{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

...are dab- -- doing in philosophy. I feel obliged to say one more word on this space and time business, gentlemen. The glib tradition of the last 150 years has been always to speak of space and time, as though these were in any way the same thing, or two things that just could be treated in the same way. Since Kant, who investigated time and space, gentlemen, as endowments of the human individual, without which he couldn't cope, there has been this abstract idea that man knew of space and time, or realized some degree of space and time. Those of you who have taken other courses with me know already that we cannot -- we cannot stand still at this very abstract notion. Space and time are never realized by you in the abstract. They are always realized by you and me as inner space and outer space. Time is always realized as past and future. Nobody who -- ever will you find who can realize time as such, or space as such. We can only speak of two spaces, by alternating between one or the other. And you pose one idea of space and -- the concept of an outer space, you already also posit the concept of its opposite, an inner space. The same is true of time. Nobody is time-conscious who cannot distinguish two times, the past and the future.

Therefore this whole abstraction, gentlemen, of time, singular; and space, singular, is without any reality. Nobody has ever realized time except in the plural. And nobody has ever realized space except in the plural. Now you cannot speak of things whi- -- which you -- of which you only know that they exist in duplication or triplication, as though you knew what the singular means. And the horror of modern philosophy is -- and all mod- -- the sciences--natural sciences depend on this kind of idealistic philosophy--is that you can make the whole world of space and time your object. You cannot, because there is always your own inner space, and your own future, whi- -- which you have to oppose to the past into which you can look objectively, and into the outer world into which you can also look, obj- -- as -- what you call objectively.

So there are two things -- I feel I just have an obligation to tie this together with what you learn in other courses of philosophy, or on space and time, gentlemen. The abstract space and time is not empirical. It's abstract. You know that an abstraction has to be abstracted from concrete experience. Our concrete experience of times and of spaces has led the philosophers to speak of the abstract: "the time," "the space." But what is an abstraction worth, before it hasn't a relation to the concrete thing from which it is abstracted? If you have 10 apples, you can abstract from 10 apples and say, "This -- I speak of apples now." And then you define what you find in these 10 apples, and say, "This I shall call apple."

We cannot do this from space and time, gentlemen, because at least two

times and at least two spaces are what we experience. Therefore the abstraction "space," or the abstraction "time" is not permissible. You cannot abstract a singular from a permanent dualism which you experience. If you experience dialectically two spi- -- spaces--that you are inside and now look out at me, and you have your inside space, your mind in -- inside which you objectify me, you see, and gain a picture of me, as my -- the object of your vision or your insight--then you cannot say, "The abstraction of these two spaces I call space," because that's just begging the question.

Obviously the inner space and the outer space cannot be reduced. You cannot simply reduce husband and wife to "man" in the singular. You'll never solve their marriage problem. If -- if the woman is a wi- -- is a -- is a human being and the husband is a human being, you deprive yourself of the -- essential fact that one is a woman and the other is a man. And you cannot abstract husband and wife into human beings without tremendous consequences, that is, without abolishing marriage.

So humanism can abolish marriage; made it into a contract, between two parts who could just also divorce. Because if you define every human being just as "a human being," you go too far, and you are abstraction. Because unfortunately as you all know, sex stays with us, and you can't -- just can't abstract from it, you see. Halts us all the time.

This is a very strange over-reaching, gentlemen, of the -- of philosophy. And I had to say this, because today I think I should devote some time -- some -- attention -- give some attention to the religion of the schools, the religion of the Greek mind, the religion of the mind, which is based on this hope: to get rid of the problem of the tribes, and of the problem of the empires. The Greeks had neither tribalism in their cities at the end, after -- in Socrates' days anymore; nor did they have priests of astronomy. That is, they tried to break out from the two great religious traditions around them: the respect for the dead, and for all life that should be renewed; and the respect for the stars. If you read -- we read Greek literature because it's humanistic. And the Greeks have created your and my mentality as exhibited in Dartmouth College.

And the first dogma of the Greek mind is that you and I move in such a way that we should abstract of space and time. You and I should have a mind that can look through all objects in space and in mere time. This is the kind of immortality preached in Plato and in Aristotle. Space and time in the singular is the abstraction of the schoolroom -- classroom. Everybody here in this college speaks quite naively of space and time. Only unfortunately when you come home, you must know exactly whether you want to go in the kitch- -- kitchen or on the toilet. It makes a difference.

You know the story of the Pentagon, where suddenly a colonel was found down in the -- in the restroom with his typewriter? And they asked -- you know this story, huh? And they all were surprised to find this colonel sitting there, typing away frantically. And they said, "What are you doing here?"

"Well," he said, "After I had to live in the Pentagon for six months, I finally settled here, because this seems to be the only place in the Pentagon where the people know what they are doing."

So you see there are several places, even in the Pentagon -- one where you know what you are doing, and other places where you don't know what you are doing.

So gentlemen, this is what is the most difficult thing to achieve for a man who has been -- gone to school from his sixth year onward, usually today to his 25th year, that he understands that the classroom religion is a religion which tries to free you--it's an ema- -- religion of emancipation, to free the individual from all his identities through time and space, and make his own mind at his own time the most modern, the most progressive, the most radical, the most rebellious, the most intelligent, and the smartest -- guy that ever lived. Make you all into that, so to speak, one center, one focus, in which the whole world, whether to -- with regard to space or to time is reflected. You are the reflector in these -- in this school -- philosophy of the schools.

And philosophy, gentlemen, then is the religion of the individual, the religion in which the individual is God. Everything else changes, everything else must be looked through. And the first gentleman who did this is of course the famous Parmenides, who said that the whole world of appearances was -- semblance was fiction, and that only he and his sweethearts--his boys, his students--were able to look behind -- behind the phenomena who -- which changed all the time according to space and time. But they, Parmenides and the Eleats--you may have heard of them in philosophy, the Eleatic School--wanted to find the lasting-ness of things: that which neither time nor space could change.

It is very important to know that this man was a homosexual, and that he co- -- founded a love community. He himself was the sweetheart of his teacher. And I don't say this for -- for obscenity's sake, gentlemen, but to show you -- I show you the com- -- to com- -- make you commiserate with these original schoolmen, who wanted to evade the emission into the world as such, the earthly life of families, or of states, or of empires, war and peace; and wanted to -- in their isolation, however, had of course to give in to some passion. And so this unnatural passion, which dishonors the Greek tradition, the homosexuality which you still find in Oxford and Cambridge, England, so rampant--we -- they

are all Platonists there--has very much to do with this attempt to make man, the male, divine. His deficiency, that you and I just are not the whole man, that we are only halves, you see, has of course to be repressed to such an extent in a purely school -- scholastic situation, you see, of men's thinking about the universe, that this -- takes its toll.

