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

... and that's not a means. That's an end. Now, you will agree with me perhaps later on when you look around yourself. You may not know it at this time, but nobody wants to talk about this to you, that this country is sick with means. You cannot have 40 million cars and trucks without, you see, being drowned -- drunk by means. These are means, the cars, the trucks, the transportation, the -- the radio, the -- the movie, the television. Two billion dollars spent in this country for television last year. Two billion dollars -- that's more than the state budget of France.

We use up year -- annually, this country, 42 percent of the gross product of the world, and we constitute 7 percent of the population. Can you see what this means? That we have six times as much as would be normal, and we have, of course, because we eat up the 42 percent, we have actually not six times as much, but 12 times too much, compared to all the other people in the -- on the globe. And you see the whole Marxian prediction today is somewhat ironically turned against { }. Marx says the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer, and therefore there will be war between poor and rich. Now he thought that would happen in one country. But with us, it has -- it's happening under our noses so -- in such a way that the Americans constitute the rich, and the rest of the world the poor. And that's a very bitter constellation. And the only comfort we have is that the Russians try to make up for this. And they are the only people who try to break the class war between the United States and the rest of the world. The French do not produce, you see, and their standard of living is -- are going down, and they seem to be our allies. But Mr. Malenkov is the only hero we have in this country and patriot, you see, because he tries to make the Russians finally equally rich with us. And that will make for peace. Funny.

You see, if you have -- otherwise you fall under Marx' prediction. The funny thing is that the Russians are the only ones who at this moment have some prospects of becoming richer, in -- in prozen- -- percentages, you see, than they are at this moment. You will not say that the -- that the English have any prospects, and you will not say the Germans have. Perhaps the Germans have a little bit, but they are such a poor country. I mean, such a small country; it's just Rhode Island and plantations, you see. It's just nothing there. Germany is so small, and Switzerland is, too.

But I'm quite serious, because we have idolized means. In this country, when you say "standard of living," it is just as opening a cathedral and kneeling down. After the -- in 1945, we had a meeting here convened by a very religious person, Dr. Ambrose Vernon. He is well remembered on this -- in -- on this --

campus by the few who still care to -- care for continuity at all. He founded the department of biography. And this man was very interested to do something about the future after the catastrophe in '45. And he asked me what I thought, being European by birth, and I said, "Well, the whole question is the distribution of population. If the United States remain the most thinly pop- -- populated area on the globe, all the others must band together against us and -- and take our riches, because it is impossible that 140 million people" -- it was at that time only, you see -- "could hold 50 percent of the world's wealth." But if we make room for 100 more millions in this country, then the -- it wouldn't be only the 100 million people, but the prospect of anybody that at one time, he or his cousin might come to this country would alleviate the pressure, because you don't -- you have to take the pressure completely off from a steam kettle. If there is only some steam, you see, getting -- going out, that's enough if you only allow the rest of the world still to believe that this country will absorb some million people a year, you have peace for another 50 years, because there is hope. And hope doesn't require immediate fulfillment. It isn't necessary that I may -- am able to say at home at Austria that I can leave. It is enough that I feel that somebody can leave to make me pa- -- more patient, because even those who stay at home, you see, are relieved of their pressures to a certain extent when their next of kin can get a visa and come to this country.

So if you allow 240,000 people in all -- or Europe to leave, that takes the pressure off from 10 million people, of course, and not just from the 240,000. And the 10 million then -- gain some understanding of the worth of peace between the United States and Europe.

But what did I get as an answer, in 1945, to my great dismay? These -- the economist of this college, allegedly a Christian, pious man, everything you want -- they're all pious nowadays -- he said, "Nothing doing. Standard of living. You can only do this if you stan- -- lower the standard of living in the United States," which I do not believe for a minute, but it was just -- you see, he thought -- what I'm trying to say is this: he thought that by mentioning the standard of living, he could shut my mouth forever.

