People have forgotten how to tell stories. Stories do not have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning. One simple thing that will happen in the future is that they will streamline the family. The typical pre-industrial family not only had a good many children, but numerous other dependent as well—grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. Such “extended” families were well suited for survival in slow paced agricultural societies. However, such families are hard to transport or transplant. They are immobile. Industrialism demanded masses of workers ready and able to move off the land in pursuit of jobs, and to move again whenever necessary. Thus the extended family gradually shed its excess weight and the so-called “nuclear” family emerged—a stripped-down, portable family unit consisting only of parents and a small set of children. This new style family, far more mobile than the traditional extended family, became the standard model in all the industrial countries. Super-age of information, however, the next stage of ecotechnological development, requires even higher mobility. Thus we may expect many among the people of the future to carry the streamlining process a step further by remaining childless, cutting the family down to its most elemental components, two adults who are spouses. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21
Adults will form relationships, two people, perhaps with matched careers, will prove more efficient at navigating through education and social shoals, through job changes and geographic relocations, than the ordinary child-cluttered family. Indeed, anthropologist Margaret Mead has pointed out that we may already be moving toward a system under which, as she puts it, “parenthood would be limited to a smaller number of families whose principal functions would be childrearing,” leaving the rest of the population “free to function—for the first time in history—as individuals.” A compromise may be the postponement of children, rather than childlessness. Men and women today are often torn in conflict between a commitment to career and a commitment to children. In the future, many couples will sidestep this problem by deferring the entire task of raising children until after retirement. This may strike people of the present as odd. Yet once childbearing is broken away from its biological base, nothing more than tradition suggests having children at an early age. Why not wait, and buy your embryos later, after your career is over? Thus childlessness is likely to spear among young and middle-aged couples; sexagenarians who raise infants may be far more common. The post-retirement family could become a recognized social institution. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21
In Tokyo, Japan, for example, in 2017, the population fell by 300,000 people and there were fewer than 1 million births. The reason is because Japan’s young people are not focused on romance, they are more interested in their careers and becoming successful. Women and men are putting their careers before marriage. Experts also speculate that the birth rate could be falling because there are fewer good opportunities for young people. In a country where men are still widely expected to be the primary providers for the family, a lack of good jobs may be creating a class of men who do not marry and have children because they—and their potential partners—know they cannot afford to. The gender roles are pretty consistent with trends in all developed nations—men are having a harder time. The birth rate is down, even the coupling rate is decreasing. People say the number-one reason is economic insecurity. Economic insecurity may seem like a surprise in a country like Japan, with an unemployment rate below 3 percent. However, it may not just be the shrinking economic trends. Most developed nations have less land, so there is less room for people, and housing is more expensive. Because plots of land are growing smaller and more expensive, people may not have a desire to have children. If a smaller number of families raise children, however, why do the children have to be their own? Why not a system under which “professional parents” take on the childrearing function for others? Raising children, after all, requires skills that are by no means universal. We do not let “just anyone: perform brain surgery or, for that matter, sell stocks and bonds. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21
Even civil servants with modest skill levels are required to pass tests proving competence. Yet we allow virtually anyone, almost without regard for mental or moral qualification, to try his or her hand at raising young human beings, so long as these humans are biological offspring. Despite the increasing complexity of the task, parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur. As the present system cracks and the super-age of informational revolution rolls over us, as the armies of juvenile delinquents swell, as hundreds of thousands of youngsters flee their homes, and students rampage at universities in all the techno-societies, we can expect vociferous demands for an end to parental dilettantism. There are far better ways to cope with the problems of youth, but professional parenthood is certain to be proposed, if only because it fits so perfectly with the society’s overall push toward specialization. Moreover, there is a powerful, pent-up demand for this social innovation. Even now millions of parents, given the opportunity, would happily relinquish their parental responsibilities—and not necessarily through irresponsibility or lack of love. Harried, frenzied, up against the wall, they have come to see themselves as inadequate to the tasks. The intuition must lead all the rest of human’s faculties. Even when they do not agree with its guidance, one must follow it. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21
