Home » West Hollywood (Page 3)
Category Archives: West Hollywood
What Miracles is He Not Capable!

Man is an indolent creature, but light the fire of fear under him, and of what miracles is he not capable! However, not only the forces that determine one’s own life directly but also those that seem to determine life in general are felt as unchangeable fate. It is fate that there are wars and that one part of humankind has to be ruled by another. It is fate that the amount of suffering can never be less than it always has been. Fate may be rationalized philosophically as “natural law” or as “destiny of man,” religiously as the “will of the Lord,” ethically as a higher power outside of the individual, toward which the individual can do nothing but submit. The authoritarian character worships the past. What has been, will eternally be. To wish or to work for something that has not yet been before is crime or madness. The miracle of creation—and creation is always a miracle—is outside of one’s range of emotional experience. Religious experience as experience of absolute dependence is the definition of the masochistic experience in general; a special role in this feeling of dependence is played by sin. The concept of original sin, which weighs upon all future generations, is characteristic of the authoritarian experience. Moral like any other kind of human failure becomes a fate which humans can never escape. Whoever has once sinned is chained eternally to one’s own sin with iron shackles. Human’s own doing becomes the power that rules over one and never lets one free. The consequences of guilt can never be softened by atonement, but atonement can never do away with the guilt. Isaiah’s words, “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,” express the very opposite of the authoritarian philosophy. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

The feature common to all authoritarian thinking is the conviction that life is determined by forced outside of humans’ own self, one’s interest one’s wishes. They only possible happiness lies in the submission to these forces. The powerlessness of humans is the leitmotif of masochistic philosophy. One of the ideological fathers of Nazism, Moeller van der Bruck, expressed this feeling very clearly. He writes: “The conservative believers rather in catastrophe, in the powerlessness of man to avoid it, in its necessity, and in the terrible disappointment of the seduced optimist.” In Mr. Hitler’s writings we shall see more illustrations of the same spirit. The authoritarian character does not lack activity, courage, or belief. However, these qualities for one mean something entirely different from what they mean for the person who does not long for submission. For the authoritarian character activity is rooted in a basic feeling of powerlessness which it tends to overcome. Activity in this sense means to act in the name of something higher than one’s own self. It is possible in the name of God, the past, nature, or duty, but never in the name of the future, of the unborn, of what has no power, or of life as such. The authoritarian character wins one’s strength to act through one’s leaning on superior power. This power is never assailable or changeable. For one lack of power is always an unmistakable sign of guilt and inferiority, and if the authority in which one believes shows signs of weakness, one’s love and respect change into contempt and hatred. One lacks an “offensive potency” which can attack established power without first feeling subservient to another and stronger power. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

The courage of the authoritarian character is essentially a courage to suffer what fate or its personal representative or “leader” may have destined one for. To suffer without complaining is one’s highest virtue—not the courage of trying to end suffering or at least to diminish it. Not to change fate, but to submit to it, is the heroism of the authoritarian character. One has belief in authority as long as it is strong and commanding. One’s belief is rooted ultimately in one’s doubts and constitutes an attempt to compensate them. However, if we mean by faith the secure confidence in the realization of what now exists only as a potentiality, one has no faith. Authoritarian philosophy is essentially relativistic and nihilistic, in spite of the fact that it often claims so violently to have conquered relativism and in spite of its show of activity. It is rooted in extreme desperation, in the complete lack of faith, and it leads to nihilism, to the denial of life. Authoritarian leaders come out to speak to crowds. These wild-eyed charismatic people mount stages in the darkness and feed crowds words like manna. As they stand out on the balcony—gazing out over the masses in their own kind of uniform—they may telegraph, at least for some, a specific and undeniable memory: that of Mr. Hitler addressing the Volk. Those memories, those aesthetic elements: they charge the air with emotional fervor, at least, for those inclined to be so enchanted. This is not to discount the religious significance so many attach to the leader’s presence and ability to cure the sick. There is no reason in fact to separate those two things at all. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

For some of the people standing in these fields on an Alpine summer’s night, seeing an authoritarian leader is a little like seeing a friendly ghost. That encounter has enormous, even curative, power. In authoritarian philosophy the concept of equality does not exist. The authoritarian character may sometimes use the word equality either conventionally or become it suits one’s purpose. However, it has no real meaning or weight for one, since it concerns something outside the reach of one’s emotional experiences. For one the World is composed of people with power and those without it, of superior ones and inferior ones. On the basis of one’s sado-masochistic strivings, one experiences only domination or submission, but never solidarity. Differences, whether of gender or race, to one are necessarily signs of superiority or inferiority. A difference which does not have this connotation is unthinkable to one. In Germany, reporters described many people getting suddenly healed at the Trotter Farm, especially of paralysis, and trouble with their ears or eyes. Maria Wurstel told the journalist Heueck how she had suffered since 1938 from near-paralysis of the spine. The slightest movement caused her terrible pain. Her doctor had recommended she see Herr Groning. Heueck saw her run like a child, “partly laughing, partly crying from happiness.” Another woman—she had had polio and had used a wheelchair since the age of three—got up and walked too. A man who said he had suffered brain damage in the war rejoiced, “The buzzing in my ears is gone, my head is free again!” Sometimes people brought photos of their sick relatives—perhaps those too ill to travel—and held them up before the resort’s windows in the hopes of receiving Mr. Groning’s energies. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

As new of these gatherings and cures multiplied, the crowds grew larger. The description of the sado-masochistic strivings and the authoritarian character refers to the more extreme forms of helplessness and the correspondingly more extreme forms of escaping it by the symbiotic relationship to the object of worship or domination. Although these sado-masochistic strivings are common, we can consider only certain individuals and social groups as typically sado-masochistic. There is, however, a milder form of dependency which is so general in our culture that only in exceptional cases does it seem to be lacking. This dependency does not have the dangerous and passionate qualities of sado-masochism, but it is important enough not to be omitted from out discussion here. I am referring to the kind of persons whose whole life is in a subtle way related to some power outside themselves. There is nothing they do, feel, or think which is not somehow related to this power. They expect protection from “him,” wished to be take care of by “him,” make “him” also responsible for whatever may be the outcome of their own actions. Often the fact of his dependence is something the person is not aware of at all. It worried police. “There people cannot understand why anyone would hinder” Mr. Groning’s “practicing,” one reported, and said he feared a riot if anyone tried. In truth, banning Mr. Groning’s healing work, as Herford officials had done, was not much discussed in local papers. Rather, something like the opposite was generally true. A number of local politicians and officials spoke up for him publicly. Munich’s police commissioner, Social Democrat Franz Xaver Pitzer, thanked Mr. Groning personally in the front of the Trotter Farm crowds for helping him over an illness. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

