Humankind Cannot Bear Very Much Reality

We live in a labyrinthine World of puzzling objects, enigmatical events, and practically unintelligible (sometimes even mystical) relationships that we cannot hope ever to comprehend entirely. A word is a slur when it is when it means to express strong negative attitudes towards members of a group, attitudes in some sense grounded in nothing more than membership in the group. A slur against a group of people, for example, is a word which speakers know (and as competent speakers are expected to know) is used to insult and display contempt for an individual based on race, religion, gender, sexuality, disability, age and so forth. What makes a word a slur I that it is used to do certain things, that has a certain illocutionary potential. Given what slurs are used to do, it is no surprise tht their use often achieves extreme effect on their targets—humiliation, subjection, shame. Slurs can be used without displaying contempt or causing hurt. This happens, for example, when a slur is appropriated by its targets: it is an insult to no one, save perhaps the individual for who the slur is aimed as uses it as a term to identify themselves. A slur can be self-ascribed to record one’s status as a victim of discrimination or worse. There need beno racism in an epithet’s use by comedians to make fun or criticize various attitude and behaviours of both one who slurs and one who I slurred. One may use a slur in order to teach someone that it is a word which should not be used. And an epithet can sometimes be used non-offensively in indirect discourse or narrative to portray someone else’s racist remark or attitude. The use of slurs often reflects a complicated web of attitudes, including discomfort about or fear of what seemed pronounced physical and cultural differences. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Truth is, and has always been, a central topic in philosophy. Direct interest in the word true itself may ebb and flow, but it is never far from center stage. We tend to assume that truthfulness and morality go together in a clear and simple way. In an ordinary community of morally decent people there is a need for trust and community standards for telling the truth, but ordinary community, unlike the ideal scientific community, must continually face the ambiguous problem of when to tell how much of what truth and to whom. Telling the whole truth about everything to everybody all the time is an impossibility but even if it were possible, it probably would not be desirable. Deception is a touchy subject. We should all repudiate all harmfully exploitative deceptions such as consumer fraud, insider trading, the misuse of public office and public trust for self-interest, kids hiding their dope and alcohol and pregnancies from their parents, husbands and wives cheating on each other, large-scale tax evasion, the false and vicious reason of racism and sexism, TV news reporters preying on vulnerable, semiliterate audiences, marijuana and cigarette advertising, and so on. The list of reprehensible exploitations is enormous and grows longer daily. As children we are taught to revere the principle of truth telling before we have achieved a clear understanding of what truth is. For a child, how is the truth different from a captivating story tht takes us off into other vivid realities? From saying things that make people feel good? From whatever saves us when we are in danger? Truth, fantasy, goodness, happiness, excitement are not automatically separated in the thoughts of young children. Children have to be taught to isolate truth and truth telling for special treatment. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

As our experiences widen, however, we also learn through wonderfully indirect and subtle means that truth telling, like every other moral principle, has its drawback in practice, and sometimes we have to pass over it in our calculations for getting on as decent and successful human beings. Deception is found in every culture (only attitudes toward it differ), probably because it provides advantage in carrying out one’s intentions, and because it offer a chance to escape confrontations without having to fight. We humans are active, creative mammals who can represent what exists as if it did not, and what does not exist as if it did. And we do this easily and routinely. Concealment, obliqueness, silence, outright lying—all help to hold Nemesis at bay; all help us abide to large helpings of reality. T.S. Eliot was right when he reminded us that “Humankind/Cannot bear very much reality.” In civilization no less than in the wilderness, survival at the water hole does not favor the fully exposed and unguarded self. Deception, it seems, is a vital part of practical intelligence. Much of human interaction is take up with the giving and getting of impressions, which are composed of some plain truth and some fancy, some display and some concealment, something said and something suggested, something focused and something blurred. All this for the purpose of getting done what you want to do. Lying requires a reason while telling the truth does not. Truthfulness in statements which cannot be avoided is the formal duty of an individual to everyone, however great may be the disadvantage occurring to oneself or another. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

