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

...show you that he has three more {crises} under which modern man moves. One is the ex- -- expansion of Christianity. The other is the expansion of progress...

[tape interruption]

...observation of the star, et cetera. And now we saw that modern man lives in the mechanized universe in which--on principle, we may say--we have progress as a constant, in back of us. Any child that grows up today, and said, "Oh, { }, I know," every day a new invention. Just -- patent office. He knows that well. {It just happens}. So he doesn't wish -- will not be responsible -- your children will not be very much overawed by the fact that things are changing, because progress means: constant change is the assumption to the { }. More refinement, more -- {he's all right}.

Then it would be: one, and we -- we left this open: what is the future of a mankind that is so engrossed in tech- -- in progress, gentlemen, that it has to pass everybody, to link up with others for teamwork, for group-work, or { } -- -operation, for cooperation in innumerable ways. And a man must hold 600 jobs during one life. Which means that he must, all the time, bind -- be bound, and be loosened out of fellowship.

Gentlemen, if a man has to enter too many fellowships, and to give up too many fellowships, he disintegrates. Disintegration is the result of an overdoing our joining and our separation. To say farewell once may be to bear. But to say farewell every day is once too often. Modern man disintegrates, because he is forced by technological progress, gentlemen, to leave all -- his allegiances in an endless sequence. And we saw that the family thereby is dissolving, because the members of the family work in changing teams, too, on jobs. Whereas in the old days, the family was a constant affair in which the same parlor, the same kitchen, the same stable, the same barn, the same { }, the same vegetable garden had to be cultivated for 30 years. Now that's a humankind measure.

And we may therefore say, gentlemen, that disintegration--a breaking into an outer, meaningless world--happens to those men whose time is below human measure, whose times are -- remain below human measure. If you work by the hour, if you work by the week, if you -- have all these passing stations in life, and you are a migratory worker, you are threatened with disintegration. The Grapes of Wrath. And modern man is a nomad, therefore. Now we know that nomads have existed before, and they have existed for several thousand years, gentlemen. Through our own technological progress of the last thousand years, through our victory over the empires, by building up a scientific world, which would be one, we have s- -- plunged back man into a pre-imperial state of a nomad. Modern man is in -- a new type of nomad.

Now what is a nomad, a tribesman? A tribesman is the man whose roots are not on this earth. They are not in space. Where were the roots of the tribal man? Where were they?

(In the ancestors.)

Wie?

(In the ancestors.)

Yes. There was ancestor-worship {then}.

So gentlemen, the modern migratory type of man is spreading, and it is reaching out for the women. And that is the incredible thing today, you see, that the woman today is equally migratory, predatory, nomadic as man.

Therefore there is a new situation, gentlemen, the question of roots. How can--and where can--man put down roots if he can't put them down in space? That's a paradox. The quest of the third millennium is: where can a man put down roots, since he cannot dow- -- put them down in space, since he must be able to travel?

Now there are two answers possible, gentlemen. If you live in Boston and you change your home in Boston, you still remain a Bostonian. So the first answer would be, if you live -- as a nomad on this earth, what could happen, what could you choose to be your home?

({ } whole world.)

The whole world. {If it is -- what} makes the whole planet is your home, it's theoretically possible that you consider your moving from one -- just a -- from one place to another, just as going from one apartment to another. You would re- -- there retain your citizenship, so to speak, you see, in one city, in one world.

And the other is to say that man should have no roots in space, that he should come into the world, but never be of the world. This is at this moment the ambiguity. The attempts to make man at home in one world are naive, pagan, well-meaning attempts, but I would say they are pre-Christian. They are antihistorical. It cannot work, because the empires have been uprooted by science for the very purpose to make -- to prevent this rooting in space. All science is against it, you see. Space is something abstract. You can't put down roots in space, you see.

So I think the modern -- the modern -- what I call the modern "demons" or "devils" are those who recommend man that he should treat the earth as his real home, you see. It's a temptation. But I think you must -- just -- I don't wish you to prejudge this, before you have entered upon the question. In this year of the Lord 2000--more or less--2000, you see, the two parties in the treatment of human -- of the -- spiritual home for man is either: the whole world is home, you see, or no spatial home. That's a decision you and I have to make. And we'll make it perhaps differently in different times of our life. But I only wish first to bring up the ambiguity, the question, the distinction, you see. These are the two parties. One says "one world," meaning really that we are all in this world. Willkie's -- Mr. Willkie -- Wendell Willkie's and the modern -- naturalists' idea is, "Well, we are part of the world, so make it one." Then we sink into this world. All the children of nature, all the Thoreaus, Rousseaus, all the American traditions are saying, "More or less, man is natural {thing}. And if you make this nature one, he will -- you will be at home there, quite naturally."

Now that's the pagan misunderstanding, gentlemen, because it assumes that Christianity has never taken man out of space and time. But man is not a maker of the world, a creator -- { } God, but that he is in space and time. Most of you believe instinctively--this is very certain without your -- any a- -- aggression--but you have just grown up without any tia- -- initiation into the real meaning of faith. And so you -- in -- the modern so-called Christianity is a worldly affair. It's a part of the world.

If the world, gentlemen, is all there is to you and me, of space and time, if we cannot create new spaces and new times, the only answer is that we must have one world by which to be contained -- in which to -- to find ourselves.

So at the end of the year 2000, the great crusade of science, of nature against empire, against nations, can end in this stalemate that the nation- -- national, naive naturalness still wins out--just one world--but you are in it. That's your {grave}, so to speak. That's your complete home. That's your -- you see, you are in the {cave}.

The other solution, gentlemen, is: that the world is our handicraft, is what we do, is what we work, but it's our object. The world is that which we manipulate; the world is that which we operate. The world is that into which we come. And therefore, it must remain below -- beneath our dignity. We must make these departments and compartments. For some purpose, we speak of "the West"; for other purposes, we'll speak of "California"; for other purposes, we'll -- we'll speak of "the Rockies." But all these spatial differences and distinctions, not one of them will really command our loyalties.

Take the United States. For certain purposes, we'll -- we'll say, "This is a New World." For other purposes, we'll say, "It's a part of the western hemisphere." For other purposes, we'll say, you see, "It's a little spot on the globe." In other words, gentlemen, the spaces which contain you and me do not command our respect. We should be able -- allowed to change them at will.

All worldly boundaries, gentlemen, are multiple. Will you take this down? The world may be one, but all boundaries within the world are multiple or plural. I can draw boundaries on this map of the globe, you see, for any purpose. For export purposes, for road maps, for climate, for religion, for schools, you see, for education. Then I get 55 different maps of the world, you see. And they will all overlap. I can have a religious Ka- -- map of the world, where I have the Catholics, and the Protestants, and the Jews; I can have a -- a geographical map; I can have a ma- -- map of literary -- literary newspaper resources of the world. And on it goes, you see. And not one of these maps really command my, you see, unified allegiance. They all can overlap, criss- -- criss-cross -- out each other, you see. As many maps as man has ideas of the world can exist. As a Frenchman, who's a famous -- geographer, has said, "Une map, une id‚e," you see. "For each id‚e, une -- a special map." It's a very wise statement. Une map, une id‚e.

