Home » substance (Page 4)
Category Archives: substance
Comin’ Straight Out of Brooklyn, Crush Your Spine, Corrupt Your Mind!

The era of large-scale witch hunting in Europe ended long ago. The last legal execution that we know of, of a witch in German-speaking Europe took place in Glarus, Switzerland, in 1782. However, that did not end the fear of witches. Perhaps not all witches are bad, but there are renewed concerns in America that people are cohabitating with devilry. The early modern witch hunt has powerfully shaped what we assume witchcraft to be about, and it has also limited what we think it is, and when we think it was. However, in the most basic sense, to accuse someone of being a witch is to accuse that person of conspiring to do covert evil: to inflict harm, misfortune, and sickness. Even if they are unwilling to admit it, some people are using arts of the Devil and in league with demonic forces, which are intended to perplex humanity. Witchcraft, in this regard, is a cultural idiom, a way of understanding and explaining the bad things that befall us. Illness has often been associated with dirt, pollution, and disorder. However, illness is also seen as a form of cosmic judgment, as punishment for improper or irresponsible behaviour. It reflects the order of society and the cosmos write large, and may reveal sins of various orders and magnitude. As such, during Victorian times, it structured the community’s moral economy: those who suffered from heart disease, or had circulatory problems, people believed, had lives wrong. Perhaps they had not worked hard enough, or had recklessly participated in life, creating a social burden for the community. Cancer and ulcers were perceived as punishments, perhaps for youthful sexual indiscretion. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Maintaining health was a sign of one’s self-discipline and accountability within a community where people depended on one another to get the work done that allowed the community to continue and to thrive. However, inhabitants did not perceive all illnesses as moral judgments or as the result of cosmic sanction. Tuberculosis and pneumonia, they felt, could befall anyone; those were simply two of humanity’s burdens. Furthermore, it has been asked whether experiences of betrayal, interpersonal alienation, and power politics might help explain some manifestations of illness or sudden disability. One of the striking examples concerns the air-traffic-controller crisis of the early 1980s. In 1981, air traffic controllers went on strike to protest their working conditions and the intolerable stress associated with their jobs. However, researchers readily conceded that the controllers were under stress, they could find no physical evidence of it, like heightened levels of cortisol or elevated blood pressure. Ultimately, Robert Rose, a prominent psychiatrist on a Federal Aviation Administration team researching the problem, concluded that the cause of the controllers’ suffering was not so much stress as a lack of social support. They felt that no one cared about how hard their work was, or how they fared in their jobs. The stress they experienced, Mr. Rose became convinced, was not just biological or physiological, and it “wasn’t just inside the individual.” Their illness was a product of social experience. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

Also, during World War I, some supplicants were described as suffering from war blindness (Kriegsblindheit). While many other ailments continued to be part of the parade of affliction, illness vaguely attributed to war damage and impairments to sufferers’ limbs and sensory organs were especially prominent themes. Applying these ideas to postwar Germany, we might ask how pervasive unease, a sense of collective failure, persistent questions of blame, and fears of betrayal might have influenced the ways people experienced the fragility of their bodies after the war. Did people become suddenly blind or deaf because they could not bear to see or hear what was happening around them—could not bear defeat and its consequences? Did some suddenly lose their ability to walk as a form of unconscious protest against volition, against agency, against responsibility for genocide and war or defense crimes? Did they lose the ability to speak because there were so many things that could not be discussed out loud? The loss of speech can stand for a refusal of co-existence. The human spirit is a distinct organism. Separation of soul and spirit can happen. This is because of the Fall. The spirit which had been in union with God—which once ruled and dominated the soul and body—feel from its predominated position into the vessel of the soul and could no longer rule. In the “new birth,” which the Lord told Nicodemus was necessary for every man, the regeneration of the fallen spirit takes place. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” reports John 3.6; “a new spirit will I put within you,” reports Ezekiel 36.26. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

And through cognizance of the death of the old creation with Christ, as set forth in Romans 6.6, is the new spirit liberated, divided from the soul, and joined to the Risen Lord. “Dead to the law…joined to Another”; “Having died…that we might serve in newness of the spirit,” reports Romans 7.4-6. The believer’s life is therefore to be a walk after the spirit, minding the things of the spirit. However, the believer can only thus walk after the spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in one. The Holy Spirit lifts one’s spirit to the place of rule over soul and body—“flesh,” both ethically and physically—by joining it to the Risen Lord, and making it “one spirit” with Him. That the believer retains volitional control over one’s own spirit is the important point to note, for through ignorance one can withdraw one’s spirit from cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and thus, so to speak, walk after the soul, or after the flesh—unwittingly. A surrendered will to do the will of God I therefore no guarantee that one is doing that will; one must understand what the will of the Lord is, and for doing that will must seek to be filled in spirit to the utmost of one’s capacity. The knowledge that the Spirit of God has come to indwell the shrine of the spirit is not enough to guarantee that the believer will continue to walk in the spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. If one wishes to truly “live” in the realm of the Spirit and know His power, one must learn how to “walk” with the Spirit. And for this, one must understand how to “combine” and “compare” spiritual things with spiritual, so as to interpret truly the things of the Spirit of God—exercising the spirit faculty by which one is able to examine all things, and so discern the mind of the Lord. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Such a believer should know how to walk after the spirit, so that one does not quench its action, movements or admonitions as it is moved or exercised by the Spirit of God—cultivating its strength by use, so that one becomes strong in spirit, and a truly spiritual human of “full age” in the Church of God. The Spiritual Community is the assembly of God of the Old Testament, the body of Christ of the New Testament, and the church invisible or Spiritual of the Reformers. It is the invisible essence of the religious communities, both non-Christian and Christian alike. However, those religious groups which are consciously founded upon the reception of Jesus as the Christ are the churches. The Christian churches constitute the manifest Spiritual Community. The Spiritual Community does not exist as a separate entity. For the Spiritual Community is the invisible essence, the inner telos, the essential power in every actual church. The spiritual essence of the churches permits them to participate in unambiguous life under the Spiritual Presence. However, they are also groups of human beings under the conditions of existence. They are simultaneously both the actualization and the distortion of the Spiritual Community. Consequently, there are two aspects to the churches which make them a paradox: the theological aspect, which points to their spiritual essence, and the sociological aspect, which reveals their ambiguities. Every church is a sociological reality. As such it is subject to the laws which determine the life of social groups with all their ambiguities. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

The sociologists of religion are justified in conducting these inquiries in the same way as the sociologists of law, of the arts, and of the sciences. They rightly point to the social stratification within the churches, to the rise and fall of elites, to power struggles and the destructive weapons used in them, to the conflict between freedom and organization, to aristocratic esotericism in contrast to democratic exotericism, and so forth. Seen in this light, the history of the churches is a secular history with all the disintegrating, destructive, and tragic-demonic elements which make historical life as ambiguous as all other life processes. Despite the sociological trappings which envelop the churches, at their core lies the Spiritual Community. It supplies the “in spite of” element in their paradoxical character, the dynamism which does not eliminate, but conquers the ambiguities of religion at least in principle. The phrase “in principle” means “the power of beginning, which remains the controlling power in a whole process.” In this sense, the Spiritual Presence, the New Being, and the Spiritual Community are principles (archai). Since our primary interest in the mutual relationship between religion and culture, we shall not delay to describe how the Spiritual Presence overcomes the ambiguities of religion within religion itself. Instead, we consider the influence of the churches upon individuals and upon society. As regards the ambiguities of religion, it suffices to note the operative factor, the Protestant principle: The Protestant principle is an expression of the conquest of religion by the Spiritual Presence and consequently an expression of the victory over the ambiguities of religion, its profanization, and its demonization. In this sense, we can speak of the victory of the Spirit over religion. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

Marxism is humanism, and its amin is the full unfolding of the human potentialities—not humans as deduced from their ideas or their consciousness, but humans with their physical and psychic properties, the real human who does not live in a vacuum but in a social context, the human who has to produce in order to live. It I precisely the fact that the whole human, as well as one’s consciousness, is the concern of Marxist thought which differentiates Mrs. Marx’s “materialism” from Mr. Hegel’s idealism, as well as from the economistic-mechanistic deformation of Marxism. It was Mr. Marx’s great achievement to liberate the economic and philosophical categories that referred to humans from their abstract and alienated expressions and to apply philosophy and economics ad hominem. Mr. Marx’s concern was humans, and his aim was humans’ liberation from the predomination of material interests, from the prison one’s own arrangements and deeds had built around them. If one does not understand this concern of Mr. Marx, one will never understand either his theory or the falsification of it by many who claim to practice it. Even though Mr. Marx’s main work is entitled Capital (Das Kapital), this work was meant to be only a step in his total research, to be followed by a history of philosophy. For Mr. Marx the study of capital was a critical tool to be used for understanding humans’ crippled state in industrial society. It is one step in the great work which, if he had been able to write it, might have been entitled On Man and Society. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Mr. Marx’s work, that of the “young” Mr. Marx as well as that of the author of Capital, is fully of psychological concepts. He deals with concepts like the “essence of man,” and the “crippled man,” with “alienation,” with “consciousness,” with “passionate strivings,” and with “independence,” to name only some of the most important. Yet, in contrast to Mr. Aristotle and Mr. Spinoza, who based ethics on a systematic psychology, Mr. Marx’s work contains almost no psychological theory. Aside from fragmentary remarks on the distinction between fixed drives (like hunger and sexuality) and flexible drives which are socially produced, there is hardly any relevant psychology to be found in Mr. Marx’s writings or, for that matter, in those of his successors. The reason for this failure does not lie in a lack of interest in or talent for analyzing psychological phenomena (the volumes containing the unabridged correspondence between Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels show a capacity for penetrating analysis of unconscious motivations that would be a credit to any gifted psychoanalyst); it is to be found in the fact that during Mr. Marx’s lifetime there was no dynamic psychology that he could have applied to the problems of human beings. Mr. Marx died in 1883; Dr. Freud began to publish his work more than ten years after Mr. Marx’s death. Even though in need of many revisions, the kind of psychology necessary to supplement Mr. Marx’s analysis was created by Dr. Freud. Psychoanalysis is, first of all, a dynamic psychology. It deals with psychic forces, which motivate human behaviour, action, feelings, ides. These forces cannot always be seen as such; they have to be inferred from the observable phenomena, and to be studied in their contradictions and transformations. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

To be useful for Marxist thinking, a psychology must also be one which sees the evolution of these psychic forces as a process of constant interaction between humans’ need and the social and historical reality in which one participates. It must be a psychology which is from the very beginning social psychology. Eventually, it must be a critical psychology, particularly one critical of humans’ consciousness. Dr. Freud’s psychoanalysis fulfills these main conditions, even though their relevance for Marxist thought was grasped neither by most Freudians nor by Marxists. The reasons for this failure to make contact are apparent on both sides. Marxist continued in the tradition of ignoring psychology; Dr. Freud and his disciples developed their ideas within the framework of mechanistic materialism, which proved restrictive to the development of the great discoveries of Dr. Freud and incompatible with “historical materialism.” In the revival of Marxist humanism, those in the West became aware of the fact that socialism must satisfy humans’ need for a system of orientation and devotion; that it must deal with the questions of who humans are and what the meaning and aim of their lives are. It must be the foundation for ethical norms and spiritual development beyond the empty phrase stating that “good is that which serves the revolution” (the worker’s state, historical evolution, et cetera). On the other hand, the criticism arising in the psychoanalytic camp against the mechanistic materialism underlying Dr. Freud’s thinking has led to a critical reevaluation of psychoanalysis, essentially of the libido theory. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