A state parliamentary representative, Hans Hagn of Bavaria’s conservative party, the Christian Social Union, exhorted the crowds to “believe in the healing power of Groning and to trust him.” Even the highest officeholder in the Bavarian government, Minister President Hans Ehard, openly expressed support for Mr. Groning. The healer should not be subject to a lot of “red tape” (Paragraphenschwierigkeiten), Mr. Ehard said. Members of the press were as smitten as politicians. One local paper described the public’s trust in Mr. Groning—“a simple, uneducated man…the son of a Danzig bricklayer”—as “limitless.” The very air in Rosenheim, correspondent Hans Bentzinger rhapsodized, was “filled with a special excitement” that “grows from hour to hour, as it becomes known that Her Groning will speak to the waiting crowds.” Mr. Bentzinger described an “unbearable” tension, the atmosphere “so laden with the energy of expectation that one can hear his own heart beating and that of his neighbor at the same time.” Everyone and everything in Germany was waiting for some kind of miracle. Even if there is a dim awareness of some dependency, the person or power on whom one is dependent often remains nebulous. There is no definite image linked up with that power. Its essential quality is to represent a certain function, namely to protect, help, and develop the individual, to be with one and never leave one alone. The “X” which has these qualities may be called the magic helper. Frequently, of course, the “magic helper” is personified: one is conceived of as God, as a principle, or as real persons such as one’s parent, husband, wife, or superior. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

It is important to recognize that when real persons assume the role of the magic helper they are endowed with magic qualities, and the significance they have results from their being the personification of the magic helper. This process of personification of the magic helper is to be observed frequently in what is called “falling in love.” A person with that kind of relatedness to the magic helper seeks to find one in flesh and blood. For some reason or other—often supported by sexual desires—a certain other person assumes for one those magic qualities, and one makes that person into the being to whom and whom one’s whole life becomes related and dependent. The fact that the other person frequently does the same with the first one does not alter the picture. It only helps to strengthen the impression that this relationship is one of “real love.” This need for the magic helper can be studied under experiment-like conditions in the psychoanalytic procedure. Often the person who is analyzed forms a deep attachment to the psychoanalyst and his or her whole life, all actions, thoughts, and feelings are related to the analyst. Consciously or unconsciously the analysand asks oneself: would he (the analyst) be pleased with this, displeased with that, agree to this, scold me for that? In love relationships the fact that one chooses this or that person as a partner serves as a proof that this particular person is loved just because he is “he”; but in the psychoanalytic situation this illusion cannot be upheld. The most different kinds of persons develop the same feelings toward the most different kind of psychoanalysts. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

The relationship looks like love; it is often accompanied by sexual desires; yet magic helper, a role which obviously a psychoanalyst, like certain other persons who have some authority (physicians, ministers, teachers), is able to play satisfactorily for the person who is seeking the personified magic helper. The reasons why a person is bound to a magic helper are, in principle, the same that we have found at the root of the symbiotic drives: an inability to stand alone and to fully express one’s own individual potentialities. In the sado-masochistic strivings this inability leads to a tendency to get rid of one’s individual self through dependency on the magic helper—in the milder form of dependency I am discussing now it only leads to a wish for guidance and protection. The intensity of the relatedness to the magic helper is in reverse proportion to the ability to express spontaneously one’s own intellectual, emotional, and sensuous potentialities. In other words, one hopes to get everything one expects from life, from the magic helper, instead of by one’s own actions. The more this is the case, the more is the center of life shifted from one’s own person to the magic helper and one’s personifications. The question is then no longer how to life oneself, but how to manipulate “him” in order not to lose him and how to make him do what one wants, even to make him responsible for what one is responsible oneself. In the more extreme cases, a person’s whole life consists almost entirely in the attempt to manipulate “him”; people differ in the means which they use; for some obedience, for some “goodness,” for others suffering is the main means of manipulation. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

We see, then, that there is no feeling, thought, or emotion that is not at least coloured by the need to manipulate “him”; in other words, that no psychic act is really spontaneous or free. This dependency, springing from and at the same time leading to a blockage of spontaneity, not only gives a certain amount of security but also results in a feeling of weakness and bondage. As far as this is the case, the very person who is dependent on the magic helper also feels, although often unconsciously, enslaved by “him” or “her” and to a greater or lesser degree, rebels against “him” or “her.” The television show Buffy The Vampire Slayer is another example of a magic helper. This rebelliousness against the very person on whom one has put one’s hopes for security and happiness, creates new conflicts. It has to be suppressed is one is not to lose “him” or “her,” but the underlying antagonism constantly threatens the security sought for in the relationship. If the magic helper is personified in an actual person, the disappointment that follows when one falls short of what one is expecting for this person—and since the expectation is an illusory one, any actual person is inevitably disappointing—in addition to the resentment resulting from one’s own enslavement to that person, leads to continuous conflicts. This can be seen in the conflicts between Buffy and her friends, which frequently arise. These sometimes end only with separation, which is usually followed by a choice of another object who is expected to fill all the hopes connected with the magic helper. This is seen many times with Buffy, like when her friends abandon her when she runs for homecoming queen, or when her mother kicks her out of the house, or when Buffy’s friends kick her out of her own house and turn to the leadership of Faith, another slayer. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