If you -- but the ordinary map of the United States is -- is certainly -- it shows you that this is not the United States. That's a road map. What you see there are the highways. And you see nothing else. They don't even {list} the railroads on it. If you wish to have a railroad map of the United States, it will -- completely different from the highway map of --. And this -- the Esso dealer doesn't give you a railroad map. He wants to sell you the highway map, you see, because every map has a purpose. Every map wants to draw your attention in one direction. There is no one map of the world, in other words. There is no oneworld view, you see. The world is multiple.

This shows, gentlemen, that man cannot be part of this world, because otherwise he would disintegrate. Man is one. Man has a destiny. Man has a soul. Man has happiness. Man has pain. Man has a name. All this is unifying. The map -- the world is disintegrating him, because it's diversified. The world is pluralistic; the world is multiple. If you say that you are just part of the world, you go nuts, you see. Why should you be one? You -- break you apart. In Denver, you are one man, you see, in the Rotary Club; in the factory in Aspen, Colorado, you are another man. Wherever you go, you are just--according to climate, and color, and race, and creed, you see--somebody different.

Gentlemen, the human person cannot be contained by the world, because the world operates on us as a fragmentation bomb. It splits us. Modern schizophrenia is a direct outcome of the desperate attempt of man in the last 150 years to become a part of nature; that is, a part of space. If you say, as I -- you sit there, you see, "This is the whole man," you, it's nonsense. Because you must -- I must hear you speak. And with every word you speak, gentlemen, you connect yourself with history, with the times before and after you. Every word you say is determining not your place in the world, you see, but your -- also your place in the chronology of the human race. Whether you say that your name is Schultz, then there is German descent. That is, you are connected with a thousand or 15- -- years of the history of the Germanic tribes. You may overcompensate for this. You may become an American. But you still then have traveled a certain road in your pedigree. And there are many other things. As I -- I always use this very simple example: if you say, "The western world is a civilization -- great civilization," you see, you still believe in it, and through your speech, you promise to work for it. If you say, "It is one of many civilizations," you see, you already say that you get ready to embark on a -- on a better one. And if you say, "Europe was a civilization," you are already through with it.

So gentlemen, anybody who speaks--will you take this down?--anybody who speaks goes against the world as it is, because by speaking do we anchor ourselves in mere time, outside of space. That, most people cannot understand. But I have tried to teach you this -- through this whole course.

You go to bed with a woman--pardon me. This means nothing except something in space. You can peep through the keyhole, if you are obscene enough, and watch lovers. Why must you not do this, gentlemen? Why must what a -- lovers be {safe}? Why is it a shame in anybody who violates the code, that nobody must be curious about other people's love affairs? Why is this great discretion, this secret, gentlemen?

Well, there are probably more than one reason. But one of them is: that what these people say to each other determines whether their love is sacred or -- or not; not what they do to each other. Their embrace is only an expression of what -- how they call each other. The names which they speak each other are names in the history of mankind. Whether they -- he calls this girl, you see, with a passing name, or with an everlasting name, that determines what kind of love this is. Where it ranks. Does it create a new nation? Will this be a new people, you see, which he starts, or {is it a fugitive minute,} passing away and doesn't want to be reminded of it after{ward}, you see? How do you know? Not in the act.

No one act in space, gentlemen, has any meaning in human history. Nothing. I kill you, here. You see me take out a revolver and I shoot you -- { }. Nobody knows what this means. Before, we haven't applied a term--murder, self-defense, vindicti- -- vendetta, you see, execution--to it. Now the -- it's more important that this is true of love. All acts of love, gentlemen, are obscene if people don't speak to each other. The people who sleep to- -- with each other, don't speak to each other, drive each other to the psychoanalyst. All this whole { } affair is only one of speechless sex. If people spoke to elo- -- were eloquent to each other, and could sing out their loves, there would be no {practice} for this. But in this country, where the male has lost his sting and doesn't write poetry anymore, but only figures, the poor woman, of course, goes and has a divorce -- with a psychoanalyst, because at least the man will talk to her.

This is of -- true for all Anglo-Saxons. English men waste their eloquence--in England, it's much worse in -- in the educated classes--on -- on their male companions, and women -- their -- their intercourse with a woman--or did at least 30 years ago--limited it to purely the physical attack. And all the women in England of the rich and educated classes look desperate. She's famished -- are famished, like wolv- -- wolves, because their determination in -- in time wasn't given them, which makes all love real.

You are only loved, you see, if you are placed in the stream of mankind as a bride, as a -- sweetheart, a--you can be a mistress of a great statesman, you see. You haven't to be -- Lady Hamilton was happy with Nelson. It has -- she hasn't to -- you haven't to be married in order to -- to feel that you have been recognized by your partner in love, you see, as somebody entering the world at a certain moment.

Love has always a pedigree, whether there are physical children or not. The relation of love, gentlemen, is always one of seed and fruit, in the seasons of life. And therefore it's quite indifferent to space. All love is interested in the mother-daughter relation through time, or { } relation, and it's quite disinterested in -- in where it happens. Life creates new spaces at a certain moment. Anybody who marries tries to get his own house. But it isn't the other way around. You don't get married because you have your own house. But that's what the modern pagan thinks, really; that he marries because he has an apartment to himself. It's the other way.

Love is -- creates spaces, gentlemen, and therefore is not -- contained by space. The terrible thing today is, this {housewifishness} of the -- the wife who really identifies her love with her -- the candles on the cake.

What I'm trying to say, gentlemen, is that the rootedness of people in the third millennium cannot be in space, but must be in time. And the rootedness depends on something we -- the -- {try and say}. You say, "{I'm history}." I would -- try to ask you { }. You cannot possibly go back to ancestor-worship, gentlemen.

The -- why couldn't you? If we revive -- there is of course the temptation today of ancestor-worship. Take the Daughters of the Revolution, or take the descendants of royal -- of royalty in this country, and all this other nonsense. The -- why is ancestor-worship impossible? Why can the rooting in time, although it may play with the -- with the model of the ancient ancestor-worship, why must it lead you and me to disaster?

({ }.)

Wie?

({ }.)

Pardon me? What's the condition of the next millennium, gentlemen? Let's have two conditions. The -- the disintegration must be overcome to which our -- the moment in which the world is one, you see, moves everyone, because the world is constant change, constant revolution, constant new production, constant new means of existence; therefore the work which we perform in society, you see, is throwing us constantly into new teams. Therefore we disintegrate. That's what we said. Therefore we have to find -- remed- -- a remedial process. The remedial process is offered us by the old tribes, because in the old tribes--in the family and in the tribe--people were rooted in time and not in space. The tribes are nomads, are migratory, you see, but they keep the people in good cheer, integrated.