Because of the development in both Marxist and psychoanalytic thinking, the time seems to have come for humanist Marxist to recognize that the use of a dynamic, critical, socially oriented psychology is of crucial importance for the further development of Marxist theory and socialist practice; that a theory centered around man can no longer remain a theory without psychology if it is not to lose touch with human reality. The sado-masochistic person is always characterized by one’s attitude toward authority. One admires authority and tends to submit to it, but at the same time one wants to be an authority oneself and have others submit to one. There is an additional reason for choosing this term. The Fascist systems call themselves authoritarian because of the dominant role of authority in their social and political structure. By the term “authoritarian character,” we imply that it represents the personality structure which is the human basis of Fascism. Authority is not a quality one person “has,” in the sense that one had property or physical qualities. Authority refers to an interpersonal relation in which one person looks upon another as somebody superior to one. However, there is a fundamental difference between a kind of superiority-inferiority relation which can be called rational authority and one which may be described as inhibiting authority. An example is the relationship between teacher and student and that between slave and owner and slave are both based on the superiority of the one over the other. The interests of teacher and pupil lie in the same direction. If one succeeds in furthering the pupil, the teacher is satisfied; if one has failed to do so, the failure is that of the teacher and the pupil. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

The slaver owner, on the other hand, wants to exploit the slave as much as possible; the more one gets out of the slave, the more one is satisfied. At the same time, the slave seeks to defend as best one can one’s claims for a minimum of happiness. These interests are definitely antagonistic, as what is of advantage to the one is detrimental to the other. The superiority has a different function in both cases: in the first, it is the condition for the helping of the person subjected to the authority; in the second, it is the condition for one’s exploitation. The dynamics of authority in these two types are different too: the more the student learns, the less wide is the gap between one and the teacher. One becomes more and more like the teacher oneself. In other words, the authority relationship tends to dissolve itself. However, when the superiority serves as a basis for exploitation, the distance becomes intensified through its long duration. The psychological situation is different in each of these authority situations. In the first, elements of love, admiration, or gratitude are prevalent. The authority is at the same time an example with which one wants to identify one’s self partially or totally. In the second situation, resentment or hostility will arise against the exploiter, subordination to whom is against one’s own interest. However, often, as in the case of a slave, this hatred would only lead to conflicts which would subject the slave to suffering without a chance of winning. Therefore, the tendency will usually be to repress the feeling of hatred and sometimes even to replace it by a feeling of blind admiration. This has two functions: to remove the painful dangerous feeling of hatred, and to soften the feeling of humiliation. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

If the person who rules over me is so wonderful or perfect, then I should not be ashamed of obeying one. I cannot be one’s equal because one is so much stronger, wiser, better, and so on, than I am. As a result, in the inhibiting kind of authority, the element either of hatred or of irrational overestimation and admiration of the authority, the element either of hatred or of irrational overestimation and admiration of the authority will tend to increase. In the rational kind of authority, it will tend to decrease in direct proportion to the degree in which the person subjected to the authority becomes stronger and thereby more similar to the authority. The difference between rational and inhibiting authority is only a relative one. Even in the relationship between slave and master there are elements of advantage for the slave. One gets a minimum of food and protection which at least enables one to work for one’s master. (However, with being beat and working in the broiling hot sun and freeze cold could lead to death, as well as the beatings.) On the other hand, it is only in an ideal relationship between teacher and student that we find a complete lack of antagonism of interests. There are many gradations between these two extreme cases, as in the relationship of a factory worker, with one’s boss, or a farmer’s son with his father, of a hausfrau with her husband. Nevertheless, although in reality two types of authority are blended, they are essentially different, and an analysis of a concrete authority situation must always determine the specific weight of each kind of authority. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

Authority does not have to be a person or institution which says: you have to do this, or you are not allowed to do that. While this kind of authority may be called external authority, authority can appear as internal authority, under the name of duty, conscience, or superego. As a matter of fact, the development of modern thinking from Protestantism to Mr. Kant’s philosophy, can be characterized as the substitution of internalized authority for an external one. With the political victories of the rising middle class, external authority lost prestige and man’s own conscience assumed the place which external authority once had held. This change appeared to many as the victory of freedom. To submit to orders from the outside (at least in spiritual matters) appeared to be unworthy of a free man; but the conquest of one’s natural inclinations, and the establishment of the domination of one part of the individual, one’s nature, by another, one’s reason, will or conscience, seemed to be the very essence of freedom. Analysis shows that conscience rules with a harshness as great as external authorities, and furthermore that frequently the contents of the orders issues by humans’ conscience are ultimately not governed by demands which have assumed the dignity of ethical norms. The rulership of conscience can be even harsher than that of external authorities, since the individual feels its orders to be one’s own; how can one rebel against oneself? Mr. Stalin, a shrewd, cynical opportunist with an insatiable lust for personal power, drew the consequences of the failure. Given his personality, socialism could never have meant for him the human vision of Mr. Marx or Mr. Engles, and hence he had no scruples in introducing the enforced industrialization of Russian under the name of “socialism in one country.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

This formula was only the transparent cover for the goal to be achieved—the building of a totalitarian state managerialism in Russia, and the rapid capital accumulation (and mobilization of human energy) necessary for this goal. Mr. Stalin liquidated the socialist revolution in the name of “socialism.” He used terror to enforce acceptance of the material deprivations which resulted from the rapid build-up of basic industries at the expense of the production of consumer goods; furthermore, the terror served to create a new work morale by mobilizing the energies of an essentially agrarian population and forcing them to work at the pace necessary for this rapid industrial expansion. He used terror probably far beyond what was necessary for the achievement of his economic program because he was possessed by an extraordinary thirst for power, a paranoid suspicion of rivals, and a pathological pleasure in revenge. If a highly industrialized, centralized Russian state managerialism was Mr. Stalin’s aim, he certainly could not have said so. Terror alone, even the most extreme terror, would not have sufficed to force the masses into co-operation had not Mr. Stalin been able also to influence humans’ minds and thoughts He could, of course, have made a complete about-face, staging an ideological counterrevolution employing a fascist-nationalist ideology. Thus he might have had the ideological means which would have led to similar results. Mr. Stalin did not choose this course, and hence there was nothing left for him to do but to use the only ideology which had any influence on the masses at that time—that of communism and World revolution. Religion had been depreciated by the Communist Party; nationalism had been depreciated; “Marxism-Leninism” was the only prestigious ideology left. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

And no one this, but the figures of Mr. Marx, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Lenin had a charismatic appeal for the Russian people and Mr. Stalin used this appeal by presenting himself as their legitimate successor. In order to perpetrate the great historical fraud, Mr. Stalin had to get rid of Mr. Trotsky and eventually to exterminate almost all the old Bolsheviks to have the way completely free for his transformation of the socialist goal into one of a reactionary state managerialism. He had to rewrite history in order to wipe out even the memory of the old revolutionaries and their ideas. Maybe, unconsciously, he feared and suspected the old revolutionaries in his paranoid fashion, because he felt guilty of having betrayed the ideals of which they were symbols. If not in the whole World, Mr. Stalin succeeded in his goal, which was not World revolution but an industrialized Russia that should become the strongest industrial power in Europe. The economic success of his method of totalitarian state planning later continued with some changes by Mr. Malenkov and Mr. Khrushchev, is no long a matter of dispute. “The Soviet system of centralized direction has proved itself to be more or less the peer of the market economy, as exemplified by the United States of America.” This judgment is borne out by the Russian industrial growth. While the estimates of various American economists vary somewhat, the differences are relatively small. Mr. Bornstein estimates the annual rate of growth of gross national product from 1950 to 1958 in the Soviet Union at 6.5-7.5 percent and for the United States of America in the name period at 2.9 percent. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Kaplan-Moorsteen estimate the Russian industrial rate of growth for the same period as being 9.2 percent. The current GDP in Russia for 2023 is 1.3 percent. If one considers the Russian annual rate of growth since 1913, that is to say for the period including the destruction of the First World War and the Civil War, the figures are, of course, quite different. They are according to Mr. Nutter, for civilian industrial output from 1913 to 1955 only 4.2 percent, while the rate of growth for the last forty years of the Czarist period was 5.3 percent. However, between 1928 and 1940 (that is to say, in a period of peace) the Soviet rate was 8.3 percent and between 1950 and 1955 9.0 percent, more or less twice the United States of America during the same time, and somewhat less than twice that of the Czarist rate. Mr. Nutter estimates that if one looks to the immediate future—“it seems reasonably certain that industrial growth will proceed more rapidly in the Soviet Union than in the United States of America, in the absence of radical institutional changes in either country,” while, “it is more doubtful that industrial growth in the Soviet Union will be faster than in rapidly expanding Western economies, such as Western Germany, France, and Japan.” Mr. Nutter doubts, however, that in the long run the Soviet system will generate a more rapid growth than the private enterprise system. In contrast to industrial production, Russian agricultural production has been lagging far behind the planned figures and still constitutes one of the difficult problems of the Russian system. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

As far as consumption is concerned, the annual growth, taking in account the growth in population, is estimated at about 5 percent, with a recent rise in consumption among peasants. “In terms of food and clothing,” Mr. Turgeon concludes, “the Soviet stands the best chance of overtaking our level of living,” while the United States of America is far ahead in automobiles and other durable consumer goods, and in expenditures for services and travel. Mr. Stalin laid the foundations for a new, industrialized Russia. He transformed, within less than thirty years, the economically most backward of the great European nations into an industrial system that soon would become the economically most advanced and prosperous, second only to the United States of America. He achieved this goal through the ruthless destruction of human lives and happiness, through the cynical falsification of socialist ideas, and through an inhumanity which together with that of Mr. Hitler, corroded the sense of humanity in the rest of the World. Yet apart from the question whether this goal could have been achieved in less inhuman way by using other methods, the fact that he left to his heirs a viable and strong economic and political system. Many of the Stalinist features have remained the same—others have been changed. It is probably not extreme to declare any quote of work externally imposed upon a person is bound to seem coercive to some degree. While the ways in which coercion is exercised are often subtle and difficult to discern, even where no effort is made deliberately to conceal them, the effects of coercion are registered in the attitude of the person to one’s work. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

Instead of motivation to approach an ideal of performance, which removes all barriers to the release of energy, there is resistance to the coercion, a setting of limits to effort, and even discontent and sabotage. Instead of guilt over doing less than one’s best, there is often the feeling that integrity and self-respect are best maintained by a refusal to surrender to the coercion. To be sure, it is obvious that employment utterly free of coercion is almost nonexistent; even play can become rapidly adulterated with compulsion as it gets organized by teams and clubs. Nevertheless, there are enormous differences in quality of performance as coercion fluctuates. Conversely, if none of the personnel doe more than their specified and required minimum, no organization can survive long; even in prison, the prisoners must contribute more than is absolutely forced from them. In practice the participation of personnel in setting the goals of their own effort can help to release the energy for attaining them. In determining their respective quotas and schedules, personnel are in effect spelling out of the interim or subgoals within the over-all goals of the agency. Yet, since initiative in evoking responsibility lies almost entirely with the administrator, the burden of achieving the personnel’s genuine participation lies upon one’s shoulders, and failure to achieve it can only spuriously be blamed on the personnel. In other words, as generally recognized, the test of the administrator, although it may be expressed in term of objective results in completing one’s program, is basically a test of one’s ability to minimize coercion and maximize participation. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

Where one has the least opportunity for coercion, one’s skill as an organizer and leader of group effort becomes most clearly manifest (such as in campaigns using unpaid volunteers). All other conditions being equal, it seems demonstrable that shared purpose will always release more energy and ingenuity, and produce better results, than coercion. Too often the planning aspect of administration is discussed loosely in terms of controls. Not only has the term a popular connotation of some form or degree of coercion, but this is all too often so in practice. In other words, the various quotas and schedules are set up unilaterally and hierarchically by the administrator and one’s lieutenants, as tasks imposed externally upon subordinates. The best forms of planning break down the broad goals of a program to apply to the various functional units of the executive agency, but much is lost, and the success of the program is jeopardized, if this is done solely for the sake of co-ordination. If quotas and schedules are instead construed not as controls in this limited sense but as interim goals, their other functions in facilitating motivation of personnel and morale of the agency then become feasible Beyond starting these general characteristics of the program phase of our model of the planning process, it is doubtful that much more could be said without getting down to particular cases. There are vast numbers of books about the familiar problems of administration, most of the conceived in terms of human relations. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all. If a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not wrong him or her. And you shall love one as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of America. Please be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Depart, as they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19


Ready to build your custom dream home?