That I mean by the temple, you see, and by the dogma, by the idol. If you can use an argument without further discussion, not in its relative value, but at the absolute answer, then you know that you have met an i- -- with an idol. And the standard of living in this country is an idol, because you cannot even mention it as relative, you see, as not meaning much. It is so absolute that all votes, all elections, everything is based on the assumption that the only point of agreement between Americans is the standard of living. And it is, because we all differ in this country as to the aims and ends of life, the goal of life. And so the only way in which politics are kept going is that we can agree on the means of life.

And that's the standard of living. The means.

As you know, we are overeating at the rate of eating three times as much as the ordinary man in other parts of the world: 3,400 -- calories. Now the doctors say 1800 is enough, and most people get by for -- with 900 and 1200. But you eat 3,400 as an average.

Only to show you that the standard of living has become an end in itself. To come back to my story of Copenhagen. I haven't finished yet. It's a Danish story, and it's quite important. This man has been appointed. And since I brought him to this happiness -- first sending him to Denmark and then mee- -- making the -- this foolish move that he should be appointed American representative of the NATO council, I got of course a payoff by a letter of thanks on his part. He was very enthusiastic, and he was appointed the secretary for preparing a cultural center for NATO. A cultural center -- there you have again this plague on both your houses: culture. And cultural center. And I read the prospectus and he hand- -- sent it to me for criticism. There's not one word of the purpose, not word -- one word of the difficulties, but there's only: "This is the place in which we shall all unite," this cultural center, "and in which all the good endeavors of the world will come to prosperity." There nev- -- will never be nothing ever, because he has just this frame of reference -- cultural center -- and he has not even begun to dream of -- of some violet or some forget-me-not which he could plant there.

Now, all things in life, you see, do not begin with cultural centers. Sond- -- they begin with one musician writing one tune, or one poet writing one poem -- but a complete poem, a poem on somebody distinct from others. You can't write poetry in general on the universe. It's no poetry. And so the -- he's liv- -- just living in this soap bubble, and of course it will remain a soap bubble -- all the NATO people in New York, and he in Copenhagen will shake hands and say what wonderful fellows they are, both. They are, if you abstract from the ugliness of their brain. This cultural center idea is just ugly, because it is not an embrace of anything real. It's an abstract idea. It's perfectly futile. I'm ashamed of myself. I had to laugh, because the man in New York, whom I had influenced enough upon to prevail that he could send the other man is not -- equal -- equally definitely a fool. And so I brought two fools together and they feel very good about it.

If you think of my poor friend in Paris, or near Paris -- in the country there -- and this well-placed individual in Copenhagen, if you think of the potential of being in the center of things, so to speak, in the know of the NATO organization and being able to pull off this stunt with a paper, a tremendous plan on paper of a cultural center -- when the man cannot even -- has never even known what

culture is, just a big word -- and when I see how this other man has really gotten immersed into the spirit of some great souls of 19th- and 20th-century France, and is feeling that they are the spread, the condiment, the spice, which this country in its anemia needs, then I -- you -- I see what it means really to {face} the future, gentlemen, you see, and to have the proper sequence of ends and means, or have the wrong one. Cultural center is just a means, obviously, you see, if you know what it -- what you can put into it.

Now, this -- I know both people so well that I can say this not with conviction only, but knowledge. The poor boy, {Phillip}, in -- in Copenhagen doesn't know anything of what he could put into the center. He could put in leather bindings, you see, with gold imprint. Would look good, you see. But he wouldn't know what he should put in to -- between the two covers of this book, let alone what he should put in between 8 and 9, when he has a cultural lecture, you see, in the cultural center going, about the culture of the world in the West, and in the East, and in the North, and in the South, and with the {Wales}. It is just ridiculous. And most of the things you read about in the paper are just as ridiculous as the Ford Foundation. Money, money, money, money, you see.

I told you the story of genius in Germany, did I? When they came to me and said what -- some rich Americans with many millions behind them came to me in -- in -- 25 years ago, and said, "We have heard that you have such a fine group of boys working with you, would you tell us what we can do to cultivate genius? In our country, in America, we seem to -- to kill off all genius. We are all so standardized." Means always are standardized, you see. Mass production. "So we feel the obligation to save genius in the world at large. And we want to help you. Please tell us how to save genius in Germany, because it seems to be the only original country left."

