Words and plans are not enough. Leaders stand up for their beliefs. They practice what they preach. They show others by their own example that they live by the values that they profess. If there are degrees in the power of being become manifest and how can it be measured? The answer is that the power of being becomes manifest only in the process in which it actualizes its power. In this process its power appears and can be measured. Power is real only in its actualization, in the encounter with other bearers of power and in the ever-changing balance which is the results of these encounters. Life is the dynamic actualization of being. It is not a system of solutions which could be deduced from a basic vision of life. Nothing can be deduced from a basic vision of life. Nothing can be deduced in a life process, nothing is determined a priori, nothing is final except those structures which make the dynamics of life possible. Life includes continuous decisions, not necessarily conscious decisions, but decisions which occur in the encounter between power and power. Every encounter of somebody who represents a power of being leads to a decision about the amount of power embodied in each of them. These decisions cannot be deduced a priori. Life is tentative. Everybody and everything has chances and must take risks, because one’s power and its power of being remains hidden if actual encounters do not reveal it. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

The typical forms in which powers of being encounter each other are a fascinating subject of phenomenological descriptions: life, exempli gratis, in a human individual, transcends itself. It pushes forward, it runs ahead, and it encounters life in another human individual which also pushes forward, or which withdraws or which stands and resists. In each case another constellation of power is the result. One draws another power into oneself and is either strengthened or weakened by it. One throws the foreign power of being out or assimilates it completely. One transforms the resisting powers or one adapts oneself to them. One is absorbed by them and loses one’s own power of being, one grows together with them and increases their and one’s own power of being. These processes are going on in every moment of life, in all relations of all beings. They go on between those powers of being which we call nature, between human and nature, between human and human, between individuals and groups, between groups and groups. The power struggle is taking place in the accidental look of a human at another human, as well as in the most complex forms of love relationships. In these examples the continuous struggle of power of being with power of being is described in a way which does not need to take into consideration hostilities, neuroses, or pacifist ideologies. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

The power of being is simply a description of life processes which occur in Heaven as well as in Hell. They belong to the structure of being. This vision of life is confirmed when we consider the phenomenology of power-relations for the interpretation of all important historical movements. Categories such as challenge, reaction, withdrawal, return, belong to a phenomenology of encounters. And it is not only the encounter of groups with groups, it is also the encounter of groups with nature for which one develops one’s phenomenology relations. In the works of the historians and depth-psychologists we find the material for a complete phenomenology of power relations. Everything real is an individual power of being within an embracing whole. Within the whole of power the individual can gain or lose power of being. Whether the one or the other happens is never decided a priori, but is a matter of continuous concrete decisions. A child, in one’s early years, has power of being only within the embracing power of being which is called “family”. However, at a certain moment most children have the tendency to withdraw from the family unity to themselves and their self-realization. They feel that participation in the family life means a loss of their individual power of being. So they withdraw, mostly internally, sometimes also externally. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

The child wants to increase their power of being which, they feel, is being reduced within the group. However, it may happen that after a certain time they return to the family because they feel that without the power of being of the group their own power of being is severely endangered. And again, after a certain tie they may realize that they have surrendered too much to the group and that this self-surrender not only weakens their own being but also that of the group to whose power they have surrendered. Again they withdraw and the conflict continues. The problem implied in this situation is sharpened by the “hierarchical” structure of life. The more centred a being is the more power of being is embodied in it. The completely centred, self-related and self-aware being, human, has the greatest power of being. One has a World, not only an environment, and with it infinite potentialities of self-realization. One centredness makes one the master of one’s World. However, where there is centredness there is a hierarchical structure of power. The nearer to the centre an element is, the more it participated in the power of the whole. The ancient parable of the revolt of the members of the body against the stomach and the answer of the stomach, that without its central position all other members would starve, shows the decisive importance of the centre for the power of being for every part. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Centred structures are present not only in the organic but also in the inorganic realm, notably in the atomic and subatomic elements of matter. And even the most egalitarian societies have centres of power and decisions, in which the large majority of the people participate only indirectly and in degrees. Theses centres are strengthened in the moment in which the fullest development of power by a social group is demanded, in emergency situations. The need for an acting centre makes even an egalitarian group hierarchical. The centre of power is only the centre of the whole as long as it does not degrade its own centrality by using it for particular purposes. In the moment in which the representatives of the centre use the power of the whole for their particular self-realization they cease to be the actual centre, and the whole being, without a centre, disintegrates. Certainly, it is possible for a ruling group to force its will upon the whole, even if its will is not the expression of the whole. However, this is possible only for a limited time. Finally, the loss of the power of the whole, through internal or external causes, is unavoidable. Since no being has a natural authority over one’s fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among humans. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

