War, it will be seen, not only accomplishes the necessary destruction, but it accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the World by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then destroying them. However, this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of the mases, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that one should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that one should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The difficulties one has in observing four important manifestations—lying, imagination, the expression of negative emotions, and unnecessary talking—will show man his utter mechanicalness, and the impossibility even of struggling against this mechanicalness without help, that is, without new knowledge and without actual assistance. For even if a man has received certain materials, he forgets to use it, forgets to observe himself; in other words, he falls asleep again and must always be awaken. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17

This “falling asleep” has certain definite features of its own, unknow, or at least unregistered and unnamed, in ordinary psychology. These features need special study. There are two of them. The first is called identification. “Identifying” or “identification” is a curious state in which man passes more than half of his life. He “identifies” with everything: with what he says, what he feels, what he believes, what he does not believe, what he wishes, what he does not wish, what attracts him, what repels him. Everything absorbs him, and he cannot separate himself from the idea, the feeling, or the object that absorbed him. This means that in the state of identification man is incapable of looking impartially on the object of his identification. It is difficult to find the smallest thing with which man is unable to “identify.” At the same time, in a state of identification, man has even less control over his mechanical reactions than at any other time. Such manifestations as lying, imagination, the expression of negative emotions, and constant talking need identification. They cannot exist without identification. If man could get rid of identification, he could get rid of many useless and foolish manifestations. Identification, its meaning, causes, and results, is extremely well described in the Philokalia. However, no trace of understanding of it can be found in modern psychology. It is a quite forgotten “psychological discovery.” The second sleep-producing state, akin to identification, is considering. Actually, “considering” is identification with people. It is a state in which man constantly worries about what other people think of him; whether they give him his due, whether they admire him enough, and so on, and so on. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17

“Considering” plays a very important part in everyone’s life, but in some people it becomes an obsession. All their lives are filled with considering—that is, worry, doubt, and suspicion—and there remains no place for anything else. The myth of the “inferiority complex” and other “complexes” is created by the vaguely realized but not understood phenomenon of “identification” and “considering.” Both “identification” and “considering” must be observed most seriously. Only full knowledge of them can diminish them. If one cannot see them in oneself, one can easily see them in other people. However, one must remember that one in no way differs from others. In this sense all people are equal. Returning now to what was said before, we must try to understand more clearly how the development of man must begin, and in what way self-study can help this beginning. From the very start we meet with a difficulty in our language. For instance, we want to speak about man from the point of view of evolution. However, the word “man” in ordinary language does not admit of any variation or any gradation. Man who is never conscious and never suspects it, man who is struggling to become conscious, man who is fully conscious—it is all the same of our language. It is always “man” in every case. In order to avoid this difficult and to help the student in classifying his new ideas, the system divides man into seven categories. The first three categories are practically on the same level.  Man no. 1, a man in whom the moving or instinctive centers predominate over the intellectual and emotional, that is, Physical man. Man no.2, a man in whom the emotional center predominates over the intellectual, moving, and instinctive. Emotional man. Man no. 3, a man in whom the intellectual center predominates over the emotional, moving, and instinctive. Intellectual man. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17

In ordinary life we meet only these three categories of man. Each one of us and everyone we know is any of the three personality types listed above. There are higher categories of man, but men are not born already belonging to these higher categories. They are all born in the first category, the second category, the third category, and can reach higher categories only through school. Man no. 4 is not born as such. He is a product of school culture. He differs from man no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3 by his knowledge of himself, by his understanding of his position, and, as it is expressed technically, by his having acquired a permanent center of gravity. This last means that the idea of acquiring unity, consciousness, permanent “I,” and will—that is, the idea of his development—has already become for him more important than his other interests. It must be added to the characteristics of man no. 4, that his functions and center are more balanced, in a way in which they could not be balanced without work on himself, according to school principles and methods. Man no. 5 is a man who acquired unity and self-consciousness. He is different from ordinary man, because in him, one of the higher centers already works, and he has many functions and powers that an ordinary man—that is, man no. 1, 2, and 3—does not possess. Man no. 6 is a man who has acquired objective consciousness. Another higher center works in him. He possesses many more new faculties and powers, beyond the understanding of an ordinary man. Man no. 7 is a man who has attained all that a man can attain. He has a permanent “I” and free will. He can control all the states of consciousness in himself and he already cannot lose anything he has acquired. According to another description, he is immortal within the limits of the solar system. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17

Understanding of this division of man into seven categories is very important, for the division has very many applications in all possible ways of studying human activity. It gives, in the hands of those who understand it, a very strong and very fine instrument or tool for the definition of manifestations which, without it, are impossible to define. Take, for instance, the general concepts of religion, art, science, and philosophy. Beginning with religion, we can see at once that there must be a religion of man no. 1, that is all forms of fetishism, no matter how they are called; a religion of man no. 2, that is emotional, sentimental religion, passing sometimes into fanaticism, the crudest forms of intolerance, persecution of heretics, and so on; a religion of man no. 3, that is theoretical, scholastic religion, full of argument about words, forms, rituals, which become more important than anything else; a religion of man no. 4, that is the religion of man who works for self-development; religion of man no. 5, that is the religion of a man who has attained unity and can see and know many things tht man no. 1, 2, and 3 can neither see not know; then a religion of man no. 6 and a religion of man no. 7, about neither of which can we know anything. The same division applies to art, science, and philosophy. There must be an art of man no. 1, an art of man no. 2, an art of man no. 3; science of man no. 1, science of man no. 2, science of man no. 3, science of man no. 4, and so on. You must try to find examples of these for yourselves. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17

This expansion of concepts greatly enlarges our possibility of finding right solutions to many of our problems. And this means that the system gives us the possibility of studying a new language, that is, new for us, which will connect for us ideas of different categories, which are, in reality, united, and divide ideas of seemingly the same categories which are, in reality, different. The division of the word “man” into seven words—man no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, with all that follows—is an example of this new language. This gives us the fourth definition of psychology as the study of a new language. And this language is a universal language, which people sometimes try to find or invent. The expression, “a universal language” or “philosophical language,” must not be taken in a metaphorical sense. The language is universal in the same sense as mathematical symbols are universal. And besides that it includes in itself all that people can think about. Even the few words of this language which have been explained, give you the possibility of thinking and speaking with more precision than is possible in ordinary language, using any of the existing scientific or philosophical terminologies and nomenclatures. It has become widely accepted that a major source of prediction difficulty in the contemporary Information Revolution is the multiplicity of forces that are interacting. For example, the hard lesion has been learned that technologies are adopted not only as a function of cost, but also as a function of numbers of others adopting. A technology with a small market lead may become dominant even when it is not superior in a quality, as in the stories of DVD versus Blue Ray, and the QWERTY keyboard. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17

Effectiveness of technology has been observed sometimes to depend on deployment of other technologies, such as Internet service provision depending on the installed base of telephones. There have been striking cases of process surprise, such as a way of replacing carbon paper (xerography) that can upset the internal security of autocratic nations, as well as alter the conduct the internal security of autocratic nations, as well as alter the conduct of basic office procedures. And cultural variables have been shown to set a controlling context for technical developments, as in rural areas of developing countries that may leapfrog wired communications to go directly to wireless, or when countries with nonalphabetic languages have sharply different approaches to word processing. Reaping the benefits of new technology has turned out often to require collateral resources, so that innovations imagined to favor equality could turn out to accelerate differences between social classes. We have learned that absence in electronic mail socially controlling status cues can unleash embarrassing episodes of “flaming,” in which participants write things they would never say to a recipient’s face. Such lessons have taught us all that virtually every important force in collective life affects the way the Information Revolution plays out. Scale economics, technological preconditions, national developmental sequencing, social status, economic inequality, internal security postures, cultural context, and many more forces work to condition the development of information technology impacts. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17

This is not unique to the contemporary episode in the growth of information technology. The earlier episode of the Information Revolution that began with movable type also had epochal consequences. The Chinese Empire, the Islamic states, and the Christian West each gave its own distinctive shape to the movable type revolution in printing. Roughly speaking, the Chinese used printing to reinforce central authority, while Islam suppressed the technology. The Western case had been highly interesting to scholars because of its many indirect effects including contributions to the promotion of religious conflict and the rise of nation-states. These are just the kind of nonadditive contextual effects that distinguish complex dynamic regimes. If complexity is often rooted in patterns of interaction among agents, then we might expect systems to exhibit increasingly complex dynamics when changes occur that intensify interaction among their elements. This, of course, is exactly what the Information Revolution is doing: reducing the barriers to interaction among processes that were previously isolated from each other in time or space. Information can be understood as a mediator of interaction. Decreasing the costs of its propagation and storage inherently increases possibilities for interaction effects. An Information Revolution is therefore likely to beget a complexity revolution. Many educators base their philosophies on narratives rich in symbols which they respected and which they understood to be integral to the stories they wanted education to reveal. It is, therefore, time to ask, What story does American education wish to tell now? #RandolphHarris 8 of 17

In a growing Technopoly, what do we believe education is for? The answers are discouraging, and one of them can be inferred from any television commercial urging the young to stay in school. The commercial will either imply or state explicitly that education will help the preserving students to get a good job. And that is it. Well, not quite. There is also the idea that we educate ourselves to compete with the Japanese or the Germans in an economic struggle to be number one. Neither of these purposes is, to say that least, grand or inspiring. The story of each suggests that the United States of America is not a culture but merely an economy, which is the last refuge of an exhausted philosophy of education. This belief, I might add, is precisely reflected in the President’s Commission Report, A Nation at Risk, where you will find a definitive expression of the idea that education is an instrument of economic policy and of very little else. We may get a sense of the desperation of the educator’s search for a more gripping story by using the “television commercial test.” Try to imagine what sort of appeals might be effectively made on TV commercial to persuade parents to support schools. (Let us, to be fair, sidestep appeals that might be made directly to students themselves, since the youth of any era are disinclined to think schooling a good idea, whatever the reasons advance for it. See the “Seven Ages of Man” passage as in As You Like It.) Can you imagine, for example, what such a commercial would be like if Jefferson or John Dewey prepared it? “Your children are citizens in a democratic society,” the commercial might say. “Their education will teach them how to be valuable citizens by refining their capacity for reasoned thought and strengthening their will to protect their liberties. As for their jobs and professions, that will be considered only at a ‘late and convenient hour’” (to quote John Stuart Mill, who would be pleased to associate himself with Jefferson’s or Dewey’s purpose.) #RandolphHarris 9 of 17

Is there anyone today who would find this a compelling motivation? Some, perhaps, but hardly enough to use it as the basis of a national program. John Locke’s commercial would, I imagine, be even less appealing. “Your children must stay in school,” he might say, “because there they will learn to make their bodies slaves of their minds. They will learn to control their impulses, and how to find satisfaction and even excitement in life of the mind. Unless they accomplish this, they can be neither civilized nor literate.” How many would applaud this mission? Indeed, who could we use to speak such words—Barbara Bush? Paris Hilton? Donald Trump? Even the estimable Dr. Bill Cosby would hardly be convincing. The guffaws would resound from Maine to California. There is a comprehensive purpose to education. Literacy is defined as the capacity to understand and use the words, dates, aphorisms, and names that form the basis of communication among the educated in our culture. It is, of course, an expected outcome of any education that students become acquainted with the important references of their culture. Even Rousseau, who would have asked his students to read only one book, Robinson Crusoe (so that they would learn how to survive in the wild), would probably have expected them to “pick up” the names and sayings and dates that made up the content of the educated conversation of their time. The problem with the present time is that the condition of technology-generated information is so long, varied, and dynamic that it is not possible to organize into a coherent educational program. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17

To some, making a list of cultural heroes and books that qualify one as educated, is not a solution to the problem of information glut. It is therefore considered to be incoherent. However, it also confuses a consequence of education with a purpose. When we answer the question, “What is an educated person?” We left unanswered the question, “What is an education for?” Young me, for example, will learn how to make lay-up shots when they play basketball. To be able to make them is part of the definition of what good players are. However, they do not play basketball for that purpose. There is usually a broader, deeper, and more meaningful reason for wanting to play—to assert their manhood, to please their fathers, to be acceptable to their peers, even for the sheer aesthetic pleasure of the game itself. What you have to do to be a success must be addressed only after you have found a reason to be successful. In Technopoly, this is very hard to do. The skunkworks organization—here a team is handed a loosely specified problem or goal, given resources, and allowed to operate outside the normal company rules. The skunkworks group thus ignores both the cubbyholes and the official channels—id est, the specialization and hierarchy of the existing corporate bureaucracy. Tremendous energies are released; information is exchanged at high speed outside normal channels. Members develop strong emotion toward their work and one another, and very often, enormously complex projects are completed in record time. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17

The new product game when BMW wanted to design a car that would appeal to young people, it put together a team—average age twenty-seven—and turned it loose. In the words of one young engineer: “It’s incredible how the company…gave us the freedom to do it our way.” When Nippon Electric Company (NEC) developed its PC8000, it turned the project over to a group of former microprocessors sales engineers who had no previous experience with PCs. Says the project head: “We were given the go-ahead from top management to proceed with the project, provided we would develop the product by ourselves and also be responsible for manufacturing, selling, and serving it on our own.” IBM’s PC, which became the industry standard, was developed by a nearly autonomous group working in Boca Raton, Florida. Apart from quarterly reviews by corporate headquarters in Armonk, New York, the team was free to operate as it wished. It was also permitted to break normal corporate policy about buying from outside suppliers. Similar examples can be found at Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, and other high-tech firms. The skunkwork format is inherently and militantly antibureaucratic. A project team takes on a self-organization character as it is driven to a state of “zero information”—where prior knowledge does not apply…Left to stew, the process begins to create its own dynamic order. The project team begins to operate like a start-up company—it takes initiatives and risk, and develops an independent agenda. Successful skunkworks develop their own leadership, based on skill and competence rather than formal rank. These newly empowered leaders often come into direct frontal conflict with the formal leader appointed by the bureaucracy to initiate and oversee the skunkwork unit. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17