And they were very nice people, but they had this same starry-eyed look, you see, gazing into the future in general, just in general. It was -- would be just the same as if you would try to procreate the human race in general. You can only procreate it in particular.

Well, you know, what -- it was very simple for me to tell them what they should do. I said, "Gentlemen, if you want to help genius in Germany, you would oblige me greatly if you would take a ticket and depart. It's the only way in which we can save genius, by saving it from the contamination with your money."

Later on, when this genius has established its -- its ends -- his ends, you can help these people, you see. But you can never begin by digging out the roots of this genius, by shaking his -- his peace of mind and his quiet growth by giving

him money, you see. He -- after he has been -- become sure of his end and already, you see, suffered from the ignominy of the resistance of the world, then some understanding, sympathetic, rich foundation can very well come to the rescue of such a person and try to break down the resistance. But before he isn't attacked, before he isn't growing, before he isn't trying to explode out of the darkness of his brain and grow through the wall of stone which indifference heaps upo- -- over every soul that wants to see the light, you can't do it. If you go down into the coffin and take this -- this soul that is trying to burst up -- open, you see, the soil, you just uproot it. You just uproot it. There's nothing you can do.

Well, what -- why did I say this? I wanted to show you that {Lawrence} book is one of the most important books with regard to our problem, because it is an historical book, because in history we will -- to learn -- have to learn that prophecy and vision always precede realization. Nothing can become historical that remains accident. In accidental events, the means come before the ends. In historical events, the ends constitute the means. You believe that opportunity given, you can do anything. No ripeness is all, or readiness is all, Hamlet says, doesn't he? Does Hamlet say, "Readiness all"? or -- there is -- two sayings -- in Shakespeare, equally important. One is "Readiness is all," and another is "Ripeness is all." You cannot, because we are creatures of God, you see, overturn the sequence of creating your ends, and then carrying out these ends by all means. All means, you see, come after the ends.

Therefore, gentlemen, the people who are in a hurry, the careerists, the men, the so-called success-story boys, are men who carry out ends that are already constituted by others. If to be rich is in itself an end, then you inherit this idea from others, 150 years ago, and you carry out, then your success story is only, you see, that you find the means of carrying out a goal that everybody seems to believe in, as important, as good. If you however find that you should have a new end to be created into people, as the monks did, or the saints did, or the seers did, or the poets did, or the nuclear physicists -- that there should be physicists, which in the 16th century were burned as witches, you see, which you couldn't be without endangering your life, after you have constituted the new aim of being a physicist, you see, then others can come and become physicists and building laboratories. But the first hundred years, man had first to be quite sure that it was a good end of becoming a physicist.

This is not so far afield as you think. You think all the ends are found, and you only have now to find the means. That's not true. A famous -- who is -- has studied a little chemistry? Who has taken courses in chemistry? Only that many? All the others buy perfume? No, chemistry may be -- smell badly, but it's a very interesting study. The most famous chemist of the -- of the 19th century has been

Kekule von Stradonitz, because he made the distinction between organic and anorganic chemistry on which your own course of studies is based. He found out that or- - in organic chemistry, there is this hexagon, you see, between carbon and what is the other? What?

(Oxygen.)

Oxygen, yes. C6, you see, and O6. Wie?

(Oxygen, hydrogen, { }.)

Well, {with alcohol}, it's always CH.

{ }.

CH. Hydrogen and carbon. Well. He was not allowed to become a chemist in his youth, gentlemen. His father said there is no such thing as chemist- -- this was at that moment thought of like a -- a -- you think of a barber. No profession for a decent boy. His father was a learned man. And he said, "You can become an architect. Of this I'll -- that's a vocation. You cannot become a chemist. That's just ridiculous. That's like becoming a cook. I don't want you to do this."

So the -- he was first an architect, and then he finally went to Belgium out of Germany, and in Belgium he managed to become a chemist just the same, against his father's will. And his great discovery was made because, in his vision of the future of chemistry, he saw -- had suddenly an architectural vision. The two years of his architectural studies served him right, because he suddenly saw flapping doors, opening and shutting, as it is with CO6, if you think of the {ring}.