And I therefore always feel that the divinity of the mind is always connected with the perversion of the body. This is not -- I don't wish to disparage these people. You must understand. This -- it's a tragedy of these people, it's a payment -- what they have to pay if you want to say that everything changes; only the mind doesn't. Then you have to give this mind some topsoil in which to fly, where to satisfy, you see, his real existential being. Because the mind, you see, which only {tends to do that with essences}, is then left so much alone that this very existence of the carrier of this mind. Par- -- Mr. Parmenides or whoever it is--has to be -- has to feed on something. So it feeds on something that is neither of the family nor of the state. It is just one of friendship.

So the schools, gentlemen, have two religions. The neighbor whom they love is the friend. Not their wife, and not the state. And the God whom they worship is their own mind.

The -- we spoke of the Jupiter religion in Greece, and that Athene, the goddess of the city, was said to have had no mother, but to have come directly from the head of Zeus. Dionysus, the other son of Jup- -- the other child of Jupiter, was said to have been nursed by him in his thigh for the last month, because Semele, his mother, was killed by the glory of Jupiter who came down in the form of a lightning stroke, you see, killed Semele. But since she was pregnant with his son, he took pity on the child and {sewed} it into his thigh.

Now this is the very parallel myth to Athene. Athene is born out of his head without pregnancy. It's thought, you see. It {gives} the god thought. And Dionysus, the passion, the glow, the warmth, the heat, the fire, the genius, is also created out of the thigh of Jupiter.

I only want to show you how profound -- in Greece there is this radical attempt to make the individual mind the carrier of the good life, of the -- of the divinity of man, that you can -- you can see this from these two great fundamental myths, that son and daughter of the highest god, you see, are said to be -- have been produced by him alone. You can see this, can't you?

This you must bring together to understand the passion of the Greeks for thought, for ideas, for science, for philosophy. They are the -- the people who have given all other nations in the world this zest of having universities and

colleges, of having schools. We still draw on them with our -- with this college, with this idea of a higher education. And higher education, gentlemen, is an attempt to -- give the individual a chance to see how far he can go with his mind. How far he can get with his mind.

Now what is this mind, gentlemen? This mind is trying to think out his salvation, and your personal salvation, regardless of the past and the future of the human race, and regardless of the Occident and the -- and the Orient of the globe, of the earthly globe. That is, you want to face, to confront the whole universe through space and through time with your own means. And it's -- even rec- -- recommended in this college that this is the place where you have to make up your own mind, and keep an open mind, and then come to your own conclusions.

This is very -- it's a potential approach which every young man, I think, wants to undertake. At this moment, in this country, as you know, it breaks down with regard to our girls. A girl cannot do this at 20. If she's asked to do this, she commits small suicide. And most of them don't do it. They have dates, and dance, and forget of -- all about their philosophy. If you want to make a Greek out of a girl, you must make her into a lesbian, which is not very appetizing and ruinous for her nervous system. And certainly not good for later marriage. But that would be the immediate consequence.

-- Since the crisis, gentlemen, of the penetration of this Greek religion of the mind is so general, we have to face it. And it has become a universal. With ou- -- with our scien- -- cult of science, gentlemen, there goes together this cult of the individual mind.

Who has read Plato? The -- the -- the -- you -- remember in The Republic his description of the tribes and the empires. He speaks not of them not as tribes and empires, but he means exactly that, when he speaks of -- of one of -- as the courageous ones, who have { } courage, you see; and the other who have the passions of the belly, you see. And the Greeks had the passion of the mind. There you have, from their point of view, from the Greek point of view, the judgment over these two other spheres of religion, you see, and his own -- is opposed to it. Ja?

(Sir, before you go onto this, would you please just go back to the Greek emphasis on the mind, and -- explain for me: it seems that you're considering an absence, or a lack -- that the man considers just a -- just a certain amount and not enough to de-emphasize the mind to the point where it should be. Now explicitly, what is he neglecting to consider? Is it the voice of God, or the voice of other people, or -- or what are you suggesting { }?)

You cannot -- his god is his own mind, I mean. He is the apothesis -- apotheosis of -- of mind, you see. The mind is God in him. The mind -- the quality of the divine is in the mind, because the mind judges the rest of the world. You can say, "God is always he who judges the living and the dead," as we say in the Creed, you see. The judgment is the hand of God. Now our mind made into the judge of all things and all people, is treated as God.

-- I -- you are quite right. I have only thrown out, so to speak, a first suggestion, where we are going at this moment. I am trying to -- introduce you into the religion of the third sphere. You remember that we had said that the animists held to the organic sphere, the second sphere; and simply took water, and air, and fire all into the living beings, and made the universe a living universe. You remember. And the -- I thought that was a great achievement. Then we saw that, vice versa, the -- the Egyptians, the May- -- -yans, the Mexicans, the Aztecs, try to take the farrest, the remotest, the anorganic, the never-dying, the gold, and the metals, and the stars, and the sun, and the moon and make them dominate their own will and penetrate into their -- the order of their lives, that they felt that they were looked upon by these celestial bodies, and asked to join them in their dance.

The Greek mind is that sphere of will and purpose. And you all still inherit in class this heresy that the human soul consists of will, reason, and feelings. You have heard this tripartite. It's utter nonsense, gentlemen. I don't see how in the Christian era anybody can do this. Will, purpose, reason, which -- and feeling. And reasonable will would be purpose. I mean, the result of this definition of humani- -- of the human being as having will, feeling, and reason is quite abstract, quite unique, gentlemen. If you see a child -- and try to define what it is, you see that it is -- lives by the love of the people who bring it up, that -- this transforms the child.

I just read a very beautiful sentence by a famous, the last Greek thinker of our time, Nicolai Hartmann--he died last year--and in 1949, when he was 79 years of age, he wrote the sentence. To his own surprise, he says, he had discovered something which is very un-Platonic, that love transforms the object into that which it loves in the object. And I -- am in correspondence with his closest admirer, and friend, and disciple, and successor in his office as professor of philosophy at the University of G”ttingen. And so I wrote to him today, this very day: the sentence was beautiful, that love transformed the object -- its object in the direction into which it loved. But the funny thing was the use of the word "object," because one doesn't love an object, you see. One just doesn't. I would ashame to say that I love this bulb as I love you. It's -- if I'm not -- you love anybody, you love him as your brother, or as your alter ego, you identify yourself with whom you love, so he ceases to be an object. Nobody can love an ob-

ject. You see, that would be idolatry. You all say this, of course. Ladies say that they love these rasp- -- this raspberry sauce. But I mean, it's nonsense to say it. "I just love it," I mean. That's just for flappers.