If an individual can alienate one’s liberty and make oneself the slave of a master, why could not a whole people do the same and make itself subject to a king? There are in this passage plenty of ambiguous words which would need explaining; but let us confine ourselves to the word alienate. To alienate is to give or to sell. Now, a being who become the salve of another does not give oneself; one sells oneself, at the least for one’s subsistence: but for what does a people sell itself? A king is so far from furnishing one’s subjects with their subsistence that one gets one’s own only from them; and, kings do not live on nothing. Do subjects then give their persons on condition that the king takes their goods also? I fail to se what they have left to preserve. It will be said that the despot assures one’s subjects civil tranquility. Granted; but what do they gain, if the wars one’s ambition brings down upon them, one’s insatiable avidity, and the vexatious conduct of one’s ministers press harder on them than their own dissension would have done? If the very tranquility they enjoy is one of their miseries, what do they gain? Tranquility is found also in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in? The Greeks imprisoned in the cave of the Cyclops lived there very tranquilly, while they were awaiting to be devoured. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

To say that a human gives oneself gratuitously, is to say what is absurd and inconceivable; such an act is null and illegitimate, from the mere fact that one who does it is out of one’s mind. To say the same of a whole people is to suppose a people of madmen; and madness creates no right. Even if each being could alienate oneself, one could not alienate one’s children: they are born human and free; their liberty belongs to them, and no one but they have the right to dispose of it. Before they come to years of discretion, the father can, in their name, lay down conditions for their preservation and well-being, but one cannot give them irrevocably and without conditions: such a gift is contrary to the ends of nature, and exceeds the rights of paternity. It would therefore be necessary, in order to legitimise an arbitrary government, that in every generation the people should be in a position to accept or reject it; but, were this so, the governed would be no longer arbitrary. To renounce liberty is to renounce being a human, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For one who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with human’s nature; to remove all liberty form one’s will is to remove all morality from one’s acts. Finally, it is an empty and contradictory convention that sets up, on the one side, absolute authority, and, on the other, unlimited obedience. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Is it not clear that we can be under no obligation to a person from whom we have the right to exact everything? Does not this condition alone, in the absence of equivalence or exchange, in itself involve the nullity of the act? For what right can my slave have against me, when all that he has belongs to me, and, his right being mine, this right of mine against myself is a phrase devoid of meaning? War is found in another origin for the so-called right of slavery. The victor having, as they hold, the right of killing the vanquished, the latter can buy back one’s life at the price of one’s liberty; and this convention is the more legitimate because it is to the advantage of both parties. However, what is clear that this supposed right to kill the conquered is by no means deducible from the sate of war. Humans, from the mere fact that, while they are living in their primitive independence, they have no mutual relations stable enough to constitute either the state of peace or the state of war, cannot be naturally enemies. War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons; and, as the state of war cannot arise out of simple personal relations, but only out of real relations, private way, or war of human with human, can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no constant property, nor in the social state, were everything is under the authority of the laws. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