Thus the definition of a life as merely an intentional untruthful declaration to another person does not require the additional condition that it must harm another. For a lie always harms another; if not some other particular human, still it harms mankind generally, for it vitiate the source of the law itself. Things happen; we witness some aspects of an event from a particular vantage point; we interpret what we have taken in with our senses; we discover or compose an acceptable meaning from that subjectivity limited rendering of “fact”; express an edited, personalized version of the result, to a selected audience, at a chosen time, if we want to. There is a vast psychological distance between the “things that happen” and what we are later able to say about them, no matter how sincerely we try to be objective and to get it right. Lifelong uncertainty about the “truth” is an attribute of human sensibility; it is a product of the interplay of memory and imagination, history and choice. Truth is fully present in our experiences. We can know truth. However, the multifarious and discordant sentiments which divine mankind, afford a great temptation to skepticism, and many are carried away by it. The open enemies of the gospel take occasion from hence to justify their rejection of it: many of its professed friend have written as if they thought, that to be decided, amidst so many minds and opinions, were almost presumptuous. The principle, if not the only use of which they would make of these differences is, to induce a spirit of moderation and charity, and to declaim against bigotry. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

To say nothing at present how these terms are perverted and hackneyed in a certain cause, let two things be seriously considered—First, Whether this was the use made by the apostles of the discordant opinions which prevailed in their times, even amongst those who “acknowledged the divinity of our Saviour’s mission?” In differences amongst Christians which did not affect the kingdom of God, nor destroy the work of God, it certainly was: Such were those concerning means, drinks, and days, in which the utmost forbearance was inculcated. However, it was otherwise in differences which affected the leading doctrines and precepts of Christianity. Forbearance in these cases would, in the account of the sacred writers, have been a crime. If Christianity be of God, and He have revealed His will in the holy scriptures, light is come into the World, though the dark minds of sinful creatures comprehend it not. It does not follow, because many wander in mazes of fruitless speculation, that there is not a way to plain that a way-faring man or one who “walketh in the truth,” though a fool, shall not err. The numerous sects among the Greeks and Romans, and even among the Jews, at the time of our Saviour’s appearing, did not prove that there was no certain knowledge to be obtained of what was truth. Our Lord considered Himself as speaking plainly, or He would not have asked the Jews as he did, “Why do ye not understand my speech?” The apostles and primitive believers saw their way plainly: and though we cannot pretend to the extraordinary inspiration which was possessed by man of them; yet, if we humbly follow their light, depending on the ordinary teachings of God’s Holy Spirit, we shall see ours. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

Truth, we may be certain, is the same thing as what in the scriptures is denominated “the gospel,” “the common salvation,” “the common faith,” “the faith once delivered to the saints,” “the truth as it is in Jesus,”; and what this is, may be clearly understood by the brief summaries of the gospel, and of the faith of the primitive Christians, which abound in the New Testament. Of the former the following are a few of many examples: “God so loved the World the He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life—The Son of Man came to seek and save that which is loft—I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me—To Him give all the prophets witnesses, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins—We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them that believe, the wisdom of God, and the power of God—I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified—Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye find; by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast what I preached to you, unless ye have believed in vain: for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and the He rose again the third day, according to the scriptures—This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ came into the World to save sinners, of whom I am chief—This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, any other: for there is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

