Although the philosophic experience is understood by the philosophers to be what is uniquely human, the very definition of man, the dignity and charm of philosophy have not always or generally been popularly recognized. This is not the case with the other claimants to the throne, the prophet or the saint, the hero or the statesman, the poet or the artist, whose claims, if not always accepted, are generally recognized to be serious. They were always present, apparently coeval with civil society, whereas philosophers appeared late on the scene and had to make their way. And this has something to do with the problem, but it may be symptom rather than cause. I doubt that the people have much greater access to the typical experiences of prophets, kings, and poets than to those of the philosophers. Great imagination, inspiration, intrepidity in the pursuit of glory are further from the ordinary lives of ordinary men than is the experience of reasoning found in the practical arts in daily use, like farming, building, shoemaking, and which is despised by the higher men. Socrates always has to remind his aristocratic interlocutors of these crafts and uses them as models of the knowledge aristocrats lack. However, this may indicate part of the difficulty: the people want something higher, something exalted, to admire. And certainly Socrates’ person, at first sight anyway, does not provide such an object of admiration, as Aristophanes’ comedy makes abundantly clear. Moreover, and more important, the prophets, kings, and poets are clearly benefactors of mankind at large, providing men with salvation, protection, prosperity, myths and entertainment. They are the noble bulwarks of civil society, and men tend to regard as good what does good to them. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Philosophy does no such good. All to the contrary, it is austere and somewhat sad because it takes away many of men’s fondest hopes. It certainly does nothing to console men in their sorrows and their unending vulnerability. Instead it points to their unprotectedness and nature’s indifference to their individual fates. Socrates is old, unattractive, and not well off, of no family, without prestige or power in the city, and babbles about Ether’s taking Zeus’s place. The kings praised by poetry and illustrated in sculpture are ambiguous. On the one had they seem to exist for their own sake, beauty in which we do not participate and to which we look up. on the other hand, they are in our service—ruling us, curing us, perhaps punishing us, but for our sakes, teaching us, pleasing us. Achilles is perfection, what most men can only dream about being, and is therefore their superior and properly their master. However, he is also their warrior protector, who in order to save Greece overcomes the fear of death that other men cannot overcome. All the heroes are in the business of taking care of and flattering men, the demos, receiving admiration and glory as their pay. In some sense they are fictions of civil society, whose ends they serve. Not that they do not do the deeds for which they are praised, but the goodness of those deeds is measured, alas, by utility, by the greatest good of the greatest number. The statesman possesses virtues that are supposed to be good in themselves; but he is measured by his success in preserving the people. Those virtues are means to the end of preservation, id est, the good life is a good way of life, it cannot, at least in its most authentic expression, be, or serious be understood to be, in the city’s service. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

The theoretical life, therefore, has an almost impossible public relations problem. Socrates hints at this in his Apology when, ridiculously—since he was never angry and since he distinguished himself as a soldier exclusively in retreats—he likens himself to Achilles. The defenselessness of philosophy in the city is what Aristophanes points out and ridicules. He, the poet, has much sympathy with the philosopher’s wisdom but prides himself on not being so foolish. He can take care of himself, win prizes from and be paid by the people. His stance is that of the wise guy in the face of the wise man; he is city smart. He warns the philosophers and proves prophetic in comically portraying the city’s vengeance. The generation of great men who followed Socrates, including Plato, Xenophon and Isocrates, took the warning very much to heart. Philosophy, they recognized, is weak, precisely because it is new, not necessary, not a participant in the city’s power. It is threatened and is a threat to all the beliefs that tie the city together and unite the other high types—priests, poets, and statesmen—against philosophy. So Socrates’ successors gathered all their strength and made a heroic effort to save and protect philosophy. Socrates in Aristophanes’ story minded his own business, was the subject of rumor and ridicule, until a father who was in debt because of his son’s prodigality wanted to free himself of his obligations. Socrates’ atheism was the right prescription for him, insofar as it meant that he need not fear Zeus’s thunderbolt if he broke the law, if he perjured himself. The law is revealed to be merely manmade, and hence there is no witness to his misdeeds if he can escape the attention of other men. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Philosophy liberates this unwise old man. His son, too, is liberated, but with the unexpected consequence that he loses reverence for his father and his mother, who are no longer under divine protection. This the father cannot stand and returns to his belief in the gods, who it turns out protect the family as well as the city. In a rage he burns down Socrates’ school. Aristophanes was prescient. The actual charges against Socrates were corrupting the youth and impiety, with the implication that the latter is the deepest cause of the former. And whatever scholars may say about the injustice of Aristophanes’ or Athens’ charges, the evidence supports those charges. In the Republic, for example, marriages are short-term affairs arranged only for reproduction, the family is dissolved, wise sons rule over and can discipline unwise fathers, and the prohibitions against incest are, to say the least, relaxed. The reverence for antiquity is replaced by reason, and the rule of fathers and the ancestral are disputed. This follows immediately from Socrates’ procedures, and it entered into the bloodstream of the West, one of the innumerable effects of philosophy that, for better or worse, are to be found only there. Angry fathers are one of the constituencies morally hostile to Socrates, who was not trying to achieve this result, or to reform the family. His example and the standards of judgment he invoked simply led to it. Socrates collided not with culture, society or economy but with the law—which means with a political fact. The law is coercive. The human things impinge on the philosophers in the form of political demands. What philosophers need to survive is not anthropology, sociology or economics, but political science. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Thus without any need for sophisticated reasons, political science was the first human science or science of human things that had to be founded, and remained the only one until sometime in the eighteenth century. The stark recognition that he depended on the city, that as he looked up to the Heavens he lost his footings on the ground, compelled the philosopher to pay attention to politics, to develop a philosophic politics, a party, as it were, to go along with the other parties, democratic, oligarchic, aristocratic and monarchic, that are always present. He founded the truth party. Ancient political philosophy was almost entirely in the service of philosophy, of making the World a safer place for philosophy. Moreover, the law against which Socrates collided was the one concerning the gods. In its most interesting expression of the law is the divine law. The city is sacred, it is a theological-political entity. (This is, by the way, why the Theological-Political Treatise is for Spinoza the book about politics.) The problem for the philosophers is primarily religion. The philosophers must come to terms with its authoritative presence in the city. Socrates in the Apology makes some suggestions as to how the philosopher must behave. He must deny that he is an atheist, although he remains ambiguous as to the character of his belief. Any careful reading of the Apology makes clear that Socrates never says he believes in the gods of the city. However, he does try to make himself appear to be a sing sent from the gods, commanded to do what he does by the Delphic god. Nonetheless he is condemned. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

Socrates states his problem succinctly in explaining his way of life to his jurors: “If I tell you that I would be disobeying the god and on that account it is impossible for me to keep quiet, you will not be persuaded by me, taking it that I am ironizing. And if I tell you that it is the greatest good for a human being to have discussions everyday about virtue and the other things you hear me talking about, examining myself and others, and that the unexamined life is not livable for a human being, you will be even less persuaded.” The people recognize Socrates’ irony, his talking down to them, and see how implausible his religious claims are. His irony appears as irony and is therefore not successful. However, the truth, unadorned by the Delphic cover, is incomprehensible, corresponding to no experience his audience has. He would be closer to success in sticking to his first story. One can from this very description analyze the political situation. There are three groups of men: most do not understand him are hostile to him, and vote for his condemnation; a smaller but not inconsiderable group also do not understand Socrates but glimpse something noble in him, are sympathetic to him and vote for his acquittal; finally, a very small group knows what he means when he says the greatest good for a human being is talking about—not practicing—virtue (unless talking about virtue is practicing it). The last group is a politically inconsiderable. Therefore the whole hope for the political salvation of philosophy rests with the friendliness of the second group, good citizens and ordinarily pious, but somehow open. And it was to such men, the gentlemen, that philosophy made its rhetorical appeal for almost two thousand years. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

When they ruled, the climate for philosophy was more or less salubrious. When the people, the demos, ruled, religious fanaticism or vulgar utility made things much less receptive to philosophy. Tyrants might be attracted to philosophers, either out of genuine curiosity or the desire to adorn themselves, but they are the most unreliable of allies. All of this rests on a psychological analysis that was forced on the philosophers, who had previously not paid much attention to men or their souls. They observed that the most powerful passion of most men is fear of death. Very few men are capable of coming to terms with their own extinction. It is not so much stupidity that closes men to philosophy but love of their own, particularly of their own lives, but also love of their own children and their own cities. It is the hardest task of all to face the lack of cosmic support for what we care about. Socrates, therefore, defines the task of philosophy as “learning how to die.” Various kinds of self-forgetting, usually accompanied by illusions and myths, make it possible to live without the intransigent facing of death—in the sense of always thinking about it and what it means for life and the things dear in life—which is characteristic of a serious life. Individuals demand significance for this individual life, which is so subject to accident. Most human beings and all cities require the unscientific mixture of general and particular, necessity and chance, nature and convention. It is just this mixture that the philosophers cannot accept and which he separates into its constituent parts. He applies what he sees in nature to his own life. “As are the generations of leaves, so are the generations of men,”—a somber lesson that is only compensated for by the intense pleasure accompanying insight. Without that pleasure, which so few have, it would be intolerable. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

The philosopher, to the extent that he really only enjoys thinking and loves the truth, cannot be disabused. He cherishes no illusion that can crumble. If he is comic, at least he is absolutely immune to tragedy. Nonphilosophic men love the truth only as long as it does not conflict with what they cherish—self, family, country, fame, love. When it does not conflict, they hate the truth and regard as a monster the man who does not care for these noble things, who proves they are ephemeral and treats them as such. The gods are the guarantors of the unity of nature and convention dear to most men, which philosophy can only dissolve. The enmity between science and mankind at large is, therefore, not an accident. Behind every strategy there is a dream, an image of what should be. A Third Wave strategy for breaking the back of poverty begins with what may, to some, seem like a dream—but could well become a reality, and soon. Indeed, it is the old anti-poverty strategies, not the new one, that are unrealistic. Incremental microchanges at the village level are not enough to bring about the massive progress that is needed. Nor can China or India, or those who follow their course, hope to succeed by turning themselves into megafactories polluting their air, land, and water to degrees never before seen and jam-cramming hundreds of millions more peasants into cities already at the breaking point. We will keep people from fleeing the countryside into urban favelas, villas miserias, shantytowns and squatter villages only when the productivity gap is closed between what brute labor on the soil can accomplish and what advanced technology makes possible today—and will make possible tomorrow. It will also take far greater clarity of purpose. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

The entire public discussion of global poverty is muddied by a failure to decide whether the goal is to minimize absolute poverty—or to close the much-discussed “gap” between rich and poor. Closing the gap can be accomplished by impoverishing the affluent without necessarily raising the living standards of the poor one iota. However, contrast, the individual revolution radically widened the gap—but also reduced poverty. Attempts to move everyone forward equally have repeatedly proved a disaster. The prime goal should be to raise the living conditions above absolute poverty, whether or not the relative gap widens. Only after every baby is fed, after everyone’s drinking water is safe, after average life expectancy in poor countries reaches at least seventy and after basic education targets are met should closing the gap be a priority. What is needed is a strategy aimed at nothing less than the transformation of today’s impoverished rural areas into centers of advanced, highly productive enterprise—regions no longer dependent on the muscle power of emaciated, old-before-their-time parents but on the brainpower of their children. To be realistic, this strategy must look beyond the immediate—at what is emerging, even embryonic. Fortunately, powerful tools now being developed can help us. They begin with the fiercely contested issue of genetically modified food. Where is protein engineering headed? Protein engineering is a powerful tool in synthetic biology that can create proteins with tremendous potential for therapeutic and industrial use. The field has recently taken giant leaps forward from its origins, and some of its pioneers predict that the next five to ten years hold exponentially more promise. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

True protein engineering is building proteins completely from scratch, engineered to do what you want them to do. Like the IBM physicists, protein designers are moved by a vision of molecular engineering. Bill DeGardo predicted, “I think we will be able to make catalysts or enzymelike molecules, possibly ones that catalyze reactions not catalyzed in nature.” Catalysts are molecular machines that speed up chemical reactions: they form a shape for the two reacting molecules to fit into and thereby help the reaction move faster, up to a million reactions per second. New ones, for reactions that now go slowly, will give enormous cost saving to the chemical industry. Denver researchers John Stewart, Karl Hahn, and Wieslaw Klis announced their new enzyme, designed from scratch over a period of two years and built successfully on the first try. It is a catalyst, making some reactions go about 100,00 times faster.  Nobel Prize-wining biochemist Bruce Merrifield believed that “if others can reproduce and expand on this work, it will be one of the most important achievements in biology.” DeGrado also has longer-terms plans for protein design, beyond making new catalysts: “It will allow us to think about designing molecular devices in the next five to ten years. It should be possible ultimately to specify a particular design and build it. Then you will have, say, proteinlike molecules that self-assemble into complex molecular objects, which can serve as machinery. However, there is a limit to how small you can make devices. You will shrink things down so far and then you will not be able to go any further, because you have reached your molecular dimension.” Mark Pearson shows that management at Du Pont also has this vision. Regarding the prospects for nanotechnology and assemblers, he remarked, “You know, it’ll take money and effort and good ideas for sure. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