So gentlemen, we have one position from antiquity to { }. The tribe teaches us what it means to integrate people. Integration is secured by the tribe. On the other hand, gentlemen, what can't we imitate? What is true about the old tribe, what is true about {all} antiquity? What is to be said against that -- the ancient tribe? What's so cruel about { }?

({ }.)

Ja, exclusive. Small, exclusive, vendetta, vindictive, you see. Bloodthirst, secret, walled-off against each other. "Exclusive" is quite -- the very best word. Is exclusive.

Now the mod- -- the future society must be inclusive. So gentlemen, we must solve the paradox of integration with inclusiveness. The old -- -cient tribes were only inclusive, you see. They only in- -- {integral}. But they were exclusive. So the modern era gives the oneness to the task, ja? And the -- antiquity gives the inte- -- -tegration, intensity to the task. We must inherit from the old tribes their intensiveness. And we must add the inclusiveness.

If you go back, gentlemen: the difference between Israel and the Church, you have the same. The -- the Jews are exclusive. Very, you see. But they are intense. The Church had to reconcile, you see, inclusiveness of the new era, universalism of the Church, you see, with intensity, and did it by the -- the clergy and the monks, you see, and the saints, by allowing some to be more intense than the other.

With the word "saint," gentlemen. The ancient empires were intense in their division of labor. Think of the calendar of antiquity, you see, the New Year's Day, how everybody was in a caste, or in a class, and {exactly then} they knew what to do. Intense {assignments}. Everybody, you see, clear-cut. What he was, he was, really. But exclusive. Chinese, Chinese; Egyptian, Egyptian, you see; and once a {Brahminite}, always a {Brahminite}; and once a king, always a king; once a Persian, always a Persian. Yes?

We have in our modern world included everybody into the revolution and society. And by expert professional training, we have tried the skills, we have tried to in- -- ape the old intensity. We have professional pride, yes. A doctor is a doctor, { }. But he is not: once a doctor, always a doctor. The professions in our world are spiritually based, you see, on { }, on application, and not on heredity, for example, you see, and not on assignment by others.

So gentlemen, in our era, the formula is: intensity as of old, and inclusiveness as of the Christian era. Integration we learn from the ancients to this day. Inclusiveness is our own task.

Take the Greeks in antiquity. The humanists, liberals. They had slaves underneath. That is, they had intense poetic feeling for a few, but they were not -- not everybody could participate, could be included. We feel that modern man is open to the arts and sciences, every one of us. Nobody is excluded, though we have a hell of a time to keep any intensity, as your own self -- state of the intellect proves. You don't show any ancient -- any language {worth}, and where are you with your intensity of studies? But at least it's universal. Everybody can read and write, you see. And everyone does read and write. We have made the thing inclusive today. The problem obviously is to make it intensive, too.

So gentlemen, modern man, since the year 0--or as the Catholic Bible says, 7 B.C.--since 7 B.C. marches forward into inclusive and unified living by always trying to learn intensification from pre-Christian examples. The Church, gentlemen, has revived Israel. The modern science has revived the intensity of the ancient professions, the ancient skills, the ancient -- the ancient crafts, arts, sciences, you see, by expert knowledge. And in the future, gentlemen, though we, poor migratory beings, will have to learn the integration, the intensification from the tribes. That is, we will study Negro plastics, and tribal masks, and tribal dances--that's why dancing is so much in the forefront today as the great vehicle of the re-pristination, you see, of our souls into intensive passion, into intensive movement, into intensive expression. I think dancing owes so much to -- tribes. I told you that in Egypt, they have no dancing anymore. The empires dismissed dancing. The tribes recognize themselves by dancing. So what happens today is that dancing is the art that has the great -- the greatest promise, because in dancing today, people really are inventive. They're really {going places with this}.

In other words, gentlemen, mankind in our era always moves -- { } backward and forward. Backward for intensity. Forward for inclusiveness. We never can give -- regenerate antiquity unless it is inclusive. Yet, gentlemen, we are always tempted to do so. For the last 400 years, you know, this world -- New World, America, has been visited by the temptation to revive--the Renaissance, the word "revive," you see, to have reborn--ancient Greek and Rome, with this stigma of slavery. Now from 1500, as you know, from { }, to Lincoln, this country has slavery. That is a mistaken renaissance of antiquity. Ja...

[tape interruption]

...because of the slavery problem, you see. To understand the strange process of historical living, gentlemen, any moment, antiquity offers a temptation of backsliding, for example, slavery, you see. And a lure which is legitimate of its colorful intensity. Because the ancients had only one form of life, they lived it to the full. We have many; therefore we disintegrate easily. We split. We don't give enough heart to what we -- we play with all these things, and not one of them is really good. Look at our architecture and Greek architecture. Of course, we say, "Greek architecture is good," because they really devoted themselves to it. And we have this eclecticism, which really is no good whatsoever. Therefore we go to the Greeks to learn what it means to be an architect. Can you see this?

But beware. If you build, as the ancients built--with slave labor, you see--then you can of course have easily an acropolis, because it doesn't -- costs you so little. The real problem of modern architecture is: that it must be a paying proposition built by -- done by free men, you see, and yet be beautiful, and yet express the -- the feeling of -- of the -- time.

Do I make myself clear? That at any moment, gentlemen, the road in our era is beset with temptations of backsliding, of saying, "We will not only give birth again, renovate, regenerate"--there is no word for "renaissance" as a verb, but it's what I mean, you see--"have a renaissance not only of ancient art and science, but also of ancient exclusiveness." As soon as you go exclusive, for example, with Greece, you get slavery. As soon as you go exclusive with regard to tribes, you get vendetta, racism, racial persecution. You get -- then you must kill the Jews, and must kill the Negroes, because the superior race must be -- you see, can do as it pleases. Racism I put at the -- on the list last time, you see, as the pre-Christian, naive solution of modern in- -- integration. It's a great temptation. If you wish to have passionate s- -- family life, then enhance the pride in your family to such a pitch that anybody who marries into your family and is not of blue blood has to be burned, you see. That's what the Hitlerites said, I mean, you see, that their blood was defiled if anybody would dare to marry into -- the family.

In the -- Renaissance, gentlemen, of Greece and Rome, or in the last thousand years, the temptation was slavery. In the next thousand years of racism--of renaissance of tribal integration--our temptation will be vendetta, will be the famous world of the South to you, like -- that your daughter marries a Negro. That's the standard procedure there, as you know. And it leads to { } to lynching, it leads to, you see, to the -- to the -- the trigger always being up if this might happen.