If this relationship proves to be a failure too, it may be broken up again or the person involved may decide that this is just “life,” and resign. What one does not recognize is the fact that one’s failure is not essentially the result of one’s not having chosen the right magic person; it is the direct result of having tried to obtain by the manipulation of a magic force that which only the individual can achieve oneself by one’s own spontaneous activity. The phenomenon of life-long dependency on an object outside of oneself has been seen by Dr. Freud. He has interpreted it as the continuation of the early, essentially nurturing bonds with the parents throughout life. As long as the infant is small it is quite naturally dependent on the parents, but this dependence does not necessarily imply a restriction of the child’s own spontaneity. However, when the parents, acting as the agents of society, start to suppress the child’s spontaneity and independence, the growing child feels more and more unable to stand on its own feet; it therefore seeks for the magic helper and often makes the parents the personification of “him” or “her.” Later on, the individual transfers these feelings to somebody else, for instance, to a teacher, a husband, or a psychoanalyst. Again, the need for being related to such a symbol of authority is caused by anxiety. What we can observe at the kernel of every neurosis, as well as of normal development, is the struggle for freedom and independence. For many normal persons this struggle has ended in a complete giving up of their individual selves, so that they are thus well adapted and considered to be normal. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The neurotic person is the one who has not given up fighting against complete submission, but who, at the same time, has remained bound to the figure of the magic helper, whatever form or shape “one” may have assumed. One’s neurosis is always to be understood as an attempt, and essentially an unsuccessful one, to solve the conflict between that basic dependency and the quest for freedom. The concept of social character is not only a theoretical one lending itself to general speculation; it is useful and important for empirical studies which aim at finding out what the incidence of various kinds of social character is in a given society or social class. Assuming that one defines the “peasant character” as individualistic, hoarding, stubborn, with little satisfaction in cooperation, little sense of time and punctuality, this syndrome of traits is by no means a summation of various traits, but a structure, charged with energy. This structure will show intensive resistance by either violence or silent obstructionism if attempts are made to change it; even economic advantages will not easily produce any effects. The syndrome owes its existence to the common mode of production which has been characteristic of peasant life for thousands of years. The same holds true for a declining lower-middle class, whether it is that which brought Mr. Hitler to power, or the poor Whites in the South of the United States of America. The lack of any kind of beneficial cultural stimulation, the resentment against their situation, which is one of being left behind by the forward-moving currents of their society, the hate toward those who destroy the images which once gave them pride, have created a character syndrome which is made up of love and death (necrophilia), intense malignant fixation to blood and soil, and intense group narcissism (the latter expressed in intense nationalism and racism). #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

The striking feature of a socialist economy is the fact that there is no private ownership in the fact that there is no private ownership in the means of production, and that all enterprises are administered by a state-appointed managerial bureaucracy. (There is, of course, private ownership of consumer goods, like houses, furniture, automobiles, and personal accumulation of saving such as bank accounts and government bonds, just as in the United States of America. The differences in this respect is only that one cannot own a factory or stock in a corporation, a difference, incidentally, which would be relevant only for a small part of the population of the United States of America.) The Soviet leaders and their peoples, assuming that Marxist socialism is characterized by the ownership and management of enterprises by the state, take this to mean that their system is socialism. Whether this claim is justified or nor will be discussed later, along with the fact that current developments in the Soviet system are in many respects more akin to the trends existing in the twenty-first century capitalism than they are to socialism. Over-all planning, introduced for the first time by Mr. Stalin’s Five-Year Plan in 1928, offers Soviet ideology an additional reason to speak of their system as socialism. The over-all plan (Gosplan) is centrally made in Moscow for the USSR after intensive deliberation over a great amount of data. The planning determines what is to be produced and at what rate, in contrast to the relatively free market in the Western countries. Until 1957 the Moscow ministries for various ranches of industry were the central authorities for the respective industries under their administration. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

Mr. Khrushchev abolished this centralized system, which had existed for over twenty years, and inaugurated a process of decentralization by replacing the ministries by regional economic councils (sownarkhoz). In the United States of American 1 percent of all families own 4/5 of all Industrial stocks which can be owned by individuals. There are somewhat over one hundred such councils within the Soviet Union. They appoint the top personnel (or confirm their appointments) in the enterprises under them, determine the production program of “their” industries (although within the framework of the general plan), are active in determining prices and production methods, and the securing of scarce materials and conduct research on the quality of products et cetera. The control of the sownarkhoz over the many industries under its control is exercised through subdivisions, the “chief administrations,” which in turn control the individual enterprises, headed by their managers. Who are the administrators working in the regional councils, the chief administrations, and the individual enterprises? The majority have a college education (in fact, a greater percentage than in the United States of America), with the greater proportion of graduates in engineering and a small proportion in business administration. The vast majority of them are members of the Communist Party. (It is important for the America reader to remember that the Communist Party in Russia is, by intention, not a mass party, but represents the elite of those who want to get to the highest position and who are willing to exert the greatest efforts; actually, only about 4 percent of the total population are party members.) The director of a plant earns from five to ten times (including bonuses) what the worker earns, depending on the size and kind of factory. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

If we compare the American situation, an American plant director would have to earn $232,115.88 a year to attain the same position in relation to the worker. A small scale study of American firms showed that in actual fact the top policy-making executive in firms of under 1,000 employees earned an annual average of $305,933.38 in salary and bonus. These figures are difficult to compare since on the one hand prices for consumer goods are relatively much higher in the Soviet Union than in the United States of America, while on the other hand rents are much lower in the Soviet Union and fringe benefits are higher than in the United States of America. Thus, the income differential between managers and workers is not too different in the Soviet Union from what it is in the United States of America. What is particularly important is the role of bonuses which reach 50 to 100 percent of the manager’s salary and which constitutes the most important incentive for optimal production. (Often this system emphasizes quantity rather than quality—hence leading to the production of inferior consumer goods.) Thus, the managers represent a social group that in income, consumption, and authority, is as different from the workers as in any capitalist country of the West. In fact, judging from many reports, rigidities in class stratification, status-differential, et cetera, are greater than in the United States of America. Something we value in the United States of America is legal property rights. Legal property rights are not absolute. They are to some extent subject to private modification by mutual consent for mutual benefit. More generally, security of property rights depends on: government protection, private protection, and other people’s attempts to capture some of the rights. All these are costly in different ways; therefore rights are generally not complete. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

When transacting is costly, all contract forms are costly, so choice of governance form is at best a constrained optimum. Most assets and commodities have multiple dimensions. It may be optimal to divide the property rights to different attributes of a commodity between different owners. Different dimensions of assets and contracts interact: they may be mutually substitutes or complements. This can be utilized to achieve better outcomes for seemingly incomplete contracts. For example, in a short-term rental contract, the landlord is usually responsible for maintenance and improvement, whereas in the long-term contract, the tenant is. This goes with their natural incentives; therefore it can even be left unspecified. When the rights and responsibilities governing real aspects of behaviour have been efficiently specified, the financial aspects of the contract can adjust to satisfy the participation constraints and division of surplus. Even a given attribute may have shared ownership, of if ownership is not specified or enforced because of incompleteness, it may be placed in the public domain. Actions of individuals in shared ownership can be constrained for their mutual benefit. Income from an asset or attribute may be affected by the actions of others; transaction costs may preclude attainment of the optimum indicated by the Coase Theorem. As transaction technology (information, enforcement, et cetera) changes, the nature and governance mode of property rights also evolves. Disputes arise when some previously unexercised rights become worth exercising, so an owner who had preciously left them in the public domain now wants to reclaim them. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

