he stopped, then hurried towards her and held up his hands. His face, in the moonlight, drawn with terror and delusion, was ghastly.
“Come down!” he called, “come down and help me drive him away—he is waiting there under the trees. If you are with me perhaps he will go, but alone I cannot escape from him, and he will hunt me to my death—Mrs. Winchester! Mrs. Winchester! The fear and supplication in his voice were pitiable; she braced her nerves and prepared to go down. Perhaps her presence would soothe and influence him—even if he should kill her in his delirium, it would be better than facing Zairich alone. “Wait,” she cried softly, “I am coming.” And presently her hand was on his trembling arm, and she was firmly reassuring him that he was safe from his imaginary pursuer. She led him to a garden bench under the dining-room window, and he sat down a shaking, huddled heap. “It was that cursed diamond necklace you are wearing!” Baetzhold ceased abruptly, his mouth open, his breath coming in quick gasps; he pointed towards the trees: “There! Don’t you see him? Over by the bushes—he has not gone, I have done no good—he is coming out into the moonlight on the lawn—Ah! I cannot bear to see his face.” He pushed past Mrs. Winchester, and ran with superhuman swiftness down the path. She heard him crash through the wrought iron gate, and his rapid footsteps rang clear on the hard road; faster, faster they sped into the distance, until the echo died away on the still night air. Extract from the Oakland Tribune: “An inquest was held yesterday on the body of Baetzhold Unger, who was found drowned in a pond on the Winchester estate, where he had been working as a butler for Mrs. Sarah L. Winchester, widow of William W. Winchester. The jury returned a verdict of suicide whilst temporarily insane; and much sympathy is felt in the neighborhood for Mrs. Winchester for we regret to learn that the young lady is at present lying dangerously ill from the effects of the shock, and grave doubts are entertained as to her recovery.”
However, Mrs. Winchester was called back from the borders of death by Zairich with news which gave her the promise of a happy future, but left her hurting. The secret was Zairich was a collector of souls. “The necklace is cursed,” he told Mrs. Winchester. “You can call pitching hatred at somebody the same thing as cursing them. So creating imagery in your mind to cause death or problems to somebody, that is the best way of accomplishing this curse.” As puerile and absurd as the practice might seem to scientific man, to a primitive who believes that the tying of a know means the casting of a spell, and the untying of the knot signifies the breaking of the spell, this reversal of right must have seemed altogether logical. In fact, modern humans have not lost all their contacts with the imitative World of the magician, for one practice this ritual when one curses someone for whom one feels an intense dislike; the curse is merely a reversal of a blessing, the words, “God damn him” being substituted for “God bless him.” Some times people find themselves stifled by an encroaching, alien force that spells out death for their old ways of life. At their nocturnal meetings, the Luciferans who had taken up residence in Mrs. Winchester’s mansion, were supposed to have for some obscure reason first kissed a toad, and then a tall, thin man who was described as having had cold lips. This man was reported by ecclesiasts to have been the Devil. A feast followed. Those members who were interrogated described a curious symbol that they worshiped at the ceremonies. This was a human figure, its body being half gold, half black, obviously representing the dual nature of the universe, Lucifer being the gold or “light” side. It is not certain whether the figure was a statue or a real human being, since the accounts of the proceedings are so vague, but at any rate all the initiates tore off a piece of their clothing and presented it to the figure as a token of fealty.
The efficacy of magic was widely believed among the clergy from the earliest times. and higher Christian officials, alarmed by the extent of such practices within the Church, often found it necessary to clamp down. In the thirteenth century, Pope Gregory IX passed a canon law forbidding priests to indulge in sorcery. However, these edicts did little to curb the belief on the part of the clergy that magic really did work. Even high officials were accused of practicing the black arts. In 1343, the bishop of Coventry was accused before the Pope of paying homage to the Devil. Pope Sylvester II, in the tenth century, was said to have been a sorcerer and was accused by many of having attained the papacy by magic. Pope Honorius III was rumored to have been a dabbler in magic, this assertion causing his name to be used later on a manual of black magic of doubtful authenticity, the Constitution of Honorius the Great. In 1401, Boniface IX absolved a priest named Otto Syboden for being concerned in an incantation to discover the location of some stolen money; the thief had supposedly died from the spell. It was only natural that the Mass should become the vehicle for later Satanists, for the Mass was believed by all good Christians to be the ultimate magical ritual. During the ceremony, the priest was supposed to be possessed by the spirit of Christ, thus establishing direct contact with the secret powers of the Heavens. However, these powers were not exclusive; they could be used and abused, just like other magical forces. By reversal and substitution, such powers could be twisted to fit the needs of the performer. Thus as early as 681, the Council of Toledo prohibited the so-called Mass of the Dead, which was performed by priests for the purposes of securing someone’s death.