Mankind goes forward then, gentlemen, by looking backward. It has one eye on the past, and one eye forward. And that's a very different march. See? This rear -- facing both ways at the same time. If he faces backwards too much, we ruin the march of history by going exclusive. If we go forward only in a { }, we lose all intensity. America at this moment, you may say, is more threatened by a lack of intensity, by apathy, by indolence, you will admit, you see, by the "I don't care" attitude. The opposite attitude is, however, always frightfully near the Father Coughlin agitator and the {silver share} attitude. The intolerance, you see, the in- -- intensity for intensity's sake. That's always looming.

So gentlemen, mankind has to straddle the fence, or the ridge -- has to -- better say -- I mean, has to walk on a narrow ridge between too much historical model, and too little. He cannot forget that the family was created, you see, as a model case, before. And we cannot forget that no exclusive faculty is any good for us in the future. Could I go on today, until 3 o'clock? Do you -- do you have time? Then I may take out the liberty of showing you how the Renaissance of antiquity looked in the last thousand years. I -- don't know -- don't think I give you this -- it is quite instructive and will only take five minutes.

The Renaissance of antiquity sets in with the year 1100. The great man who is the first Ren- -- Renaissance, so to speak, is Virgil. In Dante, you know he is the leader. He is at the threshold of Christianity and he leads Dante through hell. And then they begin to read a little bit backward. They go to Aristotle, who lived 200 years before. And then they go back to Plato. Then to the tragedy -- tragic -- Greek tragedy, and finally to Homer.

Now if you look at the chronology of this, it would be roughly this way. That's -- Caesar -- or Augustus' name, as you know, Emperor Augustus, under whom Cae- -- Jesus was born. This is -- Alexander the Great; Aristotle was his teacher. This is Pericles, that's -- of course roughly speaking. Take Socrates here. The renaissance of this man takes place from 1100 to 1200 -- to 1300. The re- -- reception of Aristotle takes place from 1250 to 1400. The renaissance for Plato takes place from 1400 to 1600. The renaissance of the tragedy takes place clearly when Racine, Corneille, Shak- -- write their great plays, you see, according to the rules of ancient tragedy--and Goethe and Schiller. And that's from 1600 to 1800. And Homer has his great period beginning, by and large, 1750 to -- to this day. Mr. -- {Monsieur Lemieux's} translation, you see. And a few years ago there appeared by Robert Graves a very interesting book on Iason, Jason -- I don't know how you pronounce it. How do you say Iason? Iason is the one hero of -- of pre-Homeric s- -- caliber in Greece, whom Homer mentions already as an existing { }. And Robert Graves, by a very profound instinct and a very--by the way, it's a very good performance--wrote this book on Iason in the year of the Lord 1945, with the profound instinct that at this moment, we in our march backward have reached the point where the pre-Homeric, even in Greece itself, you see, became interesting. You remember what we said about pre-Homeric man.

So in the future, gentlemen, the additional interest in Greece will be for the times of Mycenae, of pre-Homeric man, of Crete, you see, of Knossos, of all these excavations in the Mediterranean, which lie between Homer and Egyptian and Mosaic traditions. And that's already very widely spread at this moment. Primitive Greece, you see, pre-Homeric Greece, which has not yet its own character, but it's just one tribe, or one empire among others; one city, you see.

The specific Homeric--Greek, philosophical, humanistic, you see, thing of art and science { }, its comparing power--that rests on Homer. And anything that goes back before is, you see, just one among the many attempts of {foundings}, tribes and empires. It isn't Greek in the specific sense, you see.

So now, if you look at this list, you see that man, by going forward, goes backward. In 1100, we had only renaissanced Virgil. By 1950, we had renaissanced the whole of the -- pre-Christian Greece. In a very systematic process, there has every century stepped on and added one older layer of Greece, you see, in order to renovate it. That's very strange. It's a very lawful order. Dante has Virgil, and Goethe has written {an Achill} in order to follow Homer. So that the -- the renaissance of Greece begins with Dante and ends with Goethe very properly, by having annexed finally the whole Greek millennium. Can you see this?

This may show you, gentlemen, that something similar has to be done for us. We go now certainly from a renaissance of Greek -- Greek and Latin--nobody learns Latin or Greek anymore today--to a renaissance of something quite different. Any dancing group today tries to reconquer the intensity of tribal dancing. So that what is renovated and regenerated lies far be- -- before the Greek -- the Greek and the Jew- -- Jewish creations. But the problem is, gentlemen, it has to be inclusive. Just as no modern play is really like a Greek play. And if Mr. O'Neill writes Mourning Becomes Electra, it is the opposite from a Greek tragedy. The -- you know it? Who knows Mourning Becomes Electra? Well, it would be -- if we had time, it would be worth your -- our study. Why? It is, in every respect, the most un-Greek thing in the world. The Greeks never -- never had any -- inkling of such a topic, or such a theme. Because, gentlemen, the wonderful thing is: the -- our era is creative and does something new whenever it keeps the faith to the time of antiquity and to the task of the future, and blends the two together. The more inclusive, and the more intense we are, at once, the more original, the more faithful will be the fulfillment of our own times.

Lincoln is a great man because he has inclusiveness for the Negro, for the -- any -- every human being on the one-hand side, you see. But he has also the intensity for freedom--that's his speech, the Gettysburg -- makes the -- makes his Second Inaugural so -- so immortal, you see, and the Gettysburg Address. There is intensity of { }: "...shall not perish from this earth." {He's} not indifferent to these things. He has the intensity as though he was an old Pericles, an old Greek. And he has the inclusiveness, you see, of a Christian.

Now gentlemen, therefore let us now try to characterize the aim of the third millennium. The original problem must be an inclusive, integrated human family. That's the task. -- Without vendetta, you see, but with purity, and fruitfulness, fertility, fecundity. There must be reproduction; there must be propagation; there must be life; there must be passion; there must be love. I think, gentlemen, however, the word -- we can say that ancestor-worship is out. It is more probable that there will be descendant-worship. I think the paradox of any such renaissance is that the direction is changed. Not ancestorworship is your problem, but descendant-worship, if you want to have such a word. It can't of course be real worship. But obviously, gentlemen, the problem can also be put in this way, that { } want to have children--and this is the miracle--then their being recognized by their children as their parents is for us miraculous. In the ancestor-worship of the whole tribe, the -- the newborn were initiated and -- and coaxed into worshiping the spirit of the ancestor, you see. Obviously gentlemen, if you have -- found a family {today}, your problem is to make yourself so loved by your children that they, without compulsion, voluntarily recognize you as their parents, you see.

I don't mean you would sacrifice a first{-born} { } the next born the necessary regard and respect. Now you laugh, you see, but why not? It would only be logical. And that's what the ancients tell you. And the ways the -- this is the fact that you smile puts the question squarely before you: but then how do you get any sense of -- {of being}? If -- you can't do it by -- by this -- by {Rupert Brookes}. Somewhere this -- intensity of feeling in -- for the family has to be reproduced.