Individual combats, duels and encounters, are acts which cannot constitute a state; while the private wars, authorised by the Establishments of Louis IX, King of France, and suspended by the Peace of God, are abuses of feudalism, in itself an absurd system if ever there was one, and contrary to the principles of natural right and to all good polity. War then is a relation, not between human and human, but between State and State, and individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as humans, nor even as citizens, but as soldiers; not as members of their country, but as its defenders. Finally, each State can have for enemies only other States, and not humans; for between things disparate in nature there can be no real relation. Furthermore, this principle is in conformity with the established rules of all times and the constant practice of all civilised peoples. Declarations of war are intimations less to powers than to their subjects, without declaring way on the prince, is not an enemy, but a brigand. Even in real war, a just prince, while laying hands, in the enemy’s country, on all that belongs to the public, respects the lives and goods of individuals: he respects rights on which his own are founded. The object of the war being the destruction of the hostile State, the other side has a right to kill its defenders, while they are bearing arms. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

However, as soon as its defenders lay down their arms and surrender, the hostile State sees that they cease to be its enemies or instruments enemy, and become once more merely humans, whose lives no one has any right to take. Sometimes it is possible to kill the State without killing a single one of its members; and war gives no right to which is not necessary to the gaining of its object. These principles are not based on the authority of poets, but derived from the nature of reality and based on reason. The right of conquest has no foundation other than the right of the strongest. If war does not give the conqueror the right t massacre the conquered peoples, the right to enslave them cannot be based upon a right which does not exist. No one has a right to kill an enemy except when one cannot make one a slave, and the right to enslave one cannot therefore be derived from the right to kill one. It is accordingly an unfair exchange to make one buy at the price of one’s liberty one’s life, over which the victor holds no right. It is not clear that there is a vicious circle in founding the right of life and death on the right of slavery, and the right slavery on the right of life and death? Even if we assume this terrible right to kill everybody, I maintain that a slave made in war, or a conquered people, is under no obligation to a master, expect to obey one as far as he is compelled to do so. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

By taking an equivalent for one’s life, the victor has not done one a favour; instead of killing one without profit, one has killed one usefully. So far then is one from acquiring over one any authority in addition to that of force, that the state of war continues to subsist between them: their mutual relation is the effect of it, and the usage of the right ward does not imply a treaty of peace. A convention has indeed been made; but this convention, so far from destroying the state of war, presupposes its continuance. So, from whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive. It will always be equally foolish for a being to say to a being or to people: “I make with you a convention wholly at your expense and wholly to my advantage; I shall keep it as long as I like, and you will keep it as long as I like.” The question of the origins of inequality is only half of the problem of a sophisticated Marxist philosophy of history. The other half is that Rousseau’s argument with Hobbes has never been satisfactorily settled. The Marxists have said, with Rousseau, that because human nature is a blank slate, neutral, even good; evil exists because of social institutions that encourage it. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

Evil also exists because of social classes and the hate, envy, competition, degradation, and scapegoating that stem from them; change society and human’s natural goodness will flower. Not so, say the conservatives, and they point for proof at those revolutionary societies which have abolished social class but which continue to express personal and social evil; evil, then must be in the heart of the creature; the best that social institutions can do is keep it blunted; and social institutions that already effectively do this without excessive repression and within legal safeguards for individual rights—why, such social institutions should not be changed. So argue the conservatives. This question has been the central one of science of human, and as such the knottiest in its whole career; thus it is logical that it is the last problem to be solved. I myself have been coming back to it again and again for a dozen years now, and each time I thought there was a clear solution I later discovered that vital things had been left unsaid. At first it seemed to me that Rousseau had already won the argument with Hobbes: had he said that evil is a robust child? Then, as Rousseau argued, children are clumsy, blustering organisms who must take some toll of their environment, who see activity and self-expansion in an innocent way, but who cannot yet control themselves. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

Their intentions are not evil, even if their acts cause damage. In this view, humans are an energy-converting organism who must exert one’s manipulative powers, who must damage one’s World in some ways, who must make it uncomfortable for others, excreta, by one’s own nature an active being. One seeks self-expansion from a very uncertain power base. Even if humans hurt others, it is because one is weak and afraid, not because one is confident and cruel. Only the strong person can be ethical, not the weak one. Hate and violent aggression could be developed in humans as a special kind of cultural orientation, something people learned to do in order to be big and important—as some primitive tribes learned warfare and won social esteem because of their cruelty to enemies, excreta. It was not that humans had instincts of hate and aggression, but rather that one could easily be molded in that way by the society which rewarded them. The thing that characterized humans is one’s need for self-esteem, and one would do anything one’s society wanted in order to earn it. From this point of view, even scapegoating and the terrible toll it has taken historically seemed to be explainable in terms of the thing that humans wanted most was to be part of a close and loving ingroup, to feel at peace and harmony with others of one’s kind. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