A new way of life based on revolutionary wealth is still taking form in America—plug-in/plug-out jobs, glitter and hype, speed, commercialism, 24/7 entertainment, speed, cleaner air, dirtier television, rotten schools, speed, a broken health system and longer life, speed again, perfect landings on Mars, information overload, surplus complexity, reduced racism, hyper-diets and hyper-kids Oh, yes, and still more speed. Add to this kaleidoscope the multiplying contradictions in America life today. Viagra commercials and anti-abortion marchers. Free markets—but tariffs and subsidies that favor U.S. firms. Americans who are provincials—bad at languages, uninterested in other cultures. However, hooray for globalization! Outsides do not know what to make of all this noisy disarray. In the words of Dominique Moisi, the French foreign-affairs experts, “It’s not that we are so much against America, it is that we cannot understand the evolution of that country.” However, neither do most Americans. And outsiders do not know that the Americans do not know. It might help to think about America not simply as the World’s most powerful nation-states, which it currently, but as the World’s greatest social and economic laboratory. It is the main place in the World were new ideas and new ways of life are eagerly tried—and sometimes pushed to stupid, even cruel extremes—before they are rejected. Experiments are under way in this lab not merely with technologies but with culture and the arts, patterns in pleasures of the flesh, family structures, diets, and sports, start-up religions and brand-new business models. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17

Simultaneously, the United States of America is experimenting with all three of the deep fundamentals of wealth. That is what all the speed is about—want it is why so many people yearn for a less frenzied time. It is why machines may need to work faster and people more slowly. America is experimenting as well with space and how it is divided up—witness the growth permeability of economic boundaries. And above all, of course, it is experimenting with countless new ways of turning data, information and knowledge into wealth. The United States of America is the place where mistakes are allowed to happen—and sometimes lead to economically or socially valuable breakthroughs. It is where almost any failure is redeemable and where “comeback kids” are admired rather than shunned (sometimes when they should not be). Great laboratories re free to make mistakes. If they do not risk error, they are not reaching out for the future. And America is. The trouble is that no everyone likes to live in a laboratory—or next door to one. Lab mistakes can cost people jobs, influence, power—even lives. Many Americans fear change and yearn for a return to the so-called good old days of the early 1950s, when America was a Second Wave country and the Third Wave was barely visible. Conveniently forgetting the backbreaking physical labour, racial hatred and subjugating of women that still characterized the U.S. economy and society during those supposedly “good” times, and legitimately afraid of losing their jobs, position, prestige or prominence, they derogate the present and fear—and resist—the future. The result, therefore, inside America, no less than in China, Japan, Europe and elsewhere, is wave conflict. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17

When a revolutionary wealth-creation system arises, one of the first things it does it create counter-revolutionaries. The late banker Walter Wriston, head of the White House Economic Advisory Policy Board under President Reagan, put it bluntly: “Whenever there is a sift in how wealth is created, the old elites give up their position and a new group of people raise and control society. We’re in the middle of that right now.” What he did not point out is that “old elites” do not give up without a fight. Game theory can be dangerous to your health. Late one night, after a conference in Jerusalem, two American economists found a licensed taxicab and gave the driver directions to their hotel. Immediately recognizing them as American tourists, the driver refused to turn on his meter; instead, he proclaimed his love for Americans and promised them a lower fare then the meter. Naturally, they were somewhat skeptical of this promise. Why should this stranger offer to change less than meter when they were willing to pay the metered fare? How would they even know whether or not they were being overcharged? (If the driver wanted to prove that he was going to charge less than the meter, he could have turned on the meter and asked and then charged 80 percent the price. The fact that he did not should have told something about his intentions.) On the other hand, they had not promised to pay the driver anything more than what would be on the meter. If they were to start bargaining and the negotiations broke down, they would have to find another taxi. Their theory was that once they arrived at the hotel, their bargaining would be much stronger. And taxis were hard to find. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17

They arrived. The driver demanded 2,500 Israeli New Shekels ($724.18). Who knew what fare was fair? Because people generally bargain in Israel, they protested and counter-offered 2,200 shekels. The driver was outraged. He claimed that it would be impossible to get from there to here for that amount. Before negotiations could continue, he locked all the doors automatically and retraced the route at breakneck speed, ignoring traffic lights and pedestrians. Were they being kidnapped to Beirut? No. He returned to the original position and ungraciously kicked the two economists out of his cab, yelling, “See how far your 2,200 shekels will get you now.” They found another cab. This driver turned on his meter and 2,200 shekels later they were home. Certainly the extra time was not worth the 300 shekels to the economists. On the other hand, the story was well worth it. It illustrates the dangers of bargaining with those who have not yet read our essay. More generally pride and irrationality cannot be ignored. Sometimes, it may be better t be taken for a wife when it costs only two dimes. There is a second lesson to the story. Think of how much stronger their bargaining gaining position would have been if they had begun to discuss the price after getting out of the taxi. (of course, for hiring a taxi, this logic should be reversed. If you tell the driver where you want to go before getting in, you may find your taxi chasing after some other customer. Get in first, then say where you want to go.) #RandolphHarris 16 of 17

People have cried “Wolf!” before about new technologies leading to overwhelming abundance. It was said of nuclear power, and of steam power before it, and perhaps of water wheels, the horse, the plough, and the chipped rock. Molecular manufacturing is different because it is a new way to make almost anything, including more of the equipment needed to do the manufacturing. There has never been anything quite like this before. The basic argument for low-cost production is this: Molecular manufacturing will be able to make almost anything with little labor, land, or maintenance, with high productivity, and with modest requirements for materials and energy. Its products will themselves be extremely productive, as energy producers, as material collectors, and as manufacturing equipment. There has never been a technology with this combination of characteristics, so historical analogies must be used with care. Perhaps the best analogy is this: Molecular manufacturing will do for matter processing what the computer has done for information processing. There will always be limiting costs, because resources—whether energy, matter, or design skill—always have some alterative use. Cost will not fall to zero, but it seems that they could fall very low. Yet there is no society that does not put restrictions on resources. Out of an infinite plenty is created a host of artificial scarcities. It would obviously repay us to look into this matter, since we have already observed that although we live in the most affluent society ever know, the sense of deprivation and discomfort that pervades it is also unparalleled. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17

Cresleigh Homes

There’s nothing like a move-in ready home! When you choose Homesite 70 at #PlumasRanch Riverside, get ready to enjoy the best of this #CresleighHomes development.

Not only does this home maximize its single story space, it also sits squarely on one of the last cul-de-sac addresses in the neighborhood. It’s also adjacent to an orchard, and includes an upgraded wrought iron fence.

This home is ready for you! Give our office a call to take a 👀 peek: 530-870-8748.

Flight into the home was only part of a general postwar retreat from the World—a flight that would have occurred without Baby and Child Care. The phenomena was established as a pattern after the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil, which spawned many home renovations and renovation television programs. This was in response to the World seeming like a dangerous place and people wanting somewhere they can go and feel safe, comfortable, protected, and have a sophisticated environment. The pattern continued during the 2020 COVID pandemic. Only this time, houses got larger, became multigenerational, and outdoor living was seen as a major aspect of homeownership. Not only did people want to feel more comfortable at home, but they wanted space to work, party, and enjoy the great outdoors without leaving their home. No revolution produces total change—much of the old machinery is retained more or less intact. Those intimate with the machinery are in the best position to facilitate the rootling and redirection. We live in a culture that is preoccupied with tradition, with community, with relationships—with many things that would reinstate the validity of accumulated wisdom. From ordinary psychology, and from ordinary thinking, we know that the intellectual functions, thoughts, and so on, are controlled or produced by a certain center which we call “mind” or “intellect,” or “the brain.” And this is quite right. Only, to be fully right, we must understand that other functions are also controlled each by its own mind or center. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Thus, from the point of view of the system, there are four minds or centers which control our ordinary actions: intellectual mind, emotional mind, moving mind, and instinctive mind. In further references to them we shall call them centers. Each center is quite independent of the others, has its own sphere of action, its own powers, and its own ways of development. Centers, that is, their structure, capacities, strong sides, and defects, belong to essence. Their contents, that is, all that a center acquires, belong to personality. The contents of centers will be explained later. Personality is as equally necessary for the development of a man as is essence, only it must stand it its right place. This is hardly possible, because personality is full of wrong ideas about itself. It does not wish to stand in its right place, because its right place is secondary and subordinate; and it does not wish to know the truth about itself, for to know the truth will mean abandoning its falsely dominant position, and occupying the inferior position which rightly belongs to it. The wrong relative positions of essence and personality determine the present disharmonious state of man. And the only way to get out of this disharmonious state is by self-knowledge. To know oneself—this was the first principle and the first demand of old psychological schools. We sill remember these words, but have lost their meaning. We think that to know ourselves means to know our peculiarities, our desires, our tastes, our capacities, and our intentions, when in reality it means to know ourselves as machines, that is, to know the structure of one’s machine, its parts, functions of different parts, the conditions governing their work, and so on. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

We must remember this in relation to ourselves and must remember this in relation to ourselves and must study our own machines as machines. The means of study is self-observation. There is no other way and no one can do this work for us. We must do it ourselves. However, before we must learn how to observe. I mean, we must understand the technical side of observation: we must know that it is necessary to observe different function and distinguish between them, remembering, at the same time, about different states of consciousness, about our sleep, and about the many “I’s” in us. Such observations will very soon give results. First of all a man will notice that he cannot observe everything he finds in himself impartially. Some thins may please him, and other things will annoy him, irritate him, even horrify him. And it cannot be otherwise. Man cannot study himself as a remote star, or as a curious fossil. Quite naturally he will like in himself what helps his development and dislike what makes his development more difficult, or even impossible. This means that very soon after starting to observe oneself, he will begin to distinguish useful features or and harmful features in oneself, that is, useful or harmful from the point of view of his possible self-knowledge, his possible awakening, his possible development. He will see sides of himself which can become conscious, and side which cannot become conscious and must be eliminated. In observing himself, he must always remember that his self-study is the first step towards his possible evolution. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Now we must see what are those harmful features that man finds in himself. Speaking in general, they are all mechanical manifestations. The first, as has already been said, is lying. Lying is unavoidable in mechanical life. No one can escape it, and the more one thinks that one is free from lying, the more one is in it. Life as it is could not exist without lying. However, from the psychological side, lying has a different meaning. It means speaking about things one does not know, and even cannot know, as though one knows and can know. You must understand that I do not speak from any moral point of view. We have not yet come to question of what is good, and what is bad, by itself. I speak only from a practical point of view, of what is useful and what is harmful to self-study and self-development. Starting in this way, man very soon learns to discover signs by which he can know harmful manifestations in himself. He discovers that the more he can control a manifestation, the less harmful it can be, and that the less he can control it, that is, the more mechanical it is, the more harmful it can become. When man understands this, he becomes afraid of lying, again not on moral grounds, but on the grounds that he cannot control his lying, an that lying controls him, that is, his other functions. The second dangerous feature he finds in himself is imagination. Very soon after starting his observation of himself he comes to the conclusion that the chief obstacle to observation is imagination. He wishes to observe something, but instead of that, imagination starts him on the same subject, and he forgets about observation. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Very soon he realizes that people ascribe to the word “imagination” a quite artificial and quite underserved meaning in the sense of creative or selective faculty. He realizes that imagination is a destructive faculty, that he can never control it, and that it always carries him away from his more conscious decisions in a direction in which he had no intention of going. Imagination is almost as bad as lying; it is, in fact, lying to oneself. Man starts to imagine something in order to please himself, and very soon he begins to believe what he imagines, or at least some of it. Further, or even before that, one finds many very dangerous effects in the expression of negative emotions.  The term “negative emotions” means all emotions of violence or depression: self-pity, anger, suspicion, fer, annoyance, boredom, mistrust, jealousy, and so one. Ordinarily, one accepts this expression of negative emotions as quite natural and even necessary. Very often people call it “sincerity.” Of course it has nothing to do with sincerity; it is simply a sign of weakness in man, a sign of bad temper and of incapacity to keep his grievances to himself. Man realizes this when he tries to oppose it. And by this he learns another lesson. He realizes that in relation to mechanical manifestations it is not enough to observe them, it is necessary to resist them, because without resisting them one cannot observe them. They happen so quickly, so habitually, and so imperceptibly, that one cannot notice them if one does not make sufficient efforts to create obstacles for them. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

After the expression of negative emotions one notices in oneself or in other people another curious mechanical feature. This is talking. There is no harm in talking by itself. However, with some people, especially with those who notice it least, it really becomes a vice. They talk all the time, everywhere they happen to be, while working, while traveling, even while sleeping. They never stop talking to someone if there is someone to talk to, and if there is no one, they talk to themselves. This too must not only be observed, but resisted as much as possible. With unresisted talking one cannot observe anything, and all the results of a man’s observations will immediately evaporate in talking. When working with the mentally ill or dealing with the public in general, especially around the holidays, it is important to have impulse control. Impulse control is the degree to which a person can control the desire for immediate gratification or other; impulse control may be the single most important indicator of a person’s future adaptation in terms of number of friends, school performance and future employment. Our society is enmeshed in a major social transformation, driven in part by, and deriving much of its distinctive character from the amazing advances in technologies of information. The rate of technical change in processing, storage, bandwidth, sensing, and effecting is dizzying. The technical changes in turn facilitate large shifts in most of our fundamental institutions: in nation-states, communication industries, churches, armies, factories, friendship networks, and more. The rate of social change is intoxicating, disorienting, and probably accelerating. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

The transitions underway as referred to as the “Information Revolution,” although forces other than information technology are also deeply involved. Transportation, biotechnology, marketing, and a host of other technologies have expanded dramatically in the last half-century. Information technology has fueled these expansions and been shaped by them. While acknowledging these complications, we concentrate here on the Information Revolution, the aspect of our era that seems to us to have the most novel and transforming properties. An Information Revolution seems to demand policy interventions at every level of social organization. What shall notion-states do about encryption of boundary-spanning financial crimes? What shall families do about unsavory materials their children can easily access? What shall armies do to prepare for attacks on “infostructure”? What shall charitable organizations and business firms do about the privacy of records kept in their clienteles? In all these cases and thousands more, deep questions are being asked about how interventions—designs and policies—can steer future developments in beneficial directions. In an era in which so many customary social, political, and economic arrangements seem up for grabs, what interventions will bring us to a future we would prefer? In all of these settings, people often ask how the likely consequences of actions can be foreseen. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