“But to my way of thinking, there is no absolute fundamental limitation to preclude us from doing this kind of thing.” He did not say his company plans to develop nanotechnology, but such plans are not really necessary. Du Pont is already on the nanotechnology path, for other—shorter-term, commercial—reasons. Like IMB, if they do decide to move quickly, they have the resources and forward-looking people needed to succeed. Scientists have moved beyond predicting the structures of proteins that exist in nature to designing completely new “unnatural” proteins—and then custom-designed proteins for particular purposes. For example, scientists working with virologist Ian Wilson, Ph.D., a professor of structural biology at the Scripps Research Institute, designed a protein that can exploit a vulnerability on the surface of the influenza virus. Using a program called Rosetta, they identified candidate chains of amino acids that might fold in the right way, and tested the top candidates on the real flu virus. The most successful of the new proteins, which they named HB1.6928.2.3, proved 100% protective against death from the flu in a mouse model in a study published in Nature in October 2017. Now, if three different materials are arranged in a grid capable of generating electricity, researchers at Martin Luther University (MLU) Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) have found that the energy generations of ferroelectric crystals in solar cells can be increased by a factor of thousands. To achieve this increase in electrical energy production, the researchers created crystalline layers of barium titanate, strontium titanate, and calcium titanate, which they placed alternatively on top of one another, separating the positive and negative charges in the same photovoltaic device. This arrangement could greatly increase the efficiency of solar panels. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

Who else build molecular objects? Chemists, most of whom do not work on proteins, are the traditional experts in building molecular objects. As a group, they have been building molecules for over a century, with ever-increasing ability and confidence. Their methods are all indirect: they work with billions of atoms at a time—massive parallelism—but without control of the positions of their workpieces. The molecules typically tumble randomly in a liquid or gas, like pieces of a puzzle that may or may not fit together correctly when shaken in a box. Scientist need more control of the accuracy of their designs. One outstanding challenge is developing catalysts for reactions for which there currently are no catalysts. Another critical issue is understanding how these designed proteins interact with biological systems. In the past, a grad student or post-doc would make the mutations in a protein, evaluate the effect, and come up with a hypothesis for how the protein is working. Then they would make more mutations, repeat the process five or ten times, and slowly get something improved. Scientists think they can fully automate the entire process. Once the computational methods the lab has developed to identify key protein design sequences, they are handed over to a liquid-handling robot that mimics the process of a protein engineer in an automated fashion. The robot can be working around the clock, optimizing. They can let this thing go for a week or so and it will have gone through tends of rounds of optimization without any need for input from a human. The goal is to optimize enzymes that can degrade biomass into sugars to in turn be transformed into fuel. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

Scientists can make new fluorescent proteins for probes and diagnostics and more sophisticated medicines that can recognize targets with higher specificity—mimics of naturally occurring hormones that have improved pharmacological properties. Within the next few years, an entirely new class of medicines and materials based on de novo protein designs will exist. Chemists mix molecules on a huge scale (in our simulation view, a test tube holds a churning molecular swarm with the volume of an inland sea), yet they still achieve precise molecular transformation. Given that they work so indirectly, their achievements are astounding. This is, in part, the result of enormous amount of work poured into the field for many decades. Thousands of chemists are working on molecular construction in the United States of America alone; add to that the chemists in Europe, in Japan, and in the rest of the World, and you have a huge community of researchers making great strides. Though it publishes only a one-paragraph summary of each research report, a guide to the chemical literature—Chemical Abstracts—covers several library walls and grows by many feet of shelf space every year. However, a serious objection raised by physicians, and one which has resonated throughout the centuries of technological development in medicine, is that interposing an instrument between patient and doctor would transform the practice of medicine; the traditional methods of questioning the patients, taking their reports seriously, and making careful observations of exterior symptoms would become increasingly irrelevant. Doctors would lose their ability to conduct skillful examinations and rely more on machinery than on their own experiences and insight. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

In his detailed book Medicine and the Reign of Technology, Stanley Joel Reiser compares the effects of the stethoscope to the effects of the printing press on Western culture. The printed book, he argues, “helped to create the detached and objective thinker. Similarly, the stethoscope helped to created the objective physician, who could move away from involvement with the patient’s experience and sensations, to a more detached relation, less with the patient but more with the sounds from within the body. Undistracted by the motives and beliefs of the patient, the auscultator [another term for the stethoscope] could make a diagnosis from sounds that he alone heard emanating from the body organs, sounds that he believed to be objective, bias free representations of the disease process.” The stethoscope could not by itself have made such ideas stick, especially because of the resistance to them even in America, by doctors whose training and relationship to their patients led them to propose mechanical interpositions. However, the ideas were amplified with each new instrument added to the doctor’s arsenal: the ophthalmoscope (in vented by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1850), which allowed doctors to see into the eye; the laryngoscope (designed by Johann Czermark, a Polish professor of physiology, in 1857), which allowed doctors to inspect the larynx and other parts of the throat, as well as the nose; and, of course, the X-ray (developed by Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895), which could penetrate most substances but not bones. “If the hand be held before the fluorescent screen,” Roentgen wrote, “the shadow shows the bone darkly with only faint outlines of surrounding tissues.” Roentgen was able to reproduce this effect on photographic plates and make the first X-ray of a human being, his wife’s hand. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

Three basic television standards are in use in different parts of the World at present: NTSC, PAL, and SECAM, each slightly different but incompatible. Because of this, an American program like Flowers of the Attic usually has to be converted from one system to another before it can be telecast abroad. However, the images produced by all three systems are fuzzy by contrast with what is known as QLED. “Quantum dot display” is a display device that uses quantum dots (QD), semiconductor nanocrystals which can produce pure monochromatic red, green, and blue light. QLED is to today’s home video screens what the compact mp3 is to the scratchy platter played on great, great-grandma’s gramophone. Quantum dot can put pictures on the TV screen that are better than the quality of the best big-screen movies. It can make an image blast off the computer monitor looking as bright and sharp as in person, if not better. QLED TV represents a new generation of consumer electronics, one that will drive technological developments in dozens of areas, from chip to fiber-optic to battery to camera technology. Because QD image quality is so good, it could even make it possible for cinemas all over the World to receive their movies via satellite, rather than on film as at present, which could open an additional immense market for satellite receivers and other equipment. In total, therefore, the decisions to which QLED TV standard(s) to use will shape a World market estimated to be worth nearly a trillion dollars. Japanese engineers have worked on QLED TV for nearly twenty years. Now high definition has burst on the World economic scene. The Japanese and Americans threat to render all European television sets obsolete—and to be the only ones with the power to replace them. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

Economic paranoia is rampant in the United States of America as well as the entire World, people are bogged down in hairsplitting debates, political controversy, and with the health of the planet, its animals and people. However, these could be the result of removing God from his nation. Students no longer pledge allegiance to the flag in class, the ten commandments have been removed from government buildings, saying “God bless you,” to someone is seen by many being as bad as shouting to bad word to them, people no longer stand for the national anthem, and some refuse to play it. Christ said: love thine enemy. Christ’s enemy is Satan, and Satan’s enemy is Christ. Through love enmity is destroyed. Through love Christ and Satan have destroyed their enmity and come together for the End. Christ to judge, Satan to execute Judgement. Consciously or unconsciously, apathetically, half-heartedly, enthusiastically or fanatically, under countless other names by which we know them, and under innumerable disguises and descriptions, men have followed three Great Gods of the Universe ever since the Creation. Each one according to his nature. For the three Gods represent three basic human patterns of reality. Within the framework of each pattern there are countless variations and permutations, widely-varying grades of suppression and intensity. Yet each one represents a fundamental problem, a deep-rooted driving force, a pressure of instincts and desires, terrors, and revulsions. All three of them exist to some extent in every one of us. However, each of us leans more heavily toward one of them, whilst the pressures of the other two provide the presence of conflict and uncertainty. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Only through Christ can we reconcile our differences. The words in the Christian and Mormon Bibles leave the impression that they have welled-up from a deeper source than the intellect. Processian Social Darwinism elicited my sympathy, and their inherent apocalypticism mirrored my own forebodings of the near future. Were they the last National Socialists who would pass through the Flame of the End-Time, as foretold by Savitri Devi in The lightning and the Sun? Could they be the Vanguard of the Second Religiosity of the West as foretold by Oswald Spengler, or were they the Western various of the Thuggee, just one more element in our continuing descent into decadence? Around the time I began to ask these questions, Ed Sanders published The Family. Sanders claimed that The Process were pro-Hitler and Fascist in nature. It was true that they used a variation of the Swastika for their symbol. Their Social Darwinism was not so far afield from Nazi philosophy. They wore black uniforms and groomed themselves as an elite order. And a book they issued, Man’s Greatest Crime, was more hard-hitting and graphic than any anti-vivisectionist literature that I had ever seen. Did not the Nazis, whose Green Party advocate Walther Darre also champion the rights of the animal kingdom and nature? On the other hand, The Process operated a soup kitchen for the homeless and hungry. And they never mentioned politics or economics in any conversations I had with them. A number of members I met among the American recruits were Jewish. Sanders’ accusations and my own speculations raced across my mind, but I could never see any concrete evidence to confirm anything one way or the other. During meditations, we used the same chants Manson used to program others with subliminal messages. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

We were asked to close our eyes and meditate on something like Peace or Love or Fulfillment or whatever. After the meditation came to a close, we played for another hour and a half in the coffee house. Father Barnabas had a good voice for ballad and his folk-style guitar playing was reminiscent of Ian Anderson. One song in particular was quite beautiful in its lyrics and melody. It was about the God Lucifer. Father Matthew and I asked Father Barnabas to show us the chords to the song and give us the lyrics, and to the request his face contorted in anger and said “No!” We were taken aback by his anger, and never again had any personal contact with him. Much like the American Indians, Americans are now being slaughtered and driven off their lands, and many feel they are being forced to assimilate to an alternative lifestyle they do not agree with. Speaking in cultural terms, it is death either way. The only way members of the press could possibly care enough about American people is to have an anthropologist tell rambling stories about the impact on immigration, taxes, and globalization on the American people. Our culture, one that has been functioning well for two thousand years, could be destroy in one generation, in our lifetime, depending on who is in that White House in 2024. It is not only a physical assault, but a technological assault through most of the TV new media. Is it possible to adopt the hard-edged, fact-fascinating, aggressive, gross form in order to preserve a way of thinking that is totally American and completely alien to this new model being drive by California, New York, and the White House? They are totally ignoring people and their struggles and 161,548 people are homeless in California; and that 552,830 Americans are homeless (probably more like 4 million in California alone and 20 million natiin wide) and we do not have the resources to help them, but we can leave our borders open and send at least $52 billion a year to other countries. It takes 1.63 million Americans, who earn the national average salary of $32,000 anually to donate their full pay checks to the government, to generate $52 billion a year. To put that in perfect the top 1 percent pays $612 billion in taxes and the other 90 percent pays $461 billion in taxes. So a substantial amount of your money is being given away. Americans despertaly need that money for housing food and education. They once worked and paid taxes, now other nations are getting rich off of their labor, while the government refuses to help its own people. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

The struggle of the American people today is as much a consciousness struggle as it is a civil rights battle. To the extent that it is framed exclusively as a civil rights issue, the Americans lose, at least in cultural terms. Individual Americans may win a job, or a right, or, if they are ever acknowledged, a small payment for an injustice, but their children and Americans of the future will not be Americans anymore; they will have been moved out nationwide artificially. Since television itself is an outgrowth of an issues argued within it would be predetermined. However, imagine for a moment that television did not exist. Let us say that only print media existed. It so happens that print media, while not perfect, can convey a lot more about American ways of mind than electronic media can because print can express much greater depth, complexity, change of mood, subtlety, detail and so on. Books, especially, can be written in much slower rhythms, encouraging a perception that builds, stage by stage, over the length of a long reading process that make take many hours, or days. Of course, publishers, these days, also riding the rapids of modern life and responsive to commodity-mind, discourage books that move at deliberate speed, preferring those that are punchy, fast-reading, highlighted, riding the tops of waves, like television sitcoms, or advertising. Yet many books do exist that are solely devoted to states of feeling or expression of intuition, or that deal in the realm of subjective reaction. There are books which are exclusively Americana. And so such works as American Pride: Poems Honoring America and Her Patriots by David Bancroft, American Pride by Diana Rosen, and American Titans by Michael Gray, are able to convey more on an imagery level, a sensory level, and an evocational level than all the TV specials combined. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

This is not to say that these books are sufficient. Only direct experience is. However, if the battle were fought in books, Americans might win. If print were the only media in the World, the natural advantage of today’s dominant forms—corporate, military, technological, scientific—over concrete ways of thinking would be vastly diminished. In a wider information field, the American mind would have greater validity. So people who are interested in celebrating and saving American cultures, like people interested in the arts or ecology or nay nonhierarchical political forms, might be well advised to cease all efforts to transmit these intentions through television and devote greater effort to undermining television itself and accelerating the struggle within other information fields. “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he had committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed,” reports James 5.14-16. A protestant minister told me that one day one of the members of his church who was ill had asked if he lay hands on him and pray for him. The elders however, in every cause refused to do as the man asked. None of them had ever done such a thing before and all thought themselves incapable of doing it. The whole idea was complete alien to them. Why is this? Why is Christendom so ignorant of what the Bible says about the laying on the hands and prayer for the sick? Why do Christians often lack the courage to put into practice the various passages that refer to healing? Why is it left to the sects and the cults to monopolize these Scriptures? Are these promises only meant for the extremist groups? #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Is this a sign of the Church’s poverty that it no longer lives in the light of the promises of the Bible? These are questions which are relevant today. Let us then consider this problem in the light of the passage we have already quoted from the letter of James, and similar passages. It was custom in Jewish communities for the sick to call for the elders to visit them and to pray for them. The early Christians continued this practice although their view of sickness changed somewhat, for they no longer always considered it to be a punishment inflicted on the person by God for some particular sin in his life. The practice of anointing a person with oil was associated in the Old Testament with the choosing of a king and the sanctifying of a priest. It was also a sign of festive joy as we see it expressed. In Psalm 23, “Thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows.” Oil was considered to be one of the best medicines in existence. This suggests that in spite of the prayers of the elders, medicine itself was not rejected but actually used to combat the disease. It is evident from the Scriptures that oil had both a liturgical and a medicinal use. “Thus we may see that the Lord is merciful unto all who will, in the sincerity of their hearts, call upon His holy name. Yea, thus we see that the gate of Heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall divine asunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepare to engulf the wicked—and land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of Heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to do not more out,” reports Helaman 3.27-30. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD

Lincoln, CA | from the high $600s

Now Selling!