Intuition sees father than the individual ever can, being an efflux from the godlike part of oneself which is in its way a portion of the universal deity. If one can be sure that it is not pseudo-intuition truth in it will lead one to life’s best, whether spiritual or Worldly. Given affluence and the existence of specially-equipped and licensed professional parents, many of today’s biological parents would not only gladly surrender their children to them, but would look upon it as an act of live, rather than rejection. Parental professionals would not be therapists, but actual family units assigned to, and well paid for, rearing children. Such families might be multi-generational by design, offering children in them an opportunity to observe and learn from a variety of adult models, as was the case in the old farm homestead. With the adults paid to be professional parents, they would be free of the occupational necessity to relocate repeatedly. Such families would take in new children as old ones “graduate” so that age-segregation would be minimized. Thus newspapers of the future might well carry advertisements addressed to young married couples: “Why let parenthood tie you down? Let us raise your infant into a responsible, successful adult. Class A Pro-family offers: father age 39, mother, 36, grandmother, 67. Uncle and aunt, age 30, live in, hold part-time local employment. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21
Four-child-unit has opening for one, age 6-8. Regulated diet exceeds government standards. All adults are certified in child development and management and pass federal background checks. Bio-parents permitted frequent visits. Telephone contact allow and Cisco Telepresence can be used daily. Child may spend summer vacation with bio-parents. Religion, art, music encouraged by special arrangement. Five-year contract, minimum. Write for further details.” The “real” or “bio-parents” could, as the advertisement suggests, fil the role presently played by interested godparents, namely that of friendly and helpful outsiders. In such a way, the society could continue to breed a wide diversity of genetic types, yet turn the care of children over to mother-father groups who are equipped, both intellectually and emotionally, for the task. Quite a different alternative lies in the communal family. As transience increases the loneliness and alienation in society, we can anticipate increasing experimentation with various forms of group marriage. The banding together of several adults and children into a single “family” provides kind of insurance against isolation. Even if one or two members of the household leave, the remaining members have one another. Communes are springing up modeled after those described by psychologist B.F. Skinner in Walden Two and novelist Robert Rimmer in The Harrad Experiment and Proposition 31. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21
In the latter work, Rimmer seriously propose the legalization of a “corporate family” in which from three to six adults adopt a single name, live and raise children in common, and legally incorporate to obtain certain economic and tax advantages. According to some observers, there are already hundreds of open or covert communes dotting the American map. Not all, by any means, are composed of young people or hippies. Some are organized around specific goals—like the group, quietly financed by three East Coast colleges—which has taken as its function the task of counseling college freshmen, helping to orient them to campus life. The goals may be social, religious, political, even recreational. Thus, if they do not already, we shall before long begin to see communal families of surfers dotting the beaches of California and Southern France. We shall see the emergence of communes based on political doctrines and religious faiths. In Denmark, a bill to legalize group marriage has already been introduced in the Folketing (Parliament). While passage is not imminent, the act of introduction it itself a significant symbol of change. In Chicago, 250 adults and children already live together in “family-style monasticism” under the auspices of a new fast-growing religious organization, the Ecumenical Institute (EI). Members share the same quarters, cook and eat together, worship and tend children in common, and pool their incomes. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21
At least 90,000 people have taken “EI” courses and similar communes have begun to spring up all over North America, and over 2,000 in various counties of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. There are at least 300 successful locally-managed initiatives in 53 countries. “A brand-new World is emerging,” says Professor Joseph W. Mathews, leader of the Ecumenical Institute, “But people are still operating in terms of the old one. We seek to re-educate people and give them the tools to build a new social context.” Still another type of family unit likely to win adherents in the future might be called the “geriatric commune”—a group of marriage of elderly people drawn together in a common search for companionship and assistance. Disengaged from the productive economy that makes mobility necessary, they will settle in a single place, band together, pool funds, collectively hire domestic or nursing help, and proceed—within limits—to have the “time of the lives.” Communalism runs counter to the pressure for ever greater geographical and social mobility generated by the thrust toward super-industrialism. It presupposed groups of people who “stay put.” For this reason, communal experiments will first proliferate among those in the society who are free from the industrial discipline—the retired population, the young, the dropouts, the students, as well as among self-employed professional and technical people. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21
