The eleven o’ clock television news and the front pages of our newspaper compete with our imagination’s attempts to create the bizarre. Reality is now not only stranger than fiction but a stranger to common sense. At the moment when the natural environment was altered beyond the point that it could be personally observed, the definitions of knowledge itself began to change. No longer based on direct experience, knowledge began to depend upon scientific, technological, industrial proof. Scientists, technological, industrial, economist and the medias which translate and disseminate their findings and opinions became our source. Now they tell us what nature is, what we are, how we are related to the cosmos, what we need for survival and happiness, and what are the appropriate ways to organize our existence. There is little wonder, therefore, what we should be being to doubt the evidence of our own experience and begin to be blind to the self-evident. Our experience is not valid until science says it is. It also of little wonder that we feel removed from participation in most of the lagers issues which shape our lives. We feel removed because we are removed. As we continue to separate ourselves from direct experience of the planet, the hierarchy of techno-scientism advances. This creates astounding problems for a society that is supposed to be democratic. In democracies, by definition, all human beings should have a say about technological developments that may profoundly change, even threaten, their lives: nuclear power, genetic engineering, the spread of microwave systems, the advance of satellite communications, and the ubiquitous use of computers, to name only a few. And yet, in order to participate fully in discussions of the implications of these technologies one must have training in at least physics, psychology, biology, philosophy, economics, and social and political theory. Any of these technologies has profound influence in all those areas. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Because most of us are not so trained, all discussion takes place among our unelected surrogates, professionals and experts. They do not have this full range of training either, but they do have access to one or another area of it and can speak to each other in techno-jargon—“tradeoffs,” “cost-benefits,” “resource management”—and they therefore get to argue with each other over one side of the question or the other while the rest of us watch. That their technological training and the language they use excludes from their frame of reference a broader, more subtle system of information and values rarely seems to occur to them. The alternative to leaving all discussion to the experts would be to take another route entirely. That would be to define a line beyond which democratic control—which is to day full participation of the populace in the details of decision that affect all of us—is not possible, and then to say that anything which crosses this line is taboo. Yet, the notion of taboo is itself taboo in our society, and the idea of outlawing whole technologies is virtually unthinkable. Taboo systems of earlier cultures were not quite the darkly irrational frameworks we now believe them to have been. Most often they reflected knowledge taken from nature and then modified by human experience over time. Their purpose was to articulate and preserve natural balances in a given area or within a given group of people at a particular time. They were statements about when too far is too far. This sensitivity to natural balances, which was the basis of virtually every culture before our own, has now been suppressed by our modern belief that science and technology can solve all problems and that, therefore, all technologies which can be created ought to be. The question of natural balance is now subordinated. Evolution is defined less in terms of planetary process than technological process. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

The planet and its information are now considered less relevant than human ingenuity, an idiotic and dangerous error shielded from exposure only the walls of precious assumption and the concrete of the physical forms within which we live. Ivan Illich, a leading critic of the expropriation of knowledge into a nether World of experts and abstractions, argues in Medical Nemesis that professional medicine may be causing more harm than good. We go to the doctors as we go to mechanics. They speak a language that remains impenetrable to us. We take their cures on faith. Illich remarks that this may be producing more illness than cure: It has separated the people from knowledge about keeping themselves healthy, a knowledge that was once ingrained in the culture. Although some of our techno-scientific methods work, some do not, and the doctors who use them may not understand them or may be inexpert in their use. The doctors, Illich believes, are also taking the validity of techno-medicine on faith. Their source is usually the chemical and drug industry, which has a stake in disrupting natural healing methods. How else could they sell their chemical? Every technology is an expression of human will. Through our tools, we seek to expand our power and control over circumstances—over nature, over time and distance, over one another. Intellectual technologies are tools we used to extend or support our mental powers—to find and classify information, to formulate and articulate ideas, to share know-how and knowledge, to take measurements and performance calculations, to expand the capacity of our memory. The typewriter is an intellectual technology. So are the abacus and the slide rule, the sextant and the globe, the book and the newspaper, the school and the library, the computer and the Internet. Although the use of any kind of tool can influence our thoughts and perspectives—the plow changed the outlook of the farmer, the microscope opened New Worlds of mental exploration for the scientist—it is our intellectual technologies that have the greatest and most lasting power over what and how we think. They are our most intimate tools, the one we use for self-expression, for shaping personal and public identity, and for cultivating relations with others. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