Cresleigh Havenwood features four distinct floor plans ranging from 2,293 – 3,377 square feet and offering up to five bedrooms. 

Each plan has been thoughtfully designed and includes great features such as single story homes, guest suites, optional offices, garage workshops, and more!

Get the most out of your new home with Cresleigh’s All Ready smart home featuring all the connectivity needed to keep your house running. Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes with owned solar included! 

Located off of Virginiatown Road and McCourtney Road, residents of the 83 homesites of Cresleigh Havenwood will benefit from a brand new neighborhood in the prestigious City of Lincoln, California. 

Palo Verde Park, is  just down the street and there’s plenty of recreation to take part in all around town. 

Cresleigh Homes offers versatile flex space, an inviting great room and an open dining room that flows into kitchen with a center island and walk-in pantry. Some homes come with a Butler’s Pantry. https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/

Whether we’ve been away for business or recreation, it’s hard to beat that feeling of getting back to our own Cresleigh Home.

#CresleighHomes

#CresleighHavenwood

This, indeed, is true not merely for China and India but for Asia in general and the rest of the World. It is a reality grasped by a remarkable generation of Asian leaders long before their counterparts elsewhere. Lee Kwan Yew, the founder of independent Singapore, propelled a once sleepy colonial port into a World leader in high technology and services. In 2002 it became Asia’s top investor in biotech. Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s controversial former prime minister, set high-tech goals for Malaysia 2020 and attracted investment from Microsoft, Intel, Japan’s NTT, British Telecom and others. When Malaysia gained independence in 1957, its key exports were rubber and tin. Today it is a leading exporter of semicondctors and electrical goods. President Kim Dae-jung in South Korea, who served on the National Committee on Science and Technology before his election, approved $1.1 billion in funds for nanotechnology research. Once in the Blue House, he campaigned successfully to make his country a World leader in the application of I.T. and broadband communications—which it is today. Our talks with these and other Asian leaders make it clear that for them low-wage manufacturing jobs—and even routine call-center jobs like those outsourced to India—are just baby steps toward something far more dramatic: The leap to an advanced knowledge-based economy and society. As we scan the rest of the World, we can only ask, Where are the Lee Kwan Yews of Kin Dae-jungs of Latin America or Africa? In the Arabian World, hopefully, we see the first glimmerings of awakening in some of the Gulf States and in Jordan under young, computer-literate King Abdullah. What is it that has kept these various regions so mired in poverty? The hangover of colonialism? Religion? Culture? Corruption? Climate? Unstable politics? #RandolphHarris 1 of 15

 Is it politics that is keeping these various regions in poverty? Or could it be tribalism? Or combinations of these? Why do these regions lag so far behind the United States of America, Europe and fast-rising Asia? The answer differs by time and place. However, one thing is clear: It is in Asia—in rural China and rural India—that the true core of World poverty is found, and it is in these regions that the knowledge-based wealthy system can have its greatest success. It would be naïve to assume that India or China can wipe out poverty with technology alone. No country can. We have repeated throughout that the wealth revolution involves more than computers and hardware—more, in fact, than economics. It is clearly a social, institutional, educational, cultural and political revolution as well. However, it is also true that no country can eradicate its age-old rural poverty without drastically increasing agricultural productivity, and that cannot be done on a wide scale just by building better hoes and plows. Nor can it be accomplished by eliminating the agricultural subsidies paid by Europe and the United States of America to their minute handful of farmers. The effects of these subsidies are far more complex than their opponents suggest. A controversial case can even be made that, while they severely hurt subsistence peasants, they can indirectly spur industrial development. However, there is no doubt about the immediate short-term devastation they create in many less affluent countries. Yes, European and American subsidies—mainly payoffs to favored political constituencies—should be slashed. However, no one should imagine that even their total and immediate elimination would actually solve the problem of rural poverty. #RandolphHarris 2 of 15

Yes, the rich World, if only for moral reasons, should drastically increase funds for humanitarian aid and disaster relief. However, feeing people during an emergency or digging out corpses and helping re-house displaced victims after an Earthquake or tsunami will not, in themselves, transform the economics of World. Also, people forget that the millions and billions of taxpayer dollars sent over seas every year is funded from American’s working. It is not really the governments money. Hard working Americans are actually paying for that. As a result, especially when America is in crises, it is leading to bankruptcy, people going hungry, not be able to pay their bills and it leaves America crumbling while the rest of the World seems to thrive. Yes, hunger must be addressed. Immediate, emergency aid must be provided for the World’s hungriest people. Among the benefits, it will save the brains of children from the effects of malnutrition—brains needed in a future in which knowledge assumes increasing importance. However, hit-and-run food supplies for the worst-off will not break the back of global poverty. The same goes for viruses and other country-ravaging diseases that are killing millions each year around the World. No one can be anything but horrified and heartsick at the immense human tragedy they represent. We must save every life we can. Yet stopping the spread of these viruses and diseases without making other fundamental changes will not break the cycle of rural destitution. Economic advance, as everyone by now should know, demands saving women from degradation and inequality. It demands that we reduce, if not wipe out, corruption—and that we do the best we can, for now, with what passes for education. #RandolphHarris 3 of 15

However, all of these measures, even all of them together, will not ultimately liberate the billions of rural poor whose lives are severely limited by the Earth’s stingy response to their ending, bitterly hard, sweaty labor. For that stingy response is the core reason for core poverty. Subsistence-level poverty cannot be conquered unless peasants agriculture is replaced by more productive activities. Any other plan is illusory. There is an upper limit, even under the best of circumstances, to how much First Wave peasants can make the Earth produce with the tools they now use. There are limits, as well, to how much Second Wave mechanized agribusiness can produce without severely damaging the environment. (Once the cost of rehabilitation is included, the productivity is less than it seems.) For all practical purposes, however, there are no limits to what Third Wave knowledge-based agriculture can produce. And that is why we are the edge of the biggest change in rural life since our ancestors first began to till the soil. Umbrellas and automobiles are different. Not just because of size, function, and cost. However, for a reason we seldom stop to consider. A person can use an umbrella without buying another product. An automobile, by contrast, is useless without fuel, oil, repair services, spare parts, not to mention streets and roads. The humble umbrella, therefore, is a rugged individual, so to speak, delivering value to its user irrespective of any other products that work only when combined with others.  If someone somewhere were not transmitting images to it, the television set would stare blankly into the living room. Even the lowly closet hanger presupposes a rack or bar to hang it on. Each of these is part of a product system. #RandolphHarris 4 of 15

It is precisely their systemic nature that is their main source of economic value. And just as “team players” must play by certain agreed-on rules, systemic products need standards to work. If all the wall sockets have only two slots, a three-pronged electrical plug does not help much. This distinction between stand-aloe and systemic products throws revealing light on an issue that is widening today’s information war all around the World. The French call it la guerre des norms—“the war over standards.” Battles over standards are raging in industries as diverse as medical technology, industrial pressure vessels, and camera. Some of the most explosive—and public—disputes are directly related to the ways in which data, information, knowledge, images, and entertainment are created and distributed. In essence a global battle over dollars and political power, its outcome will reach into millions of homes. It will radically shift power among the industrial giants of the World: companies like IMB, AT&T, Sony, and Siemens. And it will affect national economies. Nowhere is this battle more public than in the three-way fight to determine what kind of television the World will watch in the decades to come. What we do know is that television has a goal. The goal is often to immerse us, the viewers, in an experience, to convey the beauty and mystery of the subject’s art and its organic, naturalistic meaning, even if it is a fictional television show. However, on television, cut at an average of ten technical events per minute, the ceremonials are practically impossible to follow. They are as fuzzy as the natural surroundings from which they have emerged. We get no sense of the dance or rhythm of life. It passes in and out of the frame of the camera. We see only this piece of it or that one. The fine details of the costumes blur like the tiny seeds of the flower. We cannot smell the foods they are eating, nor participate in the conversations they are having. We cannot feel the coldness of the air.  #RandolphHarris 5 of 15

Our exposure comes in ten-second pieces, at most. Whatever understanding we develop comes from Luke Fetherston’s words, which describe what we cannot actually see or intuit. The information is virtually total. Aura is utterly destroyed. Time is fractured. The sensory information is lost. The context is deleted. The gestalt of intuition experience is cracked. The details are gone. The mood is impossible to convey. The Process is invisible, as is the source. No magic. Not enough is conveyed to develop any feeling od caring about what might happen to these people because the heart of their belief remains invisible, despite the attempt to convey it to me. This is not say I do not care what happens. However, I cared before I saw these scenes. If these scenes had been my total exposure to these cultures, they would only have confirmed the uselessness of trying to sustain cultures that obviously do not fit the World today. Okay. We get it. Conflict. Rules. Arguments. Laws. Right and wrong. Rip-off. Rights. Entrenched interest. Brutality. Lack of due process. Oppressors. Oppressed. Heroes. Downtrodden. It all comes flooding through. Now we start to care, now we get drawn in. What want to know will Joel ever recover? We see why Mr. Foxworth is so stern. We see why Mrs. Foxworth is trapped in a cage. Here in America, if corporations fail to provide what “we want,” then they die. We can tour a graveyard of headstones, carved with the names of the corporations that had not kept up with Americans’ changing needs. This was proof that we the people control the corporations, not vice versa. Corporate manipulation was a fiction. Planners say it would be nice if we all lived in apartments, but most people prefer to live in their own single-family houses. And American business, sparked by the profit motive, is providing them. The same with mass transit. People prefer their own cars, manufactured by big business, providing what people want. #RandolphHarris 6 of 15

Naturally, television has been used more successfully for the latter cultural forms than the former. Also naturally, the American population develops more of a feeling for products and a life-style suitable to business than it does for a sensitive, subtle and beautiful way of mind that theoretically offers an alternative. The more people sit inside their television experience, the more fixed they become in the hard-edged reality that the medium can convey. If science is just for curiosity’s sake, which is what theoretical men believe, it is nonsense, and immoral nonsense, from the viewpoint of practical men. The World loses it proportions. Only Swift has rivalled Aristophanes in picturing the comedy of science. His description of a woman’s breast seen through a microscope shows what science means, not in order to denigrate science but to make clear the harsh disproportion between the World most men cling to and the one inhibited by theoretical men. What Aristophanes satirizes is the exterior of science, how the scientist appears to the nonscientist. He can only hint at the dignity of what the scientist does. His Socrates is not individualized; he is not the Socrates we know. He is a member of the species philosopher, student of nature, particularly of astronomy. The first known member of this species was Thales. He was the first man to have seen the cause of, and to predict, an eclipse of the sun. This means he figure out that the Heavens move in regular ways that accord with mathematical reasoning. He was able to reason from visible effects to invisible causes and speculate about the intelligible order of nature as a whole. He at that moment became aware that his mind was in accord with the principles of nature, that he was the microcosm. #RandolphHarris 7 of 15

This moment contains many elements: satisfaction at having solved a problem; pleasure in using his faculties; fulness of pride, more complete than that of any conqueror, for he surveys and possesses all; certitude drawn from within himself, requiring no authorities; self-sufficiency, not depending, for the fulfillment of what is highest in himself, on other men or opinions or on accidents such as birth or election to power, on anything that can be taken from him; a happiness that has no admixture of illusion or hope but is full of actuality. However, perhaps most important for Thales was seeing that the poetic or mythical accounts of eclipses are false. They are not, as men believed prior to the advent of science, a sign from the gods. Eclipses are beyond the power of the gods. They belong to nature. One need not fear the gods. The theoretical experience is one of liberation, not only negatively—freeing the think from fear of the gods. They belong to nature. One need not fear the gods. The theoretical experience is one of liberation, not only negatively-freeing the thinker from fear of the gods—but also positively, simultaneously a discovery of the best way of life. Maimonides describes the experience of the philosophic use of reason as follow: “This then will be a key permitting one to enter places the gates to which were locked. And when these gates are opened and these places are entered into, the soul will find rest therein, the eyes will be delighted, and the bodies will be eased of their toil and of their labor.” What had previously been checked in man’s soul comes into full play. Freedom from the myths and their insistence that piety is best permits man to see that knowing is best, the end for which everything else is done, the only end that without self-contradiction can be said to be final. The important theoretical experience leads necessarily toward the first principles of all things and includes an awareness of the good. #RandolphHarris 8 of 15