Leicap (1989) studies how property rights come to be delineated and enforced in the first place. His general idea is that property rights are needed t reduce or eliminate efficiency losses due to common pool problems. However, the process is political, with distributional conflicts. Bargaining may not lead to an efficient outcome, or may do so only with long delay. The analytical framework argues that efficient adaptation of rights to new circumstances is more difficult if: aggregate gains are small; the number of participants is large; interests are heterogeneous; the sizes of participants’ gains or losses are private information; the efficient regime will involve greater concentration of wealth, so there will be more losers. The outcome of the political conflict between the winners and losers may be determined by who is better able to organize for political action; this is usually the smaller group with more concentrated benefits or costs. When participation in the conduct of programs lags, these programs cease to represent planning, and become something else, for which epithets abound, if analytic concepts do not. Planning, by definition, stands for the guidance of present action by prospective and retrospective reference. It does not stand for mere maintenance of present routine, however well devised, or it does so only to the extent that this may be useful within the context of a more enveloping goal. The vital element, or condition, in maintaining participation by clientele and personal in the programs of agencies is the constant emergence of new goals. Only thus can the sense of creation, of values in process of realization, be maintained. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

In part, this is a task of leadership, by leaders who do not sink into mere office-holding, but continually find new and inspiring areas for effort. Viewed thus, leadership may spring from any member of a group; if anything, the reverse may be true. It is the realization of such a relationship which provides the political solution to the problem of maintaining both citizen participation in government and clientele participation in social agencies. One way of maintaining public interests is through competition for office, success in which occurs through appeals to the diverse interests and shifting ideas among the public. The dynamic effect of aspiring leaders setting forth rival promises regarding the future, as a mans of securing office, is to generate new wants, new hopes and aspirations, new goals for concerted effort. It happens, however, that even competition for office may be an insufficient source of renewal of group purpose. The insecurities of office-holding may be so intense that, by various schemes of co-optation, monopoly, quietism, or even more drastic devices, office-holders succeed in cementing themselves into place. Or it may be that imagination lag, and rivals come to be so little different that they make no difference. Or, on the other hand, the strife of competition for office may become so intense that its contribution to unified community action is nullified and reversed. Without depreciating the stimulus of competitive politics, of the part they play as a guarantee against worse events, as incentive to progress they must be assessed as sporadic, inconsistent, and unpredictable. Happily, it is quite possible for new goals to form rationally, continually, and effectively without continual changes of personnel. This can come about through the vigorous and careful implementation of the fifth phase of the planning process, the making of the periodic appraisals of progress. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

Walking “after the spirit” and “minding the spirit”—these expressions do not merely mean mind and body are subservient to the spirit, but they denote the humans’ own spirit co-working with the Holy Spirit in one’s daily life, and in all the occasions of life. To do this, the believer needs to know the laws of the spirit—not only the conditions necessary for the Holy Spirit’s working but the laws also governing one’s own spirit, so that it may be kept open to the Spirit of God. When the Holy Spirit takes the spirit of human beings as His sanctuary, psychopathological offenders attack the spirit to get it our of their object being to close the outlet of the Spirit of God dwelling at the center. And yet, when the human is “spiritual” and the mind and body is subservient to the spirit, the spiritual forces of the ultimate negative can come into DIRECT CONTACT with the spirit—and then follows the “wrestling” referred to by Paul (Eph. 6.12). If the human is ignorant of the laws of the spirit, especially the tactics of the ultimate negative, one is liable to yield to an onslaught of deceiving spirits by which they forced one’s spirit into strained ecstasy, or elation, or elation, or else press it down, as it were into a vice. In the former case one has given “visions” and revelations which appear to be divine, but afterwards are proved to have been of the enemy, by their passing away with no results; in the latter, the mortal sinks into darkness and deadness as if one had lost all knowledge of God. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

The relationship between the churches and society are within the context of the functions of the churches. Certain functions flow from their very nature. However, a function of the church is not the same as that of an institution. To further highlight this illustration, mediation is a constitutive function of the church, and it frequently is served by the institution of the priesthood. However, mediation may take place without the priesthood, for an institution is only an organizational mechanism for the function. Institutions may come and go, but the function always remains. The function of a church is constitution. By its constitutive function a church receives and mediates the New Being. Expansion is the church function that is behind missionary activity, education, and evangelization of fallen-away members. The constructive function of the churches includes both Theoria (the aesthetic and cognitive functions) and praxis (the personal and communal functions). The aesthetic function struggles to express the meaning of the church through medium of religious art—pictorial, musical, and visual. Theology is the cognitive function which interprets religious symbols and relates them to the categories or rational knowledge. The personal function of the church is the development of saintliness in its members, while the communal function promotes the Holy Community in which justice and holiness flourish together. The problem in all these functions of the church is how to preserve their autonomy of form within the body of the church. Must aesthetic expressiveness, cognitive truth, personal humanity, and communal justice be twisted out of shape in order to fit within the cadre of the church? #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

I feel it is possible to maintain autonomy of form in these functions by the Spiritual Presence; in other words, though theonomy. We come now to the relating function, the function that governs the mutual interaction between the churches and other groups in society. The relating function operates in a threefold way: the way of the silent interpenetration, the way of critical judgment, and the way of political establishment. By silent interpretation the churches radiate the Spirital Presence into the social units which they are contiguous. One could call it the pouring of priestly substance into the social structure of which the churches are a part. The rapid spread of secularism obscures this influence, but if the churches disappeared overnight, society would be impoverished. Interpenetration also means that the current of influence flows from society toward the churches via the cultural forms develop in society. The most obvious of these influences is felt in the continuous transformation of the ways of understanding and expressing experiences in a living culture. To put it another way, the churches’ creative function of Theoria and praxis draws upon society for the forms in which its substance is preserved and conveyed. You shall deal your bread to the hungry, and bring the poor that are cast out to your house. When you see the naked, cover him or her, and hide not yourself from your own flesh. Then shall your light break forth as the morning, and your healing shall spring forth speedily; your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of God shall be your protection. 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. And please open your hearts and be kind enough to donate to the Sacramento Fire Depart for they are not receiving all of their vital resources. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD
Lincoln, CA | from the high $600,000s
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!