 And to achieve this intimate identification it was necessary to strike at strangers, pull the group together by focusing it on an outside target. The sacrificial ravages of the Nazis could be approached in terms of neutral motives or even altruistic ones: love, harmony, unity. Eichmann was a simple bureaucrat who wanted only to be admired and rewarded for a job efficiently done and wielded his rubber stamp on the death of millions with the nonchalance of a postal clerk. We could even, as we have seen, subsume this under the Agape motive: humans want to merge with a larger whole, have something to dedicate one’s existence to in trustfulness and in humility; one wants to serve the cosmic powers. The most noble human motive, then, would cause the greatest damage because it would lead people to find their highest use as part of an obedient mass, to give their complete devotion and their lobes to their leaders. It is not aggressive drives that have taken the greatest toll in history, but rather unselfish devotion, hyper-dependence combined with suggestibility. Humans are less driven by adrenalin than one is drugged by symbols, by cultural belief systems, by abstractions like flags and anthems: Wars are fought for words. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

Much of aggression is due to the way children are brought up and the kind of life experiences people have. On this view, the most twisted and vicious people are those who have been most deprived, most cheated of love, warmth, self-realization. Dr. Strangelove would be the paradigm of the kind of mechanical coldness and life frustration which leads to World destruction. Again, this is a pure Marxist view: changing the life-denying institutions of modern society would enable a new type of human being to take shape. The hope of the Enlightenment in its full development is to show clinically what prevents self-reliant humans. This has been the burden—to argue for the ideal of autonomy while showing precisely what hinders it in the interplay of the individual psychology and society. In this way the whole historical problem of slavishness is attacked. People were always ready to yield their wills, to worship the hero, because they were not given a chance for developing initiative, stability, and independence. Humans are still a tool of others because one has not developed self-reliance, full and independent insides. In this way can human get some kind of even keel, some sort of inner gyroscope that will keep one from alternating eternally between the poles of sadism and masochism. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

Still, holiness and edification in all lands would not be perfect joy. Nor would a great ministry of healing and raising the dead. Nor would possession of all languages and all science, nor all understanding of prophecy and Scripture, and insight into the secrets of every soul. Nor would even the conversion of all unbelievers to faith in Christ! Perfect joy is wherein when they come to their quarters—dirty, wet, and exhausted from hunger—they are rejected, repeatedly, rebuffed, and finally driven away by force, then if we accept such injustice, such cruelty, and such contempt with patience, without being ruffled and without murmuring, and if we bear all these injuries with patience and joy, thinking of all the sufferings of our Blessed Lord, which we would share out of love for God, here, finally, is perfect joy. Giving and forgiving are of course central to the divinely restricted life, as we take on the character truly suited to the human soul. Even from one’s strictly humanistic perspective, the most widespread misunderstanding is that which assumes that giving is giving up something, being deprived of, sacrificing. People whose main orientation is a non-productive one feel giving as an impoverishment; the virtue of giving, to them, is possessed in the very act of acceptance of sacrifice. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

This certainly fits in with the purely negative understanding of self-denial discussed above. In fact, it has become a part of our ethical culture. For the productive character giving has an entirely different meaning. Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. The experience of heightened vitality fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving is possessed the expression of my aliveness. The apostle Paul wrote the entire sixth chapter of Romans to answer the question, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?’ Why did he have to deal with such a question? What had he said to even raise the issue? His whole teaching to that point in Romans was that justification is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, culminating in his sweeping statement in Romans 5.20: “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” Paul realized his unqualified presentation of the grace of God left him open to being misunderstood. Paul himself knew that his insistence on the pure grace of God without any admixture of commitment or discipline or obedience on our part could cause us to misunderstand him. He knew his readers could respond with this attitude: “Well, if that is true, let us go out and sin all we want. The more we sin, the more we cause God’s grace to abound.” #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