Man as man, regardless of nation, birth, or wealth, is capable of this experience. And it is the only thing men surely have spiritually in common: the demonstrations of science come from within man, and they are the same for all men. When I think the Pythagorean theorem, I know that what is in me at that moment is precisely the same as what is within anyone else who is thinking that theorem. Every other supposedly common experience is at best ambiguous. Some of this experience still remains within the contemporary natural science, and it has a fugitive existence within the humanities. The unity of it all is hardly anywhere to be found or appreciated because philosophy hardly exists today. However, it was always understood by philosophers, because they share the experience and are able to recognize it in others. This sense of community is more important for them than any disagreements about the final things. Philosophy is not a doctrine but a way of life, so the philosophers, for all the differences in their teachings, have more in common with one another than with anyone else, even their own followers. Plato saw this in Parmenides, Aristotle in Plato, Bacon in Aristotle, Descartes in Bacon, Locke in Descartes and Newton, and so on. The tiny band of men who participate fully in this way of life are the soul of the university. This is true in historical fact as well as in principle. Universities came to be where men were inspired by the philosophers’ teachings and examples. Philosophy and its demonstration of the rational contemplative life, made possible and, more or less consciously, animated scholarship and the individual sciences. When those examples lost their vitality or were overwhelmed by men who had no experience of the, the universities decay or were destroyed. This, strictly, is barbarism and darkness. I do not mean that philosophers were ordinarily present in universities any more than prophets or saints are ordinarily present in houses of worship. #RandolphHarris 9 of 15

However, if the faith disappears, if the experiences reported by the prophets and saints become unbelievable or matters of indifference, the temple is no longer a temple, no matter how much activity of various kinds goes on in it. It gradually withers and at best remains a monument, the inner life of which is alien to the tourists who pass idly through it. Although the comparison is not entirely appropriate, the university is also informed by the spirit, which very few men can fully share, of men who are absent, but it must preserve respect for them. It can admit almost anyone, but only if one looks up to and can have an inkling of the dignity of what is going on in it. It is itself always in danger of losing contact with its animating principle, of representing something it no longer possesses. Although it may seem wildly implausible that this group of rare individuals should be the center of what really counts for the university, this was recognized in the universities until only yesterday. It was, for example, well known in the nineteenth-century. German university, which was the last great model for the American university. However bad universities, and perhaps the greatest abhorred them. One cannot imagine Socrates as a professor, for reasons that are worthy of our attention. However, Socrates is of the essence of the university. It exists to preserve and further what he represents. In effect, it hardly does so anymore. However, more important is the fact that as a result of Enlightenment, philosophers and philosophy came to inhabit the universities exclusively, abandoning their old habits and haunts. There they have become vulnerable in new ways and thus risk extinction. The classical philosophers would not, for very good reasons, have taken this risk. Understanding these reasons is invaluable for our peculiar predicament. #RandolphHarris 10 of 15

As our interventions have become more searching, they have also become more costly and more hazardous. Thus, today it is not unusual to find a fragile elder who walked into the hospital, [and became] slightly confused, dehydrated, and somewhat the worse for wear on the third hospital day because his first 48 hours in the hospital were spent undergoing a staggering series of exhausting diagnostic studies in various laboratories or in the radiology suite. None of this is surprising to anyone familiar with American medicine, which is notorious for its character “aggressiveness.” The question is, why? There are three interrelated reasons, all relevant to the imposition of machinery. The first has to do with the American character, which is so congenial to the sovereignty of technology. The once seemingly limitless lands gave rise to a spirit that anything was possible if only the natural environment could be conquered. Disease could also be conquered, but only aggressively ferreting it our diagnostically and just as aggressively treating it, preferably by taking something out rather than adding something to increase resistance. How could a people which has a revolution once in four years, which has contrived the Bowie Knife and the revolver which insists in sending out yachts and horses and body to outsail outrun, outfight and checkmate all the rest of creation; how could such a people be content with any but “heroic” practice? What wonder that the stars and stipes wave over doses of ninety grams of sulphate of quinine and that American eagle screams with delight to see three drachms [180 grains] of calomel given at the single mouthful? Medicine may have been hindered by doctors placing undue reliance upon the powers of nature in curing disease. Some specifically blame Hippocrates and his tradition for this lapse. #RandolphHarris 11 of 15

Dr. Benjamin Rush, for example, had considerable success in curing patients of yellow fever by prescribing large quantities of mercury and performing purges and bloodletting. (His success was probably due to the fact that patients either had mild cases of yellow fever or did not have it at all.) In any event, Rush was particularly enthusiastic about bleeding patients, perhaps because he believed that the body contained about twenty-five pints of blood, which is more than twice the average actual amount. He advised other doctors to continue bleeding a patient until four-fifths of the body’s blood was removed. Although Rush was not in attendance during George Washington’s final days, Washington was bled seven times on the night he died, which, no doubt, had something to do with why he died. All of this occurred, mind you, 153 years after Harvey discovered that blood circulates throughout the body. Putting side the question of the available medical knowledge of the day, Rush was a powerful advocate of action—indeed, gave additional evidence of his aggressive nature by being one of the singers of the Declaration of Independence. He persuaded both doctors and patients tht American diseases were tougher than European diseases and required tougher treatment. “Desperate diseases require desperate remedies” was a phrase repeated many times in American medical journals in the nineteenth century. The Americans, who considered European methods to be mild and passive—one might even say effeminate—met the challenge by eagerly succumbing to the influence of Rush: they accepted the imperatives to intervene, to mistrust nature, to use the most aggressive therapies available. The idea was to conquer both a continent and the diseases its weather and poisonous flora and fauna inflicted. #RandolphHarris 12 of 15

So, from the outset, American medicine was attracted to new technologies. Far from being “neutral,” technology was to be the weapon with which disease and illness would be vanquished. The weapons were not long in coming. The most significant of the early medical technologies was the stethoscope, invented (one might almost say discovered) by the French physician Rene-Theophile-Hyacinthe Laennec in 1816. The circumstances surround the invention are worth mentioning. Working at the Necker Hospital in Paris, Laennec was examining a young woman with a puzzling heart disorder. He tried to use percussion and palpation (pressing the hand upon the body in hope of detecting internal abnormalities), but the patient’s obesity made this ineffective. He next considered auscultation (placing his ear on the patient’s chest to hear the heart beat), but the patient’s youth and gender discouraged him. Laennec then remembered that sound traveling through solid bodies is amplified. He rolled some sheets of paper into a cylinder, placed one end on the patient’s chest and the other to his ear. Voila! The sounds he heard were clear and distinct. “From this moment,” he later wrote, “I imagined that the circumstance might furnish means for enabling us to ascertain the character, not only of the action of the heart, but of every species of sound produced by the motion of all the thoracic viscera.” Laennec worked to improve the instrument, eventually using a rounded piece of wood, and called it a “stethoscope,” from the Greek word for “chest” and “I view.” For all its simplicity, Laennec’s invention proved extraordinarily useful, particularly in the accuracy with which it helped to diagnose lung diseases like tuberculosis. Chest diseases of many kinds were no longer concealed: the physician with a stethoscope could, as it were, conduct an autopsy on the patient while the patient was still alive. #RandolphHarris 13 of 15

However, it should not be supposed that all doctors or patients were enthusiastic about the instrument. Patients were often frightened at the sight of a stethoscope, assuming that its presence implied imminent surgery, since, at the time, only surgeons used instruments, not physicians. Doctors had several objections, ranging from the trivial to the significant. Among the trivial was the inconvenience of carrying the stethoscope, a problem some doctors solved by carrying it, crosswise, inside their top hats. This was not without its occasional embarrassment—an Edinburgh medical student was accused of possessing a dangerous weapon when his stethoscope fell out of his hate during a snowball fight. A somewhat less trivial objection raised by doctors was that if they used an instrument they would be mistaken for surgeons, who were then considered mere craftsmen. The distinction between physicians and surgeons was unmistakable then, and entirely favorable to physicians, whose intellect, knowledge, and insight were profoundly admired. It is perhaps to be expected that Oliver Wendell Holmes, professors of anatomy at Harvard and always a skeptic about aggressiveness in medicine, raised objections about the overzealous use of the stethoscope; he did so, in characteristic fashion, by writing a comic ballad, “The Stethoscope Song,” in which a physician makes several false diagnoses because insects have nested in his stethoscope. Now, changing directions a bit. Is there anything special about proteins? The main advantage of proteins that they are familiar: a lot is known about them, and may tools exist for working with them. Yet proteins have disadvantages as well. Just because this design work is starting with proteins—soft, squishy molecules that are only marginally suitable for nanotechnology—does not mean it will stay within those limits. #RandolphHarris 14 of 15

DeGrado points out, “The fundamental goal of our work in de novo design is to be able to take the next step and get entirely away from protein systems.” An early example is the work of Wallace Carothers of Du Pont, who used a de novo approach to studying the nature of proteins: Rather than trying to cut up proteins, he tried to build up things starting with amino acids and other similar monomers. In 1935, he succeeded in making nylon. DeGardo explains; “There is a deep philosophical belief at Du Pont in the ability of people to make molecules de novo that will do useful things. And there is a fair degree of commitment from the management that following that path will lead to products: not directly, and not always predictably, but they know that they need to support the basic science. I think ultimately we have a better chance at doing some really exciting things by de novo design, because our repertory should be much greater than that of nature. Think about the ability to fly: One could breed better carrier pigeons or one could design airplanes.” The biology community, however, leans more toward ornithology than toward aerospace engineering. DeGardo’s experience is that “a lot of biologists feel that is you are not working with the real thing [natural proteins], you are not studying biology, so they do not totally accept what we are doing. On the other hand, they recognize it as good chemistry.” “Wo be unto them that shall perver the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear,” report Moroni 8.16. #RandolphHarris 15 of 15

Cresleigh Homes

“I love to sit in a chair and look out the window and do nothing” – Ingrid Bergman

When you’re enjoying a home like ours at #PlumasRanch (Residence 2, specifically), it’s easy to just chill all afternoon! 😀

This smartly designed home offers a generous an ideal layout with 2,372 square feet, an open great room, dining room and kitchen, two bedrooms with a shared bath, and a separate owner’s suite with private bath and walk-in closet.

And our homes come with an All Ready Connected system, so it’s easy to set up our included Google Home Hub, sit back, and relax! https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/residence-2/

Home interperts Heaven. A Cresleigh Home is Heaven for those of us on Earth.

#CresleighMeadows
#CresleighHomes

Although universities go back very far, the university as we know it, in its content and its aim, is the product of the Enlightenment.  To enlighten is to bring light where there had previously been darkness, to replace opinion, id est, superstition, by scientific knowledge of nature, beginning from the phenomena available to all men and ending in rational demonstration possible for all men. All things must be investigated and understood by reason, id est, science or philosophy (the distinction between the two is of recent origin, coming to currency only in the nineteenth century). Knowledge of the nature of all things is Enlightenment’s goal. The past was characterized not by ignorance but by false opinions. Men always had opinion about everything, but those opinions were without ground and indemonstrable. Yet they governed the nations of men and were authoritative. Thus the problem of Enlightenment is not merely discover of the truth but the conflict between the truth and the beliefs of men, which are incorporated into the law. Enlightenment begins from the tension between what men are compelled to believe by city and religion, on the one hand, and the quest for scientific truth on the other. To think and speak doubts about, let alone to propose substitutes for, the fundamental opinions was forbidden by every regime previously known to man. Doing so was thought to be, and in fact was, disloyal and impious. Of course, the men of the Enlightenment were not the first to recognize this tension. It has existed and been known to exist since science emerged in Greece sometime between the eighth and sixth centuries B.C. Enlightenment thinkers were aware that there had been surpassingly great philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers and political scientists from that time on, who had suffered persecution and been compelled to live on the fringes of society. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

The learned society and the university, the publicly respected and supported communities of scientists—setting their own rules, pursuing knowledge according to the inner dictates of science, as opposed to civil or ecclesiastical authority, communicating freely among themselves—are the visible signs of that innovation. The earlier thinkers accepted the tension and lived accordingly. Their knowledge was essentially for themselves, and they had a private life very different from their public life. They were themselves concerned with getting from the darkness to the light. Enlightenment was a daring attempt to shine that light on all men, partly for the sake of the progress of science. The success of this attempt depended on scientists’ freedom to associate with and speak to one another. And only if the rulers believed that the scientists were not a threat to them, could freedom be won. Enlightenment was not only, or perhaps not even primarily, a scientific project but a political one. It began from the premise that the rulers could be educated, a premise not held by the Enlightenment’s ancient brethren. This project was a conspiracy, as d’Alembert said in the Preliminary Discourse of l’Encyclopedie, the premier document of the Enlightenment. It has to be, for, in order to have rulers who are reasonable, many of the old rulers had to be replaced, in particular all those whose authority rested upon revelation. The priests were the enemies, for they rejected the claim of reason and based politics and morals on sacred text and ecclesiastical authorities. The philosophers appeared to deny the very existence of God, or at least of the Christian God. The old order was founded on Christianity, and free use of reason simply could not be permitted within it, since reason accepts no authority above itself and is necessarily subversive. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