Get started today by telling us what you’re wanting and we can schedule an initial consultation. For example, I would like to build a copy of The Winchester Mystery House. https://millhavenhomes.com/
Wild Savage Beasts, with Whom Men and Woman Can Have No Society or Security

To bottomless perdition, there to dwell in adamantine chains and penal fire, who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms. Nine times the space that measures day and night to mortal men, he with his horrid crew lay vanquished, rolling in the fiery gulf confounded though immortal: but his doom reserved him to more wrath; for now the thought both of lost happiness and lasting pain torments him; round he throws his baleful eyes that witnessed huge affliction and dismay mixed with obdurate pride and steadfast hate: at once as far as angels ken he views the dismal situation waste and wild, a dungeon horrible, on all side round as one great furnace flamed, yet from those flames no light, but rather darkness visible served only to discover sights of woe, regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace and rest can never dwell, hope never comes that comes to all; but torture without end still urges, and a fiery deluge, fed with ever-burning sulphur unconsumed: such place Eternal Justice had prepare for thse rebellious, there their prison ordained in utter darkness, and their portion set as far removed from God and light of Heaven as from the center thrice to the utmost pole. O how unlike the place from whence they fell! There the companions of his fall, overwhelmed with floods and whirlwinds of tempestuous fire, he soon discerns, and weltering by his side one next himself in power, and next in crime. This is a description of Satan’s fall from Heaven and what Hell is like. Many people, especially those who wickedly, maliciously, and feloniously sin like to deluge themselves into thinking there is no Hell. However, those who sin fell to see the Hell they are creating on Earth, in their lives and in the lives of people around them. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

If you look at their victims and their own lives, it sounds a lot like they are living in Hell, right? So, can you imagine how much worse it will be to spend Eternal Life burning in Hell? To every action, there is an equal, but separate reaction. That is Sir Isacc Newton’s Third Law of Physics. Therefore, a person who thinks that they can go on sinning and not pay the wages of sin is delusional. The wages of sin are death. This means you will not be resurrected to live eternal life with God. This is why it is important to be a good Christian and obey the laws of the land. The Rule of Law is one star in the constellation of ideals that dominate our political morality: the others are democracy, human rights, and economic freedom. We want societies to be democratic; we want them to respect human rights; we want them to organize their economies around free markets and private property to the extent that this can be done without seriously compromising social justice; and we want them to be governed in accordance with the Rule of Law. We want the Rule of Law for new societies—for newly emerging democracies, for example—and old societies alike, for national political communities and regional and international governance, and we want it to extend into all aspects of governments’ dealings with those subject to them—not just in day-to-day criminal law, or commercial law, or administrative law but also in law administered at the margins, in antiterrorism law and in the exercise of power over those who are marginalized, those who can safely be dismissed as outsiders, and those we are tempted to just destroy as (in John Locke’s words) “wild Savage Beasts, with whom men can have no Society or Security.” Some people like to produce a series of lifetime crises, instead of transcending their issues or seeking help. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

Getting to the Rule of Law does not just mean paying lip service to the ideal in the ordinary security of a prosperous modern democracy; it means extending the Law and Order into societies that are not necessarily familiar with it; and in those societies that are accustomed to it, it means extending the Rule of Law into these unseen corners of governance, as well. The formal aspects of the Rule of Law concern the form of the norms that are applied to our conduct: generality, prospectivity, stability, publicity, clarity, and so on. However, we do not value them for formalistic reason. We value these features for the contribution they make to predictability, which is indispensable for liberty. We value them for the way they respect human dignity. To judge people’s actions by unpublished or retrospective laws is to convey to them your indifference to their power of self-determination. If we respect dignity in these formal ways, we will find ourselves more inhibited against more substantive assault on self-respect and justice. The Rule of Law is treated as an ideal that calls directly for an end to human rights abuses or as an ideal that calls directly for free markets and respect for private property rights. When people clamor for the Rule of Law in America, they are demanding impartial tribunals that can adjudicate their claims. And when people are detained, they are clamoring for hearings on the comprehensive loss of liberty in which they would have an opportunity to put their case, confront and examine the evidence against them, such as it is, and make arguments for their freedom, in accordance with what we would say were normal legal procedures. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

The masochistic bonds in society are fundamentally different from the primary bonds. The latter are those that exist before the process of individuation has reached its completion. The individual is still part of “one’s” natural and social World, one has not yet completely emerged from one’s surroundings. The primary bonds give one genuine security and the knowledge of where one belongs. The masochistic bonds are escape. The individual self has emerged, but it is unable to realize its freedom; it is overwhelmed by anxiety, doubt, and a feeling of powerlessness. The self attempts to find security in “security bonds,” as we might call the masochistic bonds, but this attempt can never be successful. The emergence of the individual self cannot be reserved; consciously the individual can feel secure and as if one “belonged,” but basically one remains a powerless atom who suffers under the submergence of one’s self. One and the power to which one clings never become one, a basic antagonism remains and with it an impulse, even if it is not conscious at all, to overcome the masochistic dependence and to become free. What is the essence of the sadistic drives? Again, the wish to inflict pain on others is not the essence. All the different forms of sadism which we can observe go back to one essential impulse, namely, to have complete mastery over another person, to make one a helpless object of our will, to become the absolute ruler over one, to become one’s God, to do with one as one pleases. To humiliate one, to enslave one, are means to this end and the most radical aim is to make one suffer, since there is no greater power over another person than that of inflicting pain on one, to force one to undergo suffering without one’s being able to defend oneself. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

The pleasure in the complete domination over another person (or other animate objects) is the very essence of the sadistic drive. People say that a God who punishes is sadistic. However, what you put out in the World is what you attract. Sadism is not pleasure you want to make another person feel but impression you want to produce; that of pain is far stronger than that of pleasure…one realized that; one uses it and is satisfied. Sadism is the pleasure felt from the observed modifications on the external World produced by the observer. The sadistic mastery is characterized by the fact that it wants to make the object a will-less instrument in the sadist’s hands, while the nonsadistic joy in influencing others respects the integrity of the other person and is based on a feeling of equality. It seems that this tendency to make oneself the absolute master over another person is the opposite of the masochistic tendency, and it is puzzling that these two tendencies should be so closely knitted together. No doubt with regard to it practical consequences the wish to be dependent or to suffer is the opposite of the wish to dominate and to make others suffer. Psychologically, however, both tendencies are the outcomes of one basic need, springing from the inability to bear the isolation and weakness of one’s own self. The aim of both sadism and masochism is called symbiosis. Symbiosis, in this psychological sense, means the union of one individual self with another self (or any other power outside of the own self) in such a way as to make each lose the integrity of its own self and to make them completely dependent on each other. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

The sadistic person needs one’s own object just as much as the masochistic needs one’s. Only instead of seeking security by being swallowed, one gains it by swallowing somebody else. In both cases the integrity of the individual self is lost. In one case, one dissolves oneself in an outside power; one loses oneself. In the other case, one enlarges oneself by making another being part of oneself and thereby one gains the strength one lacks as an independent self. It is always the inability to stand the aloneness of one’s individual self that leads to the drive to enter into a symbiotic relationship with someone else. It is evident from this why masochistic and sadistic trends are always blended with each other. Although on the surface they seem contradictions, they are essentially rooted in the same basic need. People are not sadistic or masochistic, but there is a constant oscillation between the active and the passive side of the symbiotic complex, so that it is often difficult to determine which side of it is operating at a given moment. In both cases individuality and freedom are lost. If we think of sadism, we usually think of the destructiveness and hostility which is so blatantly connected with it. To be sure, a greater or lesser amount of destructiveness is always to be found linked up with sadistic tendencies. However, this is also true of masochism. Every analysis of masochistic traits shows this hostility. The main difference seems to be that in sadism the hostility is usually more conscious and directly expressed in action, while in masochism the hostility is mostly unconscious and finds an indirect expression. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

Destructiveness is the result of the thwarting of the individual’s sensuous, emotional, and intellectual expansiveness; it is therefore to be expected as an outcome of the same conditions that makes for the symbiotic need. Sadism is not identical with destructiveness, although it is to a great extent blended with it. The destructive person wants to destroy the object, that is, to do away with it and to get ride of it. The sadist wants to dominate one’s object and therefore suffers a loss if his or her object disappears. Paranoid, projective and fanatical political thinking are all truly pathological forms of thought processes, different from pathology in the conventional sense only by the fact that political thoughts are shared by a larger group of people and not restricted to one or two individuals. These pathological forms of thinking, however, are not the only ones that block the way to the proper grasp of political reality. There are other forms of thinking, which should perhaps not be called pathological, yet which are equally dangerous, maybe only because they are more common. I refer especially to unauthentic, automaton-thinking. The process is simple: I believe something to be true, not because I have arrived at the thought by my own thinking, based on my own observation and experience, but because it has been “suggested” to me. When actually I have adopted them, in automaton-thinking I may be under the illusion that my thoughts are my own, because they have not been presented by sources that carry authority in one form or another. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

All of modern thought manipulation, whether it is in commercial advertising or in political propaganda, makes use of the suggestive-hypnoid techniques which produce thoughts and feelings in people without making them aware that “their” thoughts are not their own. The art of brain-washing that communists seem to have brought to a certain perfection is actually only a more extreme form of this hypnoid suggestion. With increasing skill in suggestive techniques, authentic thinking becomes more and more replaced by automaton-thinking, yet the great illusion of the voluntary and spontaneous character of our thoughts is kept alive. It is quite remarkable how readily groups recognize the unauthentic character of thought in opponents but not in themselves. American travelers, for instance, returning from Russia, report their impressions about the uniformity of political thinking in Russia. Everybody seems to ask the same questions, from “What about lynchings in the Sacramento, California?” to “If the Americans have peaceful intentions, why does the United State of America need so many military bases surrounding Russia?” What the travelers to Russian who report on the uniformity of opinion there are not aware of is that public opinion in the United State of America is hardly less uniform. Most Americans take for granted a number of cliches such as that the Russians want to conquer the World for revolutionary communism, that because they do not believe in God they have no concept of morality similar to our own, and so on. And that is exactly what many Americans fear about superstitious African American communists and the democratic party. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

This kind of unauthentic, automaton thinking results in “doublethink,” which George Orwell has so brilliantly described as the logic of totalitarian thought. “Doublethink,” he says in his book 1984, “means the power of holding two contradictor beliefs in one’s mind, and accepting both of them.” We are familiar with the Russian doublethink. Countries like Hungary and Germany, whose governments clearly rule against the will of the vast majority of the population, are called “people’s democracies.” A hierarchical class society built along rigid lines of economic, social and political inequality is called a “classless society.” A system in which the power of the states has been increasing for the last one hundred and twenty years is said to lead to the “withering away of the State.” However, doublethink is by no means only a Russian phenomenon. If they are anti-Russian, we in the West call dictatorships “part of the free World.” Thus dictators like Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kaishek, Mr. Franco, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Batista, to mention only a few, were acclaimed as fighters for freedom and democracy, and the truth about their regimes was suppressed or distorted. Besides that we permitted humans like Mr. Chiang, Mr. Rhee, and Mr. Adenauer to influence and, sometimes modify, American foreign policy. The American public is misinformed about Korea, Formosa, Laos, the Congo, and Germany to a degree that is in flagrant contrast to our picture of ourselves as having a free press and informed public. We call it subversion when the Russians make anti-American propaganda, but we do not call it subversive when ABC, NBC, and CBS do it. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