If language have any determinate meaning, it is here plainly taught the mankind are not only sinners, but in a lost and perishing condition, without help or hope, but what arises from the free grace of God, through the atonement of His Son; the He died as our substitute; that we are forgiven and accepted only for the sake of what He hath done and suffered; that in his person and work all evangelical truth concentrates; that the doctrine of salvation for the chief of sinners through His death, was so familiar in the primitive times, as to become a kind of Christian proverb, or “saying;” and that on “standing,” and final “salvation.” In this doctrine be received, Christianity is received: If not, the record which God hath given of His Son is rejected, and He Himself treated as a lair. When this doctrine is received in the true Spirit of it, (which it never is by a sinner ready to perish) all those fruitless speculations which tend only to bewilder the mind, will be laid aside; just as malice, and guile, and envies, and evil-speaking are laid aside by Him who is born of God. They will fall off from the mind, like the coat of the chrysalis, of their own accord. Many instances of this are occurring. Persons who, after having read and studied controversies, and learned first to one opinion and then to another, till their minds have been lost in uncertainty, have at length been brought to think of the gospel, not as a matter of speculation, but as that which seriously and immediately concerned them: and embracing it as good news to them who are ready to perish, have not only found rest to their fouls, but all their former notions have departed from them, as a dream when one awaketh. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

The Christological problem begins when men realize they are estranged and wonder about a new reality with the power to conquer existence, but it does not end with the simple acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. The baptismal confession that Jesus is the Christ is the text of which the Christological dogma is the commentary. The dogma has a twofold purpose: to affirm and defend the Christian message against distortion, and to express it in conceptual terms. The first function guards the substance; the second function imparts form. The aim of the early conciliar Christological formulas was to preserve both the Christ-character and the Jesus-character of the event of Jesus as the Christ. The homoousion of Nicaea maintained the Christ-character against the Arians who would make Jesus a semi-divine being. Chalcedon warded off the attacks of the monophysites upon the Jesus-character of the Christ. Both councils succeeded in affirming and defending the substance of the Christian message, but they did so in spite of the inadequate intellectual tools of the two-natures theory. The task of present-day Protestant Christology is the development of new forms to express the substance of Nicaea and Chalcedon. However, the basic inadequacy lies in the term “nature.” When applied to man, it is ambiguous; when applied to God it is wrong. “Human nature” can mean three things: essential or created nature, existential or estranged nature, and an ambiguous unity of the two. All three meanings can be applied to Jesus as the Christ, although the second must be qualified insofar as estrangement, while remaining a real possibility, is taken into the unity with God. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Because of this ambiguity and need for qualification, it is imperative to dismiss altogether the term “human nature” in relation to Christ and replace it by a description of the dynamics of His life. The term “divine nature” must be understood as that which makes God what He is, His essence. However, God also has existence, or, more exactly, He is beyond both essence and existence. “Divine nature,” cannot be applied to the Christ precisely because the New Bing is not beyond essence and existence, but in existence. The Christ is a personal life in a definite period of history, subject to birth and death, temptation and finitude. The assertion that Jesus as the Christ is the personal unity of a divine and a human nature must be replaced by the assertion that in Jesus as the Christ the eternal unity of God and man has become historical reality. This is better than the two natures which lie beside each other like blocks and whose unity cannot be understood at all. In Spirit Christology, we understand that God was in Jesus the Christ because the divine Spirit totally grasped His human spirit. In this sense, one can speak of the faith of the Christ which is the state of being grasped unambiguously by the Spiritual Presence. However, although the Spirit is unambiguously present in the Christ, His faith still has a fragmentary character due to the fact tht He is subjected to the conditions of existence. Two important implications follow from Spirit Christology. First, it is not the spirit of the man Jesus that makes Him the Christ, but the Spirit of God, and thus the dangers of a Jesus-theology are avoided. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

And secondly, the Spiritual Presence in history is the same as the Spiritual presence in the Christ; hence, He is not an isolated event, but touches the whole history through the activity of the spirit. Admittance of the possibility of deception is in the stage in break of truth upon the mind, although it may sometimes precede the doubt. To admit the possibility of being deceived—or mistaken—in any aspect of new experience or action, or even view of truth, is really a possibility which should be acknowledged by every believer; and yet so subtle is the deception of the enemy tht almost invariably the attitude of each one is tht though “others” may be open to deception, he or she is the exception to the rule. This certainty of personal exception is so deep-seated with the most visibly deceived person that the longest battle is simply to obtain entrance to the mind for the one thought of possible deception in any point at all. The believer seems armed with unshaken assurance that though others may be misled, he certainly is not; he “beholdeth the mote” in his brother’s eye and is blind—blind to the “beam” in his own. However, an open attitude to truth says, “Why not I as well as others? May not my assurance of safety be a deception of the enemy, as much as the deception I see in others?” Why all believers should admit the possibility of deception by deceiving spirits may be considered just here: The primary fact to be recognized by every human being is the complete and utter ruin of the first creation at the Fall—when the First Adam admitted the poison of the serpent, which permeated and corrupted his whole being beyond repair. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