Did it come out right? One, two, three, four. I need -- oh, pardon me. This -- this -- this is wrong. So. I am not a chemist. This is meant to be a hexagon.

Now if you -- he saw that this would be like flapping doors, he thought that every one of these sides could open and receive another element in chemistry, you see, instead of having the C attach next to the H, you see, and O, of a -- an S could take their place; and you get all the variety in organic chemistry, you see, by what he had as a vision, it is not necessary now to use it, you and me. Flapping doors opening up between these -- this -- in this hexagon and allowing something else to enter and to substitute one of the corners of this strange, architectural temple.

What I'm driving at is, that he found from the old means, he had still

learned the architectural means, you see, his way to his destination, becoming a chemist. There you can see how an old scaffold of old forms, you see, has to be made subservient to a new end, and then can bear fruit, you see. But it was a very painful process, because he had to break from his father. He had to leave his own country, you see, and -- and so on and so forth. But still, by having this deeper vision, you see, of a new future, he took with him, so to speak, the equipment as to means, you see, and translated these means into a new realm of vision, and everybody in organic chemistry to this day learns about the hexagon in the way Kekule von Stradonitz has taught it.

I -- you want me to make a break now?

(No. { }.)

And so back then to {Lawrence}, and you see immediately that this has quite a bit to do with our main topic. Mr. {Lawrence} also is not a means to an end. He's an example. Mr. {Lawrence} you must read, not just because -- for what he says about America. But because of this historical event, you may say that he is the first European who came to this country and remained a European. He is not traveling for six weeks and then writing a book on America. And he is not immigrating, as I have tried to do, trying to become an American. But {Lawrence} is -- has tried to stitch together America and Europe and to find a place for both of them, you see, by embracing America very seriously, most seriously { }. So he is himself in history and though we make the acquaintance through {Lawrence} with that which means history, gentlemen, history means always the change of boundaries. America and Europe are not the same after {British} has written this book on classical American literature, you see. There is a new tie between the two parts of the globe. Well, we'll see this later.

Now, back to our distribution. Who is interested in -- in the first two centuries?

[tape interruption]

... philosophy and religion. The Church has always tried to organize its thinking around the death of people. It begins with the Crucifixion, after all. And therefore the death of people is meaningful to them. They speak of last judgment, and they speak of the other world, and of the Heaven and such things -- only another expression of saying that death, the way you die, or the way you have completed your life is more important, you see, than what you have thought during. Then the philosophers, however, are sold on the opinions of people, what they think.

A friend of mine gave a course in biography, and he wanted to know what the men thought about {woman}, and what he thought about {God}. But you never find a great man this way, because we think very many foolish things during our lives. If you think that this makes a man what { } taught. Well, he was so hypped on philosophy that he thought a man's principles, a man's theory, a man's system of thought was indication, you see, of the man's value. That's the other way of looking at things.

So we have so far divided history into the -- history of opinions of people -- philosophers, poets, you see, thinkers on one-hand side, or about their saintliness, their -- their counting in -- in Heaven, like -- like St. Francis, or the Apostles, or the evangelists, or Mother -- what's the new -- American saint?

(Mother {Blour}.)

Mother --?

({Blour}. Cabrini.)

That's not her name.

(Cabrini?)

(The American saint.)

Wie?

(Cabrini?)

Cabrini. Yes, you said Cabrini? {Bain}, you said Cabrini?

(No, I was -- I was joking, I guess. Mother {Blour}; she was -- was something entirely different.)

Well, you could have said "Alice in Wonderland."

And what I tried to show you is that we need a new method which integrates these two ways, the secular and the religious. At this moment, I said I was interested to look into the dovetail, where a man changes his mind, or where a nation changes its mind, and therefore it has to keep this freedom to go from one ment- -- state of mind to another state of mind. And that is, to a certain extent, dying and -- rising again. You die to your one mentality and come into another. And we -- I wanted to shell you -- show you, that in a case of the Jameses, that

there has been lived something that really is new, unutilized, unknown, unobserved. The poor people, William and Henry James, have been still treated as though they were thinkers: one a theologian, and the other a philosopher; one a religious man, and the other a scientific man. And they have been treated as though they were two entities by themselves.