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. https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/residence-four/

Why this Symptom? Why Now?

After World War I, psychosomatic practitioners tended to be critical of more mainstream medicine, finding fault with that they perceived as an overly reductionist attitude among fellow physicians, one that failed to treat patients as whole beings, body and soul. Psychosomatic doctors rejected narrowly natural-scientific ideas about illness and disability and sought, along side science, to engage in questions of meaning. They placed patients’ biographies and social environment at the center of their treatment and philosophy. Neurologist Viktor von Weizsacher’s teacher and mentor Ludolf von Krehl believed that healing required knowing a patient’s “entire nature.” Dr. Von Krehl declared himself to be no “mystic,” and “also no occultists or such. But what is spirit is spirit,” he said, “and a human being is a totality, spirit, and body.” Dr. Von Weizsacher was much influenced by these ideas, believing that on had to contemplate seriously not just the appearance of disease or organ dysfunction but also its symbolic aspects. He listened to the stories his patients told for clues about the meanings of their troubles. From their life stories, he wrote “pathosophies”—narratives that analyzed aspects of his patients’ lives to unlock hidden significance about their ailments. Rather than asking his patients “What seems to be the trouble?” Dr. Von Weizacker asked, in a way a psychoanalyst might, “Why this symptom? Why now?” It was believed that if medicine had failed patients, the reason was because they were treating their bodies like failing machines while neglecting their souls. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Medicine’s psychosomatic transformation toward a more holistic approach to treatment that would take people’s inner lives and life experiences into account was deemed to be more beneficial. This would help to restore trust. Why trust had to be restored—the recent history of forced sterilizations and “mercy killings” of those with disabilities. Through experimentation and observation, German doctors believed that a damaged soul could make the body ill. Patients were also asked how they perceived their bodily sensations. Many patients were spiritually disoriented. They saw “no way out,” felt terribly lonely, thought of suicide, and had “no one in whom they could confide.” One patient described his wife as herzkrank—heartsick—after losing their daughter. Another woman described how her daughter had been raped eight times, had been sick ever since, and no longer wanted to ea. For most doctors in 1949, unless there was an “organic basis” for illness, that illness did not exist. When patients complained of pain for which no manifestly physical cause could be located, doctors sought other explanations. Not unlike the problem of chronic pain in our own day, these explanations could cast a shadow on the sufferer’s moral constitution, suggest a family taint, or hint at a lack of personal integrity. Perhaps the patient was a malingerer, angling for a disability check, or lacked the fortitude or individual strength of character to overcome hard times. Perhaps the patient was too sensitive or weak-willed, or there had already been something wrong with him or her. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Doctor’s who practiced psychosomatic medicine believed that these were not phantom ailments: they were manifestly physical maladies with origins in the soul. Individual stories of distress of mass fate; nights under falling bombs, flight and hunger, fallen fathers, fallen sons, assaults and rape. Psychosomatic illness had become the epidemic of war time. They also revealed the history of German suffering. People whose limps suddenly refused to move, or who had stomach ailments, or whose children’s kidneys were failing—these were the products not so much of individual experience but of the nation’s collective fate. They were reactions to the extraordinary burdens that had been the yield of the events of the wars. However, prominent doctors argued that suffering and ill people should not be coddled, but learn to tolerate pain with equanimity. During the war, the remedy prescribed for terrible experiences was not talk, but hard and uncomplaining work. Hard work, that is, and silence. A psychological study conducted in 1944 with people who related their symptoms of illness to experiences in the wartime air raids cautioned that talking about feelings could lead to depression. A culture of silence, in other words, was not only a generalized social imperative born of taboos surrounding Nazism and the war, it was an authoritative medical recommendation because an unseen World of pain and illness, previously confined to the privacy of the home and family, had become increasingly revealed. Every house in Germany was a hospital. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Dr. Freud considered character as the relatively stable manifestation of various kinds of libidinous strivings, that is, of psychic energy directed to certain goals and stemming from certain sources. In his concepts of the oral, anal, and genital characters, Dr. Freud presented a new model of human character which explained behaviour as the outcome of distinct passionate strivings; Dr. Freud assumed that the direction and intensity of these strivings was the result of early childhood experiences in relation to the “erogenous zones” (mouth, anus, genitals), and aside from constitutional elements the behaviour of parents was mainly responsible for the libido development. The concept of social character refers to the matrix of the character structure common to a group. It assumes that the fundamental factor in the formation of the social character is the practice of life as it is constituted by the mode of production and the resulting social stratification. The social character is that particular structure of psychic energy which is molded by any given society so as to be useful for the functioning of that particular society. The average person must want to do what one has to do in order to function in a way that permits society to use one’s energies for its purposes. Humans’ energy appears in the social process only partly as simple physical energy (labourers tilling the soil or building roads) and partly in specific forms of psychic energy. A member of a primitive people, living from assaulting and robbing other tribes, must have the character of a warrior, with a passion for war, killing, and robbing. The members of a peaceful, agricultural tribe must have an inclination for cooperation as against violence #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Only if its members have a striving for submission to authority, and respect and admiration for those who are their superiors, does feudal society function well. Capitalism functions only with men who are eager to work, who are disciplined and punctual, whose main interest is monetary gain, and whose main principle in life is profit as a result of production and exchange. In the nineteenth century capitalism needed men who liked to save; in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, it needs men and women who are passionately interested in spending and consuming. The social character is the form in which human energy is molded for its use as a productive force in the social process. The social character is reinforced by all the instruments of influence available to a society—its educational system, its religion, its literature, its songs, its jokes, its customs, and most of all, its parents’ methods of bringing up their children. This last is so important because the character structure of individuals is formed to a considerable extent in the first five or six years of their lives. However, the influence of the parents is not essentially an individual or accidental one, as classic psychoanalysts believe. The parents are primarily the agents of society, both through their own characters and through their educational methods; they differ from each other only to a small degree, and these differences usually do not diminish their influence in creating the socially desirable matrix of the social character. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