The utter corruption of the human race as a consequence is unmistakably declared in the New Testament: “The old man, which waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit,” reports Ephesians 4.22. “Being darkened in their understanding; alienated from the life of God,” reports Ephesians 4.18. “We all once lived in the lusts of flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest,” reports Ephesians 2.3. Thus the Apostle Paul described the whole race of man, Gentile and Jew, Pharisee and Publican: In all, he said, “the prince of the power of the air” has operated, as “the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience.” All agencies plan, as do all persons and families; planning in the generic sense distinguishes us humans from creatures who cannot transcend the immediate. However, planning in the specific sense of highly modern attainments in social organization is what we mean when we speak of the planning stage in family agencies. In the long history of man’s ascent toward rationality in social affairs, conscious awareness of the planning process in action agencies ranks as a major invention. The image of the competent man is out of place except in the context of modern planning. The generalized outlines of the democratic planning process which follows should not be taken as a recommendation that every family agency should immediately plunge into the planning stage. Planning by a family agency is not unlike the planning by a person of his career. When the aim of an agency is personal development, there are many reasons why its planning method should self-consciously follow a model which permits the agency to transform itself by its own operations. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Since Dr. Cooley in 1902, if not long before, many thinkers have held that human nature and the social order reflect each other. There have been divergent opinions whether the line of causation runs from personality to community (“human nature writ large”), or whether the person as microcosm incorporates as habit the regular recurrences which constitute the institutional fabric of society. The developmental view conceives a spiral of interaction between the careers of persons and institutions. It is the obligation of the family agency that adopts the aim of optimal development to maintain this nexus in a dynamic sense. To keep the parallel always in mind can cumulatively influence multitudes of decisions. In concrete terms, the action of agencies, families, and individuals is not a constant flow; it is episodic, organized in fairly regular, qualitatively distinguishable sequences. As a unit of reference, the behavior of each of the three can usefully be brought together in a conceptual analysis of the planning process that is applicable to all three levels of abstraction. To study the phases of the planning process, as seen in the furthest advanced of the family agencies, is to see in enlarged detail what in family or personal living may be only implicit or rudimentary. However, from this enlargement of the social act one can then derive clues and questions which are relevant when observing the smallest sequence of interpersonal behaviour. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

Before there is an agency, or planning, or the possibility of planning, there must be a public with a problem. The public and the problem are defined in reference to each other. They never stand alone, and cannot be defined alone. A problem always belongs to some group of people, and generally speaking any group comes into existence as a group because its members feel that they are confronted by a common problem or problems. However, an outside expert cannot always determine what constitutes the problem of a group. And yet the problem exists and arguments may abound as to how to define it. Alternatively, a certain state of affairs may be a problem to an observer without being regarded as a problem to those whom it seems to affect. If a state of affairs affecting a number of people is also to become the problem of the group, then the members of the group must participate in defining the problem. Otherwise it is not their problem and they are not likely to feel responsible for its solution. The expert may assist in the recognition and clarification of a problem, but must be prepared for his interpretations to be rejected. Each phase of the planning process, when fully developed in a community or a large institution, employs a characteristic type of document. In this first or problem phase, such a document functions primarily to call attention to a problem and to convince the public involved that something ought to be done about it. The definition of what ought to be done occurs in later phases of the planning process, and yet in the successful attention-getting and definition of the problem, the outlines of later phases vaguely emerge. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