For centuries, historians and philosophers have traced, and debated technology’s role in shaping civilization. Some have made the case for what the sociologist Thorstein Veblen dubbed “technological determinism”; they have argued that technological progress, which they see as an autonomous force outside man’s control, has been the primary factor influencing the course of human history. The windmills give you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist. Our essential role is to produce every more sophisticated tools—to fecundate machines as bees fecundate planets—until technology has developed the capacity to reproduce itself on its own. At that point, we become dispensable. Our instruments are the means we use to achieve our ends; they have no ends of their own. Instrumentalism is the most widely held view of technology, not least because it is the view we would prefer to be true. Technology is technology, it is a means for communication and transportation over space, and nothing more. If the experience of modern society shows us anything, it is that technologies are not merely assistants to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning. Though we are rarely conscious of the fact, many technologies that came into use long before we were born. It is an overstatement to say that technology progresses autonomously—our adoption and use of tools are heavily influenced by economic, political, and demographic considerations—but it is not an overstatement to say that process has its own logic, which is not always consistent with the intentions or wishes of the toolmakers and tool users. Sometimes our tools do what we tell them to. Other times, we adapt ourselves to our tools’ requirement. Technological advances often mark turning points in history. New tools for hunting and farming brought changes in patterns of population growth, settlement, and labor. New modes of transport led to expansions and realignments of trade and commerce. New weaponry altered the balance of power between states. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Other breakthroughs, in fields as various as medicine, metallurgy, and magnetism, changes the way people life in innumerable ways—and continue to do so today. In large measure, civilization has assumed its current form as a result of the technologies people have come to use. What has been harder to discern is the influence of technologies, particularly intellectual technologies, on the functioning of people’s brains. We can see the products of thought—works of art, scientific discoveries, symbols preserved on documents—but not the thought itself. There are plenty of fossilized bodies, but there are no fossilized minds. If at all, since the late Stone Age, human heredity seems to have changed very little, while human social life, habits, have changed completely, have undergone revision and reversal. The process of our mental and social adaptation to new intellectual technologies is reflected in, and reinforced by, the changing metaphors we use to portray and explain the workings of nature. Once maps had become common, people began to picture all sorts of natural and social relationships as cartographic, as a set of fixed, bounded arrangements in real or figurative space. We began to “map” our lives, our social sphere, even our ideas. Under the sway of the mechanical clock, people began thinking of their brains and their bodies—of the entire Universe, in fact—as operating “like clockwork.” In the clock’s tightly interconnected gears, turning in accord with the laws of physics and forming a long and traceable chain of cause and effect, we found a mechanistic metaphor that seemed to explain the workings of all thing, as well as the relations between them. God became the Great Clockmaker. His creation was no longer a mystery to be accepted. It was a puzzle to be worked out. Doubtless when the swallows come in spring, they operate like clocks. The map and clock changed language indirectly, by suggesting new metaphors to describe natural phenomena. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