But all philosophers will tell you this, gentlemen, because they have declared that love is a part -- subdivision of will. The man had to say, "I love, and the love transforms the object." Because the poor man--Mr. Nicolai Hartmann in this one case, but ever- -- everybody since Parmenides--had said that man is -- deals with the universe only as objects. So even love had just -- could only meet objects.

Now obviously, gentlemen, the friends of Parmenides, the young students or his own teacher, they were on his own side. And therefore you get this tragedy of homosexuality. You have to say that -- {although} it -- it is a vice, gentlemen. But you can study this perversion of the human mind. If everything outside of you is object of your mind, and willed by you as your object, love is omitted from the picture. And these poor people then finding others, also philosophizing, also having this passion of the mind, also being willing to join them in this school of philosophy, suddenly are drawn together so closely that they want to become of one mind. Plato and his students; Socrates and Plato; Alcibiades, you see, all these people. And so their very earthly passion, to get this { } -- to have this way out for absolute identification, obviously, they all had to be of one mind. The mind had to become more than one individual mind, you see; that's what we call a school. And in this school, then, the love was a violent -- in divine passion, as it's made out in The Symposion, you see, because and -- had to take over and had to defy this idea that "I love objects, because this was just the other man whom I love, my friend, is not my object, but is as much a subject as I am. We are two subjects, trying to have the same mind." Isn't that -- ? We want to be of one mind.

And there you see this dance of subject and object very clearly. In the Greek tradition, everything is constantly an object of the will. Eros, as you know, "love," in Greece is just appetite, desire, yearning, you see. Now all real love is forgetting yourself. Wherever a person loves, he forgets his own will. He's commanded by a higher will, and therefore this whole question of will doesn't apply. I always say to con- -- confuse love and -- will is just as much as confusing -- identifying a baby with an atom bomb. An atom bomb is will, and a baby comes into being by love. And an atom bomb is not a baby. And a baby is not an atom bomb. If you however have the Greek -- mythology of the mind, then both are objects, you see, of will. Because love is just another case of will. I will the atom bomb and I will the baby. It is -- utter nonsense. This, however, is at the -- the essence of the Jupiter religion of the Greeks and of all philosophers, gentlemen.

But now to satisfy you, Sir. We have here -- a formula from the last meeting, which I -- who did -- was kind enough -- you {put it out}. In the tribe, we said, the spirit of life is the one embraced and worshiped, to which everything, all the sacrifices, the ritual of the tribe goes. The fox is slain, let's worship the fox. This seems so paradoxical, but it isn't. There has been made a gap, so to speak, in the harness of creation, and you have -- we have to heal it. So the whole process, the wholification, the m- -- coming -- becoming whole -- -y -- of the tribe is having -- making room for the eternal fox after one fox is slain, making room for bears, making room for whales, making room for children, you see, after death has occurred.

So they -- we are de- -- we define it: the tribe has the spirit of life--of whole lives, you may po- -- put in the plural -- and he keeps the spatial relations open by migrating all over the globe. Infinitely. All tribes are migrating, all -- that is, all animists. They must, because that's their only relation to space, that they don't have it in them -- in their heads, but have him in their legs. Whatever you don't have in your heads, you have in some other articles of your body, Sir, you see. You -- if you have a philo- -- you take the cynic, he says, "Everything is -- nothing is worth anything." You find always the cynic worshiping some beautiful woman, and imploring her love, because he can't be without it. But if you ask in -- in his philosophy, he doesn't have any room for this devotion of this good woman for him. That's a miracle inside his conscious religion, you see. But he needs it, and he practices it, and those cynics, as you know, are great rou‚s; they need a lot of love, and try to receive it from the good women of their company.

And what I mean to say is, gentlemen: what you don't have in your consciousness, you have to have elsewhere, to complete your religion. Most people have a -- such an incomplete consciousness of what they really believe in, that by some grace of God, it's supplied by -- them by their mother, their cousin, their sister, their sweetheart, their wife, their children, you see, because they say, "Oh, life is just material," or "Life is just economic interest," or it's enlightened selfinterest. And then you come home, and you find them coddled by their womenfolks, and they need it, and they have no place for this in their rational system, you see.

So what I mean to say is: the tribes consciously worship life. And divor- -- devor- -- devote themselves to the cult of the life. The dead space, the width of the universe, they do not conquer mentally; they have no geography; they have no astronomy; they don't care for the -- eternal recurrence, you see, of eras; they live from grandfather to grandch- -- -son; they have a very short life; they have no perspective, you may say. But their legs have. They suppl- -- the legs keep walking. There is no commitment to any one space. They are fugitives on this earth. As -- that's the meaning of -- I think, of the curse of -- over -- over Cain in

the -- in the Bible, that he shall be fug- -- a fugitive, you see, always moving.

The word "mi-" -- you have heard of the migration of tribes in our own history. After the Roman Empire is established, immediately it is threatened by the migration of tribes. First the { }, then the Teutons, and the Celts come to Rome, and later the German -- Germanic tribes in great numbers, the Goths, and the Visigoths, and so on. Gentlemen, this is purely accidental that you single out the migration of the Germanic tribes. What we know of the history of the world means that all the time, all the tribes migrate. That is, the migration of tribes, in quotation marks, as being valid between 250 of our era, and 700, is just one case, one single case of migration. In -- you can see this very clearly. That wherever the mi- -- the -- the empires fa- -- fall, the migratory principle comes to the fore again. In the Majan, in Yucatan, and so, you see. After these great temples were destroyed, you get again migratory tribes over the same area. The same is true in -- Egypt, the Arabs coming in, and so on. That is, the migratory principle is a principle of life, and doesn't belong to any one chapter of history at a special date. It's always a possibility, you see. These tribes devote themselves to the organism, and the order of their organic life. And they have to pay tribute to that otherness, to that deadly thing called "space," by migrating, by keeping moving.

The opposite is true, gentlemen, of the empires. In the empires, you find the formula: they bow to the revolutions in the sky; but they can only do this by renouncing the rest of space, because they cannot meet the sky -- revolutions of the sky if they leave off their observation, their observatories. It has to be in this temple that they know ahead of time when the sun may rise, and { } at the equinox. They go to the opposite end, then their civilization is doomed in antiquity. It's lost. And you cannot--either here, you see, or never--you cannot have very well the Christmas tree in Argentina on December 24th. They have it, but it's very artificial, because it's summer there. Have you -- who has been to the southern hemisphere? Has anybody? All these poor people there live a very artificial life for this reason, you see, because all their holidays are -- stand on their head. Can you see this?

(Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't they be used to that kind of life? I mean, having their holidays other than what { }?)

Well, modern man has found this power to be superior to the seasons and to the -- own families. I mean, the Christian calendar is free from nature. But that -- before, it couldn't be done, I mean. The Christian in Chile can of course live the way you propose, you see. But he couldn't, as long as the stars made law, have the same religion in Chile as he could have in North America. That was { }. Can you see this?

Well, gentlemen, the Greeks--and here it's Plato, of course, to whom we owe this comparison--the Greek mind looks for the spirit in one's own mind. The spirit is not in all living. And it is not in the revolutions of the sky. But it is in the {foranimus { }}, in the thinking man, in the ideas of which this human mind is capable. And that is the story of Gr- -- the Greek mind, gentlemen. To this day, the Greek mind is abstracting from all spaces and all times, and is trying to condense them into your own life. And the only way in which the Greek mind then could kep- -- keep moving--could, so to speak, conquer the reality of death and life--was by paradox, by opposites, by dialectics. If your mind can think black and white, he still has in his logic, in his mind, a little bit of the experience of winter and summer, of day and night, or of the things that the other people, the non-Greeks, the non-school people have to live through, time after time and space after space.

The Greek mind, saying, "I want to get out of space and time," has this one refuge, gentlemen, in spea- -- thinking dialectically. Because in the dialectical thinking, that which in all reality only comes: one now and the other later, is made present at the same time. You don't have light and darkness here in this room at once. It's either dark or light, you see. But the mind can think it both at once. And that satisfied the Greeks. That showed them that the mind has something { }. The things that in reality only occur one after the other, gentlemen, you see, coul- -- he could think right away.

Now you must see this -- the -- the -- the advantage, gentlemen, and the deficiency of this mental divinity, or this divinity of the mind. If I know that light and darkness alternate--I know it here, up in my brain--does this alter the fact that I have to sleep at night and to wake at day? That is, do I thereby ex- -- exist in -- in my existence, you see, escape because I have understood the essence?

As you know there is this battle today against the Greek mind, between the essentialists and the existentialists. The modern existentialists are -- my contemporaries are the people who have sensed the immensity of my Greek claim, that by the mind only can we live, can be -- that the mind is our God. The existentialist says, just as I would say, "It doesn't help me to know light and darkness. My body, my physique, my existence is bound up with acting obediently according to the seasons. They are my controlling powers," you see. I cannot control them scientifically by saying, "Oh, that's just light, and that's just darkness. I know all about them."

The question is still: do I go to bed with the chicken, and do I rise with the chicken, or do I not? And I have to make this decision not because I know what light and darkness is, but because of the influence of this light and of the night on you and me as a real power in your and my life. And you know how sick the

American people are, because they even had to rediscover the power of bread over them. You don't eat bread. And so you eat corn flakes instead, and in- -- inject these vitamins artificially into your food. Because the liberal mind has actually thought that knowing is believing, you see, that knowledge is all that is necessary to cope with the universe. Unfortunately, gentlemen, the climate, and the fertility of your family, and the love and affection of your mother is not dealt with, because you know that she loves you. The only way in which you can act upon the love of your mother is to love her.

So the Greek response to the { } of {love} is to classify this as an odd feature that mothers seem to love their sons. But the religious attitude to such an -- a fact is not the objective statement that your mother loves you, you see, but the highly prejective, and trajective, and responsible action that because she loves you, you respond. And that has absolutely nothing to do with your {knowledge}. Because there -- are many people who do not even -- wouldn't even be able to formulate that their mother love you, and they love her just the same, you see. It hasn't to go through the head, this -- this affection of people. And it is more important that a son should love his mother than he should have a philosophy about the objective fact that mothers seem to love their children without any rhyme or reason.

However, the Greek mind says it is more important that you can state that your mother knows you, loves you, you see, that in your knowledge, you rise to your divinity, which { } just isn't so.

The man who yesterday enlisted with the Marines for three years may be a very stupid Dartmouth boy, but certainly he is more of a man than the boy who dodges the draft and speaks about -- makes a speech in public speaking about -- on patriotism. Isn't that true?

So you see where the Greek mind leads you to. The Greek mind abstracts from your own responses. He says that if you know the world, and can look at it objectively, you see, then you are dealing with the world as you should deal with it. Which is un-understandable for any man immersed in his country or in his family, because to him it is more important that you should -- should support your father, you see, than that you should know how he is scientifically, and -- and -- by exploring his oddities, you see, and say, "Oh, Father has a repression."

(Then -- there is a difference between saying { }.)

Pardon me?

(I'm just trying to figure: where is the difference between the { }. { }

pleasure? He just { }?)

You see, there are -- there are -- there is pagan -- existentialism, like Mr. Sartre. There is dual existentialism there -- as in Buber and in Rosenzweig. There is Christian existentialism, as in Marcel -- Gabriel Marcel. And so -- existentialism is a revolt against Greek -- the Greek deification of the mind. That's all. Then there is inside existentialism any number of varieties, you see. You can -- there -- the existentialist can say, for example, "Since I have to die in person, anyway, let's { }," you see. That's one. The other can say, "I must be loved, and love, in order to fulfill my existence," you see. So he will make friends.

And -- therefore you cannot predict the conclusions, the -- the -- as there are many tribal religions and many imperial religions, so an existentialism can propose to you as the consequence of his insight, you see, that his whole man must worship, you see, and decide the issues, and not just the mind. It's -- can go against the -- out any direction.

({ }.)

Existentialism is the revolt against the deification of the mind by the Greeks. The Greeks said, "The essence of the mother is to love their chil- -- her children."

The existentialist says, "I don't care that you know all about the essence of motherhood. I would like how you call this with your mother."

As you know, it doesn't matter now that we know all about the essence of Bolshevism. The question at this moment is co-existence. That's an existential question. Has nothing to do with essences, you see. It isn't essential that you know that Communism is wrong, you see. That's a minor consideration. The -- the first consideration is: do you have -- take the -- hit the representi- -- representatives of Bolshevism, have -- do you have to hit them on the head right away, or can you wait a minute? And this decision you cannot make from a system of -- of Greek philosophy, because unfortunately, gentlemen, the Greek mind cannot say when to do anything. It has no access to the category of when-ness. The Greek mind has no calendar.