A magic ceremony commonly involves the use of four elements—invocation, charm, symbolic action, and a fetish. If black magic is involved the invocation is addressed to Satan and demonic powers. The invocation of black magic is commonly fortified by a pact with Satan in which the person signs oneself over to the devil with one’s own blood. Magical symbolism is intended to give effectiveness to the magic charm and bring about occult transference. Magic symbolism, in turn, is supported by a fetish. This is a magically charmed object, which is supposed to carry magical power. Any object, of the most bizarre character, can become a fetish by being magically charmed. The magical effectiveness of the fetish (amulet or talisman) is increased by inscriptions, particularly by magic charm formulas. In Mrs. Winchester’s safe, was her diamond necklace, and a note that said, “I am he that holds the seven agues in hand and can send out the seven powers, and if you will hide this and live in my name, you will succeed in all things, and I will protect you.” Obviously, the superstitious use of such a magically charmed object elicited unusual demonic activity. Whoever now possesses this jewel can achieve dominion through magic over all powers in Earth, Heaven, and Hell, but they are in danger of becoming slaves of the devil. The diabolical knowledge and power they gain are paid for by tragedy, misery, and every type of occult oppression. A spell is produced by the release of demonic power through hypnosis, magnetism, mesmerism, or some other form of magic resulting in an extrasensory influence. Conjurers, charmers, and others who dabble in both white and black magic frequently know how to cast and break spells. They can paralyze a person on the spot, cause a thief to be frozen in his tracks.
Although both black and white magic use numerous other enchantments, yet the very heart of both branches centers in casting and releasing the spell. A spell can cause temporary blindness, deafness, dumbness, torpor, sickness, pain, etcetera. The symptoms will disappear when the spell is broken. Often only superstitious claims are made which remain devoid of reality. However, through a genuine magic spell diabolic power is released and real results are obtained. Till the power is recalled or counteracted, the spell remains binding. When one seeks to point out the dangers of spiritism by means of the more exaggerated examples one can often be faced with the following response. “But we do not engage in such a primitive form of spiritism as that. We are interested in spiritualism, and that is a noble and a spiritual thing.” I was once told by a man who had been a spiritualist for a number of years that he himself considered spiritism as opposed to spiritualism to be a crime. Well, what is the answer to this question? Has spiritualism succeeded where spiritism has failed? It is true that today spiritualism seems to have taken over from spiritism, and whereas spiritism is concerned with more animistic experiments, spiritualism attempts to take within its scope the religious and the spiritual World. Once cannot argue with the fact that spiritualism exists on a much higher level both intellectual and ethically than spiritism. There is, for example, in Zurich a spiritualistic “Lodge” which holds services each Sunday in which there are the usual hymns and prayers and sermon. The sermon is allegedly given by a departed spirit from the other side through the help of a medium, and each week it is taken down in shorthand and then published later. I have read several of these sermons and they contain a mixture of idealistic, moral and Christian thought. They fail to present the very center of the Christian message, which is that before God man stands as a helpless sinner who needs the redemption that there is in Christ Jesus.
Another point to note is that spiritualists interpret the New Testament in a quite unique way. For example, they say that the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration, and also the resurrection appearances of Christ, were really materializations which one would normally associate with a séance. As well as this, by means of a forced exegesis of Scripture they avoid the direct command of Deut. 18 and other passages which forbid communication with the dead. Once I cited this very passage to a member of a spiritualistic church, he exclaimed that they did not call on the dead but rather upon the living spirits from the realm of the dead. The result of all this is that spiritualism merely confuses people through its apparent Christian façade. The disastrous thing is that some Christian circles fail to recognize the evils that lie behind both spiritism and spiritualism. For example, a Christian family used to visit Mrs. Winchester and they would hold séances together. In this way some of the well-known Christians of the past have apparently appeared and conducted the meeting, as well as preaching to them. It is noteworthy though, that these “spirit” sermons contain nothing exceptional and usually fell well below the standard set. After Mrs. Winchester lost her husband. Nothing would console her in her loss, but later a strange thing began to take place. Her deceased husband started appearing to her at night, and Mr. William Winchester told her that he had been allowed to do so in order to comfort her in her distress. In this way their marriage was able to continue through these nightly appearances. The Mrs. Winchester claimed that she received help and strength from her husband’s coming to her, and she used to ask him about any problems that she had to face. A well-known Christian minister advised her to end this communication with the dead, but Mrs. Winchester could not be convinced that she was in any way wrong in what she did. However, as time went on Mrs. Winchester began to suffer from various psychic disturbances. The enigma of the Mystery House that tragedy and a rifle built is perhaps unanswerable.