I propose, gentlemen, that we -- we lay down certain minimum requirements. The modern family of the future must be inclusive. That is, the whole of mankind in one family. There -- can -- as little as there can empires in one world, I do not think that there can be any secluded -- exclusive family, you see, for the future human being. But that must make you shudder, gentlemen. One family of man is a nearly impossible concept, is it not? Too big.

How can it be realized, gentlemen? How does man become a new man? Well, I tried to tell you this by the fact, gentlemen, that all love not only has to take place between two people who embrace and kiss each other, but it has also to be declared. Love -- lives by two acts: declaration of love, and by taking place. Time and space are created by love. Time, by our declaration; because if John Smith says to Margaret McGrath, "I love you," in the language of the day, and in the ter- -- names of her biographical history, then he places this love in time. And that can only be done explicitly, by declaration, by speech.

So gentlemen, all love must be declared, and must take place. "Take place" means it enters space. "Declared" means it enters time. This is -- today I -- I must repeat this, so totally underrated, that all love is sick and degraded to sex, which doesn't speak. You can only love, and you prove only your love by being able to declare it. You can say man has -- men becomes master of his love by confessing it. The declaration of love is the way of mastering our own passion. The very moment a man has the guts to declare his love, whatever it is--it doesn't -- to be the love of a woman; it can be the love of -- of money; it can be the love of anything--as soon as he dares to confess it, he can be heard -- { }. But if it festers in him, you see, pruriently, without his ever admitting it, he cannot be; he cannot become potent of his own love. You know this very well of your own passion. Admit it, and you begin to have the power, you see, of { }.

So love has to be confessed, gentlemen, and declared, and has to take place. Now all love therefore needs names. The third millennium, I propose to you, will be a millennium of nominations. Not of denominations. But of our -- each other -- nominating each other to offices of mutual relationship, of love. Whether you adopt a child, or whether you get married, or whether you enter into other relations, the important thing is the power to give people new names according to their love relations. What we suffer from today is anonymity, abstraction, jobs, all unnamed, all indifferent, you see, all not giving you and me a different name. No declaration of love involved.

This may to -- still s- -- still seem to you rather powerless, and yet I think it should warn you against the idea that by marching forward, we can go back to -- to vendetta, or to tribal relations of old, or ancestor-worship. There is in ancestorworship this one great item--nomination--which makes out of man as an accident, as a cog-on-a-wheel a real person. Anybody, gentlemen, who is named by somebody else puts down roots in the human family. The way in which man is rooted in the human family is through his name. Any nickname, any pet name -- you get, you see -- you receive means that you are rooted in somebody else's heart. Can you see this? There is no other root { } in another person's heart, you see. And that -- when your name is mentioned, he begins to smile, and says, "What a good fellow." You see. That's all there is to it, your -- your rootedness in {society}. But it's terrific.

If your name elicits a response in another human heart, you see, you are born in this heart. You have come to life in it. Can't you see this? And you receive power {from this}. Anybody whose name creates a reaction, a response in anybody else's heart, you see, is -- has come into -- into being, has -- it is beginning to realize himself. And most people today suffer from this not-being so. They have no renown, the have no reputation, you see. And therefore they are starved. As Saroyan has said, "I want s- -- to make everybody famous." It's a very good saying. It simplifies matters. He means by "famous" that people, when the name is mentioned, smile, you see, and jump, and say, "Ooh, what a fellow!" you see. Then he would be happy, because then he would be at home in the human family.

(How can { } hierarchy { }?) By mutuality. We nominate each other. Nobody nominates you without your nominating him, you see. -- As father and mother, and bro- -- brother and sister only co-exist in correlation, nobody can be a brother except for another brother or sister. Therefore if I do not call my sister "Sister," she cannot call me "Brother" with any efficiency. Nominations are mutual. Hitler had no such mutuality. It was the Fuhrer principle, from top down. Love, gentlemen, is mutual. Very simple. It's, after all, mutual embrace.

We countenance each other. That's a very good word, you see. It has this double meaning of countenance. The countenance is a human face, gentlemen. We recognize each other in another human face that looks at us with a certain expression. And that's mutual. All people have to be looked upon before they can live. No baby can grow up without the smile of his mother. That's physically necessary. Even the doctors know this. Yet they have forgotten it. They have tried to strip man of his having to be countenanced, you see. It's very -- it's incredible what an -- a --. We live -- in 1930, gentlemen, at the brink of the abyss in which -- where man had become just a part of the world. And it is that we -- we -- in every measure today of the -- whether it's the maternity ward, or the nursing of the baby again, you see, people just emerged from this downfall of civilization; it was a complete barbarism. Actually babies were treated as so many pounds of flesh, contained in the world. The hugging by the mother was deemed unnecessary. Whereas man--as man-- belongs only to the family because somebody looks at him. It's so simple as that. Smiles at him, and he can smile back, and s- -- talk back. And when he then calls his -- his mother, "Mother," the condition is that his mother calls him "Him." That's mutual.

Who -- who was asking? You { } asked the question. You see, mutuality is the -- is the condition of this process.

Now how this is all to be created is -- was -- is a long story. But gentlemen, you may say that the first millennium, that of the Church, created orations, prayers for all mankind, universal; that the second millennium created observations of the facts of the world; and therefore I -- with a -- of course, with a very short formula, I say that the third millennium must create nominations of each other. To God we pray, gentlemen; the world we observe; and we nominate each other, we talk to each other. But we cannot talk to each other without giving each -- each other our title, our name, our place in time.

The way you address a man, you put him either before you or after you. If -- I'm the professor and -- the student, you are younger, I am older, you see. We meet on the street; you are contemporaries. You are in a youth camp, and you are the counselor, and the babies -- the -- the children are the younger one. Wherever people speak, they arrange each other in time. Again, the worldly abyss on which we live today finds this expression in the fact that Church had -- the churches even have these groups of middle-aged people, and young people, and childrens, you see; and they have cut up the problem of love, and have destroyed it by arranging people into their natural birth -- birth groups and thereby killing all attempts to building up family groups and families. Our churches are leading in the destruction of the human family, because they make people meet only according to their age. It's un-Christian; it's unspirited. The problem only begins to be important when you can meet people of another time, of another spirit, of another age. Here, this small class business in the colleges. Very doubtful {performance}. We have gone to far in this direction, gentlemen. Wherever you classify people according to their -- their own moment, you see, you deprive them of the cult of bridging time. And you -- only when you bridge times, gentlemen, do you build up the real ancestor-worship of the human -- the human tribe. You can only be at home in mankind, gentlemen, you can only belong to the human family, if you are not contained in your own age group.

In all this, gentlemen, the last 30 years have made -- the -- brought on the fall of man from his real station, from his real meaning that is so appalling that -- there is great hope that a third millennium will start on the basis of this complete negatives, you see, lack of understanding of what it's all about. We have lost the human family, and therefore we may rediscover it. The family is not only disintegrating in the physical sense because people work outside and have school luncheons, but it is also so that the human factory in which we live today says, "Oh, everybody is classified according to his age." From 20 to 30 they -- the -- the people meet; and from 30 to 40 they meet; and 40 to 50 they meet. Et cetera.