Other intellectual technologies change language more directly, and more deeply, by actually altering the way we speak and listen and write. They might enlarge or compress our vocabulary, modify the norms of diction or word order, or encourage either simpler or more complex syntax. Because language is, for human beings, the primary vessel of conscious thought, particularly higher forms of thought, the technologies that restructure language tend to exert the strongest influence over our intellectual lives. Technologies are not mere exterior assistants, but also interior transformations of consciousness, and never more than when they affect the word. The history of language is also a history of the mind. Language itself it not a technology. It is native to our species. Our brains and bodies have evolved to speak and to hear words. A child learns to talk without instruction, as a fledgling bird learns to fly. Because reading and writing have become so central to our identity and culture, it is easy to assume that they, too, are innate talents. However, they are not. Reading and writing are unnatural acts, made possible by the purposeful development of the alphabet and many other technologies. Our minds have to be taught how to translate the symbolic characters we see into language we understand. Reading and writing require schooling and practice, the deliberate shaping of our brain. Evidence of this shaping process can be seen in many neurological studies. Experiments have revealed that the brains of the literate differ from the brains of the illiterate in many ways—not only in how they understand language but in how they process visual signals, how they reason, and how they form memories. Learning how to read has been show to powerfully shape the adult neuropsychological systems. Brain scans have also revealed that people whose written language uses logographic symbols, like the Mandarin Chinese language does, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is considerably different from the circuitry found in people whose written language employs a phonetic alphabet. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

Although all reading makes use of some portions of the frontal and temporal lobes for planning and for analyzing sounds and meanings in words, logographic systems appear to activate very distinctive parts of [those] areas, particularly regions involved in motoric memory skills. Differences in brain activity have even been documented among readers of different alphabetic languages. Readers of English, for instance, have been found to draw more heavily on areas of the brain associated with deciphering visual shapes than do readers of Italian. The difference stems, it is believed, from the fact that English words often look very different from the way they sound, whereas in Italian words tend to be spelled exactly as they are spoken. The Sumerians and the Egyptians had to develop neural circuits that literally crisscrossed the cortex, linking areas involved not only in seeing and sense-making but in hearing, spatial analysis, and decision making. As these logosyllabic systems expanded to include many hundreds of characters, memorizing and interpreting them because so mentally taxing tht their use was probably restricted to an intellectual elite blessed with a lot of time and brain power. For writing technology to process beyond the Sumerian and Egyptian models, for it to become a tool used by the many rather than the few, it had to get a whole that simpler. Writing makes the people wise and improves their memories. In a completely oral culture, thinking is governed by the capacity of human memory. Knowledge is what you recall, and what you recall is limited to what you can hold in your mind. In oral cultures, they believe that writing implants forgetfulness in their souls: they cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling thing to remembrance no longer from withing themselves, but by the means of external marks. Laws, records, transactions, decisions, traditions—everything that today would be “documented”—in oral cultures had to be composed in formulaic verse, and distributed by being sung or chanted aloud. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

The oral World of our distant ancestors may well have had emotional and intuitive depths that we can no longer appreciate. Preliterate peoples must have enjoyed a particularly intense sensuous involvement with the World. When we learned to read, we suffered a considerable detachment from the feelings or emotional involvement that a nonliterate human or society would experience. However, our ancestors’ oral culture was in many ways a shallower one than our own. The written word liberated knowledge from the bounds of individual memory and freed language from the rhythmical and formulaic structures required to support memorization and recitation. It opened up to the mind broad new frontiers of thought and expression. The achievements of the Western World, it is obvious, are testimony to the tremendous values of literacy. Oral cultures could produce powerful and beautiful verbal performances of high artistic and human worth, which are no longer even possible once writing has taken possession of the psyche. However, literacy is absolutely necessary for the development not only of science but also of history, philosophy, explicative understanding of literature and of any art and indeed for the explanation of language (including oral speech) itself. The ability to write is utterly invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials. Writing heightens consciousness. I used to think that young Americans began whatever education they were to get at the age of eighteen, that their early lives were spiritually empty and that they arrived at the university clean slates unaware of their deeper selves and the World beyond superficial experience. The contrast between then and their European counterparts was set in high relief in the European novels and movies into which we were initiated at the university. The Europeans got most of the culture they were doing to get from their homes and their public schools, lycées, or gymnasiums, where their souls were incorporated into their specific literary traditions, which in turn expressed, and even founded, their traditions as peoples. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