Winchester Mystery House
Unlock the secrets of these dark halls, and explore in your own space 👻🗝
Self guided tours are one party at a time. Winchester Mystery House staff will be available for questions and assistance along the tour route. Advance ticket purchase is required as capacity is very limited. Tickets may be purchased online at www.winchestermysteryhouse.com.
There is an Overwhelming Power of Money that is Attested to in Our Lives
Despite bad odor that clings to the very notion of power because of the misuses to which it has been put, power in itself is neither good nor bad. It is an inescapable aspect of every human relationship, and it influences everything from our pleasures of the flesh relationships to the jobs we hold, the cars we drive, the television we watch, the hopes we pursue. To a greater degree than most imagine, we are the products of power. Yet of all the aspects of our lives, power remains one of the least understood and most important—especially for our generation. For this is the dawn of the Powershift Era. We live at a moment when the entire structure of power that held the World together is now disintegrating. A radically different structure of power is taking form. And this is happening at every level of human society. In the office, in the supermarket, at the bank, in the executive suit, in our churches, hospitals, schools, and homes, old patterns of power are fracturing along strange new lines. Campuses are stirring from Berkeley to Rome and Tokyo, preparing to explode. Ethnic and racial clashes are multiplying. In the business World we see giant corporations taken apart and put back together, their CEOs often dumped, along with thousands of their employees. A “golden parachute” or goodbye package of money and benefits may soften the shock of landing for a top manager, but gone are the appurtenances of power: the corporate jet, the limousine, the conferences at glamorous golf resorts, and above all, the secret thrill that many feel in the sheer exercise of power. Power is not just shifting at the pinnacle of corporate life. The office manager and the supervisor on the plant floor are both discovering that workers no longer take orders blindly, as many once did. They ask questions and demand answers. Military officers are learning the same thing about their troops. Police chiefs about their police officers. Teachers, increasingly, about their students.
Every since the end of World War II, two superpowers have straddled the Earth like colossi. Each had its allies, satellites, and cheering section. Each balanced the other, missile for missile, tank for tank, spy for spy. Today, of course, that balancing act is over. As a result, “black holes” are already opening up in the World system: great sucking power vacuums, in Eastern Europe for example, that could sweep nations and peoples into strange new—or, for that matter, ancient—alliances and collisions. Power shifting at so astonishing a rate that World leaders are being swept along by events, rather than imposing order on them. There is strong reason to believe that the forces now shaking power at every level of the human system will become more intense and pervasive in the years immediately ahead. Out of this massive restructuring of power relationships, like the shifting and grinding of tectonic plates in advance of an earthquake, will come one of the rarest events in human history: a revolution in the very nature of power. A “powershift” does not merely transfer power. It transforms. Imprisoned during much of World War II in Buchenwald, the scholar Robert Eisler saw the beast in civilized man and had nothing but time to meditate upon it. He anticipated the apocalyptic bitter end which may be as near as many of us fear. If there was never a Fall, there could never have been and there never could be a redemption in the future. If, however, there was a most definite Fall, if “human nature” was originally not lupine but that of a peaceful, frugivorous, non-fighting and not even jealous animal, then there is hope of changing our social organization. Conquering—or, rather, controlling—the beast in humans is the raison d’etre of Christianity and its decadent flower, capitalism. The capitalist priestcraft of modern Psychiatry, working in tandem with the State bureaucracy, regulates and polices the new Restriction and gelding of desire.
Demand desire = unhappiness. Unhappiness = motivation for buying “things.” Psychiatrists become the final legal arbiters, muddying the justice system with the grey areas of intentionality, mental state, etcetera. Newspaper editorials commonly mistake this re-ordering of the justice system as a liberalizing force, quickly forgetting that psychiatric control is the foundation of any modern totalitarian society. Psychiatric dogma—echoed continuously by omniscient, “understanding” voices in self-help books, on radio and television talk shows—must convince the public to practice continual suppression and hormonal restraint—with any “slipups” indicative of something terribly wrong with them. Emotional numbing, mass addictions, low self-esteem, depression, apathy, anomie, stress—all the modern illnesses are symptoms of the absurd and tragic struggle to bride instinct. Guilt is engendered by the imperfect ability of humans to suppress the inner rage of the repressed id. With the advent of the novel, and later, the cinema, instinct is lived within the retina and mind rather than with the flesh. The passive, voyeuristic siphoning of instinct is known clinically as perversion. Conditioned to live their lives vicariously, perverts are easily jaded, and prone to far greater cruelties than other orgastically sane and “violent” feral men. The wolverine is nature’s most ferocious and violent animal, but seems only the pettiest punk next to passive, God-fearing homo sapiens. Robert Eisler mistakes the neurotic bloodletting of a modern economic war as a failure to tether humans tightly enough to the Judeo-Christian ideal. Eisler had not the necessary perspective to see that the unimaginable cruelty of World War II was the result of winding man’s instinct so tightly that it sprung.