A condition for the formulation of the concept of the social character as being molded by the practice of life in any given society was a revision of Dr. Freud’s libido theory, which is the basis for his concept of character. The libido theory is rooted in the mechanistic concept of humans as machines, with the libido (aside from the drive for self-preservation) as the energy source, governed by the “pleasure principle,” the reduction of increased libidinal tension to its normal level. In contrast to this concept, various strivings of man, who is primarily a social being, develop as a result of one’s need for “assimilation” (of things) and “socialization” (with people), and that the forms of assimilation and socialization that constitute their main passions depend on the social structure in which one exists. Humans in this concept are seen as characterized by their passionate strivings toward objects—men, women, and nature—and their need of relating themselves to the World. The concept of the social character answers important questions which were not dealt with adequately in Marxist theory. If their reason tells them that their allegiance to it is harmful to them, why is it that a society succeeds in gaining the allegiance of most of its members, even when they suffer under the system? Why has their real interest as human beings not outweighed their functions interests produced by all kinds of ideological influences and social engineering? Why has consciousness of their class situation and of the advantage of socialism not been as effective as Mr. Marx believed it would be. Because of the phenomenon of the social character. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Once a society has succeeded in molding the character structure of the average person in such a way that one likes to do that which one has to do, one is satisfied with the very condition that society imposes upon one. As one of Ibsen’s characters once said, “He can do anything he wants to do because he wants only what he can do.” Needless to say, a social character which is, for instance, satisfied with submission is a crippled character. However, crippled or not, it serves the purpose of a society requiring submissive men and women for its proper function. The concept of social character also serves to explain the link between the material basis of a society and the “ideological superstructure.” Mr. Marx has often been interpreted as imply that the ideological superstructure was nothing but the reflection of the economic basis. This interpretation is not correct; but the fact is that in Mr. Marx’s theory the nature of the relation between basis and superstructure was not sufficiently explained. A dynamic psychological theory can show that society produces the social character, and that the social character tends to produce and to hold onto ideas and ideologies which fit it and are nourished by it. However, it is not only the economic basis which creates a certain social character which, in turn, creates certain ideas. The ideas, once created, also influence the social character and, indirectly, the socioeconomic structure. The social character is the intermediary between the socioeconomic structure and the ideas and ideals prevalent in a society. It is the intermediary in both directions, from the economic basis to the ideas and from the ideas to the economic basis. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

The concept of social character can explain how human energy, like any other raw material, is used by a society for the needs and purposes of that society. Humans, in fact, are one of the most pliable natural forces; they can be made to serve almost any purpose; they can be made to hate or to cooperate, to submit or to stand up, to enjoy suffering or happiness. While all this is true, it is also true that humans can solve the problem of their existence only by the full unfolding of their human powers. The more crippled a society makes a human, the more sicker one becomes, even though consciously one may be satisfied with one’s lot. However, unconsciously one is dissatisfied; and this very dissatisfaction is the element which clines one eventually to change the social forms that cripple one. If one cannot do this, one’s particular kind of pathogenic society will die out. Social change and revolution are caused not only by new productive forces which conflict with older forms of social organization, but also by the conflict between inhuman social conditions and unalterable human needs. One can do almost anything to humans, yet only almost. The history of man’s fight for freedom is the most telling manifestation of this principle. In recent decades “conscience” has lost much of its significance. It seems as though neither external nor internal authorities play any prominent role in the individual’s life. If only one does not interfere with other people’s legitimate claims, then is everybody is completely “free.” However, what we find is rather that instead of disappearing, authority has made itself invisible. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

Instead of overt authority, “anonymous” authority reigns. It is disguised as common sense, science, psychic health, normality, public opinion. It does not demand anything except the self-evident. It seems to use no pressure but only mild persuasion. Whether a mother says to her daughter, “I know you will not like to go out with that boy,” or an advertisement suggest “Drink the brand of premium cranberry juice—you will like its coolness,” it has the same atmosphere of subtle suggestion which actually pervades our whole social life. Anonymous authority is more effective than overt authority, since one never suspects that there is any order which one is expected to follow. In external authority it is clear that there is an order and who gives it; one can fight against the authority, and in this fight personal independence and moral courage can develop. However, whereas internalized authority the common, though an internal one, remains visible, in anonymous authority both command and commander have become invisible. It is like being fired at by an invisible enemy. There is nobody and nothing to fight back against. The most important aspect of the authoritarian character is the attitude towards power. For the authoritarian character there exists, so to speak, two genders: the powerful ones and the powerless ones. One’s love, admiration and readiness for submission are automatically aroused by power, whether of a person or of an institution. Power fascinates one not for any values for which a specific power may stand, but just because it is power. Just as his “love” is automatically aroused by power, so powerless people or institutions automatically arouses one’s contempt. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

The very sight of a powerless person makes one want to attack, dominate, humiliate one. Whereas a different kind of character is appalled by the idea of attacking one who is helpless, the authoritarian character feels the more aroused the more helpless one’s object has become. There is one feature of the authoritarian character which has mislead many observers: a tendency to defy authority and to resent any kind of influence from “above.” Sometimes this defiance overshadows the whole picture and the submissive tendencies are in the background. This type of person will constantly rebel against any kind of authority, even one that actually furthers one’s interest and has no elements of suppression. Sometimes the attitude toward authority is divided. Such persons might fight against one set of authorities, especially if they are disappointed by its lack of power, and at the same time or later on submit to another set of authorities which through greater power or greater promises seems to fulfill their masochistic longings. Finally, there is a type in which the rebellious tendencies are completely repressed and come to the surface only when conscious control is weakened; or they can be recognized ex posteriori, in the hatred that arises against an authority when its power is weakened and when it begins to totter. In persons of the first type in whom the rebellious attitude is the center of the picture, one is easily led to believe that their character structure is just the opposite to that of the submissive masochistic type. It appears as if they are persons who oppose every authority on the basis of an extreme degree of independence. They look like persons who, on the basis of their inner strength and integrity, fight those forces that block their freedom and independence. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