We proclaim our respect for the independence of small countries, but we support the overthrow of freedom and communist governments taking over in America. We are horrified at the Russian terror in Ukraine, but not at the American terror in Sacramento, California. Pathological thinking and doublethink are not only sick and inhuman, but they endanger our very survival. In a situation where errors in judgment can bring about catastrophic consequences we can not afford to indulge in pathological or cliché-ridden forms of thinking. The clearest and most realistic thought about the World situation, especially with regard to the conflict between Russian and the West becomes a matter of vital necessity. Today certain opinions are held with pride as being “realistic,” when they actually are some of the Pollyanish illusions that the attack. It is a peculiar frailty of human reactions that many are prone to believe that a cynical, “tough” perspective is more likely to be “realistic” than a more objective, complex, and constructive one. Apparently many people think that it takes a strong and courageous man to see things simply and without too many complexities, or to risk catastrophe without blinking. It seems, for instance, that the admiration with which Herman Kahn’s book On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1960, has been received in many quarters is due precisely to this mechanism. Anyone who can present a “budget” from 5 to 160 million fatalities in a nuclear war without shrinking, who can reassure us that 60 million killed will not seriously diminish the survivors’ pleasures in living, must be strong and “realistic.” Now many then observe how flimsy and unrealistic many of his thoughts and “proofs” are. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

Many forget that it often takes fanatical, self-righteous, and confused people to confuse what C.W. Mills has so rightly called “crackpot realism” with a rational appreciation of reality. Paranoid, projective, fanatical, and automaton thinking are various forms of thought processes, which are all rooted in the same basic phenomenon—in the fact that the human race has not arrived yet at the level of development expressed in the great humanist religions and philosophies that came to life in India, China, Palestine, Persia, and Greece from 1500 B.C. to the time of Christ. While most people think in terms of these religious systems and of their nontheological philosophical successors, they are still emotionally on an archaic, irrational level, not different from the one that existed before the ideas of Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity had been proclaimed. We still worship idols. We do not call these idols Baal or Astarte but we worship and submit to our idols under different names. In fact, the TV has become the number one false idol in the World, which children are taught to worship from day one. Technically and intellectually we are living in an atomic age; emotionally we are still living in the Stone Age. We feel superior to the Aztecs who on a feast day sacrificed 20,000 men and women to their gods, in the belief this would keep the universe in its proper course. We sacrifice millions of men and women for various goals that we think are noble and we justify the slaughter. However, the facts are the same, only the rationalizations are different. Humans, in spite of all their intellectual and technical progress, are still caught in the idol worship of blood ties, property, and institutions. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

The reason of humans is still governed by irrational passions. They have still not experienced what it is to be fully human. We till have a double standard of values for judging our own and outside groups. The history of civilized man until now is really very short, comparable to less than an hour in human life. It is not amazing or discouraging that we have still not reached maturity. Those who believe in humans’ capacity to become what they potentially are would have no need to be alarmed were it not that the discrepancy between emotional and intellectual-technical development has reached such proportions now that we are threated with extinction or a new barbarism. This time only a fundamental and authentic change will save us. Yet we so little know how to accomplish this change—and the times are so pressing. One approach is to speak the truth. We mut penetrate the net of rationalizations, self-delusions, and doublethink. We must be objective and see the World and ourselves realistically and undistorted by narcissism and xenophobia. Freedom exists only where there is reason and truth. Archaic tribalism and idolatry flourish where the voice of reason is silent. Does it not follow that to know the truth about facts of foreign policy is of vital importance for the preservation of freedom and peace? Up to this point, our model outline of the policy-making phase of the planning process may have seemed to imply some identity between the affected public and its policy-making body. In the smallest planning operations, such an identity is possible and a sort of direct democracy may exist. In most instance, however, even at the local level of operation, policy-making must be carried on by representative bodies. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

Moreover, the fact that typical documents of the policy phase are minutes of meetings, hearings, and debates may serve to obscure that such formal encounters only condense a larger process of public involvement. The vicarious participation by the affected public through its representative policy-making body needs to be stressed, because therein sees to be an important difference in content, if not in procedure, between the making of law and the setting of goals for action programs—between government in the classical sense and planning in the modern sense. Once launched, a proposal can rarely be withdrawn to a more propitious time; it must meet its fate, whether it be rejection or acceptance. As the discussion by the public proceeds to a climax, it becomes fitting for the representative policy-making body to express a decision either by vote or by some other method. And such a decision, is ideally the formal culmination of a process by which in fact the public has already made up its mind as to what it wants. One further important, but frequently neglected, item is necessary to complete the policy phase. This is the brief ceremony which, though performed in a multitude of formal and informal ways, is generally known as burying the hatchet. Discriminating and sincere dramatization of the values held in common among the erstwhile antagonists is a priceless asset in assuring the maximum degree of co-operation-or at least noninterference-by all parties in the execution of the program which has been finally adopted as policy. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

The finding that traders may be trapped into undesirable equilibrium under an enforcer, for example, as the result of the mafisos intermediary’s commission is higher when one provides enforcement services than when one provides information only. This model finds that violence is more likely when the mafisos provides enforcement services and in the competition among rival mafiosi. That statement that obedience to another person is ipso facto submission needs also to be qualified by distinguishing “irrational” from “rational” authority. An example of rational authority is to be found in the relationship between student and teacher; one of irrational authority in the relationship between slave and master. Both relationships are based on the fact that authority of the person in command is accepted. Dynamically, however, they are of a different nature. The interests of the teacher and the student, in the ideal case, lie in the same direction. The teacher is satisfied if one succeeds in furthering the student; if one has failed to do so, the failure is one’s and the student’s. The slave owner, on the other hand, wants to exploit the slave as much as possible. The more one gets out of one, the more satisfied one is. At the same time the slave tries to defend as best one can one’s claims for a minimum of happiness. The interests of slave and master are antagonistic, because what is advantageous to the one is detrimental to the other. The superiority of the one over the other has different function in each case; in the first it is the condition for the furtherance of the person subjected to the authority, and in the second it is the condition for one’s exploitation. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Another distinction runs parallel to this: rational authority is rational because the authority, whether it is held by a teacher or a captain of a ship giving orders in an emergency, acts in the name of reason which, being universal, I can accept without submitting. Irrational authority has to use force or suggestion, because no one would let oneself be exploited if one were free to prevent it. Why are humans so prone to obey and why is it so difficult for them to disobey? As long as I am obedient to the power of the State, the Church, the media, or public opinion, I feel safe and protected. In fact it makes little difference what power it is that I am obedient to. It is always an institution, or men and women, who use force in one form or another and who fraudulently claim omniscience and omnipotence. My obedience makes me part of the power I worship, and hence I feel strong. I can make no error since it decides for me; I cannot be alone, because it watches over me; I cannot commit a sin, because it does not let me do so, and even if I do sin, the punishment is only the way of retuning to the almighty power. In order to disobey, one must have the courage to be alone, to err and to sin. However, courage is not enough. The capacity for courage depends on a person’s state of development. Only if a person has emerged from mother’s lap and father’s commands, only if one has emerged as a fully developed individual and thus has acquired the capacity to think and feel for oneself, only then can one have the courage to say “no” to power, to disobey. A person can become free through acts of disobedience by learning to say no to power. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

However, not only is the capacity for disobedience the condition for freedom; freedom is also the condition for disobedience. If I am afraid of freedom, I cannot day to say “no,” I cannot have the courage to be disobedient. Indeed, freedom and the capacity for disobedience are inseparable; hence any social, political, and religious system which proclaims freedom, yet stamps out disobedience, cannot speak the truth. The liberation of the will from its passive condition and control by the prince of this World takes place when the believer recognizes one’s right of choice and begins deliberately to place one’s will on God’s side, thus choosing the will of God. Until the will is fully liberated for action, it is helpful for the believer to assert one’s decision frequently by saying, “I choose the will of God, and I refuse the will of the ultimate negative.” The soul may not even be able to distinguish which is which, but the declaration is having effect in the unseen World. God definitely works by His Spirit in the human as one chooses His will, energizing one through one’s volition continually to refuse the claims of sin and the ultimate negative; and the ultimate negative is thereby rendered more and more powerless, while the human is stepping out into the salvation obtained potentially for one at Calvary…and God is gaining once more a loyal subject in a rebellious World. On the part of the believer the action of the will is governed by the understanding of the mind: id est, the mind sees what to do, the will chooses to do it, and then from the spirit comes the power to fulfill the choice of the will and the percept of the mind. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

For example, the human sees that one should speak, one chooses or wills to speak, one draws upon the power in one’s spirit to carry out one’s decision. This presumes a knowledge of how to use the spirit and involves the necessity of knowing the laws of the spirit, so as to cooperate fully with the Holy Ghost. The nature of the Spiritual Community is further clarified by distinction between it manifest and latent stages. To put it simply, the difference between the latent and manifest community is the difference of “before” and “after” the encounter with the New Being in Jesus as the Christ Before an individual or a group—be they ancient Mandarin Chinese or modern humanists—receives the gospel message, they are in a period of preparatory revelation. They are not destitute of the Spiritual Presence, for there are elements of faith in the sense of being grasped by an ultimate concern, and there are elements of love in the sense of a transcendent reunion of the separated. Therefore, they belong to the Spiritual Community, but in a latent manner. The latent Spiritual Community lacks the ultimate criterion of the Cross of the Christ which is the principle of resistance against profanization and demonization. The manifest Spiritual Community is the community of those who have encountered and accepted Jesus as the Christ and, consequently, in the Cross possess the means of constant self-negation, reformation, and transformation. The Spiritual Community in its totality is thus seen to extend far beyond the Christian churches, though it embraces them. The “before” and “after” the encounter with Jesus the Christ is not demarcated by the year 33 A.D. For the Spiritual Community in its latency is created by the Spiritual Presence which is operative in all of history, including the present moment. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

The distinction between the latent and manifest Spiritual Community is not the same as the time-honored distinction between the visible and indivisible church, for “visible” and “invisible” apply to both the latent and manifest community. If its faith is expressed in an organized system of symbols and rituals, by this it is clear that the latent Spiritual Community is visible. The invisible latent community would seem to be those individuals who, although grasped by the Spiritual Presence, do not articulate their faith by adopting the symbols and cult of a recognizable, organized religion. “Visible” and “invisible” would apply to the manifest Spiritual Community in much the same way, the invisible manifest community being those who consciously and explicitly accept Jesus as the Christ, but shun the Christian churches. The existence of a Christian Humanism outside the Christian Church seems to me to make such a distinction necessary. It will not do to designate as non-churchly all those who have become alienated from the organized Churches and traditional creeds. My life in these groups for half a generation showed me how much latent Church there is in them: the experience of the finite character of human existence; the quest for the eternal and the unconditioned, and absolute devotion to justice and love; a hope which is more than any Utopia; an appreciation of Christian values; and a most delicate apprehension of the ideological misuse of Christianity in the Church and State. It often seemed to me as if the latent Church which I found in these groups, were a truer church than the organized Churches, because its members did not assume to be in possession of the truth. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

Powerful as the latent church is—not even communism could life if it were devoid of all elements of the Spiritual Community. It lacks the criterion of the Cross to guard against demonization from within, and the organizational strength to fend off the attacks of the modern paganism. Plant guards and eat the fruit of them. I, the Lord, will turn the captivity of My people America, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them. America shall no more be termed forsaken, neither shall the land be termed desolate any more. I will open rivers on the high hills, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land, springs of water. I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, the myrtle and the olive tree. Be glad then, ye children of America, and rejoice in the Lord your God. For the pastures of the wilderness are green with grass, the tree bears its fruit; the fig-tree and the vine do yield their strength. Be glad, O land, and rejoice, for the Lord hath done great things. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all. How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all. O Lord, our God, how glorious is Thy name in all the Earth! When I behold the Heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars which Thou hast established; what is human that Thou art mindful of them, and the son of man that Thou thinkest of him? Yet hast Thou made one but little less than divine, and hast crowned one with glory and honor. Thou hast made one to have dominion over the words of Thy hands; all things hast Thou put under one’s feet. Beloved of Thee are humans, Thine own creation, fashioned in Thine image. And pleasure be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD
Lincoln, CA | from the high $600s
Now Selling!