Using our framework, we depart sharply from conventional efforts to foretell the future and draw policy implications for the unfolding Information Revolution. Instead, we offer a way to analyze the situations and intervention possibilities that flow unceasingly from this enormous change. We have offered purposeful questions where general answers can be known. We can start by considering why at this historical and technological juncture we should expect the future events in an Information Revolution to be especially difficult to discern. Our answer lies in the complexity of the social and technical processes whose rates of change are accelerated. Our view of the relevance of work on Complex Adaptive Systems can be grounded by examining two arguments. They relate the concept of information to complexity and adaptation. Of course, not all the images and words used are cannibalized from serious or sacred contexts, and one must admit tht as things stand at the moment it is quite unthinkable for the image of Jesus Christ to be used to sell wine. At least no a chardonnay. On the other hands, his birthday is used as an occasion for commerce to exhaust nearly the entire repertoire of Christian symbology. The constraints are so few that we may call this a form of cultural rape, sanctioned by an ideology that gives boundless supremacy to technological progress and is indifferent to the unraveling of tradition. In putting it this way, I mean to say that mass advertising is not the cause of great symbol drain. Such cultural abuse could not have occurred without technologies to make it possible and a World-view to make it desirable. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

In the institutional form it has taken in the United States of America, advertising is a symptom of a World-view that see tradition as an obstacle to its claims. There can, of course, be no functioning sense of tradition without a measure of respect for symbols. Tradition is, in fact, nothing but the acknowledgement of the authority of symbols and the relevance of the narratives tht gave birth to them. With the erosion of symbols there follows a loss of narrative, which is one of the most debilitating consequences of Technopoly’s power. We may take as an example the field of education. In Technoply, we improve the education of our youth by improving what are called “learning technologies.” At the moment, it is considered necessary to introduce computers to the classroom, as it once was thought necessary to bring closed-circuit television and film to the classroom. To the question “Why should we do this?” the answer is: “To make learning more efficient and more interesting.” Such an answer is considered entirely adequate, since in Technopoly efficiency and interest need no justification. It is, therefore, usually not noticed that this answer does not address the questions “What is learning for?” “Efficiency and interest” is a technical answer, an answer about means, not ends; and it offer no pathway to a consideration of educational philosophy. Indeed, it blocks the way to such a consideration by beginning with the question of how we should proceed rather than with the question of why. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

It is probably not necessary to say that, by definition, there can be no education philosophy that does not address what learning is for. Confucius, Plato, Quintilian, Cicero, Comenius, Erasmus, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Russell, Montessori, Whitehead, and Dewey—each believed that there was some transcendent political, spiritual, or social idea that must be advance through education. Confucius advocated teaching, “the Way” because in tradition he saw the best hope of social order. As our first systematic fascist, Plato wished education to produce philosopher kinds. Cicero argued that education must free the student from the tyranny of the present. Jefferson thought the purpose of education is to teach the young how to protect their liberties. Rousseau wished education to free the young from the unnatural constraints of a wicked and arbitrary social order. And among John Dewey’s aims was to help the student function without certainty in a World of constant change and puzzling ambiguities. Only in knowing something of the reasons why they advocated education can we make sense of the means the suggest. However, to understand their reason we must also understand the narratives that governed their view of the World. By narrative, present a human history that fives meaning to the past, explains the present, and provides guidance for the future. It is a story whose principles help a culture to organize its institutions, to develop ideals, and to find authority for its actions. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Once again, the resource of the World’s greatest narratives has been religion, as found, for example, in Genesis or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Koran. There are those who believe—as did the great historian Arnold Toynbee—that without a comprehensive religious narrative at its center a culture must decline. Perhaps. There are, after all, other sources—mythology, politics, philosophy, and science, for example—but it is certain that no culture can flourish without narratives of transcendent origin and power. This does not mean that the mere existence of such a narrative ensures a culture’s stability and strength. There are destructive narratives. A narrative provides meaning, not necessarily survival—as, for example, the story provided by Adolph Hitler to the German nation in the 1930s. Drawing on sources in Teutonic mythology and resurrecting ancient and primitive symbolism, Hitler wove a tale of Aryan supremacy that lifted German spirits, gave point to their labours, eased their distress, and provided explicit ideals. The story glorified the past, elucidated the present, and foretold the future, which was to last a thousand years. The Third Reich lasted exactly twelve years. It is not my point to dwell on the reasons why the story of Aryan supremacy is facing challenges enduring. Cultures must have narratives and will find them where they will, even if they lead to catastrophe. The alternative is to love without meaning, the ultimate negation of life itself. It is also to point to say that each narrative is given its form and its emotional texture through a cluster of symbols that call for respect and allegiance, even devotion. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

The United States of America’s Constitution, for example, is only in a part a legal document, and, a small part. Democratic nations—England, for one—do not require a written constitution to ensure legal order and the protection of liberties. The importance of the American Constitution is largely in its function as a symbol of the story of our origins. It is our political equivalent of Genesis. To mock it, to ignore it, to circumvent it is to declare the irrelevance of the story of the United States of America as a moral light unto the World. In like fashion, the American Flag is the key symbol of the story of America as the natural home of the teeming masses, for anywhere, yearning to be free. There are, of course, several reasons why such stories lose their force. The growth of Technopoly has overwhelmed earlier, more meaningful stories. However, in all cases, the trivialization of the symbols that express, support, and dramatize the story will accompany the decline. Symbol drain is both a symptom and a cause of a loss of narrative. In Guys and Dolls, gambler Sky Masterson relates this valuable advice from his father: “Son, one of these days in your travels a guy is going to come to you and show you a nice brand-new deck of cards on which the deal is not yet broken, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But son, do not bet this man, for as sure as you stand there you are going to wind up with cider in your ear.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

The context of the story is that Nathan Detroit had offered Sky Masterson a bet about whether Mindy’s sold more strudel or cheesecake. Nathan had just discovered the answer (strudel) and was willing to bet if Sky would bet on cheesecake. This example may sound somewhat extreme. Of course no one would take such a sucker bet. However, look at the market for futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Exchange. If another speculator offers to sell you a future contract, he will make money only if you lose money. This deal is a zero-sum game, just like sports competitions, in which one team’s victory is the other’s loss. Hence if someone is willing to sell a futures contract, you should not be willing to buy it. And vice versa. The strategic insight is that other people’s actions tell us something about what they know, and we should use such information to guide our own action. Of course, we should use this in conjunction with our own information concerning the matter and use all strategic devices to elicit more from others. In the Guys and Dolls example, there is a simple device of this kind. Sky should ask Nathan at what odds he would be willing to take the cheesecake side of the bet. If the answer is “not at any odds,” then Sky can infer that the answer must be strudel. If Nathan offers the same odds for both strudel and cheesecake, he is hiding his information at the cost of giving Sky the opportunity to take an advantageous gamble. In stock markets, foreign exchange markets, and other financial markets, people are free to take either side of the bet in just this way. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Indeed, in some organized exchanges, including the London stock market, when you ask for a quote on a stock the market-maker is required to state both the buying and selling prices before he knows which side of the transaction you want. Without such a safeguard, market-makers could stand to profit from private information, and the outside investors’ fear of being suckered might cause the entire market to fold. The buy and sell prices are not quite the same; the difference is called the bid-ask spread. In liquid markets the spread is quite small, indicating that little information contained in any buy or sell order. On the other hand, Nathan Detroit is willing to bet on strudel at any price and on cheesecake at no price; his bid-ask spread is infinity. Beware of such market-makers. We should add that Sky had not really learned his father’s teaching very well. A minute later he bet Nathan that Nathan did not know the colour of his own bowtie. Sky cannot win: if Nathan knows the colour, he takes the bet and wins; if he does not, he declines the bet and does not lose. If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one’s own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes. It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of double-think are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the World as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion: the more intelligent, the less sane. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

The United States of America and Europe increasingly differ in their relationships not only to the deep economic fundamentals of time and space but to the knowledge as well—including knowledge-intensive technologies. In 2022, the PC market in Europe generated $68 billion U.S. dollars in revenue as against the $10.4 billion by the United States of America and $57.7 by Japan. Of the top ten I.T. companies in the World in 2022—including Microsoft Corporation, IBM, Accenture, Oracle, SAP, TCS, DXC, Delloite Consulting, Capgemini, Cognizant—only SAP and Capgemini are European. Only thirty European producers make it onto the list of the World’s three hundred biggest software companies, and only two—Capgemini and SAP are in the top ten. Like North America and Japan, Europe is a leading player in the generation of scientific and technological competencies. The combined R&D budget of the EU-25 is more than two-thirds that of the United States of America, and nearly double that of Japan. The output of the EU is substantially higher than the of the United States of America, but strongly reflects the size of the EU, which has a population much larger than the USA or Japan. However, Europe is losing ground in the most dynamic and technologically advanced part of the economy. The concern about an increasing technological gap is certainly not new: as early as the 1960s we heard about “the American challenge,” and similar concerned were reiterated in the 1980s and in the 1990s. Europe is not the only region concerned about its technological performance. Similar worries were echoed in America, and we would doubtless find comparable statements in the Far East as well. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

However, saying that the neighbour’s grass is always greener cannot dismiss the issue of poor performance by the European economy in key aspects of knowledge-based production. The gap in living standards between the European Union and the U.S.A. is now wider than it has ever been in the past 25 years. The commission also warned that Europe is about to miss the boat on the biotech revolution. The commission also found that both the United States of America and Japan invest more per capita in nanotechnology R&D than the European Union, and that “the gap is expected to widen.” Innovation is a key to economic success, but it is an area where Europe needs to excel quickly. Some people believe the European Union needs to do a better job of catching up with America. The union’s economy matches that of the United States of America in the late 1970s. Europe’s leaders are still shortchanging research and development, science and science education, still brushing off the “new economy” and complaining about de-industrialization. Europe is the planet’s leading industrial power. However, the United States of America is the planet’s leading “no-longer-industrial power.” And Europe, with some important exceptions, has still not adequately altered its relationship to the deep fundamental of knowledge—and to revolutionary wealth. In the years ahead, the big countries of Western Europe could see many of their low-tech manufacturing jobs migrate to the lower-cost E.U. member states in for former Soviet bloc or elsewhere. Failure to replace these jobs through a faster transition to services and knowledge-based, innovation-intensive, and higher-value-added production will increase unemployment levels—already significantly higher than those in the United States of America or Japan. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

In turn, this will further increase anti-immigrant tensions—and the potential for escalating militancy and terrorism in Europe’s large Muslim underclass. The car-burning riots in France may only be a foreshadow of things to come. Part of Western Europe’s problem is deep-seated hostility toward technology. Its trade unions fear job losses. Its NGOs offer knee-jerk opposition to new technologies often because of imagined dangers. While a technophiliac Asia races to adopt the latest advances, technophobic Western Europeans create obstacles to their development and application. This technophobia is somewhat less apparent as one moves eastward to the former Communist countries. The Czech Republic, with one of the World’s highest percentages of science and engineering graduates compared with all degrees awarded there, has attracted projects by IMB, Accenture, Logica and Olympus. Slovenia has all the attributes of a top destination for smaller knowledge-economy projects, high-tech centers, distribution and logistic hubs and call centers. Hungary already claims Nokia’s largest R&D center outside Finland, and ExxonMobil has opened a new headquarters in Budapest to consolidate its European I.T and accounting support operations. The European Union itself, the value of Hungary’s high-tech exports already rivaled those of Denmark or Spain. Eastern European members may soon be scouting high-tech, value added niches ignored by slower-moving Western European—and pondering the possibility of actually leaping ahead of some of their neighbours. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

With respect, therefore, to all three of the deep fundamentals we have explored—time, space and knowledge—the United States of America and Europe are moving apart. And that would be happening even if differences over the war in the Ukraine had never been an issue. To reverse that process, the United States of America would need to stall or drive in reverse as Europe, with a new map, accelerates its transition to a Third Wave wealth system. Someday, if one listens to its triumphalists, Europe could become a global counterweight to what may see as excessive American power. However, the geopolitical power of nations presupposes economic and military might—both of which now increasingly depend on that softest of all resources: Knowledge. Regrettably, it would appear, Europe has still not received that lost-in-the spam folder message. The best surviving example of feudal organization today is found in the university, where each department is a barony, professors are ranked and rule over graduate assistants, who make up the body of serfs. This feudal holdover is embedded within (and often war with) the bureaucratic administrative structure of the university. Another example is the Congress of the United States of America, where 535 elected “barons” rule over a huge bureaucratic staff. A similar combination of industrial bureaucracy and feudal barony is found in the Big Eight accounting firms, in large law offices, in brokerage houses, and in the military, where each service—army, navy, or air force—is a fiercely independent fiefdom. Generals and admirals in charge of these fiefdoms may have more real power than higher-ranked officers in staff positions who command no troops. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

In “buro-baronies” the barons war with one another, often forming alliances to weaken central control. Such feudal elements are still found in business as well, along with what we might call “vestigial vassalage.” George Masters is a veteran engineer who has worked for several U.S. electronics manufacturers and now serves as the administrative aide to Philip Ames, a corporate VP in one of the World’s largest computer firms. If anyone in personnel took the trouble to check, they would discover that Masters came into the company shortly after Ames arrived. And if they were to check further, they would discover the same thing happened in the company that employed both of them before they took their present jobs. And the one before that. Hard-drinking buddies as well as workmates, Masters and Ames socialize together. They and their wives take vacations together. In fact, Masters and Ames (the people are real, the names are not) have worked together for more than fifteen years, Masters always following Ames as Ames hopped to successively higher positions. This pattern, whether called “hitching your wagon to a star” or “riding on someone’s coattails, is found in almost every large firm. Because it sharply reduces the need for communication—the two men know each other so well they can anticipate each other’s reactions—it is highly efficient for some purposes, even though it violates formal personnel rules that call for “objective” selection. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

The psychology of “vassalage” is extremely complex, involving everything from mentorships to the exchange of financial, pleasures of the flesh, or other favors. At its heart, however, the system is feudal and subjective, rather than bureaucratic and impersonal. The power relationships are similarly complicated. At one level the “vassal,” or junior, is dependent upon the “lord,” or senior, who is higher up in the table of organization. Yet the top dog can be totally dependent upon his or her underling, whose chief unofficial function may be to conceal from others the weaknesses of the boss. This may be as common as fronting for the boss when he or she is too drunk to do one’s job. It may be as unusual as reading to one and making presentations for one because, unbeknownest to the company, the boss is dyslexic. As bureaucracy weakens and its channels and cubbyholes become clogged, other neo-feudal forms and practices are likely to proliferate also, and find a place in the flex-firm. When it comes to energy, it was once thought that nuclear power would lead to “power too cheap to meter.” This assertion, attributed to the early nuclear era, has passed into folklore as a warning to be skeptical of technologists promising free goodies. Does the warning apply here? Anyone claiming that something is free does not really understand economics. Using something always has a cost equal to the most valuable alternative use for the thing. Choosing one alternative sacrifices another, and that sacrifice is the cost. There is no such things as a free opportunity, since opportunities always cost (at least) time and attention. Nanotechnology will not mean free goodies. #RandolphHarris 20 or 21