It was not that their self-knowledge was mediated by their book learning and that their ambitions were formed as much by models first experienced in books as in everyday life. Their books had a substantial existence in everyday life and constituted much of what their society as a whole looked up to. It was commonplace for children of what they called good families to fill their imaginations with hopes of serious literary or philosophic careers, as do ours with hopes of careers in entertainment or business. All this was given to them early on, and by the time they were in their late teens it was part of the equipment of their souls, a lens through which they saw everything and which would affect all their later learning and experience. They went to the university to specialize. Americans were, in effect, told that they could be whatever they wanted to be or happened to be as long as they recognized that the same applied to all other humans and they were willing to support and defend the government that guaranteed that dispensation. It is possible to become an American in a day. And this is not to make light of what it means to be an American. The lack of American equivalents to Descartes, Pascal, or, for that matter, Montaigne, Rabelais, Racine, Montesquieu, and Rousseau is not a question of quality, but of whether there are any writers who are necessary to building our spiritual edifice, whom one must have read, or rather lived with, to be called educated, and who are the interpreters and even makers of our national life. Contrary to much contemporary wisdom, the United States of America has one of the longest uninterrupted political traditions of any nation in the World. What is more, that tradition is unambiguous; its meaning is articulated in simple, rational speech that is immediately comprehensible and powerfully persuasive to all normal human beings. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

America tells one story: the unbroke, ineluctable progress of freedom and equality. From its first settlers and its political founding on, there has been no dispute that freedom and equality are the essence of justice for us. No one serious or notable has stood outside this consensus. One would have to be a crank or a buffoon to get attentions as a nonbeliever in the democracy. All significant political disputes have been about the meaning of freedom and equality, not about their rightness. Nowhere else is there a tradition or a culture whose message is so distinct and unequivocal. Americanness generated a race of heroes—Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Alexander Augusta, Abraham Galloway, Frederick Douglas, Robert Smalls, Susie King Taylor, and so on—all of whom contributed to equality. Our heroes and the language of the Declaration contribute to a national reverence for our Constitution, also a unique phenomenon. All this is material for self-consciousness and provides a superior moral significance to humdrum lives as well as something to study. However, many students now arrive at the university ignorant and cynical about our political heritage, lacking the wherewithal to be either inspired by it or seriously critical of it. The other element of fundamental primary learning that has disappeared is religion. As the respect for the Sacred—the latest fad—has soared, real religion and knowledge of the Bible have diminished to the vanishing point. God walked very tall in our political life and in our schools. Presidents still prayer for this nation and our money still says “In God We Trust.” The Lord’s prayers were silently said in grade school when I was a child and we used to have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day. If you look at it, although America is not perfect, you really won the lottery to have God bless you with being born in America this day and age and not in a developing nation. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Nonetheless, it is also the home—and the houses of worship related to it—where religion lives. The holy days and the common language and set of references that permeate most households constitutes a large part of the family bond and gives it substantial content. Moses and the Tables of the Law, Jesus and His preaching of brotherly love, have an imaginative existence. Passages from the Psalms and the Gospels echo in children’s heads. Attending church or synagogue, praying at the table, are a way of life, inseparable from the moral education that is supposed to be the family’s special responsibility in this democracy. Actually, the moral teaching is the religious teaching. There is no abstract doctrine. The things one is supposed to do, the sense that the World supported one and punished disobedience, are all incarnate in the Biblical stories. The loss of the gripping inner life vouchsafed those who were furthered by the Bible must be primarily attributed not to our schools or political life, but to the family, which, with all its rights to privacy, has proved unable to maintain to any content of its own. The dreariness of the family’s spiritual landscape passes belief. It is as monochrome and unrelated to those who pass through it as are the barren steppes frequented by nomads who take their mere subsistence and move on. The delicate fabric of the civilization into which the successive generations are woven has unraveled, and children are raised, not educated. We are not speaking here of the unhappy, broken homes that are such a prominent part of American life, but the relatively happy ones, where husband and wife like each other and care about their children, very often unselfishly devoting the best parts of their lives to them. However, they have nothing to give their children in the way of a vision of the World, of a high model of action or profound sense of connection with others. The family requires the most delicate mixture of nature and convention, of human and divine, to subsist and perform its function. Its base is merely bodily reproduction, but it is purpose is the formation of civilized human beings. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