No appointment needed! 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! https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/

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

Humans Had to Leave the Garden of Eden in order to Become Fully Human

Although Dr. Freud has for many years paid little attention to the phenomenon of nonsexual aggression, Dr. Alfred Adler has put the tendencies in the center of his system. However, he deals with them not as sado-masochism, but as “inferiority feelings” and the “wish for power.” Dr. Adler sees only the rational side of these phenomena. While we are speaking of an irrational tendency to belittle oneself and make oneself small, he thinks of inferiority feelings as adequate reaction to actual inferiorities, such as organic inferiorities or the general helplessness of a child. And while we think of the wish for power as an expression of an irrational impulse to rule over others, Dr. Adler looks at it entirely from the rational side and speaks of the wish for power as an adequate reaction which has the function of protecting a person against the dangers springing from his or her insecurity and inferiority. Dr. Adler, here, as always, cannot see beyond purposeful and rational determinations of human behaviour; and though he has contributed valuable insights into the intricacies of motivation, he remains always on the surface and never descends into the abyss of irrational impulses as Dr. Freud has done. In psychoanalytic literature a viewpoint different from Dr. Freud’s has been presented by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, Dr. Karen Horney, and myself. Although Dr. Reich’s views are based on the original concept of Dr. Freud’s libido theory, he points out that the masochistic person ultimately seeks pleasure and that the pain incurred is a by-product, not an aim in itself. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Dr. Horney was the first one to recognize the fundamental role of masochistic strivings in the neurotic personality, to give a full and detailed description of the masochistic character traits, and to account for them theoretically as the outcome of the whole character structure. In her writings, as well as in my own, instead of the masochistic character traits being thought of as rooted in the sexual perversion, the latter is understood to be the sexual expression of psychic tendencies that are anchored in a particular kind of character structure. What is the root of both the masochistic perversion and masochistic character traits respectively? Furthermore, what is the common root of both the masochistic and the sadistic strivings? Both the masochistic and sadistic strivings tend to help the individual to escape one’s unbearable feeling of aloneness and powerlessness. Psychoanalytic and other empirical observations of masochistic persons give ample evidence that they are filled with a terror of aloneness and insignificance. Frequently this feeling is not conscious; often it is covered by compensatory feelings of eminence and perfection. However, if one only penetrates deeply enough into the unconscious dynamics of such a person, one finds these feelings without fail. The individual finds oneself “free” in the negative sense, that is, alone with one’s self and confronting an alienated, hostile World. In this situation, to quote a telling description of Mr. Dostoevski, in The Brothers Karamazov, he has “no more pressing need than the one to find somebody to whom he can surrender, as quickly as possible, that gift of freedom which he, the unfortunate creature, was born with.” #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

The frightened individual seeks for somebody or something to tie one’s self to; one cannot bear to be one’s own individual self any longer, and one tries frantically to get rid of it and to feel security again by the elimination of this burden: the self. Masochism is one way toward this goal. The different forms which the masochistic strivings assume have one aim: to get rid of the individual self, to lose oneself; in other words, to get rid of the burden of freedom. This aim is obvious in those masochistic strivings in which the individual seeks to submit to a person or power which one feels as being overwhelmingly strong. (Incidentally, the conviction of superior strength of another person is always to be understood in relative terms. It can be based either upon the actual strength of the other person, or upon a conviction of one’s own utter insignificance and powerlessness. In the latter event a mouse or a leaf can assume threatening features.) In other forms of masochistic strivings the essential aim is the same. In the masochistic feeling of smallness we find a tendency which serves to increase the original feeling of insignificance. How is this to be understood? Can we assume that by making a fear worse one is trying to remedy it? Indeed, this is what the masochistic person does. As long as I struggle between my desire to be independent and strong and my feeling of insignificance or powerlessness I am caught in a tormenting conflict. If I succeed in reducing my individual self to nothing, if I can overcome the awareness of my separateness as an individual, I may save myself from this conflict. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

To feel utterly small and helpless is one way to this aim; to be overcome by the effects of intoxication still another. If all other means have not succeeded in bringing relief from the burden of aloneness, the phantasy of suicide is the last hope (but not an option). Under certain conditions these masochistic strivings are relatively successful. If the individual finds cultural patterns that satisfy these masochistic strivings (like the submission under the “leader” in Fascist ideology), one gains some security by finding oneself united with millions of others who share these feelings. Yet even in these cases, the masochistic “solution” is no more of a solution than neurotic manifestations ever are: the individual succeeds in eliminating the conspicuous suffering but not in removing the underlying conflict and the silent unhappiness. When the masochistic striving does not find a cultural pattern or when it quantitatively exceeds the average amount of masochism in the individual’s social group, the masochistic solution does not even solve anything in relative terms. It springs from an unbearable situation, tends to overcome it, and leaves the individual caught in new suffering. If human behaviour were always rational and purposeful, masochism would be as inexplicable as neurotic manifestations in general are. This, however, is what the study of emotional and mental disturbances has taught us: that human behaviour can be motivated by strivings which are caused by anxiety or some other unbearable state of mind, that these strivings tend to overcome this emotional state and yet merely cover up its most visible manifestations, or not even these. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Neurotic manifestations resemble the irrational behaviour in a panic. Thus an individual, trapped in a fire, stands at the window of his or her room and shouts for help, forgetting entirely that no one can hear one and that one could still escape by the staircase which will also be aflame in a few minutes. One shouts because one wants to be saved, and for the moment this behaviour appears to be a step on the way to being saved—and yet it will end in complete catastrophe. In the same way the masochistic strivings are caused by the desire to get rid of the individual self with all its shortcomings, conflicts, risks, doubts, and unbearable aloneness, but they only succeed in removing the most noticeable pain or they even lead to greater suffering. The irrationality of masochism, as of all other neurotic manifestations, consists in the ultimate futility of the means adopted to solve an untenable emotional suffering. These considerations refer to an important difference between neurotic and rational activity. In the latter the result corresponds to the motivation of an activity-one acts in order to attain a certain result. In neurotic strivings one acts from a compulsion which has essentially a negative character: to escape an unbearable situation. The strivings tend in a direction which only fictitiously is a solution. Actually the result is contradictory to what the person wants to attain; the compulsion to get rid of an unbearable feeling was so strong that the person was unable to choose a line of action that could be a solution in any other but a fictitious sense. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

The implication of this for masochism is that the individual is driven by an unbearable feeling of aloneness and insignificance. One then attempts to overcome it by getting ride of one’s self (as a psychological, not as a physiological entity); one’s way to achieve this is to belittle oneself, to suffer, to make oneself utterly insignificant. However, pain and suffering are not what one wants; pain and suffering are the price one pays for an aim which one compulsively tries to attain. The price is dear. One has to pay more and more, like a peon, one only gets into greater debt without ever getting what one has paid for: inner peace and tranquility. The masochistic perversion proves beyond doubt that suffering can be something sought for. However, in the masochistic perversion as little as in moral masochism suffering is not the real aim; in both cases it is the means to an aim: forgetting one’s self. The difference between the perversion and masochistic character traits lies essentially in the following: In the perversion the trend to get rid of one’s self is expressed through the medium of the body and linked up with the sexual feelings. While in moral masochism, the masochistic trends get hold of the whole person and tend to destroy all the aims which the ego consciously tries to achieve, in the perversion the masochistic strivings are more or less restricted to the physical realm; moreover by their amalgamation with pleasures of the flesh they participate in the release of tension occurring in the sphere of pleasures of the flesh and thus find some direct release. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

The annihilation of the individual self and the attempt to overcome thereby the unbearable feeling of powerlessness are only one side of the masochistic strivings. The other side is the attempt to become a part of the bigger and more powerful whole outside of oneself, to submerge and participate in it. This power can be a person, an institution, God, the nation, conscience, or a psychic compulsion. By becoming part of a power which is felt as unshakably strong, eternal, and glamorous, one participates in its strength and glory. One surrenders one’s own self and renounces all strength and pride connected with it one loses one’s integrity as an individual and surrenders freedom; but one gains a new security and a new pride in the participation in the power in which one submerges. One gains also security against the torture of doubt. The masochistic person, whether one’s master is an authority outside of oneself or whether one has internalized the master as conscience or a psychic compulsion, is saved from making decisions, saved from the final responsibility for the fate of one self, and thereby saved from the doubt of what decision to make. One is also saved from the doubt of what the meaning of one’s life is or who “one” is. These questions are answered by the relationship to the power to which one has attached oneself. The meaning of one’s life and the identity of one’s self are determined by the greater whole into which the self has submerged. For centuries kings, priests, feudal lords, industrial bosses and parents have insisted that obedience is a virtue and that disobedience is a vice. However, human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.#RandolphHarris 7 of 19

Human history was ushered in by an act of disobedience according to the Hebrew and Greek myths. Adam and Eve, living in the Garden of Eden, were part of nature; they were in harmony with it, yet did not transcend it. They were in nature as the fetus is in the womb of the mother. They were human, and at the same time not yet human. All this changes when they disobeyed an order. By breaking the ties with Earth and mother, by cutting the umbilical cord, human emerged from a pre-human harmony and were able to take the first step into independence and freedom. The act of disobedience set Adam and Eve free and opened their eyes. They recognized each other as strangers and the World outside them as strange and even hostile. Their act of disobedience broke the primary bond with nature and made them individuals. “Original sin,” far from corrupting humans, set them free; it was the beginning of history. Humans had to leave the Garden of Eden in order to learn to rely on their own powers and become fully human. The prophets, in their messianic concept, confirmed the idea that humans had been right in disobeying; that they had not been corrupted by their “sin,” but freed from the fetters of pre-human harmony. For the prophets, history is the place where man and woman become human; during its unfolding they develop their powers of reason and of love until they create a new harmony between themselves, other humans and nature. This new harmony is described as “the end of days,” that period of history in which there is peace between man and man, and between man and nature. It is a “new” paradise created by humans, and one which they alone could create because they were forced to leave the “old” paradise as a result of their disobedience. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Just as the Hebrew myth of Adam and Eve, so the Greek myth of Prometheus sees all of human civilization based on an act of disobedience. Prometheus, in stealing the fire form the gods, lays the foundation for the evolution of humans. There would be no human history were it not for Prometheus’ “crime.” He, like Adam and Eve, is punished for his disobedience. However, he does not repent and ask for forgiveness. On the contrary, he proudly says: “I would rather be chained to this rock than be the obedient servant of the gods.” Humans have continued to evolve by acts of disobedience. Not only was their spiritual development possible only because there were humans who dared to say no to the power that be in the name of their conscience or their faith, but also their intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient—disobedient to authorities who tried to muzzle new thoughts and to the authority of long-established opinions which declared a change to be nonsense. If the capacity for disobedience constituted the beginning of human history, obedience might very well cause the end of human history. This is not symbolically nor poetically. There is the possibility, or even the probability, that the human race will destroy civilization and even all life upon Earth within the next five to tend years. There is no rationality or sense in it. However, the fact is that, while we are living technically in the Atomic Age, the majority of humans—including most of those who are in power—still live emotionally in the Stone Age; that while our mathematic, astronomy, and the natural sciences are of the twenty-first century, most of our ideas about politics, the state, and society lag far behind the age of science. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