World peace involves the private renunciation of war on the part of the immense majority, but along with this it involves an unavowed readiness to submit to being the booty of others who do not renounce it. The modern militia will go to the extremes to renunciate hostile or warlike intent. The Secretary of War changes his title to the Secretary of Defense. The oft-repeated, phrase, “for the preservation of peace,” becomes a mantra for modern man, and his aggressions are most often stated in passive ways. Even if these avowals of peace are merely chalked up as public relations, it is indisputable that the majority of moderns believe in it. Wars are no longer fought by the citizen for the State, they are fought against the citizen by the State. The enemy of civilization is World-weariness, a loss of the animating spirit of the (in the Jungian sense) daimon. Judeo-Christianity served the bond with the Earth-spirits to engage in the Talmudic hair-splitting of God-as-legislator. Even if the will of the Faustian men attempt improvements on Her, old habits die hard, though, and Nature remains a bewitching force. At the bitter end of WWII, teenagers, housewives, violent felons and mental patients were loosed in emulation of the emancipation proclamation. This unsealed primal atavism, the resurgence of which led directly to the most ancient (id est, the original) state of consciousness which, being pure, is cosmic, unlimited. Some participants have become supercharged and their sensations and expectations may revert to an animal sensitivity to their emotions and environment. Only a higher human can metamorphose. Such lycanthropic transformation evidently guided the Viking Berserkers, who wore world-skins, spoke in wolf-language and earn a reputation as the most fearsome warrior who ever live.
The Berserkers could reputedly practice mind control, rendering their enemies helpless with fear, and running wild in battle without protection of shield or armor. It has been established that those rare feral children could endure wild extremes in weather and diet that would instantly kill a modern, civilized child. Approximately a dozen cases of children raised by wolves have been recorded in this century. All capture wolf-children have died in captivity. The Judeo-Christian mechanism of corrupting innocence in order to indue guilt was a method to stimulate moral awareness. There were signs that the fear of punishment might eventually lead to feeling sympathy for others. This sympathy for others, it turns out, was only a fear for the children’s own personal punishment. The civilities of modern humans evidently murders the beast inside one—not to mention one’s connection to fellow beast. It was once thought that people who learned the art of writing, would learn the opposite of its real function. Those who acquired it supposedly would cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful; it was thought that they would rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of by their own internal resources. What one would discover is a receipt for recollection, not for memory. And as for wisdom, students would have the reputation for it without the reality: they would receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they were filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom, they would be a burden to society. The claim was that writing would damage memory and create false wisdom. However, this claim fails to acknowledge what writing’s benefits might be, which, as we know, have been considerable. We may learn from this that it is a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect. Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that.
Nothing could be more obvious, of course, especially to those who have given more than two minutes of thought to the matters. Nonetheless, we are currently surrounded by throngs of one-eyed prophets who see only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what they will undo. We might call such people Technophiles. They gaze on technology as a lover does on one’s beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future. They are therefore dangerous and are to be approached cautiously. On the other hand, some one-eyed prophets, are inclined to speak only of burdens and are silent about the opportunities that new technologies make possible. Technophiles must speak for themselves, and do so all over the place. A dissenting voice is sometimes needed to moderate that din made by the enthusiastic multitudes. If one is to err, it is better on the side of skepticism. However, it is an error nonetheless. For it is inescapable that every culture must negotiate with technology, whether it does so intelligently or not. A bargain is struck in which technology giveth and technology taketh away. The wise know this well, and are rarely impressed by dramatic technological changes, and never overjoyed. Life has always been barren of joys and full of misery but that the telephone, medicine, the Winchester repeating arms company, ocean liners, cars, the Internet, television, computer, and especially the reign of hygiene have not only lengthened life but made it a more agreeable proposition. Technology may be barred entry to a culture, but we may learn that once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is—that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with out eyes wide open.