This category of when-ness is the dec- -- -viding line, gentlemen, between the god of purpose, Jupiter, Athene, and Dionysus. The mind can know everything except when to do anything. There is no way for the schoolboy who learns -- you learn everything, gentlemen, but when to apply it, I cannot tell you, and you cannot know at this moment in this classroom, you see. There is no way for you and me to know ahead of time when all this wisdom, which is now pouring

out on you, will be of any use, you see. This is your free experience outside the classroom, to know when to apply it. Can you see this? The when of -- of -- of -- of the mind -- the mind has no when. "The mind has no when" is perhaps the -- the simplest statement of the facts.

That's why for the last 60 years, all over the western world there has gone up this great sigh and cry, "What is time?" It began with Bergson -- Henri Bergson, and it end- -- began with William James in this country. It began with Alexander and Whitehead in England. Nietzsche did a -- cried the cry in Germany: "What is time?" When shall I do what? When? When? No philosophy has ever been able to answer them.

(Sir, where do the -- where do the -- what about what to do or how to do it come in?)

Pardon me?

(Where does the part about how to do it, or -- what to do come in? I mean, is that just the knowledge that's inherent in the mind?)

I think what to do and how to do, the Greek mind is very capable of telling, you see. But it's not able to tell you when. Science can very well tell you how { }, you see. But it is -- cannot tell you when you {came into being}, or were -- when -- better to attend the pregnancy of your -- and the -- travail of your own wife. This they cannot tell you, when to be in the laboratory, and when to be at home. That's why our calendar is so distorted. Modern im- -- production is scientific. Modern production is Greek. It's based on the mastery of the mind of the know-how. They have the know-how, and we know what to do with it. But if you look at the lives of these people, they don't know when to live. They don't know when to take a vacation, you see. They don't know when to be -- make -- pleasure. It's all -- they are perfectly -- perfectly arbitrary. They don't see the stars anymore. They have electric lights instead. They don't know when to go to bed, they don't know when to get up. It makes no difference. They work in shifts.

And therefore, the only recipe, you see, the Greek mind is that less time spent is better than more time spent. Speed is of the essence for the Greek mind. They all have a speed-up program. The child prodigy is the ideal of the Greek mind, you see. As though it was -- made any difference whether you went to Harvard at 14 or at 80. Obviously, I prefer to go at 80, you see. But in the last century, where the Greek mind prevailed, it -- was -- deemed an advantage to go to Harvard at 14. {Pure foolishness}. But the mind has no criterion for {when}, you see. The only criterion is: squeeze more and more "hows" and more and more "whats" into the same amount of time. Anybody who knows what growth

is, you see, and seasons are, has great respect when to do something, you see. Can you see this?

For example, take this now -- very essential. You all should have served in the army before you come into Dartmouth. You poor people now first graduate, then you have to go into the army. That makes no sense. This whole civilization is completely ruined, because instead of giving the experience of the army, and then ha- -- I having -- getting the privilege of teaching you, I now teach you wonderful things, and then you forget them all while you are in the -- under the draft. It doesn't make any sense. But we live in a world in which the simplest laws of timing have been lost.

Yesterday, one of the -- your best com- -- better boys here on this campus--most of you will know him--signed up for the Marines for three years. I am heartbroken. He's a senior now, and now -- when he goes out for three years into the Marines, and -- that's the end, so to speak. Then he will be in a terrible rush for his professional -- future, and it's just all wrong. On the other hand, I'm all for his serving first three years of the Marines, from 18 to 21, and then coming and learning something on the basis of his tremendous experience of three years, you see, with the Marines. You can see this.

All your troubles, gentlemen, are about timing. Yesterday, {arrest a man}: 19-year-old father of two children. Well, gentlemen, that's wrong timing. A man of 19 shouldn't be the father of two children. But everything -- all these atrocities happen in this country, gentlemen. They are -- they're really atrocious, you see, anti- -- anti-human things, because the date is wrong. The -- you either marry -- here, the girl is 12 years old and the husband is 87, or vice versa: she is 45, and he is 19. Well, gentlemen, it stinks in every respect.

So we have some criteria, gentlemen. The mind as God is timeless. It is uprooted from the s- -- part of the universe in which the thinker happens to dwell. That is, it is not an -- cosmic order of the star calendar which he serves. And it is not when -- what is mentioned in the -- in Plato for example, about the stars is very superficial. The Timaeus is very little. And it is very funny that he -- since he cannot go under the climate of Egypt or of the Mexicans, there -- has anybody read the Timaeus? You haven't -- well, the only stars in which he can take, so to speak, with which he {signs} are the planets. And they are the irregular ones. And nobody certainly can live by the planets, you see, because they neither have winter nor summer; nor harvest, you see, nor growing season. But the -- poor Plato, the only concession he can make to the heavens is the planets, because they are irrelevant, really, to a partial conquest of space, you see, to a calendar of some degree.

The -- what the Greek mind -- the mind cannot say anybody else is when to do anything. And now gentlemen, this is very serious. The Jupiter religion, then, cannot reach man's highest consciousness. If you intoxicate a person, the first thing that disappears is his sense of the moment at which he acts. If you drink too much, you are in a very gay mood. But you aren't quite sure what time it is. That goes first. Also when you wake up again from slumber, the di- -- most difficult thing -- the thing, so to speak, the cream of the cream of your consciousness is the sense of when. The second is only of where. And on it goes.

If you -- if you investigate, gentlemen, which is the effluorescence, the highest flower, the -- the budding, the finest smell of your existence, it is your clear presence of mind of the moment. When you admire a person, it is he who has this presence of mind that he exactly knows when to say something. It's very easy. You are -- have an -- interview with President Eisenhower, so you think up your greatest, intelligent -- most intelligent thoughts, pack them all in a bundle and say, "I am now prepared." This is not interesting, you see. The point is: what do you have to say why -- when you see President Eisenhower? And that doesn't depend on the amount of your wisdom and your knowledge, but in this incredible fact: when leaving another human being, you see, of a certain complexion, what will tie him and you together in such a way that you'll -- can love each other, or act together, you see, or fall for each other, or agree? And this rules out many sentences of wisdom which you could prefer, you see, because they make no sense. Because he and you haven't s- -- gotten to the same point in time.

And the -- the -- the -- therefore, gentlemen, the Greek mind has no presence of mind, because a present is always depending on the harmony of the rest of the cosmos. My mind must meet another mind at the appointed hour, so to speak, of the universe, when I can speak, and he can answer, you see. And what I can say there depends completely on the hour. At one hour time, you can say to a man certain things; at another time, you have to tell him quite different things. Isn't that true?