And you -- what I -- shall try to do is to show you that they represent a unity, because they didn't think {alike}. Now that is a new method, to say that people belong to each other, because they have nothing to do with each other, so to speak, on the surface of things.

I want to give you an example of the problem. When Bernard Shaw met the two Jameses, William and Henry the novelist, the son of the old -- the senior -- in England, he always tried to give -- put people ill at ease and {put them out}, and he said to them, "Oh, you people think that you are important people -- one in philosophy, and one in literature. I tell you. I know better. The only redeeming fellow in the family is your father. He is an important man."

And the two sons unanimously said, "But you are absolutely right. Our father is much more a genius than we are."

And he was completely put out, because he thought he had, so to speak, you see, he could make them blush and embarrass them. They were the great worshipers of their father. And they said, "He is much more important than we. Yes, of course, he is the genius in the family."

You must take down these sentences as they come now to me in this narrative, because before systematizing them, I think it is worthwhile to see these glimpses of life that other people have had of the true relation within the Adams -- the James family. The second such thing I may say is that William James said, "My father has been a religious genius if ever there was one." That's a very strong statement: "My father has been a religious genius if ever there was one."

And the same James son -- James, Jr., William James -- has given a definition of religion which proves that he has no idea what religion even is. He knew what relig- -- by what religion is only from a respect for his father. And I assure you, we'll go into this perhaps at the end of the course. I don't wish to go into the material side of his teachings at all at this moment. Not to confuse you. He had no idea what religion was. And it's all childish what you read in William James about religion. And his father knew it. And in his letter, which I recommended to your attention, he says that much, you see: "You just don't know what it is". Now, even though you have not understood the letter verbatim, we'll come to that later again, you see, { } that the father says, "My dear son," you see, "you

have never stood in this situation, and therefore you -- you just don't understand what I'm talking about."

You -- remember the letter? Who has read the letter in the meantime? That's still too few. Gentlemen, I demand from every one of you that he has read this letter on -- in Volume 2, Page 707 of the Ralph Barton Perry.

(The library { }.)

Well, that's your fault. I gave it to you, didn't I?

(What?)

Why did you give it back? You -- you should have kept it on and to have it circulated. That's why I took it out. The naive egotism of your reading the letter and then giving the book back. You did it -- gave it to one else, who -- to who --?

(No, I've { } the volume, Sir.)

(I didn't do it.)

Well then, how can you manage to have them so long?

(They have --)

Volume 2.

(I've read it once, and I still can't understand it.)

But you have no right to keep the volume. You must make it accessible to your fellow -- fellow students.

(I guess I { } turned it in, but { }.)

Well, that's just ridiculous. That's not why I gave this man this book, so that you can sit on it.

(Oh, I { } book, I { }. { } two of them.)

But still we are 16 people here, and they all have to read it.

(Well, he said that he passed it around there and then turned it back in.

That's what he said last week, I thought. { })

But he hasn't passed it on to you?

(No. No, Sir. I have another one { }.)

From the library card.

(Yes, Sir.)

But from the reserve desk.

(No, Sir. See, I went into the stack.)

Well, I would ask --

({ }. They don't have it on reserve.)

No. At this moment, I will -- we will not go into it. I thought about this. We will not at this juncture go into the literary interpretation of the letter word by word. But I only want to state that the father felt that William James didn't know anything about religion, and I'm -- you may also take it from me that William James thought that his father knew nothing of philosophy or of science.

(William James or Henry James?)

It's always Henry James, Sr., the father, you see, the -- it's very important for you to understand the pedigree of his family. We are dealing with the spiritual side of families.