There was a public struggle for the right to rule; for, in spite of the modest demeanor of the philosophers, they at the very least require rulers who are favorable to them, who have chosen reason. The right to freedom of thought is a political right, and for it to exist, there must be a political order that accepts that right. In other words, an argument had to be made that the free pursuit of science is good for society, in order to persuade the most powerful element of society and thus guarantee the protection of that pursuit. In a simple formula, it had to be shown that the progress of knowledge was parallel to political progress. This is by no means a self-evident proposition, as anyone who has read Rousseau’s Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, a powerful attack on it, knows. However, it is the leading principle of Enlightenment and the ultimate ground of the prejudice that most people have in favor of freedom of thought and inquiry. I say prejudice because the reasons have almost been forgotten, and other kinds of thought hostile to freedom of thought are current. The old order offered roots and salvation, and the very latest thought is marked by nostalgia for that old order. The Enlightenment thinkers proposed a political science that could be used by founders, such as in America, in establishing principles and arrangements for a sounder and more efficient politics, and a natural science that could master nature in order to satisfy men’s needs. These promises are what make reason not only acceptable within civil society but even central to it. A society based on reason needs those who reason best. The scientists were to be the most respected of men, taking the place of kinds and prelates, because they are the evident sources of the good think for life, liberty and the pursuit of property. It was not precisely replacing one faith by another, because the new science, if it cannot be practiced by just anyone, can be understood by anyone, if one is trained in its method, and knowledge of the rights and duties of man requires the use of his reason. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

The Enlightenment was a daring enterprise. Its goal was to reconstitute political and intellectual life totally under the supervision of philosophy and science. No conqueror, prophet or founder ever had a broader vision, and none had more stunning success. There is practically no contemporary regime that is not somehow a result of Enlightenment, and the best of the modern regimes—liberal democracy—is entirely its product. And throughout the World all men and all regimes are dependent on and recognize the science popularized by the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment inexorably defeated all opponents it targeted at the outset, particularly the priests and all that depends on them, by a long process of education that taught men, as Machiavelli put it, about “the things of this World.” One need only read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Book V, on education, to see how the reform of universities, particularly the overcoming of the theological influence, was essential to the emergence of modern political economy and the regime founded on it. Thus the academics and universities are the core of liberal democracy, its foundation, the repository of its animating principles and the continuing source of the knowledge and education keeping the machinery of the regime in motion. The regime of equality and liberty, of the rights of man, is the regimes of reason. The free university exists only in liberal democracy, and liberal democracies exist only where there are free universities. Marxists are right to say that the “bourgeois university” is essentially related to “bourgeois society,” but not in the sense they intend. The university does not defend that society because the university merely reflects its interests, but because the balance of forces within this kind of society is such as most to need, respect and, hence, protect, freedom of thought. Earlier associations of thinkers were under theological-political supervision by unquestioned right. Fascism rejected reason and controlled the universities. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

When Hitler came to power, Karl Schmitt said, “Today Hegel died in Germany.” Hegel was arguably the greatest university man there ever was. And communism asserts that the people, under the guise of the vanguard party, has become rational, so that the university no longer needs a special statue—id est, it can be controlled by the Party. Only in liberal democracy is the primacy of reason accepted, even though its citizenry is not understood to be simply and always reasonable. It assures a special status for the university, an exemption from the ordinary moral and political limitations on what can be thought and said in a civil society. The university is not the beneficiary of the freedom of thought accorded to all the members of society. All to the contrary, in the original project of modern society, the general freedom of thought was believed to be desirable in order to support the kind of thought was believed to be desirable in order to support the kind of thought proper to philosophers and scientists, which alone strictly deserves the name of “thought.” At the outset the primary freedom was freedom of thought, both because reason is the highest faculty and because it is most necessary to the god society. If there was to be a new kind of society, a new dispensation for mankind, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Locke and Newton had to be free to think and propagate what they learned. They very special status of what came to be called academic freedom has gradually been eroded, and there hardly remains an awareness of what it means. There is barely a difference recognized in popular and even university consciousness between academic freedom and job security guaranteed by government, business or unions. It has become assimilated to the economic system and looks like self-interest of a kind that is sometimes approved of and sometimes disapproved of. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

The rights of science are now not distinguishable from the rights of thought in general, of any description whatsoever. Freedom of speech has given way to freedom of expression, in which the obscene gesture enjoys the same protected status as demonstrative discourse. It is all very wonderful; everything has become free, and no invidious distinctions need to be made. However, it is too good to be true. All that has really happened is that reason has been knocked off its perch, is less influential and more vulnerable as it joins the crowd of less worthy claims to the attention and support of civil society. The semitheoretical attacks of Right and Left on the university and its knowledge, the increased demands made on it by society, the enormous expansion of higher education, have combined to obscure what is most important about the university. In October 1983, just four years after Deng Xiaoping began to release China from the iron grip of anti-capitalism, a conference of policy leaders was held in Beijing under the wing of the reformist premier Zhao Ziyang, who called on China to study the concept of the Third Wave. Some, still fearful of stepping outside the perimeter of Marxist theory, reportedly went over Zhao’s head to the then general secretary of the Communist Party, Hu Yaobang, and asked what he thought of the conference proposal. Himself a liberal in the Chinses context at the time, Hu responded with words to the effect that “too many people in the party are afraid of new ideas.” Since then, top Chinese leaders—and tens of millions of their followers—have strongly supported the idea that China should not merely focus on industrialization. It should simultaneously, and as rapidly as possible, try to build a knowledge-intensive economy, skipping whenever possible the traditional stages of industrialization. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

This is why China shoots an astronaut into space, why it sets out to become a biotech superpower, and why in just a few years it has more than 1.66 billion mobile-phone subscribers and more than one billion internet users. It is why China is attempting to set its own technical standards for DVD players, chips and computers, not merely for protectionist reasons but to influence future technological advance around the globe, as the British did in the nineteenth century and the Americans did in the twentieth. It is why the Beijing Genomics Center impressed the World by breaking the genetic code for rice in record time. It is why—while the Obama White House slowed medical research by severely restricting government money for embryonic stem-cell research—China moved more aggressively forward in this field. This is why the Chinese city of Dalian has become a knowledge center rather than a manufacturing base. They are not just making clothes there. GE, Microsoft, Dell, SAP, HP, Sony and Accenture have set up backroom operations there for Asian companies and software R&D centers. It is why in 2020 China graduated 1.4 million students from science programs and 600,000 from engineering programs and these numbers tend to be a yearly average, which is only growing. China is also making a concerted effort to bring home tens of thousands of Chinese scientists working in the United States. It is why hundreds of multinationals have rushed to set up R&D labs in China—with an estimated two hundred labs arriving each year. Says Harry Shum, chief of Microsoft’s Beijing lab, “Nowhere in this universe has a higher concentration of I.Q. power.” #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

And it is why China is leading the World in exports of digital equipment. China’s twin-track strategy—selling affordable industrial labour while racing to build its knowledge sector—is set against a background of less central planning, a downshift of power to regions and local governments, expansion of market activities and, if anything, an overemphasis on exports. These changes are accompanied by widespread pain, social disruption and unrest, all of which may well get much worse. Chinese leaders are right to put stability at the top of their agenda. However, much like the rest of the World, China has to worry about the COVID-19 pandemic, future epidemics and pandemics, along with protests, not merely on a manageable local level but on a national level; financial panics; environmental crises; out-of-control fuel and energy costs and looming shortages; and generational cleavages—not to mention greater instability relations with America, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Even worse, two or more of these crises could converge. Only the naïve think revolutionary changes follow straight trend lines. However, they also know their historic mission—to end the mass poverty that has characterized China for the past five thousand years. China has raised more than one billion people out of extreme poverty since 1979. The glass may be half empty, but before this, for these people, there was no glass. And no future. Nor is the twin-trach strategy applied only in China. The other vast pools of countries rising out of poverty are Africa and India. With these other nations expanding and rising out of poverty, to stay number one is going to be a challenge for America. That is why it is so important to support American business, American cars, American made meat and produce and washing machines, dryers and other types of American made products. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

Now, consider a pair of jeans. The denim in them may well have come from Burlington Industries. This giant American textile firm sends it customers free software that allows them to communicate directly with Burlington’s mainframe, to paw through its stock of denims electronically, to find the particular batch of fabric they want, and to order it—all at instantaneous speeds. Manufacturers like Burlington hope such services will distinguish them from their competitors, make life easier for customers—and simultaneously lack those customers into the new “electronic data interchange” (EDI) systems so tightly that it will become hard for them to escape. At their simplest, EDI systems simply permit the electronic exchange of documents between companies or business units—invoices, specification, inventory data, and the like. However, leaving it at that is rather like calling Mozart a tunesmith. For by wedding one another’s data bases and electronic systems, companies re able to form highly intimate partnerships. For example, while Burlington opens its inventory files to its customer, Digital Equipment, the computer maker, opens its design secrets to its suppliers. When DEC places another order for components, it may electronically transfer its entire Computer-Aided-Design file to the supplier firm, so that both buyer and seller can work more closely together, step by step. The object is intimacy. The big auto companies now virtually refuse to do business with suppliers who are not equipped for electronic interaction. At Ford, fifty-seven parts plants have been told they must electronically exchange shipping schedules, material requisitions, releases, and receipts with both customers and suppliers. The benefits of EDI are not only a reduction in paperwork and inventory, but quicker, more flexible responses to customer needs. Together these can amount to massive savings. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

However, the Worldwide shift to electronic interchange also implies radical changes in the business system. Companies are forming into what might be called “information-sharing groups.” More communication is crossing—and sometimes blurring—organizational boundaries. Whether in a Japanese insurance company or an American automaker, EDI forces major changes in accounting and other control systems. When a company goes electronic, jobs change; people move around; some departments gain clout, others lose. The entire relationship of the firm to its suppliers and customers is shaken up. Such power shifts, however, are not merely limited to individual firms. Whole sectors of the economy are already feeling the impact of EDI. For EDI can be used as a weapon to wipe out go-betweens and intermediaries. Shiseido, Japan’s top cosmetic firm, for example, uses its networks to sidestep the traditional distribution chain. Shiseido’s powders, creams, eye shadows, lotions, and what-have-you are everywhere in Japan and beginning to make a splash in American and European markets as well. By connecting its computers directly to those of its customers, Shiseido end-runs wholesalers and warehousers, delivering from its own distribution centers directly to the stores. If Shiseido and other manufacturers can “talk” directly with their retailers, and retailers can electronically access information in the manufacturer’s own computers, who needs an intermediary? “The wholesaler?” Bingo! By passed,” say Monroe Greenstein, a retail industry analyst at the Bear, Stearns securities firm in New York. To avoid that fate, wholesalers, too are turning to electronic weaponry. The most publicized, by now classic case of a wholesaler taking the offensive—and capturing new power in the marketplace—involves American Hospital Supply, now a part of Baxter Health Care Corporation. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Starting as early as 1978, AHS began placing terminals inside hopsitals and allowing them to dial directly, through a network, to its computers. It was much simpler for hospitals to order supplies from AHS by pushing a button than to deal with other, less sophisticated suppliers. It turns, AHS used the network to zap all sorts of useful information about products, usage, costs, inventory control, et cetera, to its customers. Because AHS’s system was so responsive and reliable, hospitals were able to cut back on their own inventories, saving them substantial money. And if a hospital placed all its business with AHS, the company provided an entire management information system for the hospital. AHS’s business skyrocketed. Consultant Peter Keen, from whose study, Competing in Time, some of these data are drawn, describes how Foremost McKesson, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, applied the AHS strategy to its own field. As customer orders flow into Foremost McKesson’s computers electronically from hand-held terminals placed in 15,000 stores, they are instantly sorted and consolidated. This generates Foremost McKesson’s own orders, fully half of which are then, in turn, instantly and automatically transmitted to its supplier firms. Such high-speed systems allow AHS, Foremost, and many other firms to wire themselves so snugly into their customers’ daily operations that it becomes costly and complex for them to shift their business elsewhere. In return, the systems save their customers significant sums and help them manage more smartly all around. All this pays off in negotiating power. However, AHS and McKesson are still exceptions. Most wholesalers could face an electronic squeeze play, caught between manufacturers and increasingly sophisticated retailers. Warehouse companies are next in line for trouble as extra-intelligence spreads through the economy. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

The increasing customization and flexible manufacture made possible by computers, means, among other things, a shift from a few big orders for uniform products to many smaller orders for diversified products. Simultaneously, the speedup of business encouraged by electronic networking increases pressures for just-in-time delivery to factories and stores. All this implies fewer bulk shipments, shorter storage times, faster turnaround, and more insistence on precise information about the whereabouts of every stored item—less space, more information. This substitution reduces the clout of the space merchant and pushes smart warehousers into a search for alternative functions. Some are using networks and computers to sell customers data software services, transportation management, packing, sorting, inspecting, knockdown and assembly services, and the like. Still others—Sumitomo Warehouse in Japan, for instance—are moving into real estate development as the traditional functions of the warehouser dry up. The super-symbolic economy and the spread of extra-intelligence also shake up the transportation sector—railroads, shippers, and truckers. Like warehousers, many truckers are also turning to electronic networks to save themselves. In Japan the move toward short-run factory production and the push for just-in-time delivery means a big surge in short-haul work. And instead of delivering big loads on a once-a-week schedule, the pressure is toward smaller but far more frequent drop-offs. The most rapid growth is seen in door-to-door delivery. What we see, therefore, are all the traditional sectors of the production and distribution system wielding extra-intelligence to stay alive, or as an offensive weapon to extend their power. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