However, the authoritarian character’s fight against authority is essentially defiance. It is an attempt to assert oneself and to overcome one’s feeling of powerlessness by fighting authority, although the longing for submission remains present, whether consciously or unconsciously. The authoritarian character is never a “revolutionary”; I should like to call one a “rebel.” There are many individuals and political movements that are puzzling to the superficial observer because of what seems to be an inexplicable change from “radicalism” to extreme authoritarianism. Psychologically, these people are the typical “rebels.” The end of the terror—the most obvious new factor by which Khruschevism is distinguished from Stalinism is the liquidation of the terror. If terror was necessary in a system where the masses had to work hard without getting any corresponding material satisfaction, it could be diminished once the workers could begin to enjoy the fruits of their labour and could hope for increasing enjoyment. Mr. Stalin’s successors were also sufficiently traumatized themselves by the crazy terror which he had exercised during his last years and which daily threatened each one of the top leaders with extinction. A psychological phenomenon, similar to that in France before the fall of Robespierre, probably existed in the Russian top leadership which led, together with the reasons first mentioned, to the decision to liquidate the terror. All reports from Russian confirm that the system of terror has ceased to exist. The slave labour camps which were not only institutions of terror but also a source of inexpensive labor under Mr. Stalin were dissolved. Arbitrary arrests and punishments were abolished. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

The Khruschev state might be compared with a reactionary police stat of the nineteenth century as far as political freedom is concerned, perhaps not too different from the Czarist system. Yet this comparison would be misleading; not only because of the obvious differences in the economic structure of the two systems but also because of another and more complex factor. Political freedom comes up as a manifest problem only when there is considerable dissent within the fundamental structure of a given society. In the Czarist system, the majority of the population—peasants, workers, the middle class—were in opposition to the system, and the system took oppressive measures to insure its own existence. On the other hand, there is a reason to assume that the Khruschev system has succeeded in ensuring the allegiance of the majority of the Soviet population. It has done this partly by the real economic satisfactions it provides at present and the reasonable hope for far greater improvements in the future and partly by its success in the ideological manipulation of people’s minds. From all reports it seems fairly clear that the average Russian is convinced that his system worked reasonably well, looked forward to a better future, enjoyed the possibilities for more education and amusement, and was mainly afraid of one thing—war. When one criticized the system one criticized details of its operation, bureaucratic stupidities, and the shoddy quality of consumer goods, but not the Soviet systems as such. One certainly did not think of substituting the capitalist system for it. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

No doubt under Mr. Stalin’s terror the situation was quite different. The ruthless arbitrariness of the terror threatened everyone, high or low, with prison or physical extinction, not only as a result of making mistakes, but as a consequence of denunciations, intrigues, et cetera. However, this terror has gone and things are different. The average American misjudges the Russian situation by putting oneself in the role of an anti-Communist within Russia, and considering the degree to which expression of one’s opinion would be discouraged. One forgets that, apart from writers and social scientists who might be prone to criticize the system, the average Russian feels little of such an urge. Hence the problem of political freedom is by far less real for one than it appears from the American perspective. (The average Russian might feel similarly to the average American if, picturing oneself as a Communist, one considered the restrictions and hazards one would face in the United States of America.) All this does not alter the fact that Khruschev’s Russian is a police state with much less freedom to dissent and to criticize the government and majority opinion than there is within the Western democracies. Furthermore, after many years of unrestricted terror, it will take years to dispell the residue of fear and intimidation created by terror. Yet, when all is considered, the net result if that Khrushchevism marks a considerable improvement over the Stalinist era as far as political freedom is concerned. Closely related to the disappearance of the terror system is also a change in the nature of the method of leadership in Russia. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Mr. Stalin’s rule was a one-man rule, without any serious consultation with collaborators and anything that in the broadest sense could be called discussion or majority rule. It is clear that such a one-man regime needed a terror-force by which the dictator could strike at any person who dared to oppose one. With the execution of Beria, the power of the terrorist state police was considerably restricted and none of the Russian leaders since Mr. Stalin’s death has assumed a dictatorial position that could be compared with that of Stalin. It appears that the leader, whoever he is, has to convince the top echelon in the party of the correctness of his views, and that there is something like discussion and majority rule in the ruling committee. All events in the last few years of Mr. Khruschev’s rule had to defend his policy against opponents, that he had to show successes in order to maintain himself on top, and that he was in some ways in a position not too different from that of a statesman in the West, whose continued political failures would lead to his political disappearance. The attitude of the authoritarian character toward life, one’s whole philosophy, is determined by one’s emotional strivings. The authoritarian character loves those conditions that limit human freedom, one loves being submitted to fate. It depends on one’s social position what “fate” means to one. For a solider it may mean the will or whim of one’s superior, to which one gladly submits. For the small businessperson, the economic laws are one’s fate. Crisis and prosperity to one are not social phenomena which might be changed by human activity, but the expression of a higher power to which one has to submit. For those on the top of the pyramid it is basically not different. The difference lies only in the size and generality of the power to which one submits, not in the feeling of dependence as such. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Economic theorists have always recognized the importance of secure property rights in creating the right incentives to produce and to invest. This has been critical to the rise of Western European economies. Students of less-developed countries (LCDs) and transition economies reinforce this lesson. They also show how insecure property rights remain in many countries. The threats to property rights come from two broad classes of predators. Other individual may encroach on one’s property, may extort money by making threats of damaging property, or may steal the property outright; a weak state maybe unable to deter or prevent such actions. Even worse, the state itself or its agents may engage in extortion of private property to further their own objectives, whether they be wasteful public monuments and displays, aggression against other states, or simple person consumption. Faced with such threats, individuals will be deterred from production and investment, but will also attempt to take some countermeasures to preserve their property. Property rights over assets consist of: control—decision about them; entitlement to income produced by them; alienation—selling one or both of the control or income rights, fully or partially, to someone else. All of these are subject to formal or informal constraints. Control rights can be leased or sold under contracts, but where contracts are incomplete, the unspecified or residual rights remain with the owner. Income rights are often shared with other stakeholders under various social norms, terms or covenants in a higher-level contract, general laws, et cetera; some control right may also be similarly shared. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