On this account, the importance of the problem phase of planning is often underestimated; that is, action goes off without adequate preparation. Even more often, the importance of getting the public involved and committed to solution of the problem is underestimated. Yet it is the arousal of concern, and participation in the definition of the problem as their problem, which motivates the public to act. Effort in the Calvinist doctrine had still another psychological meaning. The fact that one did not tire in that unceasing effort and that one succeeded in one’s moral as well as one’s secular work was a more or less distinct sign of being one of the chosen ones. The irrationality of such compulsive effort is that the activity is not meant to create a desired end but serves to indicate whether or not something will occur which has been determined beforehand, independent of one’s own activity or control. This mechanism is a well-known feature of compulsive neurotics. Such persons when afraid of the outcome of an important undertaking may, while awaiting an answer, count the windows of houses or trees on the street. If the number is even, a person feels that thing will be right; if the number is uneven, it is a sign that he will fail. Frequently this doubt does not refer to a specific instance but to a person’s whole life, and the compulsion to look for “signs” will pervade it accordingly. Often the connection between counting stones, playing solitaire, gambling, and so on, and anxiety and doubt, is not conscious. A person may play solitaire out of a vague feeling of restlessness and only an analysis might uncover the hidden function of his activity: to reveal the future. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

In Calvinism this meaning of effort was part of the religious doctrine. Originally it referred essentially to moral effort, but later on the emphasis was more and more on effort in one’s occupation and on the results of this effort, that is, success or failure in business. Success became the sign of God’s grace; failure, the sign of damnation. These considerations show that the compulsion to unceasing effort and work was far from being in contradiction to a basic conviction of man’s powerlessness; rather was it the psychological result. Effort and work in this sense assumed an entirely irrational character. They were not to change fate since this was predetermined by God, regardless of any effort on the part of the individual. They served only as a means of forecasting the predetermined fate; while at the same time the frantic effort was a reassurance against an otherwise unbearable feeling of powerlessness. This new attitude towards effort and work as an aim in itself may be assumed to be the most important psychological change which has happened to man since the end of the Middle Ages. In every society man has to work if he wants to live. Many societies solved the problem by having the work done by slaves, thus allowing the free man to devote himself to “nobler” occupations. In such societies, work was not worthy of a free man. In medieval society, too, the burden of work was unequally distributed among the different classes in the social hierarchy, and there was a good deal of crude exploitation. However, the attitude toward work was different from that which developed subsequently in the modern era. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

Work did not have the abstract character of producing some commodity which might be profitably sold on the market. One worked in response to a concrete demand and with a concrete aim: to earn one’s livelihood. There was, as Max Weber particularly has shown, no urge to work more than was necessary to maintain the traditional standard of living. It seems that for some groups of medieval society work was enjoyed as a realization of productive ability; that many others worked because they had to and felt this necessity was conditioned by pressure from the outside. What was new in modern society was that men came to be driven to work not so much by external pressure but by an internal compulsion, which made them work as only a very strict master could have made people do in other societies. The inner compulsion was more effective in harnessing all energies to work than any outer compulsion can ever be. Against external compulsion there is always a certain amount of rebelliousness which hampers the effectiveness of work or makes people unfit for any differentiated task requiring intelligence, initiative, and responsibility. The compulsion to work by which man was turned into his own slave driver did not hamper these qualities. Undoubtedly capitalism could not have been developed had not the greatest part of man’s energy been channeled in the direction of work. There is no other period in history in which free men have given their energy so completely for one purpose: work. The drive for relentless work was one of the fundamental productive forces, no less important for the development of our industrial system than steam and electricity. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