Technopoly (the surrender of culture to technology) strove furiously to control information because the culture seeks all authority in technology to the point that it is becoming more satisfying to some than God. So much so that people are increasingly allowing technology to control their lives and taking orders from it. As we have discussed, there is a surplus of information, and we just keep generating more tools to help us deal with it. That is how people are now getting their direction and purpose for life. There have, of course, always been experts, even in tool-using cultures. The pyramids, Roman roads, the Strasbourg Cathedral, could hardly have been built without experts. However, the expert in Technopoly has two characteristics that distinguish one from experts of the past. First Technopoly’s experts tend to be ignorant about any matter not directly related to their specialized area. The average psychotherapist, for example, barely has even superficial knowledge of literature, philosophy, social history, art, religion, and biology, and is not expected to have such knowledge. Second, like bureaucracy itself (with which an expert may or may not be connected), Technopoly’s experts claim dominion not only over technical matters but also over social, psychological, and more affairs. In the United States of America, we have experts in how to raise children, how to educate them, how to be lovable, how to responsibly enjoy pleasures of the flesh, how to influence people, how to make friends. There is no aspect of human relations that has not been technicalized and therefore relegated to the control of experts. These special characteristics of the experts arose as a result of three factors. First, the growth of bureaucracies, which, in effect, produced the World’s fist entirely mechanistic specialist and thereby gave credence and prestige to the specialist-as-ignoramus. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Second, the weakening of traditional social institutions, which led ordinary people to lose confidence in the value of tradition. Third, and underlying everything else, the torrent of information which made it impossible for anyone to possess more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. As a college undergraduate, I was told by an enthusiastic professor of German literature that Goethe was the last person who knew everything. I assume she meant, by this astounding remark, less to deify Goethe than to suggest that by the year of his death, 1832, it was no longer possible for even the most brilliant mind to comprehend, let alone integrate, what was known. The role of the expert is to concentrate on one field of knowledge, sift through all that is available, eliminate that which has no bearing on a problem, and use what is left to assist in solving a problem. This process works fairly well in situations where only a technical solution is required and there is no conflict with human purposes—for example, in space rocketry or the construction of a sewer system. It works less well in situations where technical requirements may conflict with human purposes, as in medicine or architecture. And it is disastrous when applied to situations that cannot be solved by technical means and where efficiency is usually irrelevant, such as in education, law, family life, and problems of personal maladjustment. I assumes I d not need to convince the reader that there are no experts—there can be no experts—in child-rearing and pleasures of the flesh and friend-making. All of this is a figment of the Technopolist’s imagination, made plausible by the use of technical machinery, without which the expert would be totally disarmed and exposed as an intruder and an ignoramus. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

In 1987, R.S. Becker, J.A. Golovchenko, and B.S. Swartzentruber at AT&T Bell Laboratories announced that they had used an scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to deposit small blobs on a germanium surface. Each blob was thought to consist of one or a few germanium atoms. Shortly thereafter, IBM Almaden researchers John Foster, Jane Frommer, and Patrick Arnett achieved a milestone in STM-based molecular manipulation. Of this team, Foster and Arnett attended the First Foresight Conference in Nanotechnology, where they told us the motivations behind their work. Foster came to IBM from Stanford University, where he had completed a doctorate in physics and taught at graduate school. The STM work was one of his first projects in the corporate World. He describes his colleagues Arnett as a former “semiconductor jock” involved in chip creation at IBM’s Burlington and Yorktown locations. Besides his doctorate in physics, Arnett brought mechanical-engineering training to the effort. Arnett explains what they were trying to do: “We wanted to see if you could do something on an atomic scale, to create a mechanism for storing information and getting it back reliably.” The answer was yes. In January 1988, the journal Nature carried their letter reporting success in pinning an organic molecule to a particular location on a surface, using an STM to form a chemical bond by applying an electrical pulse through the tip. They found that having created and sensed the feature, they could go back and use another voltage pulse from the tip to change the feature again: enlarging it, partly erasing it, or completely removing it. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

IMB quickly saw a commercial use, as explained by Paul M. Horn, acting director of physical sciences at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center: “This means you can create a storage element the size of an atom. Ultimately, the ability to do that could lead to storage that is ten million times more dense than anything we have today. A broader vision was given by another researcher, J.B. Pethica, in the issue of Nature in which the work appeared: “The partial era ensure reported by Foster et. al. implied that molecules may have pieces deliberately removed, and in principle be automatically ‘edited,’ thereby demonstrating one of the ideals of nanotechnology.” Can proximal probes move atoms with complete precision? Foster’s group succeeded in pinning single molecules to a surface, but they could not control the results—the position and orientation—precisely. In April 1990, however, another group at the same laboratory carried the manipulation of atoms even further, brining a splash of publicity. Admittedly, the story must have been hard to resist: It was accompanied by an STM picture of the name “IBM,” spelled out with thirty-five precisely places atoms. The precision here is complete, like the precision of molecular assembly: each atom sits in a dimple on the surface of a nickel crystal; it can rest either in one dimple or in another, but never somewhere between. Donald Eigler, the lead author on the Nature paper describing this work, sees clearly where all this is leading: “For decades, the electronics industry has been facing the challenge of how to build smaller and smaller structures. For those of us who will not be using individual atoms as building blocks, the challenge will be how to build up structures atom by atom.” #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Technical machinery is essential to both the bureaucrat and the expert, and may be regarded as a third mechanism of information control. I do not have in mind such “hard” technologies as the computer—which must, in any case, be treated separately, since it embodies all that Technopoly stands for. I have in mind “softer” technologies such as IQ tests, SATs, standardized forms, taxonomies, and opinion polls. These play a role in reducing the types and quantity of information admitted to a system that often goes unnoticed, and therefore their role in redefining traditional concepts also goes unnoticed. There is, for example, no test that can measures a person’s intelligence. Intelligence is a general term used to denote one’s capacity to solve real-life problems in a variety of novel contexts. It is acknowledged by everyone except experts that each person varies greatly in such capacities, from consistently effective to consistently ineffective, depending on the kinds of problems requiring solution. If, however, we are made to believe that a test can reveal precisely the quantity of intelligence a person has, then, for all institutional purposes, a score on a test becomes one’s intelligence. The test transforms an abstract and multifaceted meaning into a technical and exact term that leaves out everything of importance. One might even say that an intelligence test is a tale told by an expert, signifying nothing. Nonetheless, the expert relies on our believing in the reality of technical machinery, which means we will reify the answers generated by the machinery. We come to believe that our score is our intelligence, or our capacity for creativity or love or pain. We come to believe that the results of opinion polls are what people believe, as if our beliefs can be encapsulated in such sentences as “I approve” and “I disapprove.” #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Political movements with single charismatic leaders are usually always more suitable and efficient for television. When a movement has no leader or focus, television needs to create one. Mao is simpler to transmit than Chinese communism. Chavez is better television than farm workers. Steinem is better than women. Graham is better than Christianity. Erhard is better than “human potential movement.” Hitler is easier to convey than fascism. Nader is easier than consumerism. Trump is better than corruption. The one is easier than the many. The personality of the symbol is easier than the philosophy. The philosophy requires depth, time, development, and in some cases, sensory information. This remains true unless the many are made into copies of each other. Then, the one is the same as the many. For the same reasons, hierarchy is easier to report upon than democracy or collectivity. The former is focused and has a specific form: leaders and followers. Only the leaders need to be interviewed. Democratic or collective forms need to be interviewed. Democratic or collective forms involve flow processes with power constantly shifting. Television reporters do not have time to interview everyone. And this is how technology is controlling our lives. Superficiality is easier than depth. Short subjects with beginnings and ends are simpler to transmit than extended and multifaceted information. The conclusion is simpler than the process. But getting what you prefer is not easy. There are two reasons. In the first place, you have to get another individual to help—even though the other individual is better off in the short run by not helping. In the second place, you are tempted to get whatever help you can without providing any costly help yourself. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

The main results of Cooperation Theory are encouraging. They show that cooperation can get started by even a small cluster of individuals who are prepared to reciprocate cooperation, even in a World where no one else will cooperate. The analysis also shows that the two key requisites for cooperation to thrive are that the cooperation be based on reciprocity, and that the shadow of the future is important enough to make this reciprocity stable. However, once cooperation based on reciprocity is established in a population, it can protect itself from invasion by uncooperative strategies. We want the government of the United States of America to exempt our people from ALL taxation as long as we are deprived of equal justice under the law of the land. We want equal education—but separate schools up for 16 for boys and 18 for girls on the condition that the girls be sent to women’s colleges and universities. Under such a schooling system, we believe we will make a better nation of people. The United States of America’s government should provide, free, all necessary textbooks and equipment, schools and college buildings. It is encouraging to see that cooperation can get started, can thrive in a variegated environment, and can protect itself once established. However, what is most interesting is how little had to be assumed about the individuals or the social setting to establish these rules. The individuals do not have to be rational: the evolutionary process allows the successful strategies to thrive, even if the individuals do not know why or how. Nor do the individuals have to exchange messages or commitments: they do not need words, because their deeds speak for them. Likewise, there is no need to assume trust between individuals: the use of reciprocity can be enough to make defection unproductive. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

Altruism is not needed: successful strategies can elicit cooperation even from an egoist. Finally, no central authority is needed: cooperation based on reciprocity can be self-policing. The emergence, growth, and maintenance of cooperation do require some assumptions about the individuals and the socials setting. They require an individual to be able to recognize another individual who has been dealt with before. They also require that one’s prior history of interactions with this person an be remembered, so that an individual can be responsive. Actually, these requirements for recognition and recall are not as stong as they might seem. Even bacteria can fulfill them by interacting with only one other organism and using a strategy (such as TIT FOR TAT) which responds only to the recent behaviour of the other individual. And if bacteria can play games, so can people and nations. For cooperation to prove stable, the future must have a sufficiently large shadow. This means that importance of the next encounter between the same two individuals must be great enough to make defection an unprofitable strategy when the other player is provocable. It requires that the players have a large enough chance of meeting again and that they do not discount the significance of their next meeting to greatly. For example, what made cooperation possible in the trench warfare of World War I was the fact that the same small units from opposite sides of noman’s land would be in contact for long periods of time, so that if one side broke the tacit understandings, then the other side could retaliate against the same unit. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

Finally, the evolution of cooperation requires that successful strategies can thrive and that there be a source of variation in the strategies which are being used. These mechanisms can be classical Darwinian survival of the fittest and the mutation, but they can also involve more deliberate processes such as imitation of successful patterns of behavior and intelligence designed new strategic ideas. In the most ancient part of the Avesta, the hymnlike speeches and discourses of Zarathustra, we read of the two primal moving spirits: the good, good in disposition, in word and in work, and the evil, evil in disposition, in word and in work. “Twins through sleep” they were, “as was heard,” that is, erstwhile sleeping companions in the womb of their origin. However, when they were in opposition to one another, and the benignant spirit spoke to the wicked one: “Neither our sentiments nor our judgements, neither our inclinations nor our intentions, neither our words nor our works, neither ourselves nor our souls are in concord.” And they further established, confronting each other, life and death together, and that ultimately for the adherents of deception there exists the most evil, but for the adherents of truth the best disposition. So these two spirits then chose: the deceitful one chose to do that which is most evil, but the most benignant spirit, he who is clad in the hardest Heavens, chose being-true. “Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the World. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which yet have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye have all witnessed. Ans ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the World; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptations,” reports 3 Nephi 18.25-26. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21  

Cresleigh Homes

Welcome to #CresleighHomes #PlumasRanch Meadows Residence 2! She’s a beauty…want to check out her stats?

👌 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, 3 car garage
👌 Butler’s pantry provides access between kitchen and dining rooms

👌 2372 square feet of thoughtfully designed living space
👌 All Ready connected home package includes a video doorbell, digital deadbolt, and more!