Later, when advanced technology and information systems make it possible for much of the work of society to be done at home via computer-telecommunication hookups, communalism will become feasible for larger numbers. We shall, however, also see many more “family” units consisting of a single unmarried adult and one or more children. Nor will all of these adults be women. It is already possible in some places for unmarried men to adopt children. In 1965 in Oregon, for example, a thirty-eight-year-old musician named Tony Piazza became the first unmarried man in that state, and perhaps in the United States of America, to be granted the right to adopt a baby. Courts are more readily granting custody to divorced fathers, too. In London, photographer Michael Cooper, married at twenty and divorced soon after, won the right to raise his infant son, and expressed an interest in adopting other children. Observing that he did not particularly wish to remarry, but that he liked children, Mr. Cooper mused aloud: “I wish you could just ask beautiful women to have babies for you. Or any woman you like, or who had something you admired. Ideally, I would like a big house full of children—all different colours, shapes and sizes.” Romantic? Unmanly? Perhaps. Yet attitudes like these will be widely held by men in the future. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21
Two pressures are even now softening up the culture, preparing for acceptance of the idea of childrearing by men. First, adoptable children are in oversupply in some places. Thus, in California, disc jockeys blare commercials: “We have many wonderful babies of all races and nationalities waiting to bring love and happiness to the right families…Call the Los Angeles County Bureau of Adoption.” At the same time, the mass media, in a strange non-conspiratorial fashion, appear to have decided simultaneously that men who raise children hold special interest for public. Extremely popular television shows in recent seasons have glamorized womanless households in which men scrub floors, cook, and most significantly, raise children. My Three Son, The Rifleman, Bonanza, Bachelor Father, and Walker are five examples. As alternative family compositions become more socially acceptable, we see same gender couples having biological children and the partners adopting children. With the rapidity with which alternative families are winning respectability in the techno-societies distinctly points in this direction. In the 1960s, in Holland, a Catholic priest married two homosexuals, explaining to critics that “they are among the faithful to be helped.” And in the United States and in other countries around the World, homosexual marriages are now legal. The courts have decided that a couple of stable, well-educated homosexuals can make decent parents. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21
In the future, however we might even see the gradual relations of bars against polygamy. Polygamous families exist even now, more widely than generally believed, in the midst of “normal” society. Writer Ben Merson, after visiting several such families in Utah where polygamy is still regarded as essential by certain Mormon fundamentalist, estimated that there are some 50,000 people living in underground family units of this type in the United States of America. As people become more accepting of other cultures, as property rights become less important because of rising affluence, the social repression of polygamy may come to be regarded as irrational. This shift may be facilitated by the very mobility that compels men to spend considerable time away from their present homes. The old male fantasy of the Captain’s Paradise may become a reality for some, although it is likely that, under such circumstances, the wives left behind will demand extramarital affair rights. Yesterday’s “captain” would hardly consider this possibility. Tomorrow’s may feel quite differently about it. Still another family form is even now springing up in our midst, a novel childrearing unit that I call the “aggregate family”—a family based on relationships between divorced and remarried couples, in which all the children become part of “one being family.” Though sociologist have paid little attention as yet to this phenomenon, it is already so prevalent that it formed the basis for a hilarious scene in an American movie entitled Divorce American Style. We may expect aggregate families to take on increasing importance in the decades ahead. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21
Childless marriage, professional parenthood, post-retirement childrearing, corporate families, communes, geriatric group marriages, homosexual family units, polygamy—these, then, are a few of the family forms and practices with which innovative underrepresented groups will experiment in the decades ahead. Not all of us, however will be willing to participate in such experimentation. What of the majority? The pain which alone could rouse the bad human to acknowledge that all was not well, might also lead to a final and unrepented rebellion. And it has been admitted throughout that humans have free will and that all gifts t them are therefore two-edged. From these premises it follows directly that the Divine labour to redeem the World cannot be certain of succeeding as regards every individual soul. Some will not be redeemed. There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. However, it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but oneself (though many can help one to make it) and one may refuse. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21
I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully “All will be saved.” However, my reason retorts “Without their will, or with it?” If I say “Without their will” I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say “With their will,” my reason replies “How if they will not give in?” The Dominical utterances about Hell, like all Dominical sayings, are addressed to the conscience and the will, not to our intellectual curiosity. When they have roused us into action by convincing us of a terrible possibility, they have done, probably, all they were intended to do; and if all the World were convinced Christians its would be unnecessary to say a word more on the subject. As things are, however, this doctrine is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous, and the goodness of God impugned. We are told that it is a detestable doctrine—and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart—and are reminded of the tragedies in human life which have come from believing it. Of other tragedies which come from not believing it we are told less. For these reasons, and these alone, it becomes necessary to discuss the matter. The problem is not simply that of a God who consigns some of His creatures to final ruin. If we were Mahometans, that would be the problem. #RandlphHarris 13 of 21
Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous—a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay “any price” to remove this doctrine. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell. I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable. Let us make no mistake; it is not tolerable. However, I think the doctrine can be shown to be moral, by a critique of the objections ordinarily made, or felt, against it. First, there is an objection, in many minds, to the idea of retributive punishment as such. This has been partly dealt with before. It is, however, maintained that if the ideas of ill-desert and retribution were removed from it, all punishment became unjust; and a core of righteousness was discovered within the vindictive passion itself, in the demand that the evil human must not be left perfectly satisfied with one’s own evil, that it must be made to appear to one what it rightly appears to others—evil. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21
Pains plant the flag of truth within a rebel fortress. However, what kind of pain might still lead to repentance? If no further conquest than the planting of the flag ever takes place, it does not. Let us try to be honest with ourselves. Picture to yourself a human who has risen to wealth or power by a continued course of treachery and cruelty, by exploiting for purely selfish ends the noble motions of one’s victims, laughing the while at their simplicity; who, having thus attained success, uses it for gratification of lust and hatred and finally parts with the last rag of honour among thieves by betraying one’s own accomplices and jeering at their last moments of bewildered disillusionment. Suppose, further, that one does all this, not (as we like to imagine) tormented by remorse or even misgiving, but eating like a schoolboy and sleeping like a healthy infant fat and butter and strong as an ox—a jolly, ruddy-cheeked man, without a care in the world, unshakably confident to the very end that one alone has fund the answer to the riddle of life, that God and humans are fools whom one has got the better of, that is one’s way of life is utterly successful satisfactory, unassailable. We must be careful at this point. The least indulgence of the passion for revenge is very deadly sin. Christian charity counsels us to make every effort for the conversion of such a human: to prefer one’s conversation, at the peril of our own lives, perhaps of our own souls, to one’s punishment; to prefer it infinitely. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21
However, that is not the question. Supposing one will not be converted, what destiny in the eternal World can you regard as proper for one? Can you really desire that such a human being, remaining what one is (and if one has free will, one must be able to do that) should be confirmed forever in one’s present happiness—should continue, for all eternity, to be perfectly convinced that the laugh is on one’s side? And if you cannot regard this as tolerable, is it only your wickedness—only spite—that prevents you from doing so? Or do you find that conflict between Justice and Mercy, which has sometimes seemed to you such an outmoded piece of theology, now actually at work in your own mind, and feeling very much as if it came to you from above, not from below? You are moved not by a desire for the wretched creature’s pain as such, but by a truly ethical demand that, soon or late, the right should be asserted, the flag planted in this horribly rebellious soul, even if no fuller and better conquest is to follow. In a sense, it is better for the creature itself, even if it never becomes good, that it should know itself a failure, a mistake. Even mercy can hardly wish to such a human one’s eternal, contented continuance in such a ghastly illusion. Thomas Aquinas said suffering, as Aristotle had said of shame, that it was a thing not good in itself; but a thing which might have a certain goodness in particular circumstances. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21
That is to say, if evil is present, pain at recognition of the evil being a kind of knowledge, is relatively good; for the alternative is that the soul should be ignorant of the evil, or ignorant that the evil is contrary to its nature, “either of which,” says the philosopher, “is manifestly bad.” And I think, though we tremble, we agree. The demand that God should forgive such a human while one remains what one is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good. However, if it is to be complete, forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered. A human who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. If Mind is to be regarded aright, we must put our thought even the notion of the cosmic Ever-Becoming. However, to do this is to enter a virtual Void? Precisely. When we take away all the forms of external physical existence and all the differences of internal mental existence, what we get is an utter emptiness of being which can hardly be differentiated after we have taken away its features and individualities, its finite times and finite distances. There is then nothing but a great void. What is the nature of this void? It is pure Thought. It is out of this empty Thought that the fullness of the Universe has paradoxically evolved. Hence it is said that the World’s reality is a secondary whereas Mind’s reality is primary. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21