People no longer understand daughter-father relations, son-and-mother relations in a positive sense. What you read today in the -- in literature is all reviling in these relations. That isn't so simple, gentlemen, {you see}. The -- the -- neither way, it can be bad, it can be good. But it is a positive relation in itself in the sense that there is a task for you to -- remaining connected with -- with the older, and to connect yourself with the younger. Can you ever be satisfied only meeting people of your own age? Impossible.

Would be the same as you if you only wanted to meet people of your own sex, you see. People are today not homosexual, but what are they? Homophonic. They have only their own time. That's just as idiotic. It is just as perverse. And it is just as sickening.

You see, gentlemen, homosexual is something in space; it's in your body -- what sex you are, and it's abnormal not to meet the other sex. "Homophonical" is in the spirit; it is perversion of the spirit. It is exactly corresponding to homosexu- -- corresponding -- in correspondence to homosexual, if you only -- meet people of your own time, gentlemen. Take away the reason why you can speak and love -- declare your love. Because a declaration of love is difficult. It is difficult because two times have to be brought together. If you take away the tension, you can't help the spark that flies across. But two people who have gone to class, and to school, and room in the same room, and are of the same sex, and they get along with -- as roommates, gentlemen, that's nothing of any value, you see. It's just duplication of yourself. You are yourself once more. It's just like one apple, two apples, three apples, four apples, five apples, six apples. It's mass.

Wherever the distinction, gentlemen, of sex and age is taken away, man becomes mass, impersonal, abstract, or pluralistic. That is, it is simply a question of numbers, then. Whether you are 3,000 boys in Dartmouth, or 2, it will make very little difference, you see. If you only meet under the condition that you are the same age, and of the same sex, you don't meet at all. You all piss in the same direction. To meet, gentlemen, at all, you have to be different. You have to stress your difference; before, you can't meet. Because to meet is to behold--as we said, "behold," a very beautiful word, you see. What is -- does it mean, "behold"? Can you tell me? What -- if you read in the Bible, "Behold" -- "Lo and behold!" What does it mean, gentlemen?

({ }.)

Wie?

({ }.)

Well, in this wonderful identity, gentlemen, of holding and seeing: we hold each other in each other's eyes. "Behold" means to seek, get into your vision. But it is also this embracing...

[tape interruption]

...the words "mother," "father," "brother," "sister" are formed, as "other" -- in the same way as the word "other"--as correlatives. There is only a father, because there is the mother. The word "mother" cannot be said of a concubine, or of a -- of a cubs' -- a female, you see. The word "mother" came into being, because fatherhood was created into mankind. When fathers called themselves proudly "Father," they recognized mothers. "Mother" and "father" are corollaries, gentlemen. Will you take this down? "Brother" and "sister" are corollaries. All knowledge of man is mutual. Nobody can be anybody in his own right. Somebody has to recognize him. Before, he is not at peace. If you say you are the o- -- greatest living genius, and everybody else says you are an idiot, what happens? What happens? Who wins? Who wins?

({ }.)

I guess so. Wie? So the problem of the greatest genius is to convince that he's one, that he isn't an idiot, you see. It isn't interesting that he thinks he's the greatest genius. This is of no interest to anybody. And not even to himself. It's only damaging, you see. It would be much better if he had no judgment on himself, you see, and would leave it to the others.

And of course, it would be also very wise if they would suspend judgment, you see, and not -- no -- not be prejudiced against him. But you have to pray that they aren't too prejudiced and say, "Know him," you see. But that's the only thing he -- he can perform: suspend their judgment, you see, make them see the light, you see. But it doesn't help him that he sees his own light.

What time is it?

(Twenty of.)

Wie?

(Twenty of.)

Nominations, gentlemen, I said, are the theme of the future, gentlemen. And of course, marriage is the problem of the future, as the act by which most certainly re-nomination is achieved. The criterion, gentlemen, of a successful nomination must always be some fruit of such a relationship. Either children, or a new party, or a new creation of some sign, a new fellowship, a new movement. Wherever two people fall in love, something must happen, or they aren't -- haven't fallen in love, you see. All love is -- bears fruit, or it isn't love. You can take this down; that's very important, gentlemen. All love either bears fruit of some kind, or it isn't love. It may be just play; it may be just courting; it may be just anything. But it isn't love. Love is fruitful. It's one -- it's de- -- by definition: love bears fruit. It cannot help bearing. It spreads peace. It makes life cheaper. Nothing is so cheap as a life in which love prevails. And nothing is so expensive as a life when hate or jealousy prevails. Conscience-money is always very expensive. You know, whenever there is struggle { }, what it costs to restore peace. Whenever there is no -- no fight, how cheap it is to live. Most new hats are bought for reconciling people after a quarrel.

So gentlemen, fruitfulness is the criterion of love. And therefore I propose, gentlemen, that the aim of the third millennium is just this. If you wish to overcome mere technical progress and its consequential re-arrangement of nomads into disintegrated particles, you have to try to make them bear fruit through love.

Now the simplest word for this would be "reincarnation." Because when you ever -- if you really bear fruit, you do produce something, you see, by which you are -- reincarnate, by which your own inspired love bears fruit. So for my private purposes, I include the word "reincarnation" at the front of this third Cross of Reality. And the great ambition of the next millennium will be: to have any offspring in your own image, to have -- to have your love bear any fruit. Today, it is sterile. Birth control, et cetera, nothing bears -- has progeny. And there may be other terms, however. Ad at the beginning of a period, one must never try to give the definite name to it. I use the word "reincarnation," so to speak, to challenge you on what really is the problem of the next millennium.

Revolution. The world revolution is the last revolution, I am quite sure. Just as the conversion of the Swedes and -- and Icelanders was the last great mission in the West; then they have all been converted. We are not interested, I think, in missions and revolutions, because your problem is, gentlemen, to get man out of his nihilism, where he says, "Nothing is of any avail, nothing matters; I don't care," you see, into the intensity of feeling that it matters that life should go on, that it -- life should come true again into the world, man should come into the world again. And that's meant by the word "reincarnation."

The word "reincarnation" is therefore for me important, because it makes clear that man is not a part of the world. If you say, "renaissance," then you have -- man is a part of the world. He's just natural. He's born. If you say, "reincarnate," or "reincarnates," it means that the world of time and space to him is only an occasion in which his love ta- -- can take place and be declared, that he creates new spaces and new times, that he is not of this world, but man is God. Man is God wherever he is free of li- -- space and time. And that is in the word "reincarnation" I -- I had {which} -- implied in the term: you can only reincarnate a -- something {reincarnated} -- which is not, you see, in itself in the flesh, but has -- comes into the flesh. {Achieved} by it, and expressed by it, and embodied. "Embodiment" would be another word, you see, which would say -- make sure that man is more than his embodiment, than any one of his embodiments, any one of his nominations, you see, but through them, he takes place, and is declared, and comes true.