However, we must take to heart those radical technologies create new definitions of old terms, and that this process takes place without humanity being fully conscious of it. Thus, it is insidious and dangerous, quite different from the process whereby new technologies introduce new terms to the language. In our own time, we have consciously added to our language thousands of new words and phrases having to do with technologies—“DVD,” “VCR,” “binary digit,” “software,” “rear-wheel drive,” “window of opportunity,” “Walkman,” “Youtube,” “MP3,” “BMW X7 xDrive50i Sport) etcetera. We are not taken by surprise at this. New things require new words. However, new things also modify old words, word that have deep-rooted meanings. The telegraph and the penny press changed what we once meant by “information.” Television changes what we once meant by the terms “political debate,” “news,” and “public opinion.” The computer changes “information” once again. Writing changed what we once meant by “truth” and “law”; printing changed them again, and now television and the computer change them once more. Such changes occur quickly, surely, and, in a sense, silently. Lexicographers hold on plebiscites on the matter. No manuals are written to explain what is happening, and the schools are oblivious to it. The old words still look the same, are still used in the same kinds of sentences. However, they do not have the same meanings; in some cases, they have opposite meanings. And that is why technology imperiously commandeers our most important technology. It redefines “freedom,” “truth,” “intelligence,” “fact,” “wisdom,” “memory,” “history”—all the words we live by. And it does not pause to tell us. And we do not pause to ask. However, technology may allow students to develop a supposed undeserved reputation for wisdom. Because those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology, are thought to become an elite group that are granted unjustifiable authority and prestige by those who have no such competence.
These groups of people can create “knowledge monopolies” like the Silcom Valley has due to the fact that they have created important technologies. Therefore those who have control over the workings of particular technology accumulate power and inevitably form a kind of conspiracy against those who have no access to the specialized knowledge made available by technology. However, that is capitalism. If you have the skill and can produce something, you have the right to profit it from it. There are winners and losers. The benefits of a new technology are not distributed equally. Let us take as an example the cause of television. In the United States of America, where television has taken hold more deeply than anywhere else, many people find it a blessing, not least those who have achieved high-paying, gratifying careers in television as executives, technicians, newscasters, and entertainers. It should surprise no one that such people, forming as they do a new knowledge monopoly, should cheer themselves and defend and promote television technology. On the other hand and in the long run, television may bring a gradual end to the careers of schoolteachers, since school was an invention of the printing press and must stand or fall on the issue of how much importance the printed word has. For four hundred years, school teachers have been part of the knowledge monopoly created by printing, and they are not witnessing the breakup of that monopoly. It appears as if they can do little to prevent that breakup, but surely there is something perverse about school-teachers’ being enthusiastic about what is happening. Such enthusiasm always calls to my mind an image of some turn-of-the-century blacksmith who believes that his business will be enhanced by it. We know now that his business was not enhanced by it; it was render obsolete by it, as perhaps the clearheaded blacksmith knew. What could they have done? If nothing else, weep.
We have a similar situation in the development and spread of computer technology, for here too there are winners and losers. There can be no disputing that the computer has increased the power of large-scale organizations like the armed forces, or airline companies or banks or tax-collecting agencies. And it is equally clear that the computer is now indispensable to high-level researchers in physics and other natural sciences. However, to what extent has computer technology been an advantage to the masses of people? To steelworkers, vegetable-store owners, teachers, garage mechanics, musicians, bricklayers, dentists, and most of the rest into whose lives the computer now intrudes? Their private matters have been made more accessible to powerful institutions. They are more easily tracked and controlled; are subjected to more examinations; are increasingly mystified by the decisions made about them; are often reduced to mere numerical objects. They are inundated by unwanted mail. They are easy targets for advertising agencies and political organization. The schools teach their children to operate computerized systems instead of teaching things that are more valuable to children. In a word, almost nothing that they need happens to the losers. Which is why they are losers. It is to be expected that winners will encourage the losers to be enthusiastic about computer technology. That is the way of winders, and so they sometimes tell the losers that with personal computers the average person can balance a checkbook more neatly, keep better track of recipes, and make more logical shopping lists. They also tell them that their lives will be conducted more efficiently. However, discreetly they neglect to say from whose point of view the efficiency is warranted or what might be its costs. Should the losers grow skeptical, the winners dazzle them with the wonderous feats of computers, almost all of which have only marginal relevance to the quality of the losers’ loves but which are nonetheless impressive.
Eventually, the losers succumb, in part because they believe that the specialized knowledge of the masters come to believe this as well. The result is that certain questions do not arise. For example, to whom will the technology give greater power and freedom? And whose power and freedom will be reduced by it? This may all sounds like a well-planned conspiracy, as if the winners know all too well what is being won and what lost. However, this is not quite how it happens. For one thing, in cultures that have a democratic ethos, relatively weak traditions, and a high receptivity to new technologies, everyone is inclined to be enthusiastic about technological change, believing that its benefits will eventually spread evenly among the entire population. Especially in the United States of America, where the lust for what is new has no bounds, do we find this childlike conviction most widely held. Indeed, in America, social change of any kind results in winners and losers, a condition that stems in part from Americans’ much-documented optimism. As for change brough on by technology, this native optimism is exploited by entrepreneurs, who work hard to infuse the population with a unity of improbable hope, for they know that it is economically unwise to reveal the price to be paid for technological change. One might say, then, that, if there is a conspiracy of any kind, it is that of a culture conspiring against itself. By all accounts, the great majority of the people of the World agree that image, color, form and symbol are concrete, physical and real, capable of affecting the viewer of them. It is only among Western technological cultures, an extreme minority in the World, that his notion is suppressed and ridiculed. However, now, as with so many previously rejected areas of knowledge, Western science is slowly beginning to catch up.