And this is totally overlooked, gentlemen, in your systems of philosophy. The impeachment, the accusation, the indictment of philosophy, gentlemen, is that they have replaced the divine moment--the divine moment--at what -- when the world has to be created, or when the victory has to be conquered, or when the law has to be passed; they have dis- -- replaced it by the idea of a system. The philosophical system, gentlemen, is the renunciation of the time-moment. A system is knowledge, known always, everywhere, regardless of the time.

So all these unfortunate systems, which our majors in philosophy had to -- had to dabble with, had one great deficiency. Instead of waiting for the moment at which a certain truth -- has to be made prominent, you see, they logically put

all the men- -- processes of the mind, as you well know, in some con- -- continuity, which is { } sense, thought of to be simultaneous. The system makes all moments of time simultaneous. Real life, however, singles out every one thought as o- -- having only to be thought at one time.

To give you a very stringent example. A faithful man will say that he cannot understand the Bible always. At one time, he can understand the -- this Psalm; at another time, he can understand Isaiah. And another day I can understand Luke. But I open the book again, and it's just a blank. That's a living -- relationship, you see, to truth. Therefore the Bible is not a system. You have to wait. Some day you don't understand a word. Some day you understand nearly everything. Some days you understand one thing and not the other.

In a Greek system -- in a -- a system of philosophy, the assumption is that everybody can understand the whole system all the time, you see. And -- once this is really held, and all Thomists believe this, all the Roman Ca- -- our Roman Catholic friends who are really Thomists, are Greeks. There -- it has nothing to do with Christianity, Thomism hasn't. Thomism is Greek philosophy inundating the living faith, because a -- a religious person cannot know what he knows today and what he will know tomorrow. The Greek religion of the mind, however, says, "I must speak to my God, and God is that power who can know -- always," you see. Man cannot.

The -- the fight against the system, gentlemen, is not so very important in this country. This country has always been an- -- anti-systematic. Pragmatism is one form of anti-systematic thinking. Pluralism is another form. William James has this. In Europe, system has been preoccupied -- the preoccupation of all educated people. And the Russians--give you an example--Bolshevism is Platonism, Greek mentality carried to -- you see, to {an excess}. They think in their dialectical thinking that they can anticipate all times, you see, and can predict, even if they contradict each other, you know, every five minutes, that it's still the party line.

As you know, the -- the -- the incredible Greek atrocity of -- of the -- of the Russian mind at this moment, to give you a very -- very known example is: they go to Germany, or to Austria, or to Poland. And they tell the farmers, "We divide the large property. You get small land. Everybody is happy." That's the program of the small landowner, a peasant -- la- -- . So we give them these 20 acres.

A year later, two years later, they say, "You must -- you need machinery, so we pool all these small {acres} again, and make them into a big state-owned unit," you see. So that the middle stage, the phase in which they bribed these small landowners, you see, to them is already before known as a passing stage.

Can you see the deviltry?--that: since I am living with a dialectical mind, and know everything, I -- even, you see, can go against my final and my present thinking that land should be owned in large slices, you see, and can give the people for two years something to bribe them, to intoxicate them, to satisfy their prejudice for small ownership, you see, this is the devil incarnate. Because whenness means that I must act at one time with good conscience, and in good faith in one place, you see, and cannot already know systematically ahead of time that another day I must object to my own action and say this was wrong, you see.

But the modern, pragmatic mind, and the Russian mind, both I -- seems to me, have there more or less this deviltry inside themselves. They say, "Oh, we are capable of any measure, any time." And so certainly this is only for a very short time that we make these people happy, but let's make them happy, and lie to them, and never speak the truth, so to speak, because we have always this -- this -- tongue in our cheek. We always can say the opposite truth.

This is the Greek mind to, of course, revealed -- raised to the fourth power, so to speak. It's a -- makes you -- all the atrocities of the Russian regime come from this idea that the mind is God. Can you see the connection? The when-ness is -- has no sanctitude. It's not the presence of God when I make a law that the peasants shall have land. Because I already know that this is just funny. I'm just trying to cheat these people, you see. So I'm not asked in my conscience to do this, you see. But it's just a handout, for zig-zagging. And they are very proud of this party line, which is a constant zig-zagging, contradicting themselves, you see. They call this "tactics."

So everybody else is cheated by this nonsense. And what they -- what they mean by "tactics," formerly people called "cheating." In a war, of course, you try to cheat the enemy. But the government in Russia is the enemy of the people, because it's saying, "I must treat them tactically. I am battling against their prejudices, you see. And therefore I'm giving in now to this prejudice and then to the next prejudice, always knowing ahead of time that they only are prejudices." But I wish to be governed by a man who shares my prejudices, you see. Because I also want to shed them together with him. You can see this. That's the real process of life.

This is very serious, gentlemen. The -- the Greek mind today is under judgment. And you cannot fight the Russian Communists with philosophy. You can only fight it with a deeper faith, with a more complete religion. That's why it is true that the real, religious issue today is between Russia and us. But as far as Dartmouth goes, or Harvard goes, or Yale goes, or Princeton goes, gentlemen, the humanistic tenets cannot fight Bolshevism, because they are just better philosophers than -- than our philosophers, in as far as they are not -- nothing but

philosophers. Because the criterion of when-ness is as much lacking in Harvard, or at Dartmouth, as it is lacking in Russia, as a sign of your and my humility, that you and I are not God. The human mind is declared God as much in a liberal arts college as it is in Russia. Only in this country, fortunately the nation, the country doesn't follow the professors. In Russia, unfortunately the poor people are governed by the professors. There the -- philosophers are kings.

And the one tenet I wish to inculcate in you today is this: that we must never think that it is beneficial that the philosophers are kings. God protect any country from this idea that Plato proclaimed, as you well know, that the philosophers should be kings. Because philosophers don't know when to act. They have no sense of timing. Therefore they cannot -- never -- should never become kings.

(Where does this sense of timing come from?)

Wie?

(Where does this sense of timing come from?)

I think you know it. Certainly not from the brain. The brain is timeless. It's the one undying, unrhythmical organ in our organization. As you know, the cells here are not recuperated. It is the -- the -- the anti-life in us, the -- what you receive into your cells in the brain stays forever. Everything else is re- -- made over in -- in -- in your body. But not the brain cells.

Now obviously, gentlemen, the -- there are degrees of timing in our body. When you are restless, when you are -- feel rushed, it's certainly not in your mind that you are rushed. Your heart is beating. You have -- you have convulsions. Your whole -- digestive system is beating. Your genitals are commanding that you should do something for the future of the human race.