The family requires a certain authority and wisdom about the ways of the Heavens and of humans. The parents must have knowledge of what has happened in the past, and prescriptions for what ought to be, in order to resist the philistinism or the wickedness of the present. Ritual and ceremony are now often said to be necessary for the family, and they are now lacking. However, if its ritual and ceremony are to express and transmit the wonder of the moral law, which it alone is capable of transmitting and which makes it special in a World devoted to the humanly, all too humanly, useful, the family has to be a sacred unity believing in the permanence of what it teaches. When that belief disappears, as it has, the family has, at best, a transitory togetherness. People sup together, play together, travel together, but they do not think together. Hardly any homes have any intellectual life whatsoever, let alone one that informs the vital interests of life. Educational TV marks the high tide for family intellectual life. The cause of this decay of the family’s traditional role as the transmitter of tradition is the same as that of the decay of the humanities: nobody believes that old books do, or even could, contain the truth. In the United States of America, the Holy Bible was the only common culture, one that united simple and sophisticated, rich and poor, young and old, and—as the very model for a vision of the order of the whole of things, as well as the key to the rest of Western art, the greatest works of which were in one way our another responsive to the Bible—provided access to the seriousness of books. With its gradual and inevitable disappearance, they very idea of such a total book and the possibility and necessity of World-explanation is disappearing. And fathers and mothers have lost the idea that the highest aspiration they might have for their children is for them to be wise—as priests, prophets, or philosophers are wise. Specialized competence and success are all that they can imagine. Contrary to what is commonly thought, without the book even the idea of the order of the whole gets lost. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

Parents do not have the legal or moral authority they have in the Old World. They lack self-confidence as educators of their children, generously believing that they will be better than their parents, no only in well-being, but in moral, bodily and intellectual virtue. There is always a more or less open belief in progress, which the past appears poor and contemptible. The future, which is open-ended, cannot be prescribed to by parents, and it eclipses the past which they know to be inferior. Along with the constant newness of everything and the ceaseless overturned moving from place to place, first radio, then television, have assaulted and overturned the privacy of the homes, the real American privacy, which permitted the development of a higher and more independent life within democratic society. Parents can no longer control the atmosphere of the home an have even lost the will to do so. With great subtlety and energy, television enters not only the room, but also the tastes of old and young alike, appealing to the immediately pleasant and subverting whatever does not conform to it. The newspaper has replaced the prayer in the life of the modern bourgeois, meaning that they busy, the cheap, the ephemeral, has usurped all that remains of the eternal in one’s daily life. Now television has replaced the newspaper. It is not so much the low quality of the fare provided that it is troubling. It is much more the difficulty of imagining order of taste, any way of life with pleasures and learning that naturally fit the lives of the family’s members, keeping itself distinct from the popular culture and resisting the visions of what is admirable and interesting with which they are bombarded from within the household itself. The improved education of the vastly expanded middle class in the last half-century has also weakened the family’s authority. Almost everyone in the middle class has a college degree, and most have an advanced degree of some kind. However, their homes are not spiritually rich like one’s grandparents’ home were. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Grandparents did a lot of things to make their homes spiritual. They were modest, did not adhere to popular culture, were specifically ritual, and found their origin in the Bible’s commandments, and their explanation in the Bible’s stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling the past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, but from outside or from an alien perspective, but believing as they did, while simply going deeper and providing guidance. There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. This is what a community and a history mean, a common experience inviting high and low into a single body of belief. I do not believe that my generation, my cousins who have been educated in the American way, all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning. I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things. Without the great revelations, epics and philosophies as part of our natural vision, there is nothing to see out there, and eventually little left inside. The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book of similar gravity, read with the gravity of the potential believer, it will remain unfurnishes. If it cannot present to the imagination of the young a vision of a moral cosmos and of the rewards and punishments for good and evil, sublime speeches that accompany and interpret deeds, protagonists and antagonist in the drama of moral choice, a sense of the stakes involved in such choice, and the despair that results when the World is “disenchanted,” the moral education that is today supposed to be the great responsibility of the family cannot exist. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