If humankind commits suicide, it will be because people will obey those who command them to push the deadly buttons; because they will obey the archaic passions of fear, hate, and greed; because they will obey obsolete cliches of State sovereignty and national honor. The Soviet leaders talk much about revolutions, and we in the “free World” talk much about freedom. Yet they and we discourage disobedience—in the Soviet Union explicitly and by force, in the free World implicitly and by the more subtle methods of persuasion. However, this is not to say that all disobedience is a virtue and all obedience a vice. Such a view would ignore the dialectical relationship between obedience and disobedience. Whenever the principles which are obeyed and those which are disobeyed are irreconcilable, an act of disobedience to its counterpart, and vice versa. Antigone is the classic example of this dichotomy. By obeying the inhuman laws of the State, Antigone necessarily would disobey the laws of humanity. By obeying the latter, she must disobey the former. All martyrs of religious faiths, of freedom and of science have had to disobey those who wanted to muzzle them in order to obey their own consciences, the laws of humanity and of reason. If a human can only obey and not disobey, one is a slave; if one can only disobey and not only, one is a revel (not a revolutionary); one acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

However, in order to prevent a confusion of terms an important qualification must be made. Obedience to a person, institution or power (heteronomous obedience) is submission; it implies the abdication of my autonomy and the acceptance of a foreign will or judgment in place of my own. Obedience to my own reason or conviction (autonomous obedience) is not an act of submission but one of affirmation. If authentically mine, my conviction and my judgment are part of me. If I follow them rather than the judgment of others, I am being myself; hence the word obey can be applied only in a metaphorical sense and with a meaning which is fundamentally different from the one in the case of “heteronomous obedience.” However, this distinction still needs two further qualifications, one with regard to the concept of conscience and the other with regard to the concept of authority. The word conscience is used to express two phenomena which are quite distinct from each other. One is the “authoritarian conscience” which is the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing. This authoritarian conscience is what most people experience when they obey their conscience. It is also the conscience which Dr. Freud speaks of, and which he called “Super-Ego.” This Super-Ego represents the internalized commands and prohibitions of father, accepted by the son out of fear. Different from the authoritarian conscience is “humanistic conscience”; this is the voice present in every human being and independent from external sanctions and rewards. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Humanistic conscience is based on the fact that as human beings we have an intuitive knowledge of what is human and inhuman, what is conducive of life and what is destructive of life. This conscience serves our functioning as human beings. It is the voice which calls us back to ourselves, to our humanity. Authoritarian conscience (Super-Ego) is still obedience to a power outside of myself, even though this power has been internalized. Consciously I believe that I am following my conscience; in effect, however, I have swallowed the principles of power; just because of the illusion that humanistic conscience and Super-Ego are identical, internalized authority is so much more effective than the authority which is clearly experienced as not being part of me. Obedience to the “authoritarian conscience,” like all obedience to outside thoughts and power, tends to debilitate “humanistic conscience,” the ability to be and to judge oneself. Now, what is a fanatic? How can we recognize one? There is a tendency today, when genuine conviction has become so rare, to call “fanatic” anyone who has a deep faith in a spiritual or scientific conviction that differs radically from the opinions of others, and has not yet been proven. If this were so, then indeed, the greatest and most courageous men—Buddha, Isaiah, Socrates, William Wirt Winchester, William Randolph Hearst, Jesus, Galileo, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Einstein—would all have been “fanatics.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The question of who is a fanatic can often not be answered by judging the contents of an assertion. For instance, faith in man or woman and in his or her potentialities can not be proven intellectually, although it can be deeply rooted in the authentic experience of the believer. Again, in scientific thought, there is often quite a distance from the stage of hypothesis formation to valid proof, and the scientists needs to have faith in one’s thinking, until one can arrive at the stage of proof. True enough, there are many assertions that are clearly in contrast to the laws of rational thought, and anyone who holds an unshakable belief in them may be correctly called a fanatic. However, often it is not easy to decide what is irrational and what is not, and neither “proof” nor general agreement are sufficient criteria. In fact, it is easier to recognize the fanatic by some qualities in one’s personality rather than by the contents of one’s convictions. The most important—and usually an observable—personal quality in the fanatic is a kind of “cold fire,” a passion which at the same time has no warmth. The fanatic is unrelated to the World outside oneself; one is not concerned with anybody or anything—even though one may proclaim one’s concern as an important part of one’s “faith.” The cold glitter in one’s eyes often tells us more about the fanatical quality of one’s ideas than the apparent “unreasonableness” of the ideas themselves. Speaking in a more theoretical vein, the fanatic can be described as a highly narcissistic person who is disengaged from the World outside. One does not really feel anything since authentic feeling is always the result of the interrelation between oneself and the World. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

The fanatic’s pathology is similar to that of a depressed person who suffers not from sadness (which would be a relief) but from the incapacity to feel anything. The fanatic is different from the depressed person (and in some ways similar to the manic) inasmuch as one has found a way out of acute depression. One has built for oneself an idol, an absolute, to which one surrenders completely but of which one also makes oneself a part. One then acts, thinks, and feels in the name of one’s idol, or rather, one has the illusion of “feeling,” of inner excitement, while one has no authentic feeling. One lives in a state of narcissistic excitement since one has drowned the feeling of one’s isolation and emptiness in a total submission to the idol and in the simultaneous deification of one’s own ego, which one has made part of the idol. One is passionate in one’s idolatric submission and in one’s grandiosity; yet cold in one’s inability for genuine relatedness and feeling. One’s attitude may be described symbolically as “burning ice.” If the content of one’s idol is love, brotherliness, God, salvation, the country, the race, honour, et cetera, rather than frank destructiveness, hostility, or overt desire for conquest, one will be particularly deceptive to others. However, as far as human reality is concerned, it makes little difference what the nature of the idol is. Fanaticism is always the result of the incapacity for authentic relatedness. The fanatic is so seductive, and hence so dangerous politically, because one seems to feel so intensely and to be so convinced. Since we all long for certainty and passionate experience, is it surprising that the fanatic succeeds in attracting so many with one’s counterfeit faith and feelings? #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

One of the fascinating features of actual negotiation is the fact that a great deal of it is nonverbal, proceeding by gesture, posture, facial expression, grunts, sighs, smiles, cheers, snorts, and sneers. Many arguments advanced by literate and rational means are met not in kind but by ridicule, indifference, browbeating, threat, or suppression. Yet the outcome may be agreed to by all concerned. Some of the ideological justifications offered in defense of group interests are often discounted at far below face value without either party dropping its mask of seriousness in speaking or hearing them. On the other hand, profoundly sincere statements of devotion to community interest may be brutally condemned as window-dressing, without preventing later acceptance of highly formal and moral prembles to final agreements. These necessary qualifications to practice, however, do not obviate the frequently pressing practical problem of when to terminate discussion. Where, between utter unanimity at one pole and outright conflict t the other, is the best point for decision? Th principle of majority rule should not mean that as soon as 51 percent of the participants in a decision-making body make up their mind, no more discussion is required. If attention is kept on the fact that, for planning operations, the essential function of the policy phase is to produce a binding commitment for a specified period of time, the attainment of a majority for a proposal may be quite an insufficient guide as to when to terminate discussion. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Indeed, when affairs of this sort are well-handled in practice, they proceed quite the other way around; the termination of discussion is the moment to take the vote which officially and ceremonially signifies the reaching of the decision. When all relevant facts have been presented, when all possibilities have been explored, when all compromises and concessions have been bargained out, then it will be noticed that participants, if they have anything more to say at all, will begin to repeat themselves. Or, they cease to engage in discussion, and commence to talk only to delay actions. Experienced discussants are quite able to discern this moment. To ask for a vote on the question prior to this point is to court later nonco-operation from dissident minorities; to postpone discussion after this point is to build up unnecessary impatience and hostile feelings. When the vote is taken, if the proposal wins, the bigger the majority for it, the better the chances of later getting the co-opertion of the losing minorities. Also, the less chance of having to reopen the policy before its term of commitment runs out. When minorities have had their day in court, as it were, and have lost their case fairly after full debate, they become obligated to abide by the decision of the majority. Until there has been a full debate there is not likely to be mutual understanding, and a consensus on the nature of the specific differences between majority and minority (“agreement to disagree”), which, while not constituting unanimous agreement, yet preserves the integrity of the community. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

As long as the conditions of discussion are maintained, minorities can become majorities in the future, especially when periodic opportunities for evaluation and reconsideration are given, along with the customary opportunities for re-election for officers. There is likely to be a series of issues, each of which divides the public in diverse ways. Opponents on one issue become allies on others, so that permanent alienation of any group is rare. The activities and the resulting relationships and outcomes with an enforcement intermediary are important. If for instance, an investigation is done, and election fraud has been uncovered, it is important to do more than keep a record of this. Immediate punishment needs to be inflicted on the cheater. If the punishment is drastic enough, authority’s threat of inflicting it is credible, then it deters cheating. However, if authorities make threats to punish others and allow people who have no authority threaten to punish law abiding citizens and does nothing to punish them, and at the same time protects criminals, the state then is a sponsor and coconspirator of terrorism. However, a state that is about law and order, threatens to inflict an immediate punishment and does not rely on any repeated gams with cheaters and does not share any responsibility for their actions. Among the legal privileges of corporations…are the right to sue and the “right” to be sued. Who wants to be sued! However, the right to be sued is the power to make a promise…a prerequisite to doing business. One has to be a part of a mutually reinforcing system—this right is valuable to you in deals with others, and others will credibly reciprocate your honesty. It is also important to purchase protection against oneself. The phenomenon is also similar to the idea of “giving hostages” to guarantee one’s own good behaviour. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

In saving the man and woman, God calls him into co-action with Himself, to work out one’s own salvation, for it is the Holy Spirit who work with and in one, to enable one to will and to do God’s pleasure. God give to the man or woman in the hour of one’s regeneration the decisive liberty of will to rule over oneself, as one walks in fellowship with God. And by this restoration of a will free to act in choosing for God. The ultimate negative loses one’s power. The ultimate negative is the god of this World, and one rules the World through the will of humans enslaved by one—enslaved not only directly but indirectly, by one’s inciting humans to enslave one another and to covet the power of “influence,” whereas they should work with God to restore to every human the freedom of one’s own personal volition, and the power of choice to do right because it is right—the power obtained for them at Calvary. In this direction we can see the working of the World-rulers of darkness in the realm which they govern, directly in atmospheric influence and indirectly through humans, in hypnotic suggestions, mind reading, manipulation of the will, and other forms of invisible force, sometimes employed for the supposed good of others. The danger of all forms of healing by “suggestion,” and all kindred methods of seeking to benefit humans in physical or mental ways, lies in their bringing about passivity of the will and mental powers which lays them open to influences of psychopathological offenders. We, for the moment, avoid the word “church” since it is too closely associated with the ambiguities of religion. Instead, we speak of the Spiritual Community which is the community of the New Being. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

The Community of the New Being is neither organized religion, nor hierarchical authority, nor social organization; it is primarily a group of people who express a new reality by which they have been grasped. The clue to understanding the connection between the New Being and the Spiritual Community is the nature of revelation, which includes a divine manifestation plus its reception as such by an individual or a group. Christology emphasizes final revelation in the Christ; ecclesiology, its reception in faith. As the Christ is not the Christ without those who receive Him as the Christ, so the Spiritual Community is the creation of the Spirit which opens the eyes of faith to a recognition of the New Being. However, it is the New Being in Jesus as the Christ that is the criterion of the Spiritual Presence and the measure of the marks of the Spiritual Community. The story of the ecstatic event of Pentecost a graphic illustration of the marks of the Spiritual Community. The first mark of faith, for the individuals who constitute the community are grasped by the Spiritual Presence. Within the Spiritual Community there is room for an unlimited variety of “faiths,” even conflicting ones, as long as they are all animated by the Spirit. The second mark is love, for the New Being manifest in the Spiritual Community reunited those who are separated. The third and fourth marks, unity and universality, follow naturally upon the faith and love generated by the Spirit. The Spiritual Community, holy though it is, is not the ultimate fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. In the Spiritual Community one participates in unambiguous life, but only fragmentarily. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And please be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

MAGNOLIA STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH
Rancho Cordova, CA | low $600s
Now Selling!