Well, all other parts of your body--I mean this, gentlemen--are generative. That is, they are moving rhythmically. Only the mind isn't. The mind is the antirhythmic force in our -- in our out- -- equipment, in our endowment. I -- we have talked a little bit, and in all my other courses I do it to a great extent. Your -- the question is the question of all questions. Where is the rhythm to be found? But I think that all these spheres have their own rhythm. Breathing is your own rhythm.

Now gentlemen, if you can breathe together with one other person, you are spirited. That is, spirit, gentlemen, is a breath that contains more than one person. So the problem of the spirit is a problem of transcending your private body's breathing. When we are -- here of one spirit--after two months, I dare say,

or three months now--we have increased our understanding, have we not? We get along a little better than in the beginning. This means that my breath and your breath are no longer disharmonious. I mean this very physically, gentlemen. I actually mean that we now are able to breathe together. The word "conspiracy," and the word "inspiration," and the word "spirit" -- you have completely divided them from the English Anglo-Saxon root, "breathing." But "spirit" means just breath, the breath of life. Nothing else. And to have spirit means to be inspired by a breath that all -- in which somebody else partakes. The Holy Spirit is that spirit in which all man can partake, in which they can breathe together.

And -- I mean this very literally. I have written a whole book--in German, unfortunately--on the -- The Breath of the Spirit. And I got from a -- from a very -- from Martin Buber, I got a very interesting letter about this. He said, "What a very funny title. In Hebrew, you could not say it, because 'breath' and 'spirit' is the same word."

So my book title, The Breath of the Spirit, would read in Hebrew, The Spirit of the Spirit, or The Breath of the Breath. It's the same thing.

So your problem of rhythm -- is a very serious one. A great poem -- poet has said, "God is rhythm." But the thing isn't -- is not so simple. The breath of your reproduction, of your re-creation, of your loving cap- -- faculty for other people for the whole species of man; and the rhythm of your digestion, your metabolism; and the rhythm of your lungs, and your heartbeat ob- -- obviously are different lengths of waves, different -- of different length.

To give you -- these -- these are very actual questions at this moment in biology. I have a friend -- had a friend--he died a few years ago--who was a great specialist -- diagnostician in -- in medicine. And during the -- he fled from the Germans into the Caucasus, and was taken up by the Russians. He flew in from Belgium. And they made him their consultant for all their brain concussions. He could operate; he was not a surgeon, but he had this great diagnostical knowledge of the layout of the human body. And so they used him to diagnose the -- the wounds in the brain. And then the surgeons would operate. And he would tell them what -- what to watch for and what to look out for. And he must have had -- he said -- he wrote to me, he had some -- from -- between 1500 and 2,000 such brain operations for which he was responsible.

And he said that his greatest discovery in these years of the last -- World War, between '42 and '45, had been that the human life, the human being operated in a kind of -- point and counterpoint between what he calls the quadrigemina, the furrows of the quadrigemina which come up behind -- from the spine and are four little -- little hills--called the {coli} quadrigemina--and the -- actually

what you call the brain. The monistic idea of the devil is that everything is the brain. The Greek idea of the brain is -- is God; everything that they {thought} in the mind goes on in the brain.

My friend--Richard Koch, that was his name--said, "I discovered that man lives by a constant counteraction of the irritation, the stimuli which are located in these quadrigemina--these cells for love, cells for -- for -- for {food}. These various systems of his: his organic system, his genital system, his breathing system, may end here in one of these four furrows -- every one of these furrows representing one of the four dimensions, so to speak, in which we have to keep going, and in which we have to -- to keep alive. The brain receives this stimulus, and tries to unfold it, to operate it, to think it through. That is, the syllogistic quality, the logical qualities are all in the brain. But the essence of the -- of the demand, the requirement, is held up by the -- quadrigemina.

Think of this: you have -- you are deeply excited over the fate of this country. You are -- you say, "Something has to be done." You are sleepless. That would be the irritation of the -- one of these furrows of the quadrigemina. You feel in danger. And you feel your country is in danger. Then you begin to operate rationally: what can I do? You will have to -- find some -- buy a typewriter. You will read some books. You will make some friends. You will get a publisher, and have it printed. All these operations would devolve on the brain. The sequence of the executive measures would be dealt with by your brain, here, by this tremendous division of labor, you see, this factory of cells. But the pressure would not be in the brain, but on the brain. That's very important, you see. The demand would, for the next nine months, until the book is -- comes out from the printer, would be presented to the brain, not by the brain. And that is the Greek mistake, you see, that the mind also had the moral obligations inside itself; whereas the pressure, the moral obligation, the demands, the requisition, you see, come from outside and must be recognized by the brain, and the brain must obey them, you see, and must go to all its service, you see, because the demand is not the brain's demand. Because the brain could not say, "Now, this has to be done." It is the heart that must say this, you see, or whatever organ we -- we define, you see, as being active.

If you are below the surface of the water, and you are -- in danger of suffocating, it's of course your breathing system that demands immediate action, to telegraph. Your brain then thinks out the measures with which you can still communicate with the outside world, you see. And you have learned some tricks as a diver so that you then remember, "Ah, I am meant to pull this line," or "I'm meant to slip this line," you see, "from me," and then you finally go up to the surface. Here you can see very clearly who gives the command, and who obeys, you see. The breathing system gives the command, and the mind -- brain gives

the answer. And my friend Koch only said, "The breathing system sets in motion the brain by having the vibration, so to speak." I think we can think of it in terms of a Geiger counter, you see, or a -- or a -- radio -- radar system--holds out this warning: now act, quickly, you see, announces the danger, or announc- -- states the proposition.

I -- I hope still to live and see the day to -- he died before he was -- allowed in Moscow to publish it. He had sent it to Moscow, and they of course --. He laughed -- he wrote laughingly to me, "It's so much more materialistic than these materialists ever thought possible," because locating inside a part of the human body--you see, the demand--and in another, the brain, that was not idealistic, as they would have rejected, you see. But it wasn't materialistic in their sense, because they only have this idea that the brain must do everything, you see. But he had this much more wonderful insight that our organic substance, this -- these quadrigemina, represents whole systems of life on this earth, with their rhythm, with their data, with their -- with their "Now this is you."

And so he never came -- had an opportunity. He -- I think he died from a -- of a -- from a -- his heart gave out. And I think it was the excitement whether he should publish this, whether they -- the Russians, the Bolsheviks would persecute him for this, you see. It is not in agreement with Mr. Pavlov, and all his -- his business there of the saliva.

But it's very serious, gentlemen. And it's very reasonable. And it's visible. I mean. There's nothing mystical. But it just explains: you and I are immersed into tremendous cosmic processes of breathing, of eating, of reproducing; and you aren't alone in this. And it is the harmony of your action with the rest of the universe which we have tried to bring about by commanding our brain to take orders: when -- when, you understand, this is necessary. The poor brain itself is there all the time. Like an ashtray; but it has no when.