Otherwise, education becomes the vain attempt to give children “values.” Beyond the fact that parents do not know what they believe, and surely do not have the self-confidence to tell their children much more than that they want them to be happy and fulfill whatever potential they may have, values are such pallid things. Actually, the family’s moral training now comes down to include the bare minima of social behaviour, not lying or stealing, and produces university students who can say nothing more about the ground of their moral action, “If I did that to him, he could do it to me,”—and explanation which does not even satisfy those who utter it. The loss of books has made the young narrower and flatter. Narrower because they lack what is most necessary, a real basis for discontent with the present and awareness that there are alternatives to it. Narrower because they lack what is most necessary ra real basis for discontent with the present and awareness that there are alternatives to it. They are both more contented with what is and despairing of ever escaping from it. The very models of admiration and contempt have vanished. Flatter, because without interpretations of things, without the poetry or the imagination’s activity, their souls are like mirrors, not of nature, but of what is around. The refinement of the mind’s eye that permits it to see the delicate distinctions among humans, among their deeds and their motives, and constitutes real taste, is impossible without the assistance of literate in the grand style. So there is less soil in which university teaching can take root, less of the enthusiasm and curiosity. It is much more difficult today to attach the classic books to any experience or felt need the students have. The youth’s literature and religion are becoming ignorant and thin, yet they have two invaluable properties. First, they are grounded in the existing situation, whatever the situation, without moralistic or invidious judgment of it. It is in this sense that Henry Miller is their literary father. Their experience is withdrawn. (Miller’s too does not add up.) Their religion is unfeasible, for one cannot richly meet the glancing present, like Zen, without patriotic loyalty, long discipleship, and secure subsistence. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

Nevertheless, their writing has a pleasant bare surface, and it is experience. It is often bombastic, but on the average it is more primary than other writing we have been getting in America. A second valuable property of the youth’s style is that it tries to be action, not a reflection or comment. We say that, in both their conversation and heightened experience, this action does not amount to much, for they do not have the weight or beauty to make much difference. However, their persistent effort at the effective community reading, appearing as themselves in their own clothes, and willing to offend or evoke some other live response; and also their creative playing (especially if it would become more like the Bali dances), are efforts for art and letters as living action, rather than the likeness to literature that we have been getting in the Kenyon Review and the Partisan Review. Religiously, they are making a corrigible error. What they intend, it seems to me, is not the feudal Zen Buddhism, which is far too refined for them and for our times, but Taoism, the peasant ancestor of Zen. Tao is a faith for the voluntary less affluent, for it teaches us to get something from the act of wresting a living with independent integrity. It is, as youth intends to be, individual or small-group anarchy. If the youth would think this through, they would know better how to claim their subsistence under better conditions, and perhaps they would have more World. Tao teaches, too, divine experience from the body and its breathing. In this it is like the doctrine of Wilhelm Reich, much esteemed by the youth but now followed by them. The magic they are after is natural and group magic, and they need not be so dependent on ancient superstitions and modern barbiturates. Most important, Tao traches the blessedness of confusion. Tao is not enlightened, it does not know the score. Confusion is the state of promise, the fertile void where surprise is possible again. Confusion is in fact the state that we are in, and we should be wise to cultivate it. If young people are not floundering these days, they are not following the Way. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