Nuclear reactors boil water to make steam to turn turbines to turn generators to drive electrical power through power lines to transformers to local power lines to houses, factories, and so forth. The wildest optimist could never have claimed that nuclear power was a free source of anything more than heat, and a realist would have added in the cost of the reactor equipment, fuel, waste disposal, hazards, and the rest. Even our wild optimist would have had to include the cost of building the boiler, the turbines, the generators, the power lines, and the transformers, and the cost of maintenance on all these. These costs were known to be a major part of the cost of power, so free heat would not have meant free power. Thus, the claim was absurd the day it was made—not merely in hindsight. In the early 1960s, Alvin Weinberg, head of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was a strong advocate of nuclear power, and argued that it would provide “cheap energy.” He was optimistic, but did his sums. First, he assumed that nuclear-power plants could be built a little more cheaply than coal-fire powered plants of the same size. Then he assumed that the cost of fuel, waste disposal, operations, and maintenance for nuclear plants would be not much more than the cost of operations and maintenance alone for coal plants. Then he assumed that they might last for more than thirty years. Finally, he assumed that they would be publicly operated, tax free at low interest (which merely moves costs elsewhere) and that after thirty years the cost of the equipment would be written off (which is an accounting fiction). With all of that, he derived a power cost that “might be” as low as one half the cost of the cheapest coal-fired plant he mentions. He was clearly an optimist, but he did not come close to arguing for power too cheap to meter. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

MEADOWS| HOMESITE 48

New HomesCresleigh Meadows at Plumas RanchMeadows| Homesite 48

4 Bedrooms – 3.5 Bathrooms – 2,781 sq. ft. – $597,852

Homesite 48 is a Residence Three, the largest single story home offered in Cresleigh Meadows. At 2,781 square feet you’ll be hard pressed to find a contemporary floorplan that offers this much space.

There are four bedrooms, three and one half bathrooms, including a multi-generational living option with separate bedroom suite with kitchenette, and a three car garage. The Dining Room and Kitchen are well situated to make entertaining a breeze.

This home is fully complete and includes some great features including upgrades like painted cabinetry and contemporary kitchen backsplash. Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home!

This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier.

Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Mini to help connect everything together! https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/quick-move-homesite-48/

#CresleighHomes

There is no middle ground in the stark appraisal of suffering. We hope only for recovery and for a return to self-sufficiency. Anything less invokes bitterness. Everyone eats but few kill. Technicians fell the lamb. Eating becomes a ceremony of innocence, tinkle of crystal, rustle of taffeta. Teeth are for beauty: straighten them, make them whiter, the smile more loving. Visit every restaurant in town, never pass the house of nourishment. The tendency of civilization is not to eliminate destructiveness, nor even to diminish it, but to remove it. Our fate falls now from the touch of a finger in an underground bunker half a World away. As we have already discussed, there are four states of consciousness possible for man: sleep, waking consciousness, self-consciousness, and objective consciousness; but he lives only in two: partly in sleep and partly in what is called waking consciousness. It is as though he had a four-storied house, but lived only in the two lower stories. The first, or the lowest state of consciousness, is sleep. This is a purely subjective and passive state. Man is surrounded by dreams. All his psychic functions work without any direction. There is no logic, no sequence, no cause, and no result in dreams. Purely subjective pictures—either reflections of former experiences or reflections of vague perceptions of the moment, such as sounds reaching the sleeping man, sensations coming from body, slight pains, sensations of muscular tension—fly though the mind, leaving only a very slight trace on the memory and more often leaving no trace at all. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

The second degree of consciousness comes when man awakes. This second state, the state in which we are now, that is, in which we work, talk, imagine ourselves conscious beings, and so forth, we often call waking consciousness or clear consciousness, but really it should be called “waking sleep” or “relative consciousness.” This last term will be explained later. It is necessary to understand here that the first state of consciousness, that is, sleep, does not disappear when the second state arrives, that is when man awakes. Sleep remains there, with all its dreams and impressions, only a more critical attitude towards one’s own impressions, only a more critical attitude towards one’s own impressions, more connected thoughts, more disciplined actions become added to it, and because of the vividness of sense impressions, desires, and feelings—particularly the feeling of contradiction or impossibility, which is entirely absent in sleep—dreams become invisible exactly as the stars and moon become invisible in the glare of the sun. However, they are all there, and they often influence all our thoughts, feelings, and actions—sometimes even more than the actual perceptions of the moment. In connection with this I must say at once that I do not mean what is called in modern psychology “the subconscious” or “the subconscious mind.” These are simply wrong expressions, wrong terms, which mean nothing and do not refer to any real facts. There is nothing permanently subconscious in us because there is nothing permanently conscious; and there is no “subconscious mind” for the very simple reason that there is no “conscious mind.” #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Later you will see how this mistake occurred, and how this wrong terminology came into being, and became almost generally accepted. However, let us return to the states of consciousness which really exist. The first is sleep. The second is “waking sleep” or “relative consciousness.” The first, as I have said, is purely subjective state. The second is less subjective; man already distinguishes “I” and “not I” in the sense of his body and objects different from his body, and he can, to a certain extent, orientate among them and know their position and qualities. However, it cannot be said tht man is awake in this state, because he is very strongly influenced by dreams, and really lives more in dreams than in fact. All the absurdities and all the contradictions of people, and of human life in general, become explained when we realize that people live in sleep, do everything in sleep, and do not know that they are asleep. It is useful to remember that this is the inner meaning of many ancient doctrines. The best known to us is Christianity, of the Gospel teaching, in which the idea that men live in sleep and must first of all awake is the basis of all the explanations of human life, although it is very rarely understood as it should be understood, in this case literally. However, the question is: how can a man awake? The Gospel teaching demands awakening, but does not say how to awaken. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

However, the psychological study of consciousness shows that only when a man realizes that he is asleep, is it possible to say that he is on the way to awakening. He can never awaken without first realizing his sleep. These two states, sleep and waling sleep, are the only two states of consciousness in which man lives. Besides them there are two states of consciousness possible for man, but they become accessible to a man only after a hard and prolonged struggle. These two higher states of consciousness are called “self-consciousness” and “objective consciousness.” We generally think that we possess self-consciousness, that is, that we are conscious of ourselves, at any moment we wish, but in truth “self-consciousness” is a state which we ascribe to ourselves without any right. “Objective consciousness” is a state about which we know nothing. Self-consciousness is a state in which man becomes objective towards himself, and objective consciousness is a state in which he comes into contact with the real, or objective, World from which he is now shut off by the senses, dreams, and subjective states of consciousness. Another definition of the four states of consciousness can be made from the point of view of the possible cognition of truth. In the first state of consciousness, that is, in sleep, we cannot know anything of the truth. Even if some real perceptions or feelings come to us, they become mixed with dreams, and in the state of sleep we cannot distinguish between dreams and reality. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

In the second state of consciousness, that is, in waking sleep, we can only know relative truth, and from this comes the term “relative consciousness.” In the third state of consciousness, that is, the state of self-consciousness, we can know the full truth about ourselves. In the fourth state of consciousness, that is, in the state of objective consciousness, we are supposed to be able to know the full truth about everything; we can study “things in themselves,” “the World as it is.” This is so far from us that we cannot even think about it in the right way, and we must try to understand that even glimpses of objective consciousness can only come in the fully developed state of self-consciousness. In the state of sleep we can have glimpses of relative consciousness. However, if we want to have more prolonged periods of self-consciousness and not merely glimpses, we must understand that they cannot come by themselves, they need will action. This means that frequency and duration of moments of self-consciousness depend on the command one has over oneself. So it means that consciousness and will are almost one and the same thing. At this point, it must be understood that the first obstacle in the way of the development of self-consciousness in man, is his conviction that he already possesses self-consciousness, or at any rate, that he can have it at any time he likes. It is very difficult to persuade a man that he is not conscious and cannot be conscious at will It is particularly difficult because here nature plays a very funny trick. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

If you ask a man if he is conscious or if you say to him that he is not conscious, he will answer that he is not, because he hears and understands you. And he will be quite right, although at the same time quite wrong. This is nature’s trick. He will be right because your question or your remark has made him vaguely conscious for a moment. Next moment consciousness will disappear. However, he will remember what you said and what he answered, and he will certainly consider himself conscious. In reality, acquiring self-consciousness means long and hard work. How can a man agree to this work if he thinks he already possesses the very thing which is promised him as the result of long and hard work? Naturally a man will not begin this work and will not consider it necessary until he becomes convinced that he possesses neither self-consciousness nor all that is connected with it, that is, unity or individuality, permanent “I,” and will. This brings us to the question of schools, because methods for the development of self-consciousness, unity, permanent “I,” and will, can be given only by special schools. That must be clearly understood. Men on the level of relative consciousness cannot find these methods by themselves; and these methods cannot be described in books or taught in ordinary schools for the very simple reason that they re different for different people, and there is no universal method equally applicable to all. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

In other words, this means that men who want to change their state of consciousness need a school. However, first they must realize their need. As long as they think they can do something by themselves they will not be able to make any use of a school, even if they find it. Schools exist only for those who need them, and who know that they need them. The idea of schools—the study of the kinds of schools that may exist, the study of school principles and school methods—occupies a very important place in the study of that psychology which is connected with the idea of evolution; because without a school there can be no evolution. One cannot even start because one does not know how to start; still less can one continue or attain anything. This means that, having got rid of the first illusion—that one already has everything one can have—one must get rid of the second illusion—tht one can get anything by oneself; because by oneself one can get nothing. These lectures are not a school—not even the beginning of a school. A school requires a much higher pressure of work. However, in these lectures I can give to those who wish to listen, some ideas as to how schools work and how they can be found. I gave before two definitions of psychology. First, I said that psychology is the study of the possible evolution of man; and second, that psychology is the study of oneself. Psychology which investigates the evolution of man is worth studying, and a psychology which is occupied with only one phase of man, without knowing anything about his other phases, is obviously not complete, and cannot have any value, even in a purely scientific sense, that is, from the point of view of experiment and observation. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

For the present phase, as studied by ordinary psychology, in reality does not exist as something separate and consists of many subdivisions which lead from lower phases to higher phases. Moreover, the same experiment and observation show tht one cannot study psychology as one can study any other science not directly connected with oneself. One has to begin the study of psychology with oneself. Putting together, first, what we may know about the next phase in the evolution of man—that is, that it will mean acquiring consciousness, inner unity, permanent ego, and will—and second, certain material that we can get by self-observation—that is, realization of the absence in us of many powers and faculties which we ascribe to ourselves—we come to a new difficulty in understanding the meaning of psychology, and to the necessity for a new definition. The two definitions given in the previous lectures are not sufficient because man by himself does not know what evolution is possible for him, does not see where he stands at present, and ascribes to himself features belonging to higher phases of evolution. In fact, he cannot study himself, being unable to distinguish between the imaginary and the real in himself. There are countless pitfalls on the way out of misery. Focusing restlessly on what has been lost, comparing oneself to others, aspiring for things that are out of reach, and placing blame on others are only some of the most common snares. Each personal variation is uniquely painful. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

It is all too common for people to get themselves into situations that are difficult to get out of. Once you have a job in a particular city, it is expensive to resettle. Once you buy a computer and learn its operating system, it becomes costly to learn another one and rewrite all your programs. Travelers who join the frequent-flyer program of one airline thereby raise their cost of using another. And, of course, marriage is expensive to escape. The problem is that once you make such a commitment, your bargaining position is weakened. Companies may take advantage of their workers’ anticipated moving costs and give them fewer salary raises. Computer companies can charge higher prices for new, compatible peripheral equipment knowing that their customers cannot easily switch to a new, incompatible technology. Airlines, having established a large base of frequent flyers, will be less inclined to engage in fare wars. A couple’s agreement that they will split the housework 50:50 may become subject to renegotiation once a child is born. Strategists who foresee such consequences will use their bargaining power while it exists, namely, before they get into the commitment. Typically, this will take the form of a payment up front. Competition among the would-be exploiters can lead to the same result. Companies will have to offer more attractive initial salaries, computer manufacturers will have to charge sufficiently low prices for their central processing units (CPUs), and airline frequent-flyer programs will have to offer larger signing-on mileage bonuses. As for married couples, exploitation may be a game that two can play. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

The same foresight is what prevents many curious but rational people from trying addictive drugs such as heroin. A Tom Lehrer song describes the drug dealer’s ploy: “He gives the kids free samples because he knows full well that today’s young innocent faces will be tomorrow’s clientele.” Smart kids know it too, and turn down the free samples. Complexity research has received considerable attention recently. In some measure, this is because advances in computation have enabled progress on a number of problems tht had long been too difficult for conventional mathematical tools. However, it is important to recall that the fundamental orientation of complexity research is actually rooted in long traditions. Adam Smith’s hidden hand, the “blind watchmaking” of Darwinian evolution, the cell-assembly neuropsychology of Donald Hebb, and the self-reproducing automata of John von Neumann were earlier intellectual developments that blazed the same trail by uncovering system-level properties produced by the structured interaction of simple components. Perhaps there are powerful results just over the horizon, but as we see it, complexity research does not make detailed predictions. Rather, it is a framework that suggests new kinds of questions and possible actions. We should compare the results taking shape to the artificial selection principles of animal husbandry (a field that must interested the youthful Darwin). Analyzing complex systems within the framework does not assure the ability to produce specific outcomes but can foster an increase in the value of populations overtime—whether the populations are of livestock, of technical innovations, or of new strategies for business competition. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

In the language of our framework, a designer introduces new artifacts or strategies into the World. A new machine on a factory floor or a new approach to conducting a budget review may be interventions in complex systems whose full consequences cannot be contemplated in advance. An orbiting telescope and a legal appeal on constitutional grounds almost certainly will have consequences that are hard to predict. A designer may even introduce new agents into the World. For example, an executive might create a new division in an organization, or a legislature might set up a new governmental bureau. Policy makers deliberately alter the consequences of available strategies when they increase rewards for some outcomes or make some patterns of action illegal. We use the phrase “design and policy making” to indicate the full spectrum of actions that we may find ourselves considering. We may take the perspective of some within a system—for example, as one of many people at a committee table. Alternatively, we may contemplate the system from the outside, as an architect or a legislator might do. In either case, we all find ourselves designing or making policy in complex settings. When we do, it can be very valuable to extend the questions we conventionally ask about likely consequences and scenarios. We can go on to ask what populations of agents and strategies are involved, and what interventions might create new combinations or destroy old ones? These kinds of questions help us harness complexity. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