You can of course say it with a rather unpoetic word, "reintegration." But I don't think it would satisfy you. "Reintegration" is a mechanical term. "Reinter-" -- "-incarnation" is a biological term. And therefore "reintegration" wouldn't suit me very well in this instance. It isn't strong. Against disintegration, reintegration doesn't help. Because you must get people who cannot disintegrate, who are in- -- immunized against disintegration. The reintegrated is, so to speak, only the object of the process. Here he disintegrates, and then { } comes, and reintegrates.

And gentlemen, in the third millennium, the human problem cannot be dealt with by human engineers or human doctors, because we are all inside society. And that's the reason why I once more say it must be "reincarnation," and not "renaissance." You all are brought up with the idea that the social scientist is as much a scientist as a natural scientist in the sense that he can handle human problems, you see, with his hands. Can he? Why not? Why can the problems of the third millennium of a human family never be handled? We handle things of the world, gentlemen. That is, things that are without {risk} and without { }. Things in space can be left alone, or can be handled. Human beings cannot be left alone, and cannot be handled.

If -- if teachers or parents handle their children, they are wicked. Children -- we may say children -- brats are handled, if -- when we wish to -- to express our indifference to them. I mean, of course, you have to handle people who are nuisances, as best you can. But if I say, "I handled this case of a student who came to my office, rather nicely," I dismiss the student, you see, as a case in whom I am not really co- -- engaged. You can see this. You see, "I handled this very nicely." In the false {quiet,} I have -- then deteriorated my human relationship, you see. I cannot love a man whom I have -- handled nicely. Can you -- see this? Because I happen -- when do we handle things, gentlemen? When they can't talk back. To handle anything means that that what is handled has no opportunity of talking back. When we handle children in kindergarten, the -- the nurse is safe. She is there, and the children are there, and she knows all their reactions in advance; and she knows that after her working hours, it's all over, you see. The child cannot come and say, "{ }." Because then the nurse says, "I am only paid for so many hours. Good-bye." No nomi- -- mutual nomination, you see.

Gentlemen, in the third millennium, there are no physicians, and no observers, and no philosophers. But there are only {partners}, members. The greatest problem, gentlemen, of the third millennium--and that's why I'm still holding you -- behold! overtime--is not only that this -- the third millennium must take up from pre-Homeric man the intensity of family relations, the chastity of the family group, but that the Greek mind, gentlemen, which compares everything to everything, and stands outside, and looks at things from the outside, must go. Philosophers, gentlemen, Greeks, have lingered on, as you know, to this day, as observing nature, and giving courses on comparative religion. Comparing everything, or comparative literature, or what-not, comparative law. It makes no difference. The Greek mind, we have said, is always outside the order, you see, which he compares.

Now gentlemen, in the third millennium, your greatest problem will be the academic clan, and its detach- -- their detachment. Because as long as you get detached people who are not in it, you see, you probably cannot reintensify the human family. Because these detached people should belong to it. And they say, "We don't. We look at it. We observe it. We -- we have a -- a glimpse of it. We may handle this case," you see.

So gentlemen, the third millennium has two tasks: reincarnation, renomination, remarriage: that's the positive side. And it then has to combine, as we said, inclusiveness and intensity. But it has also, gentlemen, the second intellectual task. The intellectual task is to convince our minds that they are inside this reincarnating process, and not outside, you see, that while they can observe the world, in society nobody is observer, because he's observed, too.

There is the -- the role of the Greek mind in the third millennium is to be dissolved. You get religionists in the first millennium, the fathers of the Church, you get philosophers of revolution, gentlemen. In the third millennium, the -- man nearest to the role of the future, which has to be revived from the old tribes--who was the great man of the spirit in the old tribe?

({ }.)

Of the tribe? No. Who is the spiritual leader of the tribe?

(The medicine man?)

Yes, the medicine man. You will find, gentlemen, that a man who will deserve well of society in the future will much more aim at the powers of a medicine man than of a philosopher. He must be bright, you see, but he must be hot, he must be passionate, he must be able to charm, to enchant, you see, to woo people. This is not to give them an abstract system by which they look into the world. But his power must be to move them so that they will dance again and sing again. You have these wild fakirs, and -- and -- at this moment, I mean. That's Hitler, of course, you see. But he should be your warning. When a people is dried up by science, they will listen to such Piper of Hamelin, you see. If every philosopher would have an ounce of heat, you wouldn't have to concentrate in a big bonfire, you see, and overheat { }.

In other words, gentlemen, the hour has come to redeem the Greek mind. The Greek mind in one world has to go, because the Greek mind is based on plurality, on the idea that I can sail the Mediterranean and go to these many cities of man and compare notes, and say, detachedly, you see, "Oh, that's { }, that's {Rhodes}. Now compare notes { } {direction}, { }." Today we live in one world, and we live in complete anarchy with no family { }.

So every ounce, gentlemen, of thinking energy must go into the building of this family. It cannot be stared. We cannot allow this Greek spirit to compare notes. you see, about the various {decadences}, about the --. And there you see now why the Spenglers and the Toynbees are still worldly thinkers of the second millennium, and do not belong to the future, because they do not speak of one family of man, but they speak of many civilizations. The very fact that they speak of many civilizations, you see, makes them stand outside. They think that they can make us stand outside the reincarnation, the re-creation of man. That's how you read their book, and say it's taking stock of things that have happened, and might happen. But I don't think that the third millennium can stand such a mentality. You have racism, gentlemen, you have humanism, and--I told you -- what was the last?--nihilism.

The -- the Toynbees have not racism. { } they have many civilizations. You can put here, you see, the plurality of civilizations, just as well. Spengler has the same. Many civilizations. But gentlemen, the medicine man of the future will pray -- as St. Augustine has prayed: "Grant our wishes, O Lord, to those whom you have created out of nothingness." Man can only be made to reincarnate if he can dismiss that what he has been before into nothingness. God creates man out of nothingness. Therefore, if you try to show that man is at home in the world, you give him something which chains him, which deprives him of the opportunity of being renominated into somebody he hasn't been before. Whenever you say "too much of a man," you see, he has to remain that forever.

In the future, gentlemen, all human beings can only have adjectives, and not nouns, as their -- as their signifying mark. In America -- this country will live, gentlemen, into the future as long as you say, "He's Polish," "He is Jewish," "He is Italian." As soon as you say, as in Europe, you see, "He is a Pole," you see, you are lost. You see, then you have made him into something of the world. And he can no longer be renominated by your love into somebody of tomorrow, out of nothing.