In the Void the hidden oneness of things is disengaged from the things themselves. Silence therefore is not merely the negation of sound but rather the element in which, as Carlyle said, great things fashion themselves. It is the supreme storehouse of power. There is here no form to be perceived, no image born of the senses to be worshipped, no oracular utterance to be listened for, and no emotional ecstasy to be reveled in. In eternal non-existence, one must look for the spirituality of things! The philosopher perceives that there is no such thing as creation out of nothing for the simple reason that Mind is eternally and universally present. “Nothing” is merely an appearance. Here indeed there is neither tie nor space. It is like a great silent boundless circle wherein no life seems to stir, no consciousness seems to be at work, and no activity is in sway. Yet the seer will know by a pure insight which will grip one’s consciousness as it has never been gripped before, that here indeed is the root of all life, all consciousness, and all activity. However, how it is so is as inexplicable intellectually as what its nature is. With the Mind the last word of human comprehension is uttered. With the Mind the last World of possible being is explored. However, whereas the utterance is comprehensible by one’s consciousness, the speaker is not. Silence which speaks but what it says is only that it IS; more than that none can hear. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21
The Godhead is as void as though it were not. Pass from the station of “I” and “We” and choose for thy home Non-entity. For when thou hast done the like of this, thou shalt reach the supreme felicity. We may begin to grasp the meaning of such statements by grasping the conception that Infinite Mind is the formless, matterless, Void, Spirit. Mortal error is mistaking forms for final realities instead of penetrating to their essence, Mind. Whatever can be said about the unnameable “Void” will be not enough at least and merely symbolic at most. The mystic’s last Word is the Freemason’s lost Word. It can never be spoken for it can never be heard. It is the one idea which can never be transferred to another mind, the one meaning which can never get through any pen or any lip. Yet it is there—the supreme Fact behind all myriad facts of universal existence. To elevate any form by external worship or an internal meditation which should be given only to the formless Void is to elevate an idol in the place of God. Worship of any one other than the Great God, id est, the Beginningless, the Endless, is the first of major sins. Yet to honour the sublime No-thing by thought or rite is hard for the unmetaphysical. And it requires much metaphysical insight to perceive its truth. The cold impersonality of this idea is at first repelled by us with sometime like horror. A change in this attitude can come about only gradually at most. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21
However, if we perseveringly pursue our quest of truth, we shall overcome our aversion in the end. If it be truth that Truth is not something we can utter, that the Nameless cannot fitly be represented by any name, we may however continue to use any word we like, provided we keep its limitations clearly in our understanding of it. After all, although the thinking intellect creates its own image of truth, it is the Overself that starts the creative process working. However, in the end, we shall have to reserve our best worship not for a particular manifestation in time but for the Timeless itself, not for a historical personage but for the impersonal Infinite. It would be completely false to regard the Void as being nothing and containing nothing. It is Being itself, and contains reality behind all things. Nor is it a kind of inertia, of paralysis. All action springs out of it, all the World-forces derive from it. The Void is not a nothing-at-all-ness in the absolute sense, or how could the whole cosmos come forth out of it, how could I myself be released by it, how could the very intellect which thinks this concept appear from it into activity and produce thoughts? Is this not the greatest of Paradoxes that the origin of all things is seeming Nothingness? Within that seeming Void lie the vanished planets of yesterday and the evolving Worlds of tomorrow. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21
Since all things are limited in some way or other, or conditioned by some circumstances or others, THAT which is unlimited and unconditioned, which does not exist as they do, cannot rightly be called a ting. It is no-thing, the Void. There is no other, no thing, no experience of an object for it. It is alone in the Void. IT is the Principle being both consciousness and unconsciousness, making the first possible and the second significant. Yet neither consciousness nor unconsciousness, as we humans know them, resembles it. There is a single Consciousness without beginning or end, ever the same in itself, beyond and behind which there is nothing else. God with your enfolding wings, please wrap them about me, Lord; please keep fear and danger at bay. May I mount your throne and rest there in peace. God, please wrap your wings about my family and me and bring us through danger in safety. Please remember us this day, O Lord our God for our good, and please be mindful of us for a life of blessing. With Thy promise of salvation and mercy, please deliver us and please be gracious unto us, please have compassion upon us and please save us. Unto Thee do we lift our eyes for Thou art a gracious and merciful God and King. O may our eyes witness Thy return to America. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who restorest Thy divine presence unto America. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21
MILLS STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH
Rancho Cordova, CA |
Now Selling!
Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch is Rancho Cordova’s newest home community! This charming neighborhood offers an array of home types with eye catching architecture styles such as Mission, Mid-Century Modern, California Modern, and Contemporary Farmhouse.
Located off Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway, the residents of Cresleigh Ranch will enjoy, being just minutes from shopping, dining, and entertainment, and quick access to Highway 50 and Grant Line Road providing a direct route into Folsom. Residents here also benefit from no HOA fees, two community parks and the benefits of being a part of the highly-rated Elk Grove Unified School District. https://cresleigh.com/mills-station/