This type of response is always a possibility. In fact, if our concept of grace does not expose us to that possibility. In fact, if our concept of grace does not expose us to that possible misunderstanding, then we do not thoroughly understand grace. I believe it is because we are afraid of this attitude that we often change the doctrine of grace into a doctrine of works. “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a person is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation that this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will be redound all the more to the glory of grace. Obviously this does not mean that we should try to confuse people with our presentation of the gospel. However, the presentation of salvation by grace alone, apart from any preconditions on the part of our hearers, leaves us open to the possibility that people may charge us with saying, “It does not matter what you do; sin as much as you like.” But you know doing evil does not result in good, and that one’s condemnation is deserved. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

The grace of salvation is the same grace by which we live the Christian life. We have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. We are not only justified by grace through faith, we stand every day in this same grace. And just as the preaching of jusitification by grace is open to misunderstanding, so is the teaching of living by grace. The solution to this problem is not to add legalism to grace. Rather, the solution is to be so gripped by the magnificence and bondless generosity of God’s grace that we respond out of gratitude rather than out of a sense of duty. “And if they perish it will be like unto the Jaredites, because of the willfulness of their hearts, seeking for blood and revenge. My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his suffering and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever. And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the Heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power, until all thing shall become subject unto him, be, and abide with your forever. Amen,” reports Moroni 9.23 and 25-26. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Show the light of Thy countenance upon us, O Lord, that the going-forth of Thy word may give light and understanding, to nourish the hearts of the simple; and that while our desire is set on Thy commandments, we may receive with open heart the Spirit of wisdom and understanding. O God, with Whom if the well of life, and in Whose light we see light; increase in us, we beseech Thee, the brightness of Divine knowledge, whereby we may be able to reach Thy plenteous fountain; impart to our thirsting souls the draught of life, we restore to our darkened minds the light from Heaven. Bless God, ten thousand snares are mine without and within, defend thou me; when sloth and indolence seize me, give me views of Heaven; when sinners entice me, give me disrelish of their ways; when sensual pleasures tempt me, purify and refine me; when I desire Worldly possessions, help me to be rich toward thee; when the vanities of the World ensnare me, let me not plunge into new guilt and ruin. May I remember the dignity of my spiritual release, never be too busy to attend to my soul, never be so engrossed with time that I neglect the things of eternity; thus may I not only live, but grow towards thee. For my mind to right notions of religion, that I may not judge of grace by wrong conceptions, not measure my spiritual advances by the efforts of my natural being. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

May I seek after an increase of divine love to thee, after unreserved resignation to they will, after extensive benevolence to my fellow creatures, after patience and fortitude of soul, after a Heavenly disposition after a concern that I may please thee in public and private. Draw on my soul the lineaments of Christ, in every trace and feature of which thou wilt take delight, for I am thy workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, thy letter written with the Holy Spirit’s pen, thy tilled soil ready for the sowing, then harvest. We have paid, and are still paying, a heavy price for our comfortable conviction that the philosophic illuminate is a fool, to whom it is unnecessary to pay serious attention. It is such people who ought to be made, not the leaders of humankind, but the counsellors to the leaders. A single meeting with the self-actualized brings forth our involuntary respect. A long association with one brings forth our loving devotion also. If anyone brings one homage or reverence one takes it, not to oneself but to the Unseen Higher Power of God, before whom one lays it. Most people make their appeal t authority and are constantly at pains to quote letter and script for their words; others will gaze into their own glasses of vision and report upon the reflections of Truth that they descry within: but the illuminated one live the life and so declare only that which they have experience themselves; indeed what they say comes as form on high for us. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Experience #PlumasRanch like never before at our model home opening this Saturday, February 22nd, 2020. See you there! 🏡✨

The power of personal example is the essence of true leadership. Coming together is a beginning. Staying to together is a process. Working together is success.
https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-riverside-at-plumas-ranch/residence-4/

#CresleighHomes