The widening gulf between Western Europe and the United States of America also reflects two contrasting attitudes toward the deep fundamental of time. Europe and America operate at different speeds. Europe is well behind the United States of America in work-at-home arrangements that typically allow employees to adjust their work hours. Even in the shop or office, Europe lags in flexible scheduling, 24/7 operations and other departures from traditional industrial routines. Workforce flexibility is needed for firms to compete successfully in today’s global markets. However, European workers and employers alike remain trapped in inflexible temporal arrangements. This situation is not merely reflected in the longer vacations, generally shorter workweek and overall slower pace of life on which Europeans, and especially the French, pride themselves. It is even seen in attitudes toward meals. In response to the American-born fast-food industry spreading across the globe, Europe has originated the “slow food” movement aimed at fighting it. Started almost as a joke in Italy in 1986, this movement now claims as many as eighty thousand members in one hundred countries, including 145 chapters in the United States of America. Its organizers stage events, publish books about food and celebrate good (and slow) eating. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

The slow-food movement has (slowly) spawned a counterpart called cittaslow devoted to maintaining slow life in small cities. It promotes local products and sustainability and is so committed to slowness, that of thirty Italian towns that helped found the movement, none had qualified for membership. “They’re not supposed to qualify quickly,” explained one of the movement’s organizers. “It could take years.” Whether a new organization ever spring up for those who enjoy both a fast and a slow pace of life at different times, both a burger on the run and a languorous lobster, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Britons are flocking to villages like Agincourt in northern France in search of greater tranquility and a still-slower-paced lifestyle. The surge is helped, no doubt, by lower house prices and just possibly by the Channel Tunnel and additional airline flights that-forefended the thought—speed up travel. All of which led one Againcourt real estate agent, Maggie Kelly, to exclaim, “There days I hardly have five minutes to turn around!” Apparently, no irony intended. However, amusement should not deceive us. Whatever the virtues of slow versus fast, how a society deals with time has important implications for how it creates wealth—for both de-synchronization at home and integration into the World economy. European headlines are dotted, in fact, with the word slow, as in CORE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SLOW TO IMPLEMENT…, EU “TOO SLOW” ON ECONOMIC REFORMS and GENDER EQUALITY: SLOW PROGRESS. But it is not just the European must confront layer after impenetrable layer of regulations. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

In Europe things move slower and take more time and energy. So it is no surprise to learn from the European Commission itself that “in the United States of America, it takes just six hours to establish a business, and while differences remain between member states…in Europe, it takes much longer in all of them.” Try, for example, obtaining a patent in Europe. According to Trevor Cook of the European law firm Bird & Bird, “It takes much longer to secure patents in Europe thana it does in the U.S., typically at least four, sometimes as many as ten years, and this is a real problem for fast-moving high-tech businesses.” Or talk to Rita Villa, an American certified public accountant who operates on both sides of the Atlantic. “Things just take longer in Europe. Transactions have many more steps. For example, if the U.S. company wants to move its headquarters from, say, Chicago to Dallas, no problem. But if a German firm wants to move from Berlin to Frankfurt, it requires a whole time-consuming multi-step process of ‘registration.’” Or, she says, try changing the legal form of a company, something smaller firms often need to do. If I have limited liability corporation, or LLC, in the U.S. and want to convert it to an ordinary corporation with “Inc.” at the end of its name, I can do that rapidly. But in Germany when we wanted to change a GMBH to an AG—a comparable change—it took over a year. Say the company wants to issue a dividend to its shareholders. In the U.S., the board of directors meets and, if it thinks it’s a god idea, it votes and that’s it. Not in Germany. There the auditors first have to approve it. Then it goes to the management board. After that it has to go to the supervisory board. Then it has to go to the notary who can demand last-minute alterations even after all the parties have reached an agreement. Then it has to be registered. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

The transatlantic differences intime and pace even affect Europe’s defense industries and military. American military technology and capabilities are aimed at enabling faster and faster responses to crisis. European forces in NATO cannot keep up, making integrated joint action more difficult. The European Union, meanwhile, is moving—slowly—to create its own “rapid reaction” military force. At all these levels, therefore, from lifestyle and culture to military matters and, above all, business and the economy, the speed gap between European and the United States of America is, if anything, widening. Each is responding to the accelerative economy and the deep fundamental of time at its own, very different pace. Now, when it comes to flex-firms, another format likely to find a place in many flex-firms is a completely two-faced unit capable of operating in two modes, depending upon the circumstance. The pulsating unit differs in size and organization from time to time. The pulsating unit differs in size and organization from time to time. The Janus-like organization may remain the same in size, but shift from hierarchical to nonhierarchical command as needs demand. A prime example is the famed British military unit, the Special Air, or SAS. Used for surgical antiterrorist strikes, hostage rescue, and other missions demanding surprise and deception, the SAS operates in two diametrically opposed modes. On the parade ground it is all spit, polish, and blind obedience. Regimental protocol is enforced by screaming sergeants. The privileges of rank and hierarchy are brutally upheld. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

In action, however, a totally different kind of behavior is expected from the same people. SAS troops fight in tiny units, often cut off from their base, and without any officer present. There is a unit commander, but he may not hold a formal rank and is likely to be referred to simply as the “boss.” The men, derisively called “sir” on the parade ground, now become “mister” or are addressed simply by the first name. The same sergeant who cursed a trooper for some trivial infraction of the dress code may now tolerate jokes about those “parade ground idiots.” Rank, hierarchy, and privilege are replaced under fire by a different set of ground rules. In fact, Colonel David Stirling, who initially proposed formation of the SAS, pointed out that the smallest unit in paratroop or commando organizations consisted of eight or ten men led by a noncommissioned officer who did the thinking for the unit. Stirling insisted on something unique in military history—a four-man fighting module. In the SAS, Stirling has written, “Each of the four men was trained to a high general level of proficiency in the whole range of the SAS capability and, additionally, each man was trained to have at least one special expertise according to his aptitude. In carrying out an operation—often in pitch-dark—each SAS man in each module was exercising his own individual perception and judgment at full stretch.” In fact, Stirling insisted on the number four to prevent orthodox leadership from arising. The danger of each person acting as a loose cannon is minimized through the selection of extremely motivated team players. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

The result is an organization that has been described as “a unique military democracy…in which, if he succeeds, a man exchanges his former class and even identity for membership [in] a caste as binding as any family.” It is this intense training and commitment that make it possible for the same unit to operate in both an authoritarian and a democratic mode, as the occasion demands. Businesses, too, needs different behavior during normal operations and in the midst of crisis. In fact, many firms today are creating crisis centers, contingency plans, and fallback arrangements. However, few actually train all their employees to operate in two contrasting modes. The present conception of crisis management is to create a “shadow management,” which waits in reserve, prepared to assume power during the emergency. Its ability to do so depends heavily on access to information and control of communications. Southern California Edison, for example, which operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, has set up a complex emergency information system that uses remote sensing, voice and video links, to tie its crisis command center to field units. As we move further into a period of economic and political turbulence, punctuated erratically by technological breakthroughs and disasters, we can expect crises to crowd in on one another—everything from terrorist attacks and product failures to sudden international crises. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

The Exxon oil spill, the collapse of the Continental Illinois bank, the wave of saving-and-loan failures, the bankruptcy of the A.H. Robins Company after the discovery of health problems related to its Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive device only begin to suggest the diversity of crises that can face businesses. Each one brings enormous power shifts with its scapegoats are blamed, new leaders arise, and others are discredited and replaced. However, the increased likelihood of crisis teams and two-faced organizations spread through the business World and become a regular part of the flex-firm of tomorrow. Now, when it comes to labor, once a plant is operating, it should require little human labor (what people do with their time will change, unless factories are kept running as bizarre hobbies). Desert Rose Industries was run by two people, yet was described as producing large quantities of varied gods. The basic molecular-scale operations of manufacturing have to be automated, since they are too small for people to work on. The other operations are fairly simple and can be assisted by equipment for handling materials and information. When taking space into account, even a manufacturing plant based on nanotechnology takes up room. It would, however, be more compact than familiar manufacturing plants, and could be built in some out-of-the-way place with inexpensive land. These costs should be small by today’s standards. Considering insurance, this cost will depend on the state of the law, but some comparisons can be made. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Improved sensors and alarms could be made integral parts of products; these should lower fire and theft premiums. Product liability costs should be reduced by safer, more reliable products. Employee injury rates will be reduced by having less labor input. Still, the legal system in the United States of America has shown a disturbing tendency to block every new risk, however small, even when this forces people to keep suffering old risks, which are sometimes huge. (The supply of lifesaving vaccines has been threatened in just this way.) When this happens, we kill anonymous people in the name of safety. If this behavior raises insurance premiums in perverse way, it could discourage a shift to safer manufacturing technologies. Since such costs can grown or shrink independent of real World of engineering and human welfare, they are beyond our ability to estimate. Considering the costs of sales, distribution, training—these costs will depend on the product: Is it as common as potatoes, and as simple to use? Or is it rare and complex, so that determining what you need, where to get it, and how to use it are the main problems? These service costs are real but can be distinguished from costs of the thing itself. Essentially, molecular manufacturing should eventually lead to lower costs. The initial expense of developing the technology and specific products will be substantial, but the cost of production can be low. Energy costs (at present prices) and material costs (ditto) would be significant, but not enormous. They were quoted on a perkilogram basis, but nanotechnological products, being made of superior materials, will often weigh only a fraction of what familiar products do. (Ballast, were in needed, will be dirt-cheap.) Equipment costs, land costs, waste-disposal costs, and labor costs can be low by the very nature of the technology. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

Costs of design, regulation, and insurance will depend strongly on human tastes and are beyond predicting. Basic products, like clothing and housing, can become inexpensive unless we do something to keep them costly. As the cost of improved safety falls, there will be less reason to accept unsafe products. Molecular manufacturing uses processes as controlled and efficient as the molecular processes in plants. Its products could be as inexpensive as potatoes. This may sound too good to be true (and there are downsides, as we will later discuss), but why should it not be true? Should we not expect large changes to come with the replacement of modern technology? An argument is sometimes made that promiscuous use of sacred or serious symbols by corporate America is a form of healthy irreverence. Irreverence, after all, is an antidote to excessive or artificial piety, and is especially necessary when piety is used as a political weapon. One might say that irreverence, not blasphemy, is the ultimate answer to idolatry, which is why most cultures have established means by which irreverence may be expressed—in the theater, in jokes, in song, in political rhetoric, even in holidays. However, there is nothing in the commercial exploitation of traditional symbols that suggests an excess of piety is itself a vice. Business is too serious a business for that, and in any case has no objection to piety, as long as it is directed toward the idea of consumption, which is never treated as a laughing matter. In using Uncle Sam or the flag, or the American Eagle or images of presidents, in employing such names as Liberty Insurance, Freedom Transmission Repair, and Lincoln Savings and Loan, business does not offer us examples of irreverence. It is merely declaring the irrelevance, in Technopoly, of distinguishing between the scared and the profane. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

You’ll never feel cramped in Model 4 at #Havenwood! This is the largest home offered in this community, and there’s even a great room and loft upstairs for more great flexible entertainment space. 😍

Like all our #CresleighHomes, this one comes with an All-Ready connected home system, including a video doorbell and digital deadbolt.

It’s the perfect time to make moves to the home of your dreams, and it’s not far away!

Home Site 67 is a Residence Four plan, the largest home offered in Cresleigh Havenwood. This two-story, 3,489 square foot home features four bedrooms, including one suite on the first floor, three and one half bathroom, and a true three-car garage.

The covered porch provided a warm entry and the dining room is located right off the entry way. The Kitchen is connected through the Butler’s Pantry providing ample storage. The great room and loft upstairs allow for various uses that will suit your family and lifestyle.