Gentlemen, at this moment, in the world of ours, there is nothing as a carrier and bearer of spiritual truth left but the family. The family, however, has been reduced to something material and physical. Who thinks that the Holy Ghost is {vested} only now in house parties? According to your fraternity life, it isn't. The -- that is to say, Church, and state, and factories, and offices, and diplomacies, and armies have grown too big that there can be no spirit in them, you see. They are too gigantic. So we are -- why do I offer you the problem of Henry James, Sr., and his family? Because he -- we will see in a minute -- has made of the family the organism, the form which in former days, cities, communities, factories -- houses of economic production, households, could ha- -- or churches could have, or monasteries -- we have nothing left in this country as a white hope except the spiritual relations between members of one family. Now you understand right. You can be a man's sister, brother, and parent or son

without blood relations, if you see what this relation would have to be in a spiritual sense. You can adopt a child, for example, can you not? And then you have a spiritual family without the blood ties.

Now in this country, and all over the world at this moment in the West, there is a complete decline of vital spiritual forms of fellowship, liv- -- people living together. If I go to my church, there is no fellowship. There is a semblance of a fellowship. The only thong they would not say is the truth in the church, because you can say the truth in the abstract sense, that we should help the Chinese, or we -- the Chinese should help the Russians. Should all be charitable. But if it comes to neighbors, the only thing you can do in a church is to be silent, because otherwise you give offense. We cannot speak the truth about our inner, real life and our problems in marriage and in the family in any church of the United States today. It's too dangerous, too explosive. But you still can between friends.

And I shall call at this moment the situation of father and son in the James family an example of spiritual life, because where -- you -- can have life only between people of the spirit. "Spirit" means the common breath of people. Spiritual life therefore -- for -- can never exist in one man. Oh, no. It cannot.

That is the -- therefore completely in eclipse in your textbooks. They don't know what spirit is. They deny it even, and then they describe in sociology the family as a bundle of people who don't fit together, which is perfectly true, because without a spiritual life, and without common religion, and common worship, and common aims, such a family is bound to be ridiculous, and to get on each other's nerves. "My family always cramps my style," a young girl said to me, you see. "My family always cramps my style. I'm much better off alone, because then I -- I'm not a Cinderella, but I -- I -- coming out in full force. And I can represent the world family when they are absent." That's one condition. They must be away. And families on the surface of things, if they are only { }, are absolutely funny. And they are impenetrable to others, too, I mean, just as a nation is. I mean, you come into America, or come to France, it is as a great man has said, "All nations in themselves are abominations," because for the foreigner they do not offer a spiritual experience, you see. They -- just as they are.

And that's not good enough for people, you see. Flowers and stones can be as they are. You and I have always to be willing to be different from what we have been. We have to be changeable, you see, because a man is a man as long as he can change his mind. Befo- -- otherwise he is just an animal.

Now unfortunately the nations of this earth are all just -- can be described in very simple terms. Because they are just what they are, they only want to be

what they are. So they are so boring, and so the only way of bringing them together is the hydrogen bomb. We will do from fear what we don't do from inspiration.

Spirit, gentlemen, is breathing together of different people. That is what spirit is. And if a man is inspired, that -- the meaning of "inspiration" is that it -- he's -- he's able to impart to others a new spirit. But it must go out, or he's choked. There have been people whose inspiration has been throttled, and they died in the process, you see. You can -- spirit means the founding of groups. Now, the question of -- is today is there any inspiring group left in this country, or in the world -- or the Western world, despite industry, despite the stock exchange, despite the press, despite the radio, or it is all just commentators? Is it all just -- just fiction? Is it all just veneer? You cannot believe any man who appears on television. He smiles because he's paid for it. He'll smile at any circumstance, whether you are a rat or not.

Now, I want to make -- see myself treated with distinction. That is, I want to know whether this man smiles at me, or whether he smiles because he was paid for it. I'm not interested in paid smiles. Well, we have male whores in this country by the millions, people who are really able to smile, because they are paid for it. All the radio people are this way. All the actors are, you see.

You know the story of the clown who comes to the psychiatrist and says, "I'm -- in such a depressed mood, and I'm just -- I want to weep inside of me all the time, and I feel that I have a breakdown. What can I do? Can you cure me, doctor?"

"Oh," he said, "Yes. Tonight, you just go to the -- to the this show. It's so funny, you see. You laugh your head off."