Models now open at Magnolia Station! Located at the corner of Rancho Cordova Parkway and Douglas Road, residents of Cresleigh Ranch will benefit from a brand new neighborhood with convenient access to the new Raley’s Shopping Center, Sunrise Boulevard, and much more!

Magnolia Station will include 81 homesites and five distinct plans ranging from 2,200 – 3,700 square feet; including three single story plans! Each plan has been thoughtfully designed to include features such as: Generations Suite, Optional Offices/Dens, Extended Great Rooms, and more! #CresleighHomes
Make America Safe Again

Many people in the United States of America recognize communism as an overwhelming threat to values, which have been central to their own lives and families. Values shape what men and women see as important in life, how priorities are to be established, and how they create their own places within a given historical context. It is the intensity of commit to a set of values that provides sources of meaning in what otherwise would be a drab and mundane World. This intensity ranges along a continuum from the vigor and fervor of true believer to only qualified confidence in their own beliefs and commitments. To some, values are at the center of self-identities. There are several criteria that form the core values of American families. Americans have drawn upon the values of individualism, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, and equality, which are noteworthy in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in shaping their historical destiny. The rights and privilege prominently emphasized in the Constitution were designed to place limits on what our government could or could not do. The equality of opportunity is formally inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and also a prominent part of the value system of America. The core values of American life are deeply embedded in historical experiences and traditions. All modern nations are required to create and maintain their society as a moral community. It is through deployment of many aspects of their core values that they are able to achieve this purpose. The values that are drawn upon in this process do not endure very long without modifications. Each generation finds it necessary to take the data from the past and rework it to fit the need of their time. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

Other core values were selected as a result of the extensiveness with which they are held in the general population and for the direction in which society is moving. For example, the importance of intimate relationships is primarily emphasized in individual hopes and aspirations for having a “good marriage.” Other prominent values include consumerism, materialism, and technology. These beliefs and values are clearly evident in lifestyles that continue to be accentuated with the passing of time. No claims are made for the exclusiveness of the values selected. Americans hold the view that the ultimate social reality resides with the individual personally, rather than with the community, the family, or the broader society. Accordingly, the essential feature of social life is that social groups are made up of interacting individuals. We belong to social groups because it is practical and expedient to do so. If it is no longer in our best interests to belong to a particular group, we have a right to disaffiliate. The prominent place of the individual is evident in the right of and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The norm calling for recognizing the dignity and worth of each individual is advocated to offset stereotypes based on race, gender, and national origin. Ideas about individualism hold that individuals are unique, have special talents and abilities, and if they work hard enough, they can be successful in life. However, freedom is conditional and dependent upon the options that have been made available to us. How we make choices among options is shaped by our social condition of desires and preferences. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

In the subsequent creation of a civil society, certain basic rights or entitlements grew out of what it means to be human or to be a citizen of the state. The personal freedom accorded to the individual included freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the rights of assembly. The major advantages of political democracy were seen as deriving from permitting citizens to become engaged in civic participation on a widespread basis. The developments during childhood consist of an enormous amount of social learning in order for the child to find his or her place within the complexity of the modern World. Learning to belong requires an awareness of the rules that regulate social conduct. The child must learn that there is a time and place, both for talking and remaining silent; that certain rights of others must be respected; that activities are structured in some prearranged sequence and that performances are evaluated and rewarded or punished accordingly. Belonging and membership reflect the qualities of family bonds, friendship ties, love, career commitments, and other cohesive relationships that offer support for one’s identity. If these relationships are rewarding, then one may proceed with a relatively high degree of confidence in developing personal goals, and plans for the future. However, if one views significant others as being indifferent and unsupportive, experiences of loneliness are likely to follow and the feeling develops that one must rely exclusively on personal resources in times of trouble. “Communism,” its original manifesto stated, “does not propose to ‘capture’ the bourgeois state, but to conquer and destroy it.” #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

The major problem confronting the people of the United States of America and free peoples everywhere in the first quarter of the 21st century is the threat to peace and freedom presented by the militant aggressiveness of international communism. As society moves away from traditional ideas such as family units, private property, basic human rights, and freedom, the road to a communist regime is already being paved like the crack of doom. Communism pours the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. American has never witnessed anything like this before. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out. Communists are lawless, they are teaching kids to question their gender, and they have a strong hatred for America and traditional America values. It is America that have saved the World. Underneath their skin, communism and liberalism are blood brothers. Sadism to many observers seemed less of a puzzle than masochism. That one wished to hurt others or to dominate them seemed, though not necessarily “good,” quite natural. Mr. Hobbes assumed as a “general inclination of all mankind” the existence of “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in Death.” For him the wish for power has no diabolical quality but is a perfectly rational result of man’s desire for pleasure and security. From Mr. Hobbes to Mr. Hitler, who explains the wish for domination as the logical result of the biologically conditioned struggle for survival of the fittest, the lust for power has been explained as a part of human nature which does not warrant any explanation beyond the obvious. Masochistic strivings, however, tendencies directed against one’s own self, seem to be a riddle. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

How should one understand the fact that people not only want to belittle and weaken and hurt themselves, but even enjoy doing so? Does not the phenomenon of masochism contradict our whole picture of the human psyche as directed toward pleasure and self-preservation? How can one explain that some people are attracted by and tend to incur what we all seem to go to such length to avoid: pain and suffering? There is a phenomenon, however, which proves that suffering and weakness can be the aim of human striving: the masochistic perversion. Here we find that people quite consciously want to suffer in one way or another and enjoy it. In the masochistic perversion, a person feels sexual excitement when experiencing pain inflicted upon one by another person. However, this is not the only form of masochistic perversion. Frequently it is not the actual suffering of pain that is sought for, but the excitement and satisfaction aroused by being physically bound, made helpless and weak. Often all that is wanted in the masochistic perversion is to be made weak “morally,” by being treated or spoken to like a little child, or by being scolded or humiliated in different ways. In the sadistic perversion, we find the satisfaction derived from corresponding devices, that is, from hurting other persons physically, from tying them with ropes or chains, or from humiliating them by action or words. The masochistic perversion with it conscious and intentional enjoyment of pain or humiliation caught the eye of psychologist and writers earlier than the masochistic character (or moral masochism). #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

More and more, however, one recognized how closely the masochistic tendencies of the kind we described first are akin to the sexual perversion, and that both types of masochism are essentially one and the same phenomenon. Certain psychologists assumed that since there are people who want to submit and to suffer, there must be an “instinct: which has this very aim. Sociologists, like Dr. Vierkand, came to the same conclusion. The first one to attempt a more thorough theoretical explanation was Dr. Freud. He originally thought that sado-masochism was essentially a sexual phenomenon. Observing sado-masochistic practices in little children, he assumed that sado-masochism was a “partial drive” which regularly appears in the development of the sexual instinct. He believed that sado-masochism tendencies in adults are due to a fixation of a person’s psychosexual development on an early level or to a later regression to it. Later on, Dr. Freud became increasingly aware of the importance of those phenomena which he called moral masochism, a tendency to suffer not physically, but mentally. He stressed also the fact that masochistic and sadistic tendencies were always to be found together in spite of their seeming contradiction. However, he changed his theoretical explanation of masochistic phenomena. Assuming that there is a biologically given tendency to destroy which can be directed either against others or against oneself, Dr. Freud suggested that masochism is essentially the product of this so-called death-instinct. If directed against one’s own person, he further suggested that this death-instinct, which we cannot observe directly, amalgamates itself with the sexual instinct and in the amalgamation appears as masochism, and as sadism if directed against others. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

Dr. Freud assumed that this very mixture with the sexual instinct protect humans from the dangerous effect the unmixed death-instinct would have. According to Dr. Freud, if one fails to amalgamate destructiveness with pleasures of the flesh, then humans have only the choice of either destroying themselves or destroying others. This theory is basically different from Dr. Freud’s original assumption about sado-masochism. There, sadomasochism was essentially a sexual phenomenon, but in the newer theory it is essentially a nonsexual phenomenon, the sexual factor in it being only due to the amalgamation of the death-instinct with the sexual instinct. One of the more extreme forms of pathological thinking, is paranoid thinking. The case of an individual suffering from paranoic delusions is clear to the psychiatrist and to most laymen as well. The man or woman who tells us that everybody is “after him,” or “after her,” this is one’s colleagues, one’s friends, and even one’s spouse are conspiring to murder one is typically recognized by most as being insane, but this is not always the case. On what basis is this considered insanity? Quite obviously not because the accusations one makes are logically impossible. It could be that one’s enemies, one’s acquaintances, even one’s family have united to destroy one; in fact such things have happened. We can not truthfully answer the unfortunate patient and say that what one assumes is not possible. We can only argue that it is very unlikely; that it is unlikely due to the infrequency of such events in general and the character of one’s spouse and friends in particular. (However, character is very important, as there are people who are around a lot of seedy people, whom they cannot trust, and this is not always by choice.) #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Yet we shall not convince the patient. For one, reality is based on logical possibility not on probability. This attitude is exactly the basis of one’s illness. One’s contact with reality rests on the small basis of its compatibility with the laws of logical thinking, and does not require the examination of realistic probability. It does not require it because the paranoic is not capable of making this examination. As with every psychotic patient, one’s contact with reality is exceedingly thin and brittle. Reality, for one, is mainly what exists within oneself, one’s own emotions, fears, and desires. The World outside is the mirror or the symbolic representation of one’s inner World. However, in contract to the schizophrenic person, many paranoid persons have preserved one aspect of the sane thinking: the requirement of logical possibility. They have merely relinquished the other, the other, the aspect of realistic probability. If only possibility is required as a condition for truth, it is easy to achieve certainty. If, on the other hand, probability is required, there are relatively few thins to be certain of. This is indeed what makes paranoid thinking so “attractive” in spite of the suffering it causes. It saves man from doubt. It guarantees a sense of certainty, which transcends most insights to which sane thinking can lead. It is easy for people to recognize paranoid thinking in the individual case of a paranoid psychotic. However, to recognize paranoid thinking when it is shred by millions of other people and approved by the authorities who lead them, is more difficult. A case in point is the conventional thinking about Russia. Most Americans today think about Russia in a paranoid fashion; namely, they ask what is possible rather than what is probable. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

Indeed, it is possible that President Putin wants to conquer us by force. It is possible that he makes peace proposals in order to make us unaware of the danger. It is also possible that his whole argument with the Chinese Communists about coexistence is nothing but a trick to make us believe that he wants peace in order to al the better surprise us. If we think only of possibilities, then indeed there is no chance for realistic and sensile political action. Sane thinking means not only to think of possibilities, which in fact are always relatively easy to recognize, but to think also of probabilities. That means to examine the realistic situations, and to predict to some extent an opponent’s probable action by means of an analysis of all the factors and motivations that influence one’s behaviour. To make this point perfectly clear, I want to state that my emphasis on sane versus paranoid thinking does not imply judgment that the Russians might not have all the sinister and deceptive plans just mentioned. Instead, it insists that we must conduct a thorough and dispassionate examination of the facts and that logical possibilities as such proves nothing and means little. Another pathological mechanism which threatens realistic and effective political thinking is that of projection. Everyone is familiar with this mechanism in its cruder forms when it appears in individual cases. Everybody knows the hostile and destructive person who accused everybody else of being hostile and pictures oneself and being innocent and victimized. There are thousands of marriages that continue to exist on the basis of this projective mechanism. Each of the partners accuses the other of what in reality is one’s own problem, and hence succeeds in being entirely occupied with the problem of one’s partner instead of facing one’s own. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