This home includes over $50,000 in options and upgrades
• Durable luxury vinyl plank flooring throughout the first floor
• Gray Shaker Cabinetry with Soft-Close Doors & Drawers
• Over Island Pendants and Under-Cabinet Lighting
• Gourmet Kitchen option with upgraded appliances
• Stainless Steel Farm Sink and Upgraded Faucet
• Flat Screen Prewire in Great Room
• Owned Solar

Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier. Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Home Mini! https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/quick-move-homesite-67/

On a bench in the park, mid-afternoon, dreamily noting the drift of the species back and forth—to think—this multitude is but a wee little fraction of the Earth’s population! And all blood-kin to me, every one! Eve ought to have come with me; this would excite her affectionate heart, she was never able to keep her composure when she came upon a relative; she would try to kiss every one of these people, African and European and all. [A baby-wagon passes.] How little change one can notice—none at all, in fact. I remember the first child well—let me see…it is three hundred thousand years ago come Tuesday; this one is just like it. So between the first one and the last one there is really nothing to choose. The same insufficiency of hair, the same absence of teeth, the same feebleness of body and apparent preoccupation of mind, the same general adorableness all around. Yet Eve worshiped that early one, and it was pretty to see her with it. This latest one’s mother worships it; it shows in her eyes—it is the very look that used to shine in Eve’s. To think—that so down a procession three hundred thousand years long and remain the same, without shade of change! Yet here it is, lighting this young creature’s face just as it lighted Eve’s in the long ago—the newest thing I have seen in the Earth, and the oldest. Of course, the Dinosaur—but that is in another class. We must try to understand the four chief functions of the human machine. I am sure everyone knows what the intellectual or thinking function is. All mental processes are included here: realization of an impression, formation of representations and concepts, reasoning, comparison, affirmation, negation, formation of words, speech, imagination, and so on. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

The second function is feeling or emotions: joy, sorrow, fear, astonishment, and so on. Even if you are sure that it is clear to you how, and in what, emotions differ from thoughts, I should advise you to verify all your views in regard to this. We mix thought and feelings in our ordinary thinking and speaking; but for the beginning of self-study it is necessary to know clearly which is which. The two functions following, instinctive and moving, will take longer to understand, because in no system of ordinary psychology are these functions described and divided in the right way. The words “instinct,” “instinctive,” are generally used in the wrong sense and very often in no sense at all. In particular, to instinct are generally ascribed external functions which are in reality moving functions, and sometimes emotion. The instinctive function in man includes in itself four different classes of functions: All the inner work of the organism, all physiology, so to speak; digestion and assimilation of food, breathing, circulation of the blood, all the work of inner organs, the building of new cells, the elimination or worked-out materials, the work of glands of inner secretion, and so on. The so-called five sense: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch; and all other senses such as the sense of weight, of temperature, of dryness or of moisture, and so on; that is, all indifferent sensations—sensations which by themselves are neither pleasant nor unpleasant. All physical emotions; that is, all physical sensations which are either pleasant or unpleasant. All kinds of pain or unpleasant feeling such as unpleasant taste or unpleasant smell, and all kinds of physical pleasure, such as pleasant taste, pleasant smell, and so on. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

The moving function includes in itself all external movements, such as walking, writing, speaking, eating, and memories of them. To the moving function also belong those movements which in ordinary language are called “instinctive,” such as catching a falling object without thinking. The difference between the instinctive and the moving function is very clear and can be easily understood if one simply remembers that all instinctive functions without exception are inherent and that there is no necessity to learn them in order to use them; whereas on the other hand, none of the moving functions are inherent and one has to learn them all as a child learns to walk, or as one learns to write or to draw. Besides these normal moving functions, there are also some strange moving functions which represent useless work of the human machine not intended by nature, but which occupy a very large place in man’s life and use a great quantity of his energy. These are: formation of dreams, imagination, daydreaming, talking with oneself, all talking for talking’s sake, and generally, all uncontrolled and uncontrollable manifestations. The four functions—intellectual, emotional, instinctive, and moving—must first be understood in all their manifestations, and later they must be observed in oneself. Such self-observation, that is, observation on the right basis, with a preliminary understanding of the states of consciousness and of different functions, constitutes the basis of self-study; that is, the beginning of psychology. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

It is very important to remember that in observing different functions it is useful to observe at the same time their relation to different states of consciousness. Let us take the three states of consciousness—sleep, waking state, and possible glimpses of self-consciousness—and the four functions—thinking, feeling, instinctive, and moving. All four function can manifest themselves in sleep, but their manifestations are desultory and unreliable; they cannot be used in any way, they just go by themselves. In the state of waking consciousness or relative consciousness, they can to a certain extent serve for our orientation. Their results can be compared, verified, straightened out; and although they may create many illusions, still in our ordinary state we have nothing else and must make of them what we can. If we knew the quantity of wrong observations, wrong theories, wrong deductions and conclusions made in this state, we should cease to believe ourselves altogether. However, men do not realize how deceptive their observations and their theories can be, and they continue to believe in them. It is this tht keeps men from observing the rare moments when their functions manifest themselves in connection with glimpses of the third state of consciousness; tht is, of self-consciousness. All this means that each of the four functions can manifest itself in each of the three states of consciousness. However, the results are quite different. When we learn to observe these results and their difference, we shall understand the right relation between functions and states of consciousness. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

However, before even considering the difference in function in relation to states of consciousness, it is necessary to understand that man’s consciousness and man’s functions are quite different phenomena, of quite different nature and depending on different causes, and that one can exist without the other. Functions can exist without consciousness, and consciousness can exist without functions. We can stop to compose ourselves at any time. Composure is the result, not the precondition, of assembling the events of our lives into a meaningful whole. The word compose comes from the Latin root pausare, to rest, nd the Greek pauein, to stop. If we are fortunate, we get to take a long pause before the stop of death. When frailty or illness limits our external activities, we are given the opportunity to expand our reach into ourselves. Life has the shape and meaning of a great work of art: it is one’s task to select, telescope and transmute the facts so that their universal significance should be revealed. When a society offers at its apex a scheme of things, inclusive and integrative of all subordinate orientations, and when that scheme by virtue of being generally accepted as true holds great authority, then that society is unified and cohesive, is an organism. Every leader seeks to embody such a scheme of things, and charismatically to make it ever more powerfully appealing, binding on the loyalties of all. A number of the things we research in dealing with specialized characteristics have recurring themes in the work of complexity. Many of these themes can be distilled and brought to bear on the problem of analyzing interventions in a World that is hard to predict because it is complex. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

In contest, a World that is hard to predict merely because it is complicated can be attacked in quite a different way. For example, nearly additive contributions of factors mean tht independent studies of the important factors can later be merged at acceptable cost. The Human Genome Project is a large bet that much can be understood via such a “divide and conquer” strategy. Nevertheless, in many cases the interactions of the parts of the system are critical, and complexity reigns. Our framework can be developed to give a unified view of the work on complex systems. As we look across many lines of this research, we see in most of the studies collections of elements—what we have called populations of agents. Usually those elements subdivide into some types (for example, buyers, and sellers, inhibiting molecules and potentiting ones, BMWs and Mercedes). Each of the is connected to some, but usually not all, of the others. The connections are through relations, and there is tremendous variety across fields in what those relations are and how they work (for example, magnetic attraction, organizational authority, electrical stimulation, affinity of pleasures of the flesh, chemical inhibition, geographical proximity or ethnic hostility). Each element in one of those complex systems has patterns of action that affect those connected to it. The research very often centers on the emergent global dynamics of the whole system. It asks the questions like: How (or when) does a system of locally trading agents develop prices that will cause marketwide inventories to clear? How does a brain made of interconnected neurons learn? How does a pile of sand generate its characteristic mix of large and small avalanches? #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

How does news about a vacant job successfully make its way from an employer to potential employees in distant towns? How does a gene pool remix itself over time to create and retain genotypes that may be fit for a changing environment? How do we nurture a network of trust that permits informal credit mechanisms to foster trade efficiencies? It is usual in this approach to view the global properties of the systems as emerging from the actions of its part, rather than seeing the actions of parts as being imposed from a dominant central source. This is not a denial that there are times when systems have effective central authorities or dominant influences. However, the project of complexity theories in such cases is to understand how those dominant influences come about, what sustains (or undermines) them, and how local action responds in the face of global constraints. An excellent example is the work of Padgett and Ansell (1993) on the emergence of a new form of state in medieval Florence as Medici power built up out of tensions within the marital, residential, and commercial networks of the city. Finally, many complex systems—but by no means all—are “adaptive.” As we said earlier, in systems we call adaptive the strategies used by agents or a population change over time as the agents or population works for improved performance. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

When we use the phrase Complex Adaptive System, we leave open the question of whether the agents or population actually achieves improved performance. If we are designing interventions, improvement on some measure is what we want to promote. For a system to exhibit adaptation that enhances survival (or another measure of success), it must increase the likelihood of effective strategies and reduce the likelihood of ineffective strategies. We call such a process attribution of credit if an agent uses a performance criterion to increase the frequency of successful strategies or decreases the frequency of unsuccessful ones. The latest erosion of the United States of America-Europe ties was typically attributed to their shape differences over the Ukrainian war. However, far deeper forces are at work. The alliance can be said to have cracked the way Western Europeans stopped fearing an attack by Russia—and concluded they no longer needed U.S. troops and taxpayers to defend them. However, this is not true because they are now relying on American taxpayer money during this war and as a result of the hard economic conditions. For today’s widening split actually began generations earlier when the United States of America started to change its relationship to the deep fundamental and began building a knowledge economy. Europe’s core countries, by contrast, focused on reconstruction after World War II and subsequent expansion of their smokestack economies. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

Rich with talent, top-notch scientists, I.T. engineers, futurists and thinkers, Europe for a time seemed poised to embrace the new technological potentials. However, it was largely led b rear-mirror business and political leaders steeped in the guiding doctrines of the industrial age and incapable of thinking beyond them. It is true that in recent years Europe has moved faster than the United States of America in several advanced sectors, including mobile-phone use. Its Airbus for a time did well competing against an under-the-weather Boeing. It may lead the United States of America in grid computing. The French are strong competitors in the satellite-launch business, and Europe is planning to loft a rival to the American Global Positioning System. Tim Berners-Lee, who is British, gave us the World Wide Web. Linus Torvalds, a Finn, gave of Linux. And the European Space Agency led the project that, in collaboration with NASA, put a probe on Titan, Saturn’s moon. This list could easily be extended. However, all these successes needed to be set against a larger, much darker picture. To this day, key industrial principles such as standardization, concentration, maximization of scale and centralization still dominate European Union thinking. Thus, as knowledge-based economies move from massification toward de-massification of products and markets—accompanied by growing social and cultural diversity—the European Union has been homogenizing national differences. Giving lip service to the concept of diversity, it has, in fact, kept busy attempting to “harmonize” everything from taxes to cosmetics, job resumes to motorcycle laws. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

In applying one-size-fits-all rules, moreover, as The Economist points out, it usually opts for the most stringent and least flexible of the available versions. As in Japan and elsewhere, success in advanced knowledge economies requires increasingly flexible business and governmental organizations. However, the European specializes in imposing inflexible, top-down industrial-style controls—even on the budgets and financial decisions of its member nations. Under the Maastricht Treaty each nation using the euro as currency was bound to limit government deficits to nor more than 3 percent of its GDP. This was done largely at the imperial instance of Germany, which eventually found the limits so restrictive that it, itself, repeatedly violated the inflexible standard it helped impose on everyone else. Around 6 percent of the 12 euro-zone members are in violation of the pact. French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed E.U. constitution, a four-hundred-page masterwork of bureaucratic overkill. Critics noted that the authors of the U.S. Constitution required fewer than ten pages, including the Bill of Rights. Most countries use tariffs, quotas, and other measures to restrict important competition and protect domestic industries. Such policies rise prices, and hurt all domestic users of the protected product. Economists have estimated that when important quotas are used to protect industries such as steel, textiles, or sugar, the rest of us pay higher prices amounting to roughly $100,000 for each job saved. How is it that the gains to a few always get priority over the much larger aggregate losses to the many? #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The trick is to bring up the cases one at a time. First, 10,000 jobs in the shoe industry are at risk. To save them would cost a billion dollars to the rest of us, or just over $4 each. Who would not agree to pay $4 to save 10,000 jobs even for total strangers, especially when competing nations can be blamed for their plight? Then along comes the garment industry, the steel industry, the auto industry, and so on. Before we know it, we have agreed to pay over $50 billion, which is more than $200 each, or nearly $1,000 per family. (Which is why so many people want to cut off other nations from receiving economic assistance. The money we send them causes us a deficit, and then America cannot afford to pay for infrastructure improvements and social services that Americans need. Often time new taxes are born to help offset the cost, but where does it stop, how much more do we have to pay when we are taxed without representation? Before you know it, we have so many new taxes and all taxes are so high that America becomes a communist nation.) If we had foreseen the whole process, we might have thought the cost too high, and insisted that workers in each of these industries bear the risks of international trade just as they would bear any other economic risk. Decisions made case by case can lead to undesirable results overall. In fact, a sequence of majority votes can lead to an outcome that everyone regards as worse than the status quo. The income tax reform of 1985-86 almost collapsed because the Senate initially took a case-by-case approach. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

In the first round of the Finance Committee’s markup sessions, the amended Treasury proposal became so weighted down with special interest provisions that it sank to a merciful death. The senators realized that they were “powerless” to prevent any one organized lobby from getting special treatment. Yet the combination of these lobbyists could destroy the bill, and this would be worse than producing no legislation at all. So Senator Packwood, the committee chairman, made his own lobby: he persuaded a majority of the committee members to vote against any amendment to the tax bill, even those amendments that especially favored their own constituents. The reform was enacted. However, special provisions are already staging a comeback, one or two at a time. Along similar lines, the line-item veto would allow the president to veto legislation selectively. If a bill authorized money for school lunches and a new space shuttle, the president would have the option of neither, either, or both, instead of the current neither or both. Although a first reaction is that this allows the president greater control over legislation, the opposite might end up happening as Congress would be more selective about which bill it process. While the line-item veto is generally thought to be unconstitutional, this question may have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

These problems arise because myopic decision-makers fail to look ahead and see the whole picture. In the case of tax reform, the Senate recovered its vision just in time; the issue of protectionism still suffers. The pulsating organization is one that expands and contracts in a regular rhythm. A good example is the U.S. Census Bureau, which swells to enormous size every ten years, then shrinks, starts planning for the next decennial count, and swells again. Ordinarily staffed by about 7,000 regular employees, the Bureau maintains twelve regional centers around the United States of America. However, to conduct a complete census, it sets up a parallel or “shadow” center for each of the twelve. Through them more, than 1.2 million applicants ae interviewed to find the 400,000 “troops” who actually fan out and knock on every American door. These shadow centers are designed to last one year or a year and a half, and then to be dismantled. The staff then shrivels back to around 7,000. At which point planning begins for the next count ten years in the future. Carrying this operation through successfully ought to earn the managerial equivalent of an Olympic gold medal. The 1990 census was fraught with bugs and bloopers. However, the task would clearly daunt many a senior business executive. Indeed, many firms will notice that their own problems, though smaller in scale, are not entirely dissimilar. For “pulsating organizations” are present in many industries as well. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

We see them in companies that gear up for annual model changes, then gear down again; in retail firms that staff up for Christmas and lay off in January; and in pickup crews used for film and television production. In fact, one of the most rapidly proliferating formats in business today is the task force or project team, examples of what we term “ad-hocracy.” These, however, are only variants of the pulsating organization. While true “pulsers” grow and shrink repetitively, a project team normally carries out a single task. In therefore grows and declines once and then is dismantled. It is, in effect, a “single-pulse” organization. Pulsing organizations have a unique information and communication requirements. For its recent census, the Census Bureau’s shadow centers, for example, were linked by some $100 million worth of computers and telecommunications equipment in a temporary network designed to be disposed of, or folded back into the permanent organization. Executives in charge of pulsing companies or units often find their power pulsing too. Funds dry up as the unit shrinks. People disappear. The available pool of knowledge or talent diminished. The power of rival units in the company expands relatively as the unit continues to shrink. In a pulsating power structure, the executive who commands a large project may be a “700-pound gorilla” one day—and a money the next. As many pulsating organizations interact, they lend a kind of rhythm to the economy. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Pulsing, however, is not only a matter of size. Some companies pulse back and forth between centralization and decentralization. With each swing or pulse, information structures are changed—and power therefore shifts. The speedup and growing unpredictability of change point toward faster pulsing in the ten years ahead. It is possible that, some day soon, an advertising man who must create a television commercial for a new California Chardonnay will have the following inspiration: Jesus is standing alone in a desert oasis. A gentle breeze flutters the leaves of the stately palms behind him. Soft Mideastern music caresses the air. Jesus holds in his hand a bottle of wine at which he gazes adoringly. Turning toward the camera, he says, “When I transformed water into wine at Cana, this is what I had in mind. Try it today. You’ll become a believer.” If you think such a commercial is not possible in your lifetime, then consider this: As I write, there is an oft-seen commercial for Hebrew National Frankfurters. It features a dapper-looking Uncle Sam in his traditional red, white, and blue outfit. While Uncle Sam assumes appropriate facial expressions, a voice-over describes the delicious and healthful frankfurters produced by Hebrew National. Toward the end of the commercial, the voice stresses that Hebrew National Frankfurters surpass federal standards for such products. Why? Because, the voice says as the camera shifts our point of view upward toward Heaven, “We have to answer to a Higher Authority.” #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