Ready to see more? Check out all our pics on the website; link in bio! https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/residence-2/

Many Americans attend college. The University provides a way our as well as a model of reform. If not easy to carry out or even keep in mind, its task is thus defined. It is, in the first place, always to maintain the permanent questions front and center. This it does primarily by preserving—by keeping alive—the works of those who best addressed these questions. In the Middle Ages, Aristotle was very much present in the minds of the leading elements of society. He was used as an authority almost on a level with the Church Fathers and was assimilated to them. This was, of course, an abuse of Aristotle, who thought that authority is the contrary of philosophy. His own teachings ought always to be approached with questions and doubts, not faith. The essence of philosophy is the abandonment of all authority in favour of individual human reason. Nevertheless, Aristotle was there, his moderate and sensible views had an effect on the World, and he could be a guide to those who came to have philosophic doubt. In our time, freedom from authority and the independence of reason are commonplaces. Aristotle, however, instead of being properly used—now that we have the proper disposition—has to all intents and purposes disappeared. We would hardly be able to use Aristotle, as did Hegel, to grasp the character of modernity. Instead we are more and more restricted to the narrow experience of the here and now, with a consequent loss of perspective. The disappearance of Aristotle has much less to do with his intrinsic qualities than with a political distaste for him, joined with the lack of intellectual discipline that results from a sense of self-sufficiency. Reason has become a prejudice for us. Rousseau noted that in his time many men were liberals who a century earlier would have been religious fanatics. He concluded that they were not really reasonable but, rather, conformists. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Reason transformed into prejudice is the worse form of prejudice. The most important function of the university in an age of reason is to protect reason from itself, by being the model of true openness. Hence, without having the answers, the university knows what openness is and knows the questions. It also knows the regime within which it lives, and the kinds of threats this regime poses to its activity. In a democracy it risks less by opposing the emergent, the changing and the ephemeral than by embracing them, because the society is already open to them, without monitoring what it accepts or sufficiently respecting the old. There the university risks less by having intransigently high standards than by trying to be too inclusive, because the society tends to blur standards in the name of equality. It also risks less by concentrating on the heroic than by looking to the commonplace, because the society levels. In an aristocracy the university would probably have to go in a direction opposite to the one taken in a democracy in order to liberate reason. However, in an aristocracy the university is a less important institution than in a democratic society, because there are other centers for the life of the mind, whereas in a democracy there is practically no other center, practically no way of life, calling or profession, that requires or encourages or even permits cultivation. This is increasingly the case in the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The university as an institution must compensate for what individuals lack in a democracy and must encourage its members to participate in its spirit. As the repository of the regime’s own highest faculty and principle, it must have a strong sense of its importance outside the system of equal individuality. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

The university must be contemptuous of public opinion because it has within it the source of autonomy—the quest for and even discovery of the truth according to nature. It must concentrate on philosophy, theology, the literary classics, and on those scientists like Newton, Descartes, and Leibniz who have the most comprehensive scientific vision and a sense of the relation of what they do to the order of the whole of things. These must help preserve what is most likely to be neglected in a democracy. They are not dogmatisms but precisely the opposite: what is necessary to fight dogmatism. The University is only one interest among many and must always keep its eye on that interest for fear of compromising it in the desire to be more useful, more relevant, more popular. The university’s task is illustrated by two tendencies of the democratic mind. One is abstractness. Because there is no tradition and men need guidance, general theories that are produced in a day and not properly grounded in experience, but seem to explain things and are useful crutches for finding one’s way in a complicated World, have currency. Marxism, Freudianism, economism, behaviouralism, et cetera, are examples of this tendency, and there are great rewards for those who purvey them. The very university of democracy and the sameness of man presupposed by it encourage this tendency and make the mind’s eye less sensitive to differences. The terms we have discussed in the past are evidences of this abstractness, simulacra of thought and experience, hardly better than slogans, which take the place of reflection. In aristocracies men take the experiences of their nations as unique and superior and tend not to generalize, but rather to forget the natural community of men and the universality of thought. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

However, they do really pay attention to their experiences, to the diversity of phenomena that is homogenized by abstract “mind-sets.” This is another thing the democratic university must learn from aristocracies. Our temptation is to prefer the shiny new theory to the fully cognized experience. Even our famous empiricism is more of a theory than an openness to experience. Producing theories is not theorizing, or a sign of theoretical life. Concreteness, not abstractness, is the hallmark of philosophy. All interesting generalization must proceed from the richest awareness of what is to be explained, but the tendency to abstractness leads to simplifying the phenomena in order more easily to deal with them. If, for example, one sees only gain as a motive in men’s actions, then it is easy to explain them. One simply abstracts from what is really there. After a while one notices nothing other than the postulated motives. To the extent that men begin to believe in the theory, they no longer believe that there are other motives in themselves. And when social policy is based on such a theory, finally one succeeds in producing men who fit the theory. When this is occurring or has occurred, what is most needed is the capacity to recover the original nature of man and his motives, to see what does not fit the theory. Hobbes’s mercenary account of the virtues, which won out in psychology, needs to be contrasted with Aristotle’s account, which preserves the independent nobility of the virtues. Hobbes was thinking of Aristotle, which we never do, when he developed his teaching. In order to restore what was really a debate, and thereby restore the phenomenon man, one must read Aristotle and Hobbes together and look at what each saw in man. Then one has the material on which to reflect. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

For modern men who live in a World transformed by abstractions and who have themselves been transformed by abstractions, the only way to experience man again is by thinking these abstractions through with the help of thinkers who did not share them and who can lead us to experiences that are difficult or impossible to have without their help. A related problem is a tendency in the social sciences to prefer deterministic explanations of events to those that see them as results of human deliberation and choice. This tendency is a consequence of the impotence of the individual in egalitarian society. Curiously, in democracy, the freest of societies, men turn out to be more willing to accept doctrines that tell them that they are determined, that is, not free. No one by oneself seems to be able, or have the right, to control events, which appear to be moved by impersonal forces. In aristocracies, on the other hand, individuals born to high position have too great a sense of their control over what they appear to command, are sure of their freedom and despise everything that might seem to determine them. Neither the aristocratic nor democratic sentiment about the causes of events is simply adequate. In a democracy where men already think they are weak, they are too open to theories that teach them they are weak, which, by making individuals think that controlling action is impossible, have the effect of weakening them further. That is why we are encouraging you all to be proud Americans again. Have pride in your flag, the national anthem, America cars, food and produced and goods and services produced in America. Do not allow yourselves to be colonized by a spirit of doom and gloom. Do not allow the joker and the riddler to control your streets, airwaves, radio, and politics. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

Remember, this is a country of agriculture, it is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Go back to being like the Americans of the 1950s, who loved their suburban communities, and their American cars and new they were great and kind people. “Winter comes calling. The temperature’s falling. A fear is crawling. Don’t quit, we’re all in. The ship’s a mile out. Don’t blow the lights out. They’ll cry their eyes out, if we sink the lighthouse. Since fear itself is cruel and selfish—a contradiction—you tried to shout out my words in your mouth. We’re hard on the angel’s heels, with fire and brimstone wheels. The meadow starts with bones, and flowers and tears. With darkness closing, we’re decomposing. We’re made of starlight. From cruel and dark night, the guilty crushed out. We’re left in no doubt. They’ll cry their eyes out if we sink the lighthouse,” by Above & Beyond, “Sink the Lighthouse,” featured artist: Alex Vargas, Album: We are All We Need, 2015. The lighthouse represents American. The antidote is again the classic, the heroic—Homer, Plutarch. At the outset they appear hopelessly naïve to us. However, it is our sophisticated naivete that makes us think that. Churchill was inspired b his ancestor Marlborough, and his confidence in his own action is inconceivable without the encouragement to his education. And Shakespeare learned a large part of what he knew about statesmanship from Plutarch. This is intellectual genealogy of modern heroes. The democratic revolution of the mind extinguishes such old family lines and replaces them with decision-making theory, in which there is no category for statesmanship, let alone heroes. To sum up, there is one simple rule for the university’s activity: it need not concern itself with providing its students with experiences that are available in democratic society. They will have them in any event. It must provide them with experiences they cannot have there. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Old writers may not have been perfect, but they could best make us aware of our imperfections, which is what counts for us. The universities never performed this function very well. Now they have practically ceased trying. There is an Armageddon cult whose cosmology is trying to depress America. It is a bloodthirsty, orgiastic, mind-bending cult under the direction of a special interest group. Much more frightening than Manson could ever be in that it is able to successfully maintain a façade of eccentric legitimacy while secretly conducting vicious human sacrifices to its gods. The cult has been conducting cannibalistic rites on American citizens in the shadows and in secret so that Americans will give of their rights, give up capitalism, and become under control of communism. It is a lot like the Four Pi movement, which is 12.56 numerically. The rites are bloody and orgiastic. The goal is to transfix people, get them to become apathetic and make them feel a sense of entitlement so that they will release the fiend that lies dormant within one, for it is strong and ruthless and its power is far beyond the bounds of human frailty. The cult’s literature is repeated and the Process leaders reputedly envision the cult members coming together as groups of future shock troops in the coming Armageddon. The cult is into murder and mayhem. They teach their members that by spreading violence and chaos, they will help to fulfill the prophecies of Armageddon and speed up the Final Judgment. Also, many of these heinous criminals who are labeled as “lone wolves” are actually not. In many cases they are part of an organization that traffics in drugs and pornography with aims to spread panic and destruction, and are also connection to crimes before and after those who are labeled as lone wolves commit an act of violence. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

The high value of the evil urge finds its strongest expression in an interpretation of the scriptural verse (Genesis 1, 31) which assets that God, on the evening of the day on which He had created man, looked upon all He had made and found it “very good”: this “very good” applies to the evil urge, whereas the good one only earns the predicate “good”; of the two, it is the evil urge which is fundamental. However, that it is called the evil urge derives from man’s having made it so. Thus Kain (as is said in the Midrash) might indeed respond to the God who was calling him to account that it was He, God, Himself who had implanted in him the evil urge; but the rejoinder would be untrue, since only through him, man, did it become evil. It became so, and continually becomes so, because man separates it from its companion and in this condition of independence makes an idol of precisely that which was intended to serve him. Man’s task, therefore, is not to extirpate the evil urge, but to reunite it with the good. David, who did not dare to stand up to it and therefore “slew” it in himself—as it runs in one of his Psalms (109.22): “My heart is pierced through within me”—did not fulfill it, but Abraham, whose whole heart was found faithful before God, who now made a covenant with him (Nehemiah 9.8) did. Man is bidden (Deuteronomy 6.5): “Love the Lord with all thine heart,” and that means, with thy two united urges. The evil urge must also be included in the love of God thus and thus only does it become perfect, and thus and thus only does man become once more as he was created: “very good.” To achieve this, however, man must begin by harnessing both urges together in the service of God. As when a person who is less affluent possess two oxen, one that has already ploughed and one that has not yet ploughed, and now a new field is to be cultivated: he brings both of them together beneath the yoke. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

However, how is the evil urge to be prevailed upon to permit this to happen to it? Why, it is nothing but a crude ore, which must be placed in the fire in order to be moulded: so let it be totally immersed in the great fire of the Tora. And that also man cannot do of his own strength; we must pray to God to assist us to do His will with our hearts. Therefore the Psalmist beseeches (86.11): “Unite my heart to fear Thy name”; for fear is the gateway to love. This important doctrine cannot be understood as long as good and evil are conceived, as they usually are, as two diametrically opposite forces or directions. Its meaning is not revealed to us until we recognize them as similar in nature, the evil “urge” as passion, that is, the power peculiar to man, without which he can neither beget nor bring forth, but which, left to itself, remains without direction and leads astray, and the “good urge” as pure direction, in other words, as an unconditional direction, that towards God. To unite the two urges implies: to equip the absolute potency of passion with the one direction that renders it capable of great love and of great service. Thus and not otherwise can man become whole. Although there are wonderful surprises from the human organization, the latest and most potent creation and miracle-worker of the commercialized intellect will not be able to spread more love until we unite out urges. We have many wonderful transportation-systems, in manufactures, in systems of communication, in news-gathering, book-publishing, journalism; in protecting labour; in oppressing labour; in herding the national parities and keeping the sheep docile and usable; in closing the public service against brains and character; in electing purchasable legislatures, blatherskite Congresses, and city governments which rob the town and sell municipal protection to gamblers, thieves, men and women of the evening, and professional seducers for cash. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

It is a civilization which has destroyed the simplicity and repose of life; replaces its contentment, its poetry, its soft romance-dreams and visions with the money-fever, sordid ideals, vulgar ambitions, and the sleep which does not refresh; it has invented a thousand useless luxuries, and turned them into necessities, it has created a thousand vicious appetites and satisfies none of them; it has dethroned God and set up a shekel in His place. Religion has removed from the heart to the mouth. You have the word of Noah for it. Time was, when two sects, divided but by a single hair of doctrine, would fight for that hair, would kill, torture, persecute for it, suffer for it, starve for it, die for it. That religion was in the heart; it was vital, it was a living thing, it was the very man himself. Who fights for his religion now, but with the mouth? Your civilization has brought the flood. Noah has said it, and he is preparing. “And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and baptized in my name. And this ye shall always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have showed unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit be with you,” reports # Nephi 18.5-7. Religion can be considered a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not in principle a social institution; nor are all institutions that reduce information by excluding some kinds or sources necessarily bureaucracies. Schools may exclude dianetics and astrology; courts exclude hearsay evidence. They do so for substantive reasons having to do with the theories on which these institutions are based. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

However, bureaucracy has no intellectual, political, or moral theory—except for its implicit assumption that efficiency is the principal aim of all social institutions and that other goals are essentially less worthy, if not irrelevant. That is why John Stuart Mill thought bureaucracy a “tyranny” and C.S. Lewis identified it with Hell. The transformation of bureaucracy from a set of techniques designed to serve social institutions to an autonomous metainstitution that largely serves itself came as a result of several developments in the mid- and late-nineteenth century: rapid industrial growth, improvements in transportation and communication, the extension of government into ever-larger realms of public and business affairs, the increasing centralization of governmental structures. To these were added, in the twentieth century, the information explosion and what we might call the “bureaucracy effect”: as techniques for managing information became more necessary, extensive, and complect, the number of people and structures required to manage those techniques grew, and so did the amount of information generated by bureaucratic techniques. This created the need for bureaucracies to manage and coordinate bureaucracies, then for additional structures and techniques to manage the bureaucracies that coordinated bureaucracies, and so on—until bureaucracy became, to borrow again from Karl Kraus’s comment on psychoanalysis, the disease for which it purported to cure. Along the way, it ceased to be merely a servant of social institutions and became their master. Bureaucracy now not only solves problems but creates them. More important, it defines what our problems are—and they are always, in the bureaucratic view, problems of efficiency. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

