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

(May 11th, 1949, Philosophy 10.) the impact of the new sciences. In this preparatory period, they close themselves to the impact of the new sciences.

(Did you say the universities { }...)

The -- universities mu- -- what -- which I have called universities. The academy and university, from 1500 to 1600, are in conflict. Academy and university from 1500 to 1600 are in conflict. Universities at that time are places for teaching. Academies don't teach. They are groups of adults, either in literature or in research.

To this day, the term "academy" in Europe does not imply teaching. Example: Paracelsus lives from 1493 to 1541. He's expelled from the university and lives as a migratory explorer for another 15 years. That's the example, gentlemen. It's a very -- you see, his life is so great, because in the life of the greatest man, the life itself is law. That is, if you read Newman's life--as one of you told me, "You have learned the ten commandments of education out of Newman's life." Of course I have. The life of Jesus is a standard of life. The life of the Church is a standard for political development, you see. The life of Newman is it- -- is it- -- itself a fountain of teaching us. We don't -- we don't sit -- can't sit in judgment over a life really lived; the empirical life is much more demonstrative than what we think about life.

Now the same is true in Paracelsus' case, gentlemen. Fifteen years of errancy -- 15 years of errancy; 40 years of waiting after his death; his works published in 1586; 1610, he enters the university. How was it done? His -- .

({ }.)

1586. It's a tremendous story of tragedy and suffering. Forty years of faithful waiting of his friends and searching for his manuscripts went by until his great -- the great edition of his works appeared, in 1586. And then he only existed -- people couldn't read what he had printed, you see. It was all scattered, or it was suppressed. You have read this in my pamphlet how he was treated. In 1610, he entered the universities in the person of van Helmont. The -- to this day, the -- the textbooks give the -- the honor to Helmont, which is due to Paracelsus. Van Helmont is the first professor to quote Paracelsus from the chair. Van Helmont -- L- -- H-e-l-m-o-n-t. And he's the first to decline the oath on the books of Galenus, the old classical doctor. He's the first to decline to take the oath in the --. In other words, he's the first who shakes off the medieval yoke of authority in medicine, as against experience.

Now you see how you take an oath on the Constitution any day it is asked you, whether you are willing to observe it or not. In -- in the state of -- in D.C., in the District of Columbia, the Congress has passed a very poor law. An employee of the federal government is there required to take an oath of the Constitution every first of the month when he draws a salary. Now that's just inviting perjury. And it is of course -- there is nothing more blasphemous than to ask a man to take an oath whenever he -- a loyalty oath to the Constitution of the United States every month.

Chil- -- not chil- -- childish, gentlemen, but childishness in serious affairs begets of course destruction. It's one of these nihilistic moods in which the country finds itself, you see. If you -- if you start shooting with heavy guns at -- at mosquitoes, you see, you get atomic warfare. -- There is very little left of the spirit of a country. And this law of the Congress is one of the most pernicious, nefarious measures. Was passed during the war, I -- as far as I know. An employee of the federal government has to take an oath every month. And nobody protests. These employees do it. This is the shameful thing, in their fear.

It took the doctors of all Europe so long, gentlemen, to say in 1610 -- -10, in the person of one single, heroic man, "No, this oath"--of a doctor of the Middle Ages, that -- "I will read the books of Galenus," you see--"shall not bind me." The simplest things, you see, gentlemen, are very often delayed beyond belief. Paracelsus was the first professor to teach German, and it cost him his office. Helmont, his grandson, so to speak, was the first man to decline the oath. And they had to accept him as a professor just the same. They -- they did. He broke the precedent. That's 1610. That's the fulfillment of Paracelsus' postulate, you see, that experience comes before classical tradition. Research before literature -- { } before letters. That's new. Can you see the reversal of the order, you see? Before, letters came before research, you see. And with Helmont, the university accepted this, and he -- is therefore Paracelsus entering the university.