I will leave it to the reader to decide which is more incredible—Jesus being used to sell wine or God being used to sell frankfurters. Whichever you decide, you must keep in mind that neither the hypothetical commercial nor the real one is an example of blasphemy. They are much worse than that. Blasphemy is, after all, among the highest tributes that can be paid to the power of a symbol. The blasphermer take symbols as seriously as the idolater, which is why the President of the United States of America (circa 1991) whishes to punish, through a constitutional amendment, desecrators of the American flag. What we are talking about here is not blasphemy but trivialization, against which there can be no laws. In Technopoly, the trivialization of significant cultural symbols is largely conducted by commercial enterprise. This occurs not because corporate America is greedy but because the adoration of technology pre-empts the adoration of anything else. Symbols tht draw their meaning from traditional religious or national contexts must therefor be made impotent as quickly as possible—that is, drained of sacred or even serious connotations. The elevation of one god requires the demotion of another. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” applies as well to technological divinity as any other. There are two intertwined reasons that make it possible to trivialize traditional symbols. The first, as neatly expressed by the social critic Jay Rosen, is that, although symbols, especially images, are endlessly repeatable, they are not inexhaustible. Second, the more frequently a significant symbol is used, the less potent is its meaning. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

The beginnings, in the mid-nineteenth century, of a “graphics revolution” allowed the easy reproduction of visual imges, thus providing the masses with continuous access to the symbols and icons of their culture. Through prints, lithographs, photographs, and, later, movies and television, religious and national symbols became commonplaces, breeding indifference if not necessarily contempt. As if to answer those who believe that the emotional impact of a sacred image is always and ever the same, we should be reminded that prior to the graphics revolution most people saw relatively few images. Paintings of Jesus or the Madonna, for example, would have been seen rarely outside the churches. Paintings of great national leaders could be seen only in the homes of the wealthy or in government buildings. There were images to be seen in books, but books were expensive and spent most of their time on shelves. Images were not a conscious part of the environment, and their scarcity contributed toward their special power. When the scale or accessibility was altered, the experience of encountering an image necessarily changed; that is to say, it diminished in importance. One picture, we are told, is worth a thousand words. However, a thousand pictures, especially if they are of the same object, may not be worth anything at all. This is a common enough psychological principle. You may demonstrate this for yourself (if you have not at some time already done so) by saying any word, even a significant one, over and over again. Sooner than you expect, you will find that the word has been transformed into a meaningless sound, as repetition drains it out of its symbolic value. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Any male who has served in, let us say, the United States of America’s Army or spent time in a college dormitory has had this experience with what are called obscene words, especially the notorious four-letter word which I am loath to reproduce here. Words that you have been taught not to use and that normally evoke an embarrassed or disconcerted response, when used too often, are stripped of their power to shock, to embarrass, to call attention to a special frame of mind. They become only sounds, not symbols. Moreover, the journey to meaninglessness of symbols is a function not only of the frequency with which they are invoked but of the indiscriminate contexts in which they are used. An obscenity, for example, can do its work best when it is reserved for situations that call forth anger, disgust, or hatred. When it is used as an adjective for every third noun in a sentence, irrespective of emotional context, it is deprived of its magical effects and, indeed, of its entire point. This is what happens when Abraham Lincoln’s image, or George Washington’s, is used to announce linen sales on President’s Day, or Martin Luther King’s birthday celebration is taken as an occasion for furniture discounts. It is what happens when Uncle Sam, God, or Jesus is employed as an agent of the profane World for an essentially trivial purpose. In the meantime, we should be able to exercise our humanity, governing each other and being governed, instead of encasing ourselves in the laden armor of our technological schizophrenia. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Some costs apply to a kind of product, regardless of how many copies are made: these include design costs, technology-licensing costs, regulatory-approval costs, and the like. Other costs apply to each unit a product: these include the costs of labor, energy, raw materials, production equipment, production sites, insurance, and waste disposal. The per-kind costs can become very low if production runs are large. If these costs stay high, it will be because people prefer new products or their new benefits, despite the cost—hardly cause for complaint. The more basic and easier to analyze costs are per-unit costs. A picture to keep in mind here is of Desert Rose Industries, where molecular machinery does most of the work, and where products are made from parts that are ultimately made from simple chemical substances. Let us consider some cost components. Energy: Manufacturing at the molecular scale need not use a lot of energy. Plants build billions of tons of highly patterned material every year using available solar energy. Molecular manufacturing can be efficient, in the sense that the energy needed to build a block of product should be comparable to the energy released in burning an equivalent mass of wood or coal. If this energy were supplied as electricity at today’s costs, the energy costs of manufacturing would be something like a dollar per kilogram. We will return to the cost of energy later. Raw Materials: Molecular manufacturing will not need exotic materials as inputs. Plain bulk chemicals will suffice, and this means materials no more exotic than the fuels and feedstocks that are, for now, derived from petroleum and biomass—gasoline, methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen. These typically cost tends of cent per kilogram. If bizarre compounds are used, they can be made internally. Rare elements could be avoided, but might be useful in trace amounts. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The total quality of raw materials consumed will be smaller than in conventional manufacturing processes because less will be wasted. Capital Equipment and Maintenance: As we saw in the Desert Rose scenario, molecular manufacturing can be used to build all of the equipment needed for molecular manufacturing. It seems that this equipment—everything from large vats to submicroscopic special-purpose assemblers—can be reasonably durable, lasting for months or years before being recycled and replaced. If the equipment were to cost dollars per kilogram, and produce many thousands of kilograms of product in its life, the cost of the equipment would add little to the cost of the product. Waste Disposal: Today’s manufacturing waste is dumped into the air, water, and landfills. There need be no such waste with molecular manufacturing. Excess materials of the kind now spewed into the environment could instead be completely recycled internally, or could instead be completely recycled internally, or could emerge from the manufacturing process in pure form, ready for use in some other process. In an advanced process, the only wastes would be leftover atoms resulting from a bad mix of raw materials. Most of these leftover atoms would be ordinary minerals and simple gases like oxygen, the main “waste” from the molecular machinery of plants. Molecular manufacturing produces no new elements—if arsenic comes out, arsenic must have gone in, and the process is not to blame for its existence. Any intrinsically toxic materials of this sort can at least be put in the safest form we can devise for disposal. One option would be to chemically bond it into a stable mineral and put it back where it came from. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

Welcome to Residence 4 – the largest home in the #MillsStation community at #CresleighRanch! 👏

With 2,692 square feet at your disposal, you’ll find that there’s enough room for all the party guests with space to spare. Whether you’re hosting a holiday party 🦃 or just cooking up something for the special people in your life, you’ll have everything you need in this home!

Questions? Call us! (916) 781-6020

Morality is not a vision of ends, however desirable, but a system of restraints in the pursuit of any ends. To understand the meaning of a “school,” there has to already have been an experience of the search and struggle for the change of being. These lectures are obviously not intended for everybody, but as an invitation, to those who may agree on the futility of man’s present situation, to inquire into and experience the question of what he is and what he might become. Most people want to hear new things; that is, things that they have never heard before. I know that it is not an easy thing to realize that one is hearing new things. We are so accustomed to the old tunes, and the old motives, that long go we ceased to hope and ceased to believe that there might be anything new. And when we hear new things, we take them for old, or think that they can be explained and interpreted by the old. It is true that it is a difficult task to realize the possibility and necessity of quite new ideas, and it needs with time a revaluation of all usual values. I cannot guarantee that you will hear new ideas, that is, ideas you never heard before, from the start; but if you are patient you will very soon begin to notice them. And then I wish you not to miss them, and to try not to interpret the in the old way. During the time when psychology was connected with philosophy and religion it also existed in the form of art. Poetry, drama, sculpture, dancing, even architecture, were means for transmitting psychological knowledge. For instance, the Gothic cathedrals were in their chief meaning works on psychology. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

In the ancient times before philosophy, religion, and art had taken their separate forms as we now know them, psychology had existed in the form of Mysteries, such as those of Egypt and of ancient Greece. Later, after the disappearance of the Mysteries, psychology existed in the form of Symbolical Teachings which were sometimes connected with the religion of the period and sometimes not connected, such as astrology, alchemy, magic, and the more modern Masonry, occultism, and Theosophy. When we understand the importance of the study of man from the point of view of his possible evolution, we shall understand that the first answer to the question, what is psychology, should be that psychology is the study of the principles, laws, and facts of man’s possible evolution. If we take historical mankind, that is, humanity for ten or fifteen thousand years, we may find unmistakable signs of a higher type of man, whose presence can be established on the evidence of ancient monuments and memorials which cannot be repeated or imitated by the present humanity. As regards prehistoric man or creatures similar in appearance to man and yet at the same time very different from him, whose bones are sometimes found in deposits of glacial or pre-glacial periods, we may accept the quite possible view that these bones belong to some being quite different from man, which died out long ago. Denying previous evolution of man, we must deny any possibility of future mechanical evolution of man; that is, evolution happening by itself according to laws of heredity and selection, and without man’s conscious efforts and understanding of his possible evolution. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

Our fundamental idea shall be that man as we know him is not a completed being; that nature develops him only up to a certain point and then leaves him, to develop further, by his own efforts and devices, or to live and die such as he was born, or to degenerate and lose capacity for development. Evolution of man in this case will mean the development of certain inner qualities and features which usually remain undeveloped, and cannot develop by themselves. Experience and observation show that this development is possible only in certain definite conditions, with efforts of a certain kind on the part of man himself, and with sufficient help from those who began similar work before and have already attained a certain degree of development, or at least a certain knowledge of methods. We must start with the idea that without efforts evolution is impossible; without help, it is also impossible. After this we must understand that in the way of development, man must become a different being, and we must learn and understand in what sense and in which direction man must become a different being; that is, what a different being means. Then we must understand that all men cannot develop and become different beings. Evolution is the question of personal efforts, and in relation to the mass of humanity evolution is the rare exception. It may sound strange, but we must realize that it is not only rare, but is becoming more and more rare. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

Many questions naturally arise from the preceding statements: What does it mean that in the way of evolution man must become a different being? What does “different being” mean? Which inner qualities or features can be developed in man, and how can this be done? Why cannot all men develop and become different beings? Why such an injustice? Why cannot all men develop and become different beings? Because they do not want it. Because they do not know about it and will not understand without a long preparation what it means, even if they are told. The chief idea is that in order to become a different being man must want it very much and for a very long time. A passing desire or a vague desire based on dissatisfaction with external conditions will not create a sufficient impulse. The evolution of man depends on his understanding of what he may get and what he must give for it. If man does not want it, or if he does not want it strongly enough, and does not make necessary efforts, he will develop. So there is no injustice in this. Why should man have what he does not want? If man were forced to become a different being when he is satisfied with what he is, then this would be injustice. Now we must ask ourselves what a different being means. If we consider all the material we can find that refers to this question, we find an assertion that in becoming a different being man acquires many new qualities and powers which he does not possess now. This is a common assertion which we find in all kinds of systems admitting the idea of psychological or inner growth of man. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

However, this is not sufficient. Even the most detailed descriptions of these new powers will not help us in any way to understand how they appear and where they come from. There is a missing link in ordinary known theories, even in those I already mentioned which are based on the idea of the possibility of evolution of man. The truth lies in the fact that before acquiring any new faculties or powers which man does not know and does not possess now, he must acquire faculties and powers he also does not possess, but which he ascribes to himself; that is, he thinks that he knows them and can use and control them. This is the missing link, and this is the most important point. By way of evolution, as described before, that is, a way based on effort and help, man must acquire qualities which he thinks already possessed, but about which he deceives himself. In order to understand this better, and to know what are these facilities and powers which man can acquire, both quite new and unexpected and also those which he imagines that he already possessed, we must begin with man’s general knowledge about himself. And where comes at once to a very important fact. Man does not know himself. Man has invented many machines, and he knows that a complicated machine needs sometimes years of careful study before one can use it or control it. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

However, he does not apply this knowledge to himself, although he himself is a much more complicated machines than any machine he has invented. He has al sorts of wrong ideas about himself. First of all, he does not realize that he actually is a machine. What does it man that man is a machine? It means that he had no independent movements, inside or outside of himself. He is a machine which is brought into motion by eternal influences and external impacts. All his movements, actions, words, ideas, emotions, moods, and thoughts are produced by external influences. By himself, he is just an automaton with a certain store of memories of previous experiences, and a certain amount of reserve energy. The conductor of an orchestra in the Soviet Union (during the Stalin era) was traveling by train to his next engagement and was looking over the score of the music he was to conduct that night. Two KGB officers saw what he was reading and, thinking that the musical notation was some secret code, arrested him as a spy. He protested that it was only Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto, but to no avail. On the second day of his imprisonment, the interrogator walked in smugly and said, “You had better tell us all. We have caught your friend Tchaikovsky, and he is already talking.” So beings one telling of the prisoners’ dilemma, perhaps the best-known strategic game. Let us develop the story to its logical conclusion. Suppose the KGB has actually arrested someone whose only offense is that he is called Tchaikovsky, and are separately subjecting him to the same kind of interrogation. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