The actualized Christian is murky, confused. Block the passage. Shut the door. Droop and drift as though one belongs nowhere. So dull one is. All humans can be put to some use, one alone is intractable and boorish. It is square to be hip. The basic words of our jargon are “Search me,” “Kid,” “I couldn’t give you a clue,” “I’m murky.” “Creator spirit, come.” Although the Council of Nicea banned self-castration and barred eunuchs from priesthood in 325, and Roman legislation from the first to the fifth centuries forbade the castration of slaves, even the noblest families often opted to castrate their sons. The reason? Social and professional advancement, especially in the military. By the tenth century, eunuchs dominated the imperial court, army, and civil service rose to the highest offices. Their success was due to one simple factor—their sterility. No matter what, no eunuch would intrigue on behalf of a son. In consequence, eunuchs were considered so reliable they formed the core of the bureaucracy and provided an important balance to the hereditary nobility. The eunuch Narses was the Emperor Justinian’s immensely power and successful grand chamberlain and later, in ripest old age, the general known as the Hammer of the Goths after he demonstrated great military prowess, even genius, in routing them. Narses’ birth date is uncertain, but he died sometime between 566 and 574, at anywhere from eighty-six to ninety-six years of age, famous, fabulously wealthy, and widely esteemed, among the few [eunuchs] who have rescued that unhappy name from the contempt and hatred of humankind. At first, only foreigners or slaves were castrated, but as the institution of eunuchism developed, even emperors castrated their sons to eliminate rivals or to place them in such high positions as the Orthodox Church’s bishop, patriarchy of Constantinople, which required celibacy, preferably of the eunuch variety. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Military eunuchs had brilliant careers as admirals and generals. The grand chamberlain, a supremely powerful imperial official, was usually a eunuch. In the palace, eunuch were wardrobe-keepers, controllers of the imperial purse, estate managers, majordomos, and highest of all, superintendents of the scared bedchamber and, inevitably, repositories of the empire’s most intimate secrets. Eunuchs were often the booty of piracy, kidnapping, and tribal wars. Because so few castrates lived—Emperor Justinian believed that only slightly more than 3 percent survived the operation—they were extremely valuable, fetching three times the price of a genitally intact boy. Unlike the Chinese and Ottoman equivalents, many Byzantine eunuchs had the less radical testicles-only operation. A doctor sometimes forced to perform these mutilations described the two procedures. The compression method consisted of soaking young boys in hot water and then squeezing their testicles until they were crushed into nothingness. In the more drastic excision method, both testicles were surgically removed, which produced eunuchs who, unlike their testicularly compressed brothers, allegedly experience no erotic sensation at all. Excision was preferable to compression because it eliminated even more desire for pleasures of the flesh. However, when the operation was performed on a postadolescent youth, there was no guarantee it would remove his ability to achieve an excited status. It happened, therefore, that on rare occasions, a eunuch has pleasures of the flesh with a palace woman. Whenever such a liaison was discovered, the eunuch offender was executed. The mere possibility of such a scandal was so great that eunuchs who displayed homosexual tendencies were tolerated and sometimes even welcomed. Ironically, homosexuality was punished by castration, leading the public to equate eunuchs with homosexuality. Homosexuality was also the preferred charge against those suspected of plotting against the emperor. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