Neurophysiologists are able to trace the pathways of images from the brain into the cells. It has been found that mental images have many of the same physical components as open-eyed perceptions. Our bodies react to mental images in ways similar to how they react to images from the external World. The American physiologist Edmund Jacobson has done studies which show that when a person imagines running, small but measurable amounts of contraction actually take place in the muscles associated with running. The same neurological pathways are excited by imagined running as by actual running. However, anatomists have also been aware of pathways between the cerebral cortex, where images are stored, and the autonomic nervous system which controls the so-called involuntary muscles. The autonomic nervous system controls sweating, blood vessels, expansion and contraction, blood pressure, blushing and goose-pimpling, the rate and force of heart contractions, respiratory rate, dryness of mouth, bowel motility and smooth muscle tension. There are also pathways between the autonomic nervous system and the pituitary and adrenal cortex. The pituitary gland secretes hormones which regulate the ae of secretion of other glands; especially the thyroid, sex, and adrenal glands. The adrenal glands secrete steroids, which regulate metabolic processes, and epinephrine, which causes the “fight or flight” reaction. Through these pathways, an image held in the mind can literally affect every cell in the body. The nervous innervation of voluntary and involuntary muscles is also associated with the physical expression of emotion. When an image or thought is held in the mind, there is neuronal activity in both hemispheres of the brain. Nerve fibers lead from the cerebral hemisphere to the hypothalamus, which has connections with the autonomic nervous system and the pituitary gland.
When a person holds a strong fearful image in the mind’s eye, the body responds, via the autonomic nervous system, with a feeling of “butterflies in the stomach,” a quickened pulse, elevated blood pressure, sweating, goosebumps and dryness of the mouth. Likewise, when a person holds a strong relaxing image in the mind, the body responds with lowered heart rate, decreased blood pressure and, obviously, all the muscles tend to relax. So the image you carry in your mind can affect your actual physical body and your emotional states. It is not unusual for a trained yogi to be able to fluctuate heartbeats voluntarily from eighty beats per minute to three hundred beats. The research showed that the techniques by which they were able to do these things were found to be made of detailed visualization. Physical athletes use visualizations to increase their performance. There is also dramatic growth in in medical uses of visualizations by doctors in assisting cancer victims to gain control of their own disease and by psychologists in easing the agonies of upcoming stressful situations. When practicing mental rehearsal, changes in performance among three groups of basketball players was noted. Between test sessions, the first group physically practiced foul shooting, the second group practiced mentally, the third group did not practice at all. The result showed that between the initial test and the final test, the first two groups improved their performance by virtually the same percentage. The third group did not improve. Similar studies involving dart throwing and other athletic activities show the same kinds of results. The image in the mind sends the autonomic nervous system through a rehearsal of impulses. When the real event comes along, it has been practiced. The image stimulating the autonomic nervous system is itself the practice.
Some skiers being trained for the Olympics are instructed to practice their athletic skills by using mental imagery. Sometimes the only preparation for one race is to ski it mentally. This is used when athletes are recovering from an injury and cannot practice the slopes. In the case of Jean-Claude Killy, this method helped him turn out one of his best races. Without fail, athletes feel their muscles in actions as they [mentally] rehearse their sport. The imagery of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal apparently is more than sheer imagination. It is a well-controlled copy of experience, a sort of body-thinking similar to the powerful illusion of certain dreams at night. In incidents with athletes in sports ranging from swimming and skiing to pistol shooting use mental imagery to rehearse the actual competition, it proved better training, in many instances, than practices runs in non-competitive conditions were more nearly simulated in the nervous system. So the imagery was more valuable rehearsal than actual physical practice. During one recent experiment, I recorded the electromyography responses of an Alpine ski racer as he summoned up a moment-by-moment imagery of a downhill race. Muscle bursts appeared as the skier hit jumps. Further muscle bursts duplicated the effort of a rough section of the course, and the needles settled during the easy sections…his EMG recordings almost mirrored the course itself. There was even a final burst of muscle activity after he had passed the finish line, a mystery to me until I remembered how hard it is to come to a skidding stop after racing downhill at more than 40 miles an hour. The image held in the mind produced measurable physiological responses. The involuntary nervous system is activated by the image. The image is itself training.