So gentlemen, the problem of the inclusiveness of the human family--and that's the -- last thing--can only be solved if between our -- what we have been, and between what we have to become, by nomination, there always will be a moment of non-existence, of annihilation, of our dismissing what we have been. And you can help with this if you give to every man the chance to say not "He is a criminal," but "He did steal." Tremendous difference. A man who did steal can cease to steal. A man who is a criminal is always a criminal. Man in the future, gentlemen, must not be conceived by nouns. Nouns are for things of the world. The distinction between the second millennium and the third millennium is very simple. In the second millennium every -- man became something. And therefore he was quoted by a noun. He was "an American," or he was "a German." If you keep man like that, if you say, "This man is a German," he is a part of the world as it is. And he cannot share -- enter the human family. The human family is based on the assumption that the man can be re-introduced to the human family under a new name. If you take this away from him, if you classify him as D.P., an {Igor} cannot become popular on this campus. But he is, because he is a different person now; he has a new name.

Nouns, gentlemen, are for things of the world. Names are something quite different. If a man has a name, all the qualities, you see, become mere qualities, mere adjectives. And his name triumphs over any label. A man's name, gentlemen, should always rise above all his other qualifications.

Therefore gentlemen, the aim of philosophy is to give everybody -- to everything its proper term. I told you that the aim of the medicine man is to give everybody a nomination in power, in virtue of which he is free now to do something new, to act for the first time, as though he hadn't existed before.

I meant only to say to you, gentlemen, that the world of revolution, and the world of nihilism, the world of marriage and nomination, that the world of discovery, and research, and laboratory, is as different as a stone is from a bride. They are really very different. Man is not to be talked of in terms of the world. And God is not to be talked of in terms of the world. And the world is not to be talked of in terms of God or of man. There have three different vocabularies. Man -- as soon as he's given a name, can survive all his transient positions, all his disintegrations. The things of the world, however, they are H2O forever, and forever, and forever. The things of the world are what they are. Man never is who he has been.

And therefore, gentlemen, the tribes of the future, the great human family, gentlemen, will not make the people of this earth into ancestor-worshipers. Because in the ancestor-worship, the handicap was that you had to be whom your ancestor had been, you see. But in the future, gentlemen, the heritage of the people of God will be with this inclusive family, you see: the people will -- be who they will be, and not who they have been. Can you see the difference?

This is your problem, however. There will be a constant struggle, gentlemen, between the people that is what it has been, and the people what shall be what it shall be. This is the ambiguity of this moment, gentlemen. There will be as many criminals and sinners against the solution of the people as "they who shall be who they shall be." In the name of ancestors, in the name of race, in the name of civilization -- you can see already how these people will try to handicap you and me and fetter us down to what we have been, you see.

And that is a messianic heritage of antiquity, gentlemen. We said a tribe is facing the past, the empires are facing the present, the people are facing the future. Now you can't have a human family, you see, except they all intermarry as a people that shall be what it shall be, you see. You see, intermarry as a tribe, that shall be what it has been, you see, you get war, and feuds, and vendetta, and vengeance.

I'm sorry. There would be much more to be said. But is -- are there any questions now as to this? Please ponder over this last lecture in connection with the theme of pre-Homeric man. You will see that there is this ambiguity. We have a rise today of primitive passions, a rise of {analytical forces in the family}, a rise of tribal instincts, you see. And on the other hand, I tried to show you that the rise is nothing negative, you see; it has only to be balanced. And -- I told you I have made this topic the -- the -- the center of the examination. And you can of course take your notes to the exam. So I hope you are now equipped into -- to see the reality of the re-rise of pre-Homeric man, and {get} the distinction, which you have to apply, how far this wise is terrifying, and how far it is indispensable. Can you see it? { } Mouth is wide open.

({ }.)

Wie?

({ }.)

{ }. {Would} you ask any pertinent question?

({ }.)

Well.

(At first I had the impression that you meant { } time. But then again you went on to {love}, implying that even time { }.)

Well, love is the power by which we enter time and space, { }. All love, gentlemen, re-creates time and space. Precedence { } obviously is taken by time, because we have no space of which to dispose. We migrate. I thought with the word "migratory," I -- I had shown that man had no space in which he could realize himself today, you see. If a couple is not able to pull up stakes and go another place, you see, they cannot -- {well}, be married. They have to survive their change of environment.

(I understand this { }.)

Well, in one { } -- this same {kind of man} cannot stay forever in any one place, you see, must still have his lifetime meaningful to themselves. So the time of their lives is the expression of their eternity, of their love. They wish to -- after all, to incarnate; they wish to make their life meaningful, must they not? They cannot express it by the Wigwam Circle, or the Sachem Village. That's too poor, too shoddy -- too shoddy, I mean. It makes no difference -- a child can be born in a {ward} or -- so you can't transfigure these localities today, you see. They are too accidental.

So you must ma- -- make it meaningful how long you stay in one place, how -- the how long, the when is today the decisive problem of your time, of your life.

I'm -- I'm fully aware of how short this has been. But if you -- if you realize, gentlemen, what we said of generations in the tribe, and how they were able to root themselves in seven generations--three backward and three forward--and apply this to your own life { }, you see immediately that it has to do, you see, with man's power to build up larger timespans. Man can reincarnate, if he doesn't live minute-by-minute, or hour-by-hour, you see. If you live only minuteby-minute, you look as pale as the American businessman on Fifth Avenue. You lose face, you lose -- you lose, you see, your power to incarnate.

(The whole problem then is to be able to look both backwards and forwards simultaneously.)

That's man's divinity. The past, present, and future are all open to us. You are quite right. It is not enough to rush forward into the future. It is enough { }.

({ } generator of the car { }.)

{ }. You see, you fall in love. You are madly in love. Forget everything else. But finally you make up your mind and say, "We get married." You { }. Then you invite people { }. That's the first step in the past. { } see that if -- by inviting your neighbors, and parents, and relatives, you see, you are, you see, making peace with the past. That's a creative and new event, you see. And yet you {cash}, you see, you -- you -- you make peace with that -- {beloved} { }. Now that's a first step. Any wedding is such a victory over the temptation, you see, to run -- and elope with the bride. It's a natural instinct. And that is the higher insight, that this wouldn't do, that you would make your own love, you see, unappreciable, if you wouldn't reconcile your new love with all former loves, you see. The love { } is a love story, because each new love demands praise, the recognition by former loves, and all older loves -- crave their being recognized by a new love. { } so the parents of the bride want to be recognized by the son-in-law, you see, finally. May take years.

They -- the human history is just a chain of marriages, and it takes a tremendous amount of time until the next wedding, you see. Ceases to be a shotgun -- wedding on the one hand, or elopement on the other. Mankind's always stumbling between a -- shotgun weddings, where -- the parents decide, you see, and elopements were the -- the new generation elope- -- { }. The real wedding obviously is neither a shotgun wedding, you see, nor elopement. But that's always the presence of two generations at least, or three. You see? In the shotgun wedding, the poor son-in-law has no time of his own.