Now you see, 120 years. Gentlemen, 120 years is an important period. It's always four generations, four times 30 years. Each time you find that, after 120 years, a new, great start is made in the human -- by the human soul. You get the French Revolution in 1789, and you get the World War, 1914; 120 years. A hundred and twenty years through all of history is an important period. I -- in 120 years, the memory of one state of affairs goes, and people are then ready to -- you see, to make -- give it a new start. This story of Paracelsus is a tremendous story, because the early death of a man--he dies in his 48th year, because he uses mercury in his experiments, and obviously that has killed him. You see, nobody -- or lead. Something of this kind of poisoning must have happened to him. And so he dies.

The curve of his life, gentlemen, goes on just untouched. If he had lived to 90, as Cardinal Newman, they might have crowned him, you see. But he dies at 48; that doesn't mean that his -- the start of his beginning hasn't to be pursued. The works appear not before and not later than 1586, you see. And that's by and large 90 year- -- after 90 years, you see; the same way in which, so to speak, Newman reached his performance. You cannot alter the workings of the spirit. That's a very lawful order. Whether a man dies young or a man dies old, gentlemen, if he is in the grace of God, the efficiency, the fruit of his work takes the same amount of seed, and growth, and tillage, and weeding, and harvest in one case or the other. And if you know this, gentlemen, you -- your peace of mind may grow. That's why a soldier who dies in battle has not died in vain. You don't believe it, gentlemen, but this is much truer than your own lives, which are wasted so often. If you don't invest by an act of faith in the history of your country, you will not bear fruit, and -- if you become 150 years old. But a soldier who dies for a good cause, he will bear fruit after 30 years, or after 50 years, because he has a -- there is a real action.

This you can learn from this life of Paracelsus, gentlemen. He dies in exile, persecuted, forgotten. Nobody even knows what he has written, because he couldn't print it, you see. It was all hidden and persecuted. In 1541, he has just disappeared. And in 1586, he is back. And in 1610, he is there in the place of his -- which had expelled him, in the university. From 18- -- 1610, gentlemen, to 1780, the universities get ready to embrace research. And--oh, by -- I -- shall say -- by 1800--and by 1800, the universities establish their first laboratories. In the laboratory, the academ- -- the academy and the university are reconciled. You can see this. The academy did not begin with a laboratory, but with correspondence of travelers. In the laboratory you have a compromise: a local place, but experiments, you see, and research going on.

So it's a very wonderful story, gentlemen: from -- till 1600, complete enmity between the teaching school and the place of research and correspondence. Can you see this now? Somebody here asked about the relation of academies and universities, and you were doubtful. Here, wasn't it you? Who was it? Somebody here. { }. Well, is it -- { }, yes.

Well, you see it now. University and academy have nothing to do till 1600. Then Mr. Helmont comes, and the university listens to research, but doesn't do any research itself. They don't organize it. In 1800, the universities begin to appropriate laboratories. The colleges only follow in the end -- at the end of the 19th century. Dartmouth College had a so-called "philosophical apparatus" instead of laboratory, down to 1890. President Tucker is -- was the first man to build a laboratory in this college. Now you think a college consists of laboratories. It's only 50 years old -- 50 years old. Fifty years is nothing in the history of the mind. That's a very short story. It's very belated, gentlemen, that the American college has laboratories. The university has it a hundred years longer. The academy has it a hundred years before, again, you see. And before, the founders had their little workshops, you see. The academies didn't have it.

So gentlemen, you can put it this way: Paracelsus has a laboratory; the Royal Society has a laboratory, which was founded in 1665 only, you see; after 1800, universities have laboratories; and after 1900, colleges and prep schools get laboratories. So the laboratory goes from founder, you see, to scientific institution, to university, and finally down to commonplace. And today every man has a workshop and a laboratory in his own home.

So you have in the form of the modern research room, what we call "laboratory," you see, you have again the history from idea to commonplace. First phase, one man dares to have a laboratory. Second phase, scientific institutions of research have laboratories. Third phase, universities have laboratories, you see, educational institutions. And fourth phase, everybody has a -- can have a laboratory. See it?