Modern psychology is making much of these techniques, but a sensible person will automatically evoke images in order to rehearse an event, without any therapist’s instructions. It could just be called “thinking through” an event beforehand, whether it is a speech or a difficult encounter. Every lawyer that I have ever met does it before every court appearance. Most business people do it. By giving time to the planning of the events, you are taking charge of them, preprogramming your mind and body. Even more interesting perhaps are the increasing uses of visualization in modern medicine, techniques very similar to those used by “primitive” healers and medicine people. The idea is taking hold that, like the yogis, patients can control their own internal chemistry, the functions of the organs, the flow of the blood and so forth by way of the images held in the mind. Prominent among the practitioners of medical visualization is a European neurologist, J.H. Shultz, who uses something called “autogenic therapy,” taking people through imaginary tours of their bodies, visually discovering their organs, the cells, and eventually picturing them as functional and healthy. Autogenic therapy is widely used in Europe and has been extensively researched. A seven-volume work cites 2400 studies. Researchers examining the effects of the standard autogenic exercises have demonstrated an increase (or decrease) in skin temperatures, changes in blood sugar, white blood cell counts, blood pressure, heart and breathing rates, thyroid secretion, and brain wave patterns. Autogenic training has been used in coordination with standard drug and surgical procedures in Europe to treat a broad range of diseases including ulcers, gastritis, gall bladder attacks, irritative colon, hemorrhoids, constipation, obesity, heart attack, angina, high blood pressure, headaches, asthma, diabetes, thyroid disease, arthritis and low back pain, among others.
Dr. Carl Simonton, who is director of cancer therapy at Gladman Memorial Hospital in Oakland, California, and his wife, Stephanie Simonton, have been receiving acclaim lately for their amazing results in inducing what have been called “spontaneous remissions” in cancer by using techniques of meditation and attitude adjustment based on visualization. The patient is instructed to picture one’s cancer and to imagine the immune mechanism working the way it is supposed to, picking up the dead and dying cells. Patients are asked to visualize the army of white blood cells coming in, swarming over the cancer, and carrying off the malignant cells…These white cells then break down the malignant cells, which are then flushed out of the body. The cancers may be imagined in the form of animals, snakes, armies, non-objective force-fields, whatever seems to have meaning in a particular patient. Also used were photo cells, photos of cancers, X ray photos of the person’s own cancer to assist the process of imagining and at some point they ask patients to visualize themselves totally well. Statistics like to argue that it is not the visualizations themselves which have produced the results, but rather the belief in them, the placebo effect. However, of course, this is an absurd criticism, because the belief in the cure is itself likely to come in the form of a visualization of the healthy body. In either event, it is the image that effects the cure. Flashes of insight will pop into one’s mind at a moment when one is imagining oneself being carried along standing on a beam of light. The disappearance of politics is one of the most salient aspects of modern thought and has much to do with our political practice. Politics tends to disappear either into the subpolitical (economics) or what claims to be higher than politics (culture)—both of which escapes the architectonic art, the statesman’s prudence.
Politics in the older sense encompassed and held together these two extremes. This opposition between economy and culture is but another formulation of the dualism in contemporary American intellectual life that keeps recurring in these passed and is their unifying theme. The source can be found in one of the most remarkable passages in Rousseau’s works, which marks the break with early modern statecraft and was decisive in the development of the idea of culture. Rousseau directed men’s attention back to the ancient polis as a corrective to the Enlightenment political teaching. Unlike many of those who came after him, he was hardheadedly political and saw statesmen’s deeds as central to the life of a people. And it is precisely the very conditions for the existence of a people that Rousseau accuses his immediate predecessors of having misunderstood or ignored. Individual self-interest is not sufficient to establish a common good, one insists, but without it, political life is impossible, and humans will be morally contemptible. The founder of a regime must first make a people to which the regime will belong. A people will not automatically result from individual humans’ enlightenment about their self-interest. A political deed is necessary. The legislator must so to speak change human nature, transform each individual, who by oneself is a perfect and solitary whole, into a part of a greater whole from which that individual as it were gets one’s life and one’s being; weaken humans’ constitution to strengthen it; substitute a partial and moral existence from the physical and independent existence which we have all received from nature. One must, in a word, take a humans’ own forces away from one in order to give one forces which are foreign to one and which one cannot use without the help of others.