The obsolescence of many of today’s governments is not some secret we alone have discovered. Nor is it a disease of America alone. The fact is that building a Third Wave civilization on the new wreckage of Second Wave institutions involves the design of new, more appropriate political structures in many nations at once. This is a painful yet necessary project that is mind-staggering in scope and will no doubt take decades to complete. In all likelihood it will require a protracted battle to radically overhaul the United States of America’s Congress, the House of Commons, and the House of the Lord, the French Chamber of Deputies, the Bundestag, the Diet, the giant ministries and entrenched civil services of many nations, their constitutions and court systems—much of the unwidely and increasingly unworkable apparatus of existing representative governments. Nor will this wave of political struggle stop at the national level. Over the months and decades ahead, the entire “global law machine”—from the United Nations at one end to the local city or town council at the other—will eventually face a mounting, ultimately irresistible demand for restructuring. All these structures will have to be fundamentally altered, not because they are inherently evil or even because they are controlled by this or that class or group, but because they are increasingly unworkable—no longer fitted to the needs of a radically changed World. To build workable governments anew—and to carry out what may well be the most important political task of our lifetimes—we will have to strip away the accumulated cliches of the Second Wave era. And we will have to rethink political life in terms of three key principles. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

Indeed, these may well turn out to be the root principles of the Third Wave governments of tomorrow. Business in a relation-based system will expand at those margins where diminishing returns set in most slowly. This will mean preserving the closeness of the relation, even at the cost of undertaking a new activity that is not economically so close—not such a good complement in production or consumption. In such a system we will see diversified conglomerates whose component parts have nothing in common except common ownership by a closely knit extended family or similar network. One does indeed see such hodgepodge family empires in many less-developed countries (LDCs), for example India and Turkey. The South Korean chaebol, and the Japanese zaibatsu and their successor keiretsu, are also causes in point. Even in advanced industrial countries with rule-based governance, there are incentives to build diversified conglomerates—tax systems with double taxation of dividends make it costly to take profits out of the corporate sector and therefore artificially lower the cost of reinvesting retained earnings, and agency problems allow to management to indulge in its tastes for running large empires. However, in smaller and LCDs where relation-based governance prevails, the incentives to expand into seemingly unrelated activities are that much stronger. Another way to express this is to day that a relation-based system has a larger benefit of internal finance from the supply side. Thisbenefit is usually looked at from the demand side—the needs of a firm’s finance for investment are met at lower costs from retained earnings than from external borrowing. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

However, the return to retained earnings is higher if reinvested within the firm than is possible from investments in external markets. Where borrowing and lending between different firms and their owner occurs, it will tend to be within some identifiable group defined by links that enable enforcement of implicit contracts based on reputation. This suggests that the “crony capitalism” that is observed in many LDCs (and condemned by outsiders) may have it place within their governance structure. Of course you deal with, and lend to, cronies. Non-cronies may defraud you and run away with your money; having no relation with them, you would have no recourse. “Crony socialism” existed under the central planning systems in socialist economies, and continued in the transition period. However, this compartmentalization of capital markers has a cost; it constrains that movement of capital to its most productive uses in response to changing conditions. Therefore it comprises another source of diminishing returns for the relation-based system. Transition to a rule-based system would allow more efficient reallocation of capital to take advantage of productive opportunities outside the group. Finally, although a relation-based system has low fixed costs, it can have large sunk costs—the reputational capital that makes time-separated transactions credible has to be built up, and is valuable. The combination of large sunk costs, and the small size of the economy where relation-based governance usually prevails, can create high entry barriers. Therefore one should expect to see high concentrations, or even monopolies, in such systems. That is indeed observed, not only in finance and production, but also in trade. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD

Lincoln, CA | from the high $600s

Now Selling!

No appointment needed! Cresleigh Havenwood features four distinct floor plans ranging from 2,293 – 3,377 square feet and offering up to five bedrooms.  Each plan has been thoughtfully designed and includes great features such as single story homes, guest suites, optional offices, garage workshops, and more!

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

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/

 Havenwood is renowned for its magnificently peaceful and pristine community, where modern establishments harmoniously coexist with the historical community.

#CresleighHomes