Again what is easily seen in individual cases is not seen when the same projective mechanism is shared by millions and supported by their leaders. For example, during the First World War, the peoples in the allied countries believed that the Germans were vile Huns, killing innocent babies and that they were the true personification of all evil to the extent that even the music of Mr. Bach and Mr. Beethoven became part of the Devil’s territory. On the other hand the accusers of the Huns were fighting only for the noblest purposes, for freedom, for peace, for democracy, and so on. The Germans, strangely enough, believed exactly the same things about the allies. What is the result? The enemy appears as the embodiment of all evil because all evil that I feel in my self is projected on to him or her. Logically, after this has happened, I consider myself as the embodiment of all good since the evil has been transferred to the other side. The result is indignation and hatred against the enemy and uncritical, narcissistic self-glorification. This can create a mood of common mania and shared passion of hate. Nevertheless, it is pathological thinking, dangerous when it leads to war and deadly when war means destruction. Our attitudes toward communism, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are, to a considerable extent demonstrations of projective thinking. Indeed, the Stalinist terror system was inhuman, cruel, and revolting, although no more so than the terror in a number of countries that we call free—no more so, for instance than was the terror of Mr. Trujillo or Mr. Batista. #RandlphHarris 10 of 18

I do not mention non-communist cruelty or callousness as being extenuating factors in judging the Stalin regime, because obviously cruelties and inhumanities do not cancel out each other. I mention them to show that the indignation of many people against Mr. Stalin is not as genuine as they believe it to be. If it were, they would feel just as indignant about other cases of cruelty and callousness, whether the perpetrators happen to be their political enemies or not. However, more than that the Stalin regime has gone. Russia is not a conservative police regime, which is by no means a desirable thing if one cherishes freedom and individuality, but which also should not arose the kind of deep human indignation that the Stalinist system merited. It is fortunate that the Russian regime has changed from cruel terrorism to the methods of a conservative police state, but the conflict in Ukraine is causing friction and even dividing families of mixed ethnicities. It also shows lack of sincerity in those lovers of freedom who are most vocal in their hatred of the Soviet Union that they seem hardly to be aware of the considerable change that has occurred. Many still continue to believe that communism is the epitome of evil, and that we, the free World, including our allies, are the personification of all that is good. The result is the narcissistic and unrealistic picture of the West as the fighter for good, for freedom, and for humanity, and of communism as the enemy of all that is human and decent. The Communist Chinese, especially in their way of looking at the West, follow the same mechanism. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

If projection is mixed with paranoid thinking, as is the cause during a war and also in the “cold war,” we have, indeed, a dangerously explosive psychological mixture, which prevents sane and anticipatory thinking. The difference between the various answers is the difference between mental health and mental sickness, between suffering and joy, between stagnation and growth, between life and death, between good and evil. All answer that can be qualified as good have in common that they are consistent with the very nature of life, which is continuous birth and growth. All answers that can be qualified as bad have in common that they conflict with the nature of life, that they are conducive to stagnation, and eventually to death. Indeed, at the moment man or woman is born, life ask one’s a question, the question of human existence. One must answer this question at every moment of one’s life. One must answer it, not one’s mind, or one’s body, but he or she, the real person, one’s feet, one’s hands, one’s eyes, one’s stomach, one’s mind, one’s feeling, one’s real—not an imagined or abstracted—person. There are only a limited number of answers to the question of existence. We find these answers in the history of religion, from the most primitive to the highest. We find them also in the variety of characters, from the fullest sanity to the deepest psychosis. Each individual represents in oneself the whole of humanity and its evolution. We find individuals who represent human beings on the most primitive level of history, and others who represent humankind as it will be thousands of years from now. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

The answer to life that correspond to the reality of human existence is conducive to mental health. What is generally understood by mental health, however, is negative, rather than positive; the absence of sickness, rather than the presence of well-being. Actually there is even very little discussion in the psychiatric and psychological literature of what constitutes well-being. Well-being is the ability to be creative, to be aware, and to respond; to be independent and fully active, and by this very fact to be one with the World. To be concerned with being, not with having; to experience joy in the very act of living, and to consider living creatively as the only meaning of life. Well-being is not an assumption in the mind of a person. It is expressed in one’s whole body, in the way one walks, talks, in the tonus of one’s muscle. Certainly, anyone who wants to achieve this aim must struggle against many basic trends of modern culture. One, the idea of a split between intellect and affect, an idea which has been prevalent from Mr. Descartes to Dr. Freud. In this whole development (to which there are, of course, exceptions) the assumption is made that only the intellect is rational and that affect, by its very nature, is irrational. Dr. Freud has made this assumption very explicitly by saying that love by its very nature is neurotic, infantile, irrational. His aim was actually to help humans succeed in dominating irrational affect by intellect; or, to put it into his own words, “Where there was Id, there shall be Ego.” Yet this dogma of the split between affect and thought does not correspond to the reality of human existence, and is destructive of human growth. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

We cannot understand human beings fully nor achieve the aim of well-being unless we overcome the idea of this split, restore to man and woman his and her original unity, and recognize that the split between affect and thought, body and mind, is nothing but a product of our own thought and does not correspond to the reality of man or woman. The other obstacle to the achievement of well-being, deeply rooted in the spirit of modern society, is the fact of man’s dethronement from his supreme place. The nineteenth century said “God is dead”; the twentieth century could say “Man is dead”; and the twenty first century could say, “Man is a parasite peculiar to Earth, which tolerates his presence for a little while. He exists nowhere else in the cosmos, and he does not exist here for long. A while, a few chessboard wars, which he fights himself—You begin to understand.” Means have been transformed into ends, the production and consumption of things has become the aim of life, to which living is subordinated. We produce things that act like men and men that act like things. Man has transformed himself into a thing and worships the products of his own hands; he is alienated from himself and has regressed to idolatry, even though he uses God’s name. Mr. Emerson already saw that “things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” Today many of us see it. The achievement of well-being is possible only under one condition: if we put man back into the saddle. Good faith: This means willingness to be bound by an agreement into which one has voluntarily entered. However, this in turn is necessarily conditional on the good faith of the other parties to the agreement. It seems to be not only an explicit principle of law but a feature of the way in which conscience develops that a person does not feel morally bound—does not disapprove one’s own actions—if one violates an agreement extracted by another party through force or fraud. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

This does not apply to inherited loyalties, until they move into the area of deliberate and self-conscious choice. In the agreements made in actual life, threats are often used which come close to the use of force, bargaining occurs parties of unequal power, and biased misrepresentations are made which approach willful deception. The perfectly free and equal agreement is therefore an ideal, but one very useful as a standard for judging the quality of agreements, particularly for predicting their durability as a basis for planning. Good faith must be manifest in the process of discussion itself, in the consistent maintenance of the conditions of genuine discussion. Filibustering, willful postponement of decision by calling for more facts and study, frustration of parliamentary procedure, and persistent arguments ad hominem which impugn the good faith of others—these tactics soon dissipate the mutual trust without a minimum of which discussion cannot long continue. In industrial relations, where bargaining in good faith is required by law, the government defines good faith as the willingness to continue to talk. This seems to imply very little, but over time it has come to accomplish a lot. As trust in the good faith of others increases, discussion is facilitated by the greater ease with which clashes of interests can be confronted and dealt with in a matter-of-fact manner. Although these five preconditions for genuine discussion may occur, they offer no guarantee that the discussion which follows will produce agreement and a binding commitment. Discussion may break down through the clash of vital interest which appear to be irreconcilable. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Or a decision may be necessary due to the force of events, before there can be thorough discussion, so that some are forced into compliance by others. In some instances, through timidity or lack of interest, one party will submit to the proposal of another without discussion. Contrary to the naïve notion that deciding means only to take a vote, the many whose interests are only slightly affected may willingly defer to the few to whom the outcome is vital. In those cases where discussion is not completed before decision and action must be taken, or where passive compliance takes the place of vigorous participation and agreement, it would be wrong to speak of a breakdown of the discussion. No doubt many discussions fall short in one way or another of the model described above, and this is only one of the imperfections to be expected. Rarely, for example, does a discussion end in unanimity, except in the proximate sense the marginalized groups consent to majority rule as long as their vital interests are not too severely transgressed. It is not defensible to insist that genuine discussion can only occur within the confines of some fixed rules of etiquette, any more than within fixed rules of grammar—although some etiquette and some grammar are indispensable. Attempts to mange discussion through the imposition of rules from without usually have the opposite effect from the improvement intended; any deliberative body almost by definition must be the custodian of its own rules of discussion. That discussion can and does improve is evident in many examples. It has done so, however, only where it has been pursued as a value by participants who have retained their sovereign equality and the other minimum conditioned noted above. To set up an independent power to compel arbitration as a means of guaranteeing agreement in discussion is to destroy discussion and the whole principle of moral commitments to voluntary agreements. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

The history of World religions manifests the Spiritual Presence in as an anticipation of the New Being. Spirit Christology elucidates the unique presence of the Spirit in Jesus who is the Christ. However, our concern here is with the Spiritual Community, with those who receive the New Being At first the regenerated human is but a “babe in Christ,” manifesting many of the characteristics of the natural human in jealousy, strife, et cetera, until one apprehends the need of a fuller reception of the Holy Spirit to dwell in one’s regenerated spirit—making it God’s sanctuary. The unregenerate human is wholly dominated by soul and body. The regenerate human has one’s spirit quickened, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet may be governed by soul and body because one’s spirit is compressed and bound. The spiritual human has one’s spirit liberated from bondage to the soul to be the organ of the Holy Spirit in mind and body. It is then that, by the Holy Spirit’s power, one’s volition is brought into harmony with God in all His laws and purposes, and the whole outer human into self-control. This it is written, “The fruit of the Spirit…is self-control” reports Galatians 5.23. It is not only love, joy, peace, longsuffering, and gentleness, manifested through the channel of the soul—the personality—but in a true dominion over the “World” of oneself the fruit is: every thought brought into captivity, in the same obedience to the will of the Father as was manifested in Christ; His spirit “ruled” also from the chamber of the will, so that one is of a “cool spirit” and well as what is in one’s mind; and one’s body so obedient to the helm of the will that it is a disciplined and alert instrument for God to energize and empower—an instrument to be handled intelligently as a vehicle for service, and not any longer master of the man, or the mere tool of the ultimate negative and unruly desires. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

If we recall that all ambiguities of life are rooted in the separation and interplay of essential and existential elements of being, it would seem that, once a transcendent reunion of these elements is achieved by the Spiritual Presence, there is always New Being in History. Ambiguity seems banished; in fact, rendered impossible. However, such is not the case, for existence cannot be denied, and the conditions of existence postulate ambiguity. We reconcile unambiguous life with de facto existential ambiguity by point out the fragmentary character of the unambiguous life produced by the Spirit. It is fragmentary because subject to time and space. It is incomplete in the sense that it is anticipatory. Thus, the No of the existential condition is maintained, not by injecting ambiguity into unambiguous life, but by show the anticipatory and hence fragmentary nature of our reception of and participation in the New Being. The possession of unambiguous life integrally, id est, beyond time and space, is the problem of eschatology. And God said: Let the Earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after its kind. And it was so…and God saw it was good. When a tree is wantonly cut down, its voice rings from one end of the Earth to the other. When you besiege a city, do not destroy the trees thereof; you may eat them but you must not cut them down. A humans’ life is sustained by trees. Just as others planted for you, plant for the sake of your children. If you had a sapling in your hand and were told that the Messiah had come, first plant the sapling, then go out to greet him. And pleasure be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, as they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

MAGNOLIA STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH
Rancho Cordova, CA | low $600s
Now Selling!

Models now open at Magnolia Station! Located at the corner of Rancho Cordova Parkway and Douglas Road, residents of Cresleigh Ranch will benefit from a brand new neighborhood with convenient access to the new Raley’s Shopping Center, Sunrise Boulevard, and much more!

Magnolia Station will include 81 homesites and five distinct plans ranging from 2,200 – 3,700 square feet; including three single story plans! Each plan has been thoughtfully designed to include features such as: Generations Suite, Optional Offices/Dens, Extended Great Rooms, and more! https://cresleigh.com/magnolia-station/





























































