And sales are also subject to similar constraints, such as covenants restricting what homeowner can and cannot do to the exterior of their homes, to fences and yards, and on. Much academic discussion of the principle of an administration, while admirably giving increasing emphasis to participation by personnel, tends to overlook the probably much more important matter of participation by clientele. Indeed, some of the academic discussion seem to take for granted that participation by the clientele is impossible, that at best the clientele may consume the services of the agency, and these services are related directly to their preconceived wants. By some administrators and writers on administration, however, it is well understood that the benefits of participation by the clientele of an agency overweighs the hazards. The existence of an alert, informed, interested clientele may expose the inept administrator to observation and correction that one would escape if it were more apathetic; on the other hand, a favourable public goes far to assure the success of a program. The attempt to evoke such a favourable response from its clientele often leads agency administrators into unilateral forms of publicity, public relations, and propaganda. A free flow of valid information is rightly to be desired. A system of interim progress reporting, for the clientele as well as the personnel, is indispensable to optimum co-ordination and motivation in democratic planning agencies. Nevertheless, the practice of unilateral public relations is currently probably justly a little suspect. It produces far fewer results than might be supposed from its analogy to commercial advertising. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Though it will be granted by many that public relations will not take the place of participation by an agency’s clientele, some continue to rely upon public relations as a means of obtaining participation. That is, they exhort and cajole their clients to participate, or to feel a sense of participation, as if such a feeling could be induced by will power. Participation to deepen must commence with the definition of the problem, and carry through the debate of proposals and the adoption of policy. It is too late in the process of commence trying to evoke participation after everything is cut and dried. Countless instances can be cited to demonstrate people’s lack of enthusiasm for projects which have been fashioned and thrust on them by others. The best of intentions often go awry because of such methods. Let us suppose, however, that the public has participated fully in the first three phases, in defining the problem, debating the alternative solutions, and, at least through representatives, making the policy decision which launches a program for action. And for the clientele to participate in the conduct of the program. Is it then certain that their involvement will be high, with a resulting flow of effort and ingenuity, or initiative and responsibility? Unfortunately, this cannot be assumed. If participation in the planning process were deemed to go only as far as participation in the conduct of programs and no farther, it would soon dwindle into routine. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

To the extent that participation of the clientele was voluntary, it would cease. The public would in a sense abdicate, becoming content to leave matters in the hands of the paid and delegated personnel of the agency, as long as they did not to greatly transgress routine expectations. This spectacle of public which is satisfied after setting up a program to leave it to be run by a few is familiar in agencies of all kinds. In the beginning of its existence an agency may enjoy a high degree of interests from its clientele; there is hope, energy, idealism, enthusiasm; but once a permanent personnel is established, all this often wanes. A crisis may seem to waken it again, but only ephemerally. The most persistent obstacle to continuing participation is an intangible one. For the baffling opponent is complacency, especially the sort of complacency which seems permitted if not justified by the tolerable success of an agency in meeting some routine minimum of performance. Some of the bitterest struggles of leadership can occur in the minds of leaders, as the same complacency infiltrates and begins to be felt as dull poisoning of their energy. It is then that the question arises, “Why not relax? Why not let things find a level routine? As long as no one is complaining, why is it not sufficient just to let things amble along as they have been?” A swarm of rationalizations can be found to justify such doubts about the desirability of continued progress, and to support the policy of simply mending troubles as they arise. The decline and failure of participation may this occur insidiously, from within, despite good will, as readily as from arbitrariness without. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Many believers are not even aware that they have a spirit. At the other extreme, however, some people imagine that every experience which takes place in the realm of their senses is spirit-based—or perhaps even directly “of the Spirit.” These believers consider everything which takes place in their inner life to be His working. In each of these cases the humans’ own spirit is left out of account. In the first instance, the believer’s religious life is, if we may say so, “spiritually mental,” that is, the mind is illuminated and enjoys spiritual truth, but what “spirit” means one does not clearly know. In the second instance the believer is really “soulish,” although one thinks one is spiritual. And in the case where the believer think that the Holy Spirit’s indwelling means every moment is of Him, one becomes dangerously open to the deception of evil spirits counterfeiting the Holy Spirit, because without discrimination one attributes all inner “movements” or experiences to Him. The conversion of an individual to one of the churches is a gradual process that finally ends in the ecstatic moment of Christian faith. Conversion is the transition from the latent stage of the Spiritual Community to its manifest stage. Thus it is relative, not absolute, conversion, for humans is never completely without faith, without an ultimate concern through which they participate in the Spiritual Community. The missionary and evangelistic efforts of the churches must take this fact into account. The lost sheep are never completely lost; the manifest church builds upon the latent church. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The Spiritual Community is a community of Spiritual personalities, of individuals determined by the Spiritual Presence in a state of faith and love. One is either grasped by the Spirit or one is not; there is no special status within the Spiritual Community. Everyone is a priest. However, for the sake of efficiency and orderly procedure, certain individual experts may be called to a regular and trained performance of priestly activities. Though the convert in one’s actual being is subject to the ambiguities of the churches, in one’s essential being one is a Spiritual personality, a participant in the Spiritual Community. This is situation is called the experience of the New Being. By experience, we mean the awareness of something that happens to somebody, namely, the state of being grasped by the Spiritual Presence. According to the three elements of salvation, the New Being is experienced as creative (Regeneration), as paradox (Justification), and as process (Sanctification). The stranger that sojourns with you, shall be unto you as the native among you, and you shall love one as you love yourself, for you were all strangers in the land of America. One law shall be among you, for the native and the stranger alike. If your fellowman become poor and one’s means fail, you shall uphold one. Harden not your heart to the needy in your midst, nor shut your hand to your needy brother; but open your hand unto one; and lend one sufficient for one’s needs. Behold how good and how pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity. Hate not your brother in your heart; love your neighbour as yourself. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, Under God, with Liberty and Justice for all. And please donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, as they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20


Ready to build your custom dream home?

Millhaven Homes have many windows that flood the home with natural light, allowing the owner to enjoy postcard picture views.

Soaring ceilings make your new home look and feel more open and spacious.

A custom-built home by Millhaven Homes provides buyers with that exquisite living experience one is seeking.

These trophy properties are built in highly coveted communities that provide peace, security, and privacy.

Some homes are even located on tree farms, allowing the homeowners to enjoy lush landscaping and a restort style estate which makes rest and relax a charm.

Millhaven Homes offers uncompromising quality making a Millhaven Home a truly remarkable find.

The outdoor living spaces, and options like an outdoor fireplace, make al-fresco dining an option year-round.

Get started today by telling us what you’re wanting and we can schedule an initial consultation. https://millhavenhomes.com/
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/












































































