As Lewis suggests, this makes bureaucracies exceedingly dangerous, because, though they were originally designed to process only technical information, they now are commonly employed to address problems of a moral, social, and political nature. The bureaucracy of the nineteenth century was largely concerned with making transportation, industry, and the distribution of goods more efficient. Technopoly’s bureaucracy has broken loose from such restrictions and now claims sovereignty over all of society’s affairs. This may be because so many people find the most appropriate type of daily life for them is a day by day World of destruction. Peace has become the most difficult and abnormal state of many civilizations to live in. No moment is so dazzling to them as when everyday imaginings concerning death and danger and World destruction are transformed into duty. Magnanimity perishes during long periods of peace and, in its stead, there develop cynicism, apathy, weariness, and, at most, spiteful raillery…Honour, humaneness, self-sacrifices are still being respected, valued, and rated highly immediately after war, but the longer peace lasts—the dimmer, the more withered, the more torpid all these beautiful magnanimous things grow, while wealth and the spirit of acquisition take possession of everything. At length, there is nothing left but hypocrisy—hypocrisy of honour, of self-sacrifice, of duty, so that these will still be respected, despite all the cynicism, but merely in boastful phases and as a matter of form. There will be no more genuine honour, and nothing but formulas will be left. Formulas of honour mean the death of honour. The peril we face in trusting social, moral, and political affairs to bureaucracy may be highlighted by reminding ourselves what a bureaucrat does. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

As the World’s history suggests, a bureaucrat is little else than a glorified counter. The French word bureau first meant a cloth for covering a reckoning table, then the table itself, then the room in which the table was kept, and finally the office and staff that ran the entire counting room or house. The word “bureaucrat” has come to mean a person who by training, commitment, and even temperament is indifferent to both the content and the totality of a human problem. The bureaucrat considers the implications of a decision only to the extent that the decision will affect the efficient operations of the bureaucracy, and takes no responsibility for its human consequences. Thus, Adolf Eichmann becomes the basic model and metaphor for a bureaucrat in the age of Technopoly. When faced with dangerous crimes against humanity, he argued that he had no part in the formulation of Nazi political or sociological theory; he dealt only with the technical problems of moving vast numbers of people from one place to another. Why they were being moved and, especially, what would happen to them when they arrived at their destination were not relevant to his job. Although the jobs of bureaucrats in today’s Technopoly given five thousand times a day in America alone: I have no responsibility for the human consequences of my decisions. I am only responsible for the efficiency of my part of the bureaucracy, which must be maintained at all costs. Eichmann, it must also be noted, was an expert. And expertise is a second important technical means by which Technopoly strives furiously to control information. Japan worries. To the outside World it often seems economically invincible. However, things look different from inside. It has no energy supplies of its own, grows little food, and is highly sensitive to trade restrictions. If the yen goes down, it worked. If the yen goes up, it worries. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

However, individual Japanese do not just worry about the economy in general. They also worry about their own future. So they are among the World’s biggest savers. And they buy massive amounts of insurance. For a long time the chief beneficiaries of all this anxiety were the giant insurance companies. Today, however, it is the insurers who are doing the worrying. The government is opening the door that once kept out competition from Japan’s aggressive securities brokers. Tough, World-class companies like Nomura and Daiwa, the Merrill Lynches or Shearsons of Japan, are preparing to move in on the insurance industry’s turf. Topping that off, the entire insurance field is in an uproar of change. Customers are demanding all sorts of newfangled policies and financial services which these venerable giants—Nippon Life is over one hundred years old—find hard to create and manage. To deal with threats like these, the big insurance firms have begun laying down an electronic line of defense. Nippon Life is betting nearly half a billion dollars on a new information system that adds 5,000 PCs, 1,500 larger computers for its satellite offices, mega-machines for branches and headquarters, plus optical scanners and other equipment, all plugged together in a single network that will allow agents in the field to dial up central data banks, respond to synthesized voice commands on the phone, and get facsimile printouts of the data they need about customer or policies. Meanwhile, Meiji Mutual, with its 38,000 agents, mainly women, is also racing to arm itself with the weaponry of communications. Nor are the insurance companies alone. All of Japan, it would seem, is going electronic. Writes Datamation: “Major service companies are installing networks with 5,000 or more PCs and workstations in every corner of Japan.” Say Meiji’s Toshiyuki Nakamura: “If we don’t…we might lose everything.” #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Nakamura is right. For as electronic networks spread, power is beginning to shift. And not just in Japan. The United States of America and Europe, too, are wiring up as never before. It is the electronic race of the century. Japan’s high-tech manufacturing miracle brought in such immense amounts of money and sent the yen spiraling so high that Japanese companies began investing heavily in factories in Taiwan, South Korea and, in time, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines—helping to kick-start the development process in what soon were called Newly Industrialized Countries, or NICs. In effect, Japan had begun off-loading its low-tech, low-value production to neighbouring countries with more affordable labour, while it upshifted more and more to knowledge-based operations. Japan was not the only spigot from which direct investment flowed into Asia. Nonetheless, by the 1980s, according to the Library of Congress Country Studies, Japan had, in fact, “displaced the United States as the largest provider of investment and economic aid” in the Asia-Pacific region. In all, Japan poured more than $123 billion into Asian neighbours between 1980 and 2000. It is difficult to determine precisely how many new manufacturing and related service jobs in these Asian countries are specifically attributable to the influx of investment from Japan, America and Europe. Or to the next step, when South Korea and Taiwan themselves began investing in their less affluent neighbours—setting in motion a developmental chain reaction spilling over from the United States of America to Japan to these other countries. The result was the flow of billions of dollars into agrarian economies in the region where some of the World’s worst poverty existed. In each of these recipient countries, we saw the same classic process at work—the shift of the workforce from agriculture to industry. In South Korea as late as 1970, 51 percent of the labour force was still in agriculture. By 2000, the number was down to 9 percent, while manufacturing employment had risen to 22 percent. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

In Taiwan during the same period, the shift went down from 37 percent to rural to 7 percent, as the industrial workforce swelled to 35 percent. Malaysia went from more than 50 percent in agriculture to 16 percent, with manufacturing jumping to 27 percent. Similar, though less dramatic, shifts occurred in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. In each case, too, it was not just money that was transferred. With it came what economist William Easterly, formerly of the World Bank, has called “leakage”—a diffusion of knowledge, not just about technologies, but about finance, about markets and marketing, about import-export rules and business in general. The net effect of this massive transfer of industrial-age activities and know-how has been to raise multitudes of the World’s least affluent people out of the most extreme poverty. Ending up struggling in urban slums may hardly seem like progress to people with full bellies. However, for most of the Asian millions driven off the land by drought, hunger and disease, going back would be worse. And they know it. This process, during which countries transitioning toward knowledge economies transferred some of their manufacturing to less affluent, mainly agrarian countries from Asia to Latin America, had important corollaries. The recipient countries saw lengthened life expectancy, a general decline in infant mortality and reduced rates of population growth, the latter a key factor in the poverty equation. Between 1960 and 1999, per capita food production in the World grew by nearly 25 percent, and the number of those surviving on less than 2,100 calories a day—the threshold used to define malnutrition—plunged by 75 percent. Not incidentally, during roughly the same period, East Asians, starting from an admittedly low case, saw a 400 percent increase in average real incomes. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

The gains made by these and other poor countries, and not merely in Asia but in Latin America and elsewhere, are not the result of the softhearted benevolence of the rich World. These external inputs of capital—accompanied by hand-me-down relevant knowledge—would have had little impact without the brains, energy, hard work, ideas, entrepreneurialism and struggle of leaders and ordinary people in the least affluent countries themselves. Overall, however, what we find is a remarkable case of trickle-down economics—which for reasons that were unanticipated and unintentional actually worked, and not just in Asia. Yet an important question remains: How much of this anti-poverty progress in recent decades would have happened had the computer never been invented and the latest revolutionary wealth system never arrived? The story, moreover, does not end with this question hanging in the air. For none of what we have seen here so far fully explains the turbo-powered rise of Asia—or tells us what happens next as Africa, China, and Indian burst onto the World scene. To those thinking in terms of nanotechnology, STMs immediately looked promising not only for seeing atoms and molecules but for manipulating them. This idea soon became widespread among physicists. As Calvin Quate stated in Physics Today in 1986, “Some of us believe that the scanning tunneling microscope will evolve. That one day [it] will be used to write and read patterns of molecular size.” This approach was suggested as a path to molecular nanotechnology in Engines of Creation, again in 1986. By now, whole stacks of scientific papers document the use of STM and AFM tips to scratch, melt, erode, indent, and otherwise modify surfaces on a nanometer scale. These operations move atoms around, but with little control. They amount to bulk operations on a tiny scale—one fine scratch a few dozen atoms wide, instead of the billions that result from conventional polishing operations. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

As way of drawing together the technical limits and tendencies of television technology so that a pattern emerges, we need to consider some miscellaneous inherent biases. War is better television than peace. It is filled with highlighted moments, contains action and resolution, and delivers a powerful emotion: fear. Peace is amorphous and broad. The emotions connected with it are subtle, personal and internal. These are far more difficult to televise. Violence is better TV than nonviolence. When there is a choice between objective events (incidents, data) and subjective information (perspectives, thoughts, feelings), the objective event will be chosen. It is more likely to take visual form. Cars (and most commodities) are more visible on television, and come across with less information loss, than any living thing, aside from human faces. The smaller a plant or creature, or the more complex an image it presents, the harder it is to convey and the less likely it is to be chosen. Cars, like most urban forms, offer a clean, straight, uncomplicated message. They communicate their essence more efficiently than plants do. We are bound to have more images of cars and urban forms on television than natural environments and creates. Religions with charismatic leaders such as Billy Graham, Jesus Christ, Reverend Moon, Maharishi or L. Ron Hubbard, Joel Ostin, are far simpler to handle on television than leaderless or nature-based religions like Zen Buddhism, Christian Science, Native Americans (however, European Americans now considered themselves Native Americans and the Native Americans are referred to as Indigenous people), or druidism, or, for that matter, atheism. Single, all-powerful gods, or individual godlike figures are simpler to describe because they have highly defined characteristics. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Nature-based religions are dependent upon a gestalt of human feeling and perceptual exchanges with the planet. To be presented on television, they would need to be too simplified to retain meaning. To study different aspects of the evolutionary process, different methodological tools have been used. One set of questions asked about the destination of the evolutionary process. To study this, the concept of collective (or evolutionary) stability was used to study where the evolutionary process would stop. The idea was to determine which strategies could not be invaded if they were used by everyone. The virtue of this approach is that it allowed a good specification of which types of strategies can protect themselves, and under what conditions this protection can work. For example, it was shown that TIT FOR TAT would be collectively stable if the shadow of the future were large enough, and that the strategy of always defecting would be collectively stable under all possible conditions. The power of the collective stability approach is that it allows a consideration of all possible new strategies, whether minor variants of the common strategy or completely new ideas. The limitation of the stability approach is that it only tells what will last once established, but it does not tell what will get established in the first place. Since many different strategies can be collectively stable once established in a population, it is important to know which strategies are likely to get established in the first place. For this a different methodology was need. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

To see what is likely to get established in the first place, the emphasis must be placed upon the variety of things that can happen at once in a population. Since the process of getting fully established is likely to take a considerable amount of time, another kind of technique was used to study the changing prospects of strategies as their social environments of changes. This technique was an ecological analysis, which calculated what would happen if each generation had strategies growing in frequency in proportion to their success in the previous generation. This was an ecological approach because it introduced no new strategies, but instead determined the consequences over hundreds of generations of the variety of strategies already represented in society. It allowed for an analysis of whether the strategies that were successful in the beginning would remain successful after the poor performers had dropped out. The growth of the successful strategies in each generation could be thought of as due to either better survival and reproduction of the users of that strategy, or due to a greater chance of being imitated by others. In the territorial system, determination of what is successful is local. Each location which has a more successful neighbour adopts the strategy of the most successful of its neighbours. As in the ecological simulation, this growth of the more successful can be attributed to either better survival and reproduction, or to greater chance of being imitated by others. The Process incorporated the ideas of a number of its ancestors and current occupants of the occult landscape. Accordingly, there was an intermingling of philosophy, membership, and networking among the groups. The Solar Lodge, a secret magical society. The Brayton cult operated a boardinghouse near the University of Southern California campus in Los Angeles and recruited members from the student body there. The cult was broken up when a Riverside Country sheriffs raided the Blythe commune and found a six-year-old boy chained in a packing crate. Getting what you want is not easy. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

Soccer uniforms, ⚽ swimsuits, 🩱 sandy beach towels – oh my! Summer brings more dirty laundry than we ever thought possible, but once you’ve got a fully functional, absolutely beautiful laundry room, it’s not a problem.

The beautiful #CresleighRanch Mills Station Residence 2 offers two stories of smartly designed living space.

On the main floor, you’ll find a spacious dining room, great room and kitchen with a center island, as well as a convenient powder room, off the 2-car garage, and a large main floors master bedroom with a luxurious bathroom.

And psst…our homesite 104 is ready for new owners!

Don’t miss the final opportunity to purchase at Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch.

#CresleighHomes