The more the natural forces are dead and annihilated, the greater and more lasting the acquired ones, thus the founding is solider and more perfect; such that if each citizen is nothing, can do nothing, except by all the others, and the force acquired by the whole is equal or superior to the sum of the natural forces of all the individuals, one can say that the legislation is at the highest point of perfection it can attain. Rousseau with characteristic and refreshing frankness underlines the corporate character of the community and what is required to achieve it as over against the abstract individualism popularized by the Enlightenment. In elaborating the scheme Rousseau even puts in the popular festivals and all that. This complex nervous system constructed by the legislator is exactly what we call culture. Or rather, culture is the effect of the legislation without the legislator, without the political intention. Changing human nature seems a brutal, nasty, tyrannical thing as human nature. Rather, humans grow and grow into a culture; culture are, as is obvious from the word, growths. Man is a culture being, not a natural being. What man has from nature is nothing compared to what one has acquired from culture. A culture, like the language that accompanies and expresses it, is a set of mere accidents that add up to a coherent meaning constitutive of man. Nature is gradually banished from the study of man; and the state of nature is understood to have been a myth, even though the notion of culture is inconceivable without the prior elaboration of the state of nature. The primacy of the acquired over the natural in man’s humanity is the ground of the idea of culture; and that idea is bound up with the idea of history, understood not as the investigation into man’s deeds but as a dimension of reality, of man’s being.
The very fact of the movement from the state of nature to the civil state shows that there is history and that it is more important than nature. In Rousseau the tension between nature and the political order is maintained, and the legislator has forced the two into a kind of harmony. History is a union of the two in which each disappears. The World is going through a historic change in the way wealth is made and that is part of the birth of a new way of life or civilization of which, at least for now, the United States of America is the spearhead. Also, far below the surface fundamental watched closely by businesses, investors and economists, there are deep fundamentals, and we are changing our relationships to them in revolutionary ways—especially those involving time, space and knowledge. Today’s accelerating changes, as we have shown, are de-synchronizing more and more parts of the economy. They point to a period of possible de-globalization in the economy and increased re-globalization in other fields. Above all, they transform the knowledge base on which wealth creation depends, reducing much of it to obsoledge and irrelevance, while challenging not only science but our very definitions of truth. Furthermore, we have seen that the money economy is only part of a much larger wealth system and is dependent on largely unnoticed infusions of value from a massive, Worldwide non-money economy based on what we have called prosuming. Understanding this concept of a two-part wealth system should help us, among other things, see money for what it is—and to see more clearly how it fits into tomorrow’s revolutionary wealth system. The overwhelming power of money in out lives is attested to by the richness of commentary about it.
Willie Sutton, asked why he robbed banks, wondered why anyone would ask so stupid a question and gave his famous answer: “That’s where the money is!” More recently, actor Cuba Gooding, Jr., added another line to monetary literature with his outraged shout in the film Jerry Maguire, “Show me the money!” And Wesley Snipes in the film New Jack City declares, “Brothers don’t wait to get paid. Money talks.” There is also novelist Tim Robbins, lapsing into theological exegesis, allowed that “there is a certain Buddhist calm that comes from having money in the bank.” Money has been all but deified. However, deification is also mystification. We have argued, therefore, that the time has come to ditch the false assumptions that wealth derives only from what economists generally measure. Or that value is created only when money changes hands. We need, instead, to turn our attention to the larger wealth system—in which the money economy is fed a free lunch and kept alive by prosumers who also pose powerful challenges to it. It is not merely one’s flesh which vanishes in death, but also one’s heart, that inmost personal organ of the soul, which formerly rose up in rebellion against the human fate and which one then purified till one became pure in heart—this personal soul also vanishes. However, God who is the true part and true fate of this person, the rock of this heart, God is eternal. It is into His eternity that one who is pure in heart moves in death, and this eternity is something absolutely different from any kind of time. When one reaches enlightenment, one can look back at the “wicked,” the thought of whom had once so stirred one. Now one will not call them the wicked, but “they that are far from Thee.” One has learned that since they are far from God, from Being, they are lost. And once the more beneficial follows the negative, once more, one knows that the good is to draw near God. Here, in this conception of the good, the circle is closed. To one who may draw near to God, the good is given. To an America which is pure in heart the good is given, because it may draw near to God. Surely, God is good to America.
cresleighhomes
We’ve have three bedrooms to work with in the Residence 2 floor plan, and we’re getting pretty excited to play with decor! But really, there isn’t much needed – these sleek gray walls are gorgeous on their own! 🤩✨
This new, two-story, “pop top” single-family home features a spacious great room overlooking the outdoor living space. There is also a master bedroom on the first bedroom with an en suit bathroom.
Additionally, on the main floor is a guest bathroom, kitchen, and formal dining room. Upstairs there are two primary bedrooms, a bathroom, loft, and laundry room.
This design allows the adults to have complete control over the first floor, and the upstairs can be an area for the kids to enjoy. The loft can be used as a living room for children.
There is also a flex space on the first floor would could be used as a front parlor, art room, bedroom or office. Perhaps even a play room. With 2,317 feet, you will find many different ways to enjoy your space.
#MillsStation
#CresleighHomes
Randolph Harris II International Institute 