He said, "I'm the man who makes the other people laugh."

That's, by and large, the state of affairs in this country, that you cannot distinguish when a spirit is genuine, and when it's just put on. Most of it, you can -- you pay a man a thousand dollars, he'll stand on his head. Instead of paying a man a thousand dollars because he stands from mere exuberance on his head, you see. So he has no exuberance anymore. He has just a thousand dollars. And what do I care for a man standing on his head without exuberance? But if a man is so enthusiastic he stands on his had, I do anything to see him, you see. I might even be willing to pay him a thousand dollars in gratitude. But he first must produce spontaneously, and not because he's paid. Can you see again the confusion between ends and means? Can you see this, that the whole country is sick, because everything can be paid for, and then you have it? But you don't

have it. You don't have it. Nothing you can pay for you can ever have. You can only consume it. That's a con- -- on the consumption side, you see. But the good things of life, you see, are inconsumptible, because they cannot be bought. They are always there. They are there forever. We call this "eternity," or "everlasting."

Now this is the problem of the family, gentlemen. If the family is spiritual, then it is everlasting. Then it doesn't depend on -- on physical -- procreation. Then it must -- then it is the cell in which life of the -- is restored between the members of the human race. And the Jameses, gentlemen, did not understand very much of what the other fellow was talking about, and yet they inspired each other. It's a very strange story.

So I gave you some anecdotes. I said Shaw was put out because the sons said, "The father is important. We are not." The father says, "My son doesn't even know what religion is." The son says, "My father is a religious genius if ever there was one," but as you also know, he wrote a book, Varieties of Religious Experience, and he put his father down as an oddity. He's just one religious genius. And there are many other types. And that again, means that William James canceled out, so to speak, the real achievement of his father.

We go on from there and we say that William James, son, writes a letter to his wife when his father is dead and said, "The rest of my life I must devote to save the remnants of my father's spirit. I feel that it has come to me as I cannot rest the case with his death. I must go on." And he published then in fact the literary remains of Henry James in 1884, two years after the father's death, and far from being satisfied with this achievement, it has been on his mind for the rest of his life. There's more to it, gentlemen.

William James had two brothers who went to the Civil War. And both were ruined morally, and physically, and financially in this experience, as veterans. They didn't -- were not killed, but as you know, it might be much worse not to be killed in a war, but to come back with a frozen heart or a frozen foot, and to be a cripple. And it has always weighed very heavily on William James' mind, and I -- you will take this down. The two brother Jameses were always present in William James' thinking, and he always tried to represent their problems as war veterans in his own thinking. And he did this by finally writing "The Moral Equivalent of War." And this amounts to a declaration, so to speak, of equality with his brothers. He says, "Since my brothers ..." he doesn't say it in so many words, but I feel this out of his behavior, "... since my brothers were ruined by the Civil War, I must be willing to suffer in peacetime as much as they did in wartime, or I'm not their brother. The brotherhood of man consists in my being willing to suffer voluntarily what others have been compelled to suffer without being asked," so to speak.

Gentlemen, that's -- is the decisive problem of your philosophy. If you begin from what you want, what you desire, what kind of world you would like to love -- live in, you start on your own as a foot of yourself. If you look around and see what people have done for you, you stand on the other foot and try to find your own place in life by measuring up to their sacrifices, you see. It's an absolutely different problem which you put, you see, because you do not begin with what you want, you see, but with what other people have done so that you are. And from there you get a completely different yardstick. And I assure you, you never end up with the standard of living, which you must have, because all the people whom we owe our existence, just had no standard of living, you see. They were all starved, and destitute, moving from Egypt to the desert and into the promised land, without honey and milk for a long time to come. And yet, we owe them our liberty and our existence. And if you begin this way to looking at things, you know that your only problems are ends, and not means. It's utterly ridiculous and indifferent to talk about means, except when you are a careerist and want to elected governor of New Hampshire, or of the United States by the way.

What time is it?

(10 of. 10 of 3:00.)

Well, I have not finished my task -- by a long shot about the Jameses { }.