It is -- can prepare ourself for life. You prepare the brain for action. But you cannot take action at this moment.

Now gentlemen, all these three orders of religion, the mind religion; the cosmic religion; and the vital, animistic religion, the life--you may say, the worship of -- of life, of all organic -- have of course an awareness of their -- where they fall down. There are events in which the calendar doesn't work; for example, when the planets appear when there is an eclipse of the moon, or an eclipse of the sun, the so-called catastrophes. We, as you'll remember, said from the very beginning there was one cycle, the saturnical cycle, which included all the events which could not be premeditated, pre-computed, pre-calculated. And all these three religions of course were aware of all the irregularities which even their

greatest sacrifices could not anticipate or do away with. You know -- we talked about -- I -- one of you talked with me about it--you know that the Mexicans, when the white man landed, had these increasing and increasing number of human victims, where they pulled the heart out and threw it into the flames on the altar so that it would still beat, and add to the power of the divine order. And the numbers of these victims must have been, you see, tantalizing. Even Hitler didn't slay much more. And that means something.

And -- so these thousands of victims, why were they sacrificed? From the feeling that catastrophe was interfering with the calendar. That the known calendar and the unknown powers in the sky did not gibe, did not harmonize.

So you get what is called with the word in -- in antiquity, "prodigia." And I though I should give you an example of this -- of this conflict between the order which man has been able to organize or to regularize, and the disorder which breaks in, by giving you an example of the Roman calendar. The Roman calendar, from which we have the word "calendar," after all. It's a Latin word. It means probably the new moon called out by the herald every first of the month. This -- Roman calendar herded all the known divine powers into the calendar by calling them the -- the {indigitamenta}, the inside, the "indes, in- -- indigenes" -- you know what "indigenous" means. Well, they had therefore all the indigenous powers inside the calendar. Then they had events that hadn't been foreseen. For example, you read Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and you remember perhaps that on the Ides of March, a calf is born with two heads, and the -- the -- what's the wife of -- of Brutus -- of Caesar? Calumbia -- Calumbia tries to -- wie?

(Calpurnia.)

Calpurnia, pardon me. Calpurnia tried to tell him, "Don't go to the capitol." You remember? Because something terrible will happen. That was called in Latin a "prodigium." And it meant something that was acted outside, "pro," outside the calendar. So you have "in-" --"indigitamenta," the indigenous events that come -- recur every -- every year, like summer and winter, you see. And you have the "prodigia"--we still have the words "prodigious" and "child prodigy," you see. That's unexpected { }. We have limited of course in America to the agreeable child prodigy, because in America everything is { }. But -- oh, pleasant, I mean. And -- it's all Reader's Digest..

But the -- the Romans were aware that there were left prodigia, prodigious events. And I thought you might keep this in mind, this problem, eas- -- most easily when you saw these two words, "{indigitamenta}," the inside story of the calendar, that what the calendar already has digested, which -- the calendar has been able to organize, and the prodigia, which come unexpectedly, and for

which the calendar has made no arrangements, you see, which are the saturnian ones, the things that are so dangerous, because they -- nobody knew that they mi- -- could happen--like famine, or fire, or flood--which does not go with the seasons.

And -- so there is a constant race, gentlemen, between the orderly mishaps, the orderly calamities, and the disorderly calamity, so to speak. And -- only to tell you that the -- our tribes -- ancestors in the -- of the Indian tribes, or of the Germanic tribes, or wherever they were--the Slavic tribes--knew quite well that their order worship, and sacrificial attitude to life wasn't complete, that there was always more still to be demanded, you see.

So all life, gentlemen, is divided between regular and irregular. Some things can be done by rote, by rule; but there is always the exception. And that is, of course, for you and me the same problem to this day. We all try to live by rules and regulations, you see. And you all have to liv- -- learn that all religious people must live by rule and exception. A man who cannot make an exception from the rule has no longer any feeling for the divinity of life.

A doctor--I feel this time and again, you see, a surgeon--he must be able in -- to say in two out of 10 cases, "Well, ordinarily I operate. But in this case, I had better not operate." If he cannot say this, you see, that this is an exception from his own ru- -- rule, he's { }. He has lost his religion. He only knows now how to perform the operation. But he cannot place this operation, you see, in this free reality between the first sphere or the second sphere of his understanding, you see, and the fifth sphere of his religion, of his -- of his trembling, of his mystery -- the mystery that remain -- that he feels there is some -- "This time it isn't so simple," you see. "I must not operate."

Did I tell you my great story about a religious doctor in -- when I -- came to England? Have I not? It shows you what -- how serious this problem of prodigium and {indigitamenta} for all these three religions is. The fatalistic knows this, gentlemen--that is, the specialist, who is the philosophically trained man, with the scientist, and a scholar, and a research, and a technique, and a profession. And it must be known by the family man, and it must be known by the -- by the statesman.

I came to England; I had great pains, my spine. And my doctor at home had told me, "You have to lecture in Oxford. If you have intolerable pains, go to my friend in London, and he'll help you."

And I had my pains, and I went to this man, and -- whom I had never known before. And he said, "Yes, you have some reason to have these pains. And

what are you going to do?"

"I have to lecture at Oxford."

"Well," he said. "You are a scholar."

"Oh, yes," I said, "Very much so."

And so he said, "I tell you. I could treat your pain, but it would be wrong. You go to Oxford, give your lectures and have your pains. This is still better than if I would treat you. Docto- -- scholars and officers of the armed forces I have found must never be under medical treatment for more than a fortnight. They are so accustomed not to think of themselves, but of larger issues and their men, that they go nuts. If they had to concentrate something -- on themselves. I would do you much more harm by treating you, and -- doing away with your pain than by demanding from you that you forget your pain."

I took my hat off to this man. I had -- never had seen a greater man, because he knew, you see, to make an exception from his calendar, from his {indigitamenta}, from that which he had, so to speak, digested all the time. He certainly could see some prodigious case with { }. And he was master of rule and exception.

I only say this to make you always aware of the fact that we are not talking of faraway things, that these old, religious issues are your and my religious issues. This man saw so many patients a day. He was a very wealthy doctor; he had a tremendous practice. And he could just as well ask, you see -- could have nicked me for 10 guineas for treating me for three weeks, you see. And he was entitled to do this, because I asked him to do this, you see. And he had to resist my own offer, so to speak, in my own interest, and against his own self-interest, really. Because this way he got one guinea and that was all that was left to him.

Thank you.