As was the case with their desexed compatriots elsewhere, the sexual incapacity of the Byzantine eunuchs earned them their masters’ trust, and they were often assigned to positions that involved considerable intimacy with women. Their presence bolstered the separation between the genders—eunuchs were, after all, the “third gender.” Sometimes, though, members of the third gender acted suspiciously as if they belonged to the first. The more gently castrated Byzantine eunuchs managed to escape enforced celibacy far more often than their more damaged, penis-lacking peers. This, despite the threat of death if their lovers were palace women. When the lure of lust was too strong, eunuch indulged as best they could, the spirit urging them on even when the flesh was seriously flawed. Others, less lascivious or more sexually incapacitated, focused instead on the career opportunities available to a talented and industrious eunuch. If intense ambition drove them more than sensuality, they were admirably positioned to reach the highest ranks of either civil administration or military command, and to influence imperial policy, amass personal fortunes, earn enduring reputations, and satisfy almost every human craving expect pleasures of the flesh. Now, when we look at the economy, the failure of many economists to grasp the profundity of today’s revolutionary change is ironic. It is not the first-time brilliance walked arm in arm with myopia. Francois Quenary was a genius. He was also the official physician of Louis XV’s famous mistress, Madame de Pompadour. Son of a commoner, he did not learn to read until he was eleven. However, once he did, he never stopped. He quickly taught himself Latin and Greek. For a time he worked for an engraver, then enrolled in medical school, became a surgeon and a renowned expert on blood. Over the years, he rose to the pinnacle of French medicine and won his place in the palace of Louis VX. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Quesnay, however, had more than medicine or Madame de Pompadour on his inquisitive mind. In the cramped entresol over Madame’s quarters, he made a deep study of agricultural economics. He was frequently visited there, we are told, by Turgot, who later became the controller general of finances under Louis XVI, and by other thinkers and doers of the time. He contributed articles to Diderot’s great Encylopedie on subjects such as farmers and grains. He wrote about taxes, interest rates and subjects as far afield as the Incas of Peru and despotism in China. By 1758 Quesnay’s ideas about economics had sufficiently crystalized for him to publish Tableau Economique, a remarkable precursor of the much more complex input-output tables for which Wassily Leontief won the Nobel Prize in 1973. In the Tableau, Quesnay compared the economy to the circulation of blood in the body. This analogy turned out to have powerful political implications—both in his time and ours. For if the economy is, in fact, naturelike and homeostatic, he believed, it would naturally seek equilibrium. And if that were the case, Quesnay argued, the French government’s mercantilist policies and its endless regulations of trade and manufacture interfered with the natural balance of the economy. Soon a group calling themselves the Physiocrats sprang up around Quesnay and began to extend and promote these ideas. Quesnay himself came to be regarded as one of the greatest penseurs in the West—a thinker some even compared to Socrates and Confucius. Yet Quesnay made one fateful mistake. He insisted that the sole source of all wealth was agriculture. For him and the Physiocrats, only the rural economy mattered. Indeed, he wrote, there were only three classes of people: peasants, landowners, and everybody else. The first two were productive, they very womb of wealth. Everyone else, for Quesnay, was a member of the “sterile class.” Brilliant as Quesnay might have been, he simply could not imagine an industrial society in which most wealth, in fact, would soon be coming from smoke-belching factories in cities, and from the hands and minds of precisely the “sterile class.” He missed the big picture. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Today, too, we find many economists suffering from Quesnay’s myopia, making brilliant contributions to components of a problem without examining the far larger picture into which they fit—including the social, cultural and political effects that come with revolutionary wealth. The time has come, in short, to inoculate ourselves against the Quesnay factor. And we will not be able to do that until we can separate true from false. The fulfillment of this meaning and this destiny is frustrated by the human who has become reconciled to the It-World as something that is experienced and used and who holds down what is tied into it instead of freeing it, who observes it instead of heeding it, and instead of receiving it utilized it. “Surely He has borne our griefs (sickness, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [and is with leprosy]. However, He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole. All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned on every one to one’s sown way; and the Lord has made light upon Him the guilt and iniquity of us all,” reports Isaiah 53.4-6. We raise our face to God’s infinite sky, and thank Him for His Son, Jesus Christ. As we feel Christ’s touch of grace, it is like gentle raindrops kissing our skin. Through all things, Jesus Christ has loved us, and His spirit has touched us. He has never left us alone. We live our ideals not because they are ours, but because they are God’s. O Lord, wherefore hidest Thou Thyself, and forgettest our affliction and our oppression? In Thee did our fathers trust; they trusted and Thou didst deliver them. Unto Thee they cried and were saved; in Thee did they trust and were not ashamed. O God, keep Thou not silence; Hold not Thy peace and be not still. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

Just shy of 2,700 square feet, this house is perfect for a single person who likes to entertain, or work from home, a growing family, or a retired couple who wants room for the grandchildren when they come to vosoy.

This is just one of four bedrooms in the Mills Station Residence 4 model; which will you choose?!

You will love this beautifully designded home with well-appointed interior finishes, such as the quartz breakfast bar with an optional quartz table built-in, which compliments the room well. When you move it, you have the freedom to use the space however you want. There are so many way one can design their personal space.

#CresleighHomes
#CresleighRanch