If the two innocents withstand the treatment, each will be sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. If the conductor makes a false confession that implicates the unknown “collaborator,” while Tchaikovsky holds out, then the conductor will get away with 1 year (and the KGB’s gratitude), while Tchaikovsky gets the harsh sentence of 25 years for his recalcitrance. Of course, the tables will be turned if the conductor stand firm while Tchaikovsky gives in and implicates him. If both confess, then both will receive the standard sentence of 10 years. Now consider the conductor’s thinking. He knows that Tchaikovsky is either confessing or holding out. If Tchaikovsky confesses, the conductor gets 25 years by holding out and 10 years by confessing, so it is better for him to confess. If Tchaikovsky holds out, the conductor gets 3 years if he holds out, and only 1 if he confesses; again it is better for him to confess. Thus confession is clearly the conductor’s best action. In a separate cell in Dzerzhinsky Square, Tchaikovsky is doing a similar mental calculation and reaching the same conclusion. The result, of course, is that both of them confess. Later, when they meet in the Gulag Archipelago, they compare stories and realize that they have been had. If they both had stood firm, they both would have gotten away with much shorter sentences. If they had had an opportunity to meet and talk things over before they were interrogated, they could have agreed that neither would give in. However, they are quick to realize that in all probability such an agreement would not have done much good. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Once they were separated and the interrogations began, each person’s private incentive to get a better deal by double-crossing the other would have been quite powerful. Once again they would have met in the Gulag, there perhaps to settle the score of the betrayals (not of the concerto). Can the two achieve enough mutual credibility to reach their jointly preferred solution? Many people, firms, and even nations have been gored on the horns of the prisoners’ dilemma. Look at the life-or-death issue of nuclear arms control. Each superpower liked it best the outcome in which the other disarmed, while it kept its own arsenal “just in case.” Disarming yourself while the other remains armed was the worst prospect. Therefore no matter what the other side did, each preferred to stay armed. However, they could join in agreeing that the outcome in which both disarm is better than the one in which both are armed. The problem is the interdependence of decisions: the jointly preferred outcome arises when each chooses its individually worse strategy. Could the jointly preferred outcome be achieved given each side’s clear incentive to break the agreement and to arm itself secretly? In this case it needed a fundamental change in Soviet thinking to get the World started on the road to nuclear disarmament. For one’s comfort, safety, or even life itself, one needs to know the way to get out of the prisoner’s dilemma. The story of the prisoners’ dilemma also carries a useful general point: most economic, political, or social games are different from games such as football or poker. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

Football and poker are zero-sum games: one person’s gain is another person’s loss. However, in the prisoners’ dilemma, there are possibilities for mutual advantage as well as conflict of interest; both prisoners prefer the no-confession result to its opposite. Similarly, in employer-union bargaining, there is an opposition of interests in that one side prefers low wages and the other high ones, but there is agreement that a breakdown of negotiations leading to a strike would be more damaging for both sides. In fact such situations are the rue rather than the exception. Any useful analysis of games should be able to handle a mixture of conflict and concurrences of interests. We usually refer to the players in the game as “opponents,” but you should remember that on occasion, strategy makes strange bedfellows. Although we do our best to foresee important consequences, there is widespread acknowledgment that this is extraordinarily hard in times of dramatic change. The Information Revolution provides excellent examples, for deep reason we will examine. Some of the most famous stories of mistaken foresight center on managers and board members at companies like IBM and Intel who were unable to grasp the World-changing potential of their own products. IBM leaders once thought a handful of computers would suffice for the entire World. The Intel board of directors discouraged the first proposals to develop a microprocessor. The National Science Foundation has remarked that its panel of distinguished information technology scientists and engineers is consistent in its unwillingness to predict the future. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Efforts of the Justice Department to redress the consequences of Microsoft Corporation’s monopoly are hampered by the inability of experts to say what operating systems might become. The gears of the digital revolution [are] turning faster then the wheels of justice. Some industry leaders were frank enough to say—two years after the deluge—that they saw the first effective Web browser, Mosaic, as an inconsequential toy. As we write, that experience of the unanticipated World Wide Web explosion is fresh in our memories. In the Information Revolution, there are clearly strong limits on our ability to foresee what is to come. A wary attitude toward prediction is probably healthy, but it presents a severe roadblock to the normal processes of designing new artifacts or strategies, or refining and implementing policies. The standard procedure of design and policy making is to develop expectations (predictions) of how the future will unfold, and to define actions we could take that would lead to more desirable predicted futures. This stance can be stretched to accommodate some uncertainty by brining in specialized techniques like Bayesian inference to deal with probability distributions on possible futures. However, the usual approaches to designing an intervention grind to a half if we acknowledge that we do not know what might happen as a consequence of our actions. What we need is a far more innovative approach to the problem of the silver wave—solutions that may have to cross the boundaries of multiple existing bureaucracies. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

A key slander of retirees holds that they are unproductive. However, older people do not have to be unproductive, and most are not, once we recognize, in addition to their paid production, the economic value they create by prosuming. We need not replay the discussion of prosuming we have previously discussed. However, Japan could lead the World toward solutions of the aging problem by increasing the productivity and productivity of elderly prosumers. We know that prosumers create social capital by volunteering. Japan might envision large-scale ways to facilitate that. Or it might consider modest loans to some retirees for tools or materials with which to test their long-held idea for new kinds of products or services that might sell in the money economy. Or for woodworking tools a retiree might use to make furniture one could bater to a friend for diving one to the doctor on Wednesday afternoons. As we have seen, there are many ways in which prosumer output can be increased, and alternative forms of money that can be used in lieu of a regular paycheck. The choice for retirees requiring care does not have to be between a woman and a robot. Admittedly, some of the specific ideas sketched here may be impractical. However, to solve many twenty-first-century problems it will be necessary to explore ideas outside of the many boxes stuffed with obsolete industrial-age assumptions. Japan has repeatedly shown that it is a highly creative country, capable of finding tiny, fascinating, novel solutions to problems. To solve the problems now piling up, it will have to apply the same creativity and willingness to explore and experiment on a large scale as well. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

When Sears, Roebuck & Company, the largest U.S. retailer, announced a major reorganization of its merchandise group not long ago, the group chairman and CEO, Michael Bozie, said it was needed because “We are competing in many diverse businesses…and have essentially been using one organizational format to compete in all of these businesses.” This, critics implied, had made the firm sluggish and noncompetitive. However, even top managers who sense they need to “let go” or loosen the reins, in order to free up the energies of their people, drastically underestimate how far they will need to break the grip of bureaucracy. Scores, if not hundreds of companies have broken themselves into numerous “profit centers,” each of which, it is hoped, will act like a small, market—driven enterprise. Even some staff operations have now been designated as profit centers and must finance themselves (and thus justify their existence) by selling their inhouse services. However, what good is it to break a firm into profit centers if each of these is merely a cookie-cut miniature of the parent firm—a mini-bureaucracy nestling inside the mega-bureaucracy? What is beginning now is a much more profound and revolutionary shift, which will alter the entire nature of power in business. Most American managers still think of the organization as a “machine” whose parts can be tightened or loosened, “tuned up, or lubricated. This is the bureaucratic metaphor. By contrast, many Japanese are already using a post-bureaucratic metaphor—the corporation, they say, “is a living creature.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

This implies, among other things, that it undergoes birth, maturation, again, and death or rebirth in a new form. The Japanese term for company birth is sogyo and many companies today speak of experiencing a second or third or “new” sogyo. It is precisely at this moment of rebirth that long-term success or failure is determined. For if the new reborn firm is still organized along bureaucratic lines, like the old one it replaces, it may have a short and unhappy second life. By contrast, if at this moment firms are permitted to reach out in new direction and to assume whatever organizational forms are most appropriate, chances for adaptation to the new, innovation-rich environment are much better. The flex-firm concept does not imply structurelessness; it does suggest that a company, in being reborn, may cease being a mule and turn into a team consisting of a tiger, a school or piranhas, a mini-mule or two, and who knows, maybe even a swarm of information-sucking bees. The image underlines the point. The business of tomorrow may embody many different formats within a single frame. It may function as a kind of Noah’s Ark. To grasp the “flex-firm” concept, it helps to remind ourselves that bureaucracy is only one of an almost infinite variety of ways to organizing human beings and information. We actually have an immense repertoire of organizational forms to draw on—from jazz combos to espionage networks, from tribes and clans and councils of elders to monasteries and soccer teams. Each is good at some things and bad at others. Each has its own unique ways of collecting and distributing information, and ways of allocating power. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

A company could conceivably have within it’s a monastery-style unit that write software…a research team organized like an improvisational jazz combo…a compartmentalized spy network, with need-to-know rules, operating within the law, to scout for merger or acquisition possibilities…and a sales force organized as a highly motivated “tribe” complete with its own war songs and emotional membership rituals. (The author has attended the sales meeting of a major corporation where the tribal form was incipient and the members so psyched up about their jobs they quite literally danced on tabletops.) This new way of a company as a collection of very different organizations, many of them counterbureaucratic, reflects what already exists in some firms in a semi-smothered or embryonic form. Many businesses will find themselves moving toward this free-form model simply to stay alive in the de-massified economy of tomorrow. The term flex-firm is needed because there is no handy word in the English language to describe such an entity. The French economist. Hubert Landier uses the mouth-cracking term polycellular to describe the business of the future. Others describe it as “neural” or nervous-system-like rather than machinelike. Still others refer to the emerging business organization as a “network.” Through all these words capture some facet of the new reality, none are adequate, because the drawing business form of the future embraces them all, and more. They may include elements that are polycellular or neural. They may (or may not) be networked. However, organization may also include within it units that remain thoroughly bureaucratic because, for some functions, bureaucracy remains essential. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

A key feature of post-bureaucratic firms is that the relationships of their parts are not closely pre-specified, like information force-fitted into an old-fashioned data base. Instead, the units of a flex-firm may draw information, people, and money from one another and from outside organizations as needed. They may be next door to one another or continents apart. Their functions may partly overlap, like information in a hyper-media data base; for other purposes, the functions may be logically, geographically, or financially divided. Some may use many central services provided by headquarters; others may choose to use only a few. In turn this requires freer, faster flows of information. This will mean crisscrossing, up, down, and sideways conduits—neural pathways that bust through the boxes in the table of organization so that people can trade the idea, data, formulae, hints, insights, facts, strategies, whispers, gestures, and smiles that turn out to be essential to efficiency. Once you connect the right people with the right information you get the extra value added. Information is the catalyst for effecting change at every level. That is what makes its power so awesome. Social science, social research, and the kind of work we call imaginative literature are three quite different kinds of enterprises. In the end, all of them are forms of story-telling—human attempts to account for our experience in coherent ways. However, they have different aims, ask different meanings to “truth.” In most of these respects, social research has little in common with science, and much in common with other forms of imaginative literature. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Yet social “scientists” have consistently sought to identify themselves, and in more than name, with physicists, chemists, biologists, and others who inquire into the lawful regularities of the natural World. Why students of the human condition should do this is not hard to explain. The great success of modern times—indeed, perhaps the only successes—have come in medicine, pharmacology, biochemistry, astrophysics, and all the feats of mechanical, biological, and electronic engineering made possible by the consistent application of the aims, assumptions, and procedures of natural science. These successes have attached to the name of science an awesome measure of authority, and to those who claim the title “scientist” a similar measure of respect and prestige. Beyond that lies the nineteenth-century hope that the assumptions and procedures of natural science might be applied without modification to the social World, to the same end of increased predictability and control, and with the same kind of engineering success. This hope has proved both misguided and illusory. However, the illusion is a powerful one, and, given the psychological, social, and material benefits that attach to the label “scientist,” it is hard to see why social researchers should find it hard to give it up. It is less easy to see why the rest of us have so willingly, even eagerly, cooperated in perpetuating the same illusion. In part, the explanation lies in a profound misunderstanding of the aims of natural and of social Worlds. However, there is more to it than that. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

When the new technologies and techniques and spirit of men like Galileo, Newton, and Bacon laid the foundations of natural science, they also discredited the authority of earlier accounts of the physical World, as found, for example, in the great tale of Genesis. By calling into question the truth of such accounts in one realm, science undermined the whole edifice of belief in sacred stories and ultimately swept away with it the source to which most humans had looked for moral authority. It is not too much to say, I think that the desacralized World has been searching for an alternative source of moral authority ever since. So as far as I know, no responsible natural scientist, either of the Renaissance or of recent times, has claimed that the procedures of natural science or its discoveries can tell us what we ought to do—whether some way of dealing with our fellow humans is good or evil, right or wrong. Indeed, the very principles of natural science, with its requirement of an objective stance toward what is studied, compel the natural scientist to abjure in his or her role as a scientist such as moral judgments or claims. When natural scientists speak out on moral questions, on what is good or evil to do, they speak as the rest of us—as concerned citizens on a threatened planet, as rational women and men, as people of conscience who must struggle no less than you must, or I, to answer for themselves where the ultimate authority for their moral judgments lies. It is the World of desperate listeners, longing for a more powerful moral authority, that begs the natural scientist to say it is the science that speaks, not the woman or man. However, the scientist cannot honor consent. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Looking further at the human environment, we find a lot of cloth and related materials, such as carpeting and shoes. The textile industry was at the cutting edge of the first industrial revolution, and the next industrial revolution will have its effects on textiles. With nanotechnology, even the finest textile fibers could have sensors, computers, and motors in their core at little extra cost. Fabrics could include sensors able to detect light, heat, pressure, moisture, stress and wear, networks of simple computers to integrate this data, and motors and other nanomechanisms to respond to it. Ordinary, everyday things like fabric and padding could be made responsive to a person’s needs—changing shape, color, texture, fit, and so forth—with the weather and a person’s posture or situation. This process could be slow, or it could be fast enough to respond to a gesture. One result would be genuine one-size-fits-all clothing (give or take child sizes), perfectly tailored off the rack, warm in winter, cool and dry in summer; in short, nanotechnology could provide what advertisers have only promised. Even bogus advertising gives a clue to human desires. Throughout history, the human race has pursued the quest for comfortable shoes. With fully adjustable materials, the seemingly impossible goal of having shoes that both look good and feel good should finally be achieved. Shoes could keep your feet dry, and warm except in the Arctic, cool except in the tropics, and as comfortable as they can be with a person stepping on them. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

Cresleigh Homes

Residence 1 at #PlumasRanch Meadows may be a single story, but it’s not small on space! From the lavish outdoor space to the two car garage (plus workshop!), it offers all the room you’ll need to spread out and do your thing. 👌

As the evening temps drop, our firepit becomes the go-to destination for us AND our guests. Enjoy all that #CresleighHomes has to offer both indoors and out!