Now let's stop here in the survey of the academies in their growth. The next chapter, gentlemen, deals with the means by which the sciences are developed in the Middle Ages and in modern times. So perhaps -- let me make a -- one remark as an appendix to the academic survey. The next form of research will be neither laboratory nor the chapel in -- of the Middle Ages, or where the monks who -- concord and make peace. It will probably be camps. We today are preparing the next form of research in the social sciences. That will be not done in laboratory. If you have a -- today sociological laboratories, that's the confusion of methods. That's an attempt to -- to investigate society with natural methods. You can't do that. The camping institutions, camps of all kinds--work camps, service camps, exploration camps--are places where you can study human nature. I only hint at this to show you that the academies and the laboratories are certainly not the last form of scientific development. Each period, gentlemen--the theological period, the academic period, and the future social period--will have their own means.

Now comes the second, this next chapter. In the Middle Ages, concording is the higher form of logic. And on logic and concording, the whole order of thought is proceeding. The process of the Middle Ages is logic on the lower level, and concording on the higher level. Concording is done where two logical arguments clash. We said -- the concording is done where two minds think differently, but in unity of heart overcome their discord.

The method of the Middle Ages then is a higher logic, which today is completely forgotten. You always talk of logic, but the Middle Ages knew already that mere logic is nonsense, valueless; it's for children. Syllogisms. You can't prove anything in -- between real people by mere logic. Nobody believes you. You know everybody rationalizes. Logic is -- is a harlot, sells out to anybody. But higher logic, gentlemen, is the medieval principle of dialectical concording.

In contrast, the academic progress moves on two levels: of arithmetic and geometry at the lower level, and higher mathematics on the upper. Higher mathematics is algebra and calculus. The difference between geometry and -- between arithmetic and higher mathematics is the introduction of the term "infinity," and "zero." Mere arithmetic doesn't know what minus-3 is. It doesn't know what an -- what an imaginary figure is. It doesn't know what infinity is. But -- the multiplication table knows nothing. Lower -- there is in mathematics a distinct necessity for you to distinguish between higher mathematics and simple arithmetic. These are two worlds. Higher mathematics didn't exist in Europe before 1500. Higher mathematics is the creation of the last 400 years. That's always forgotten by you. There didn't -- didn't exist this higher mathematics. And higher mathematics depends on the introduction of zero and infinity as new determinants for the proceedings, you see. You can read today -- count down from zero, as you know--with minus, you see--as much as we count up. They couldn't do this before 1500. They didn't, at least. And then we have the infinity, which allows us calculus, which is called the computation of infinitesimal, small things, you see. "Infinitesimal" means, you see, to -- recognize the concept of infinity.

The future, gentlemen, will also have two sciences. Grammar and higher grammar, which I call--and perhaps may be called in the future, we can't decide this, yet--liturgical thinking. Liturgical thinking. Grammar or higher -- and higher grammar.

So we have logic and concording. We have arithmetic and mathematics, or higher mathematics. We have grammar and lit- -- liturgical thinking, in -- put in parenthesis, higher grammar.

Now gentlemen, this course is an example in higher grammar. What you have learned is that a man is a child, an artist. He is a man and a fighter. And he is an elder, a -- a priest. Now gentlemen, in the first phase, he is a "thou," because his parents, and his teachers, and the world create him. They allow him to play. He is entrusted to others. He listens. Now "I listen, because you tell me to listen to me": "Listen." He is "thou." As a fighter, he's "I." And as a priest, he's "we." And that's grammar.

And so my praise is not wanton at all. Higher grammar takes man in his own declination, in his own conjugation through the various persons. You are alternatingly "thou" and "I." At this moment, when you can't listen to me, you are "thou," because you listen. And I can fill your ear. If you -- give me an answer or if you ask me a question, you become "I." And in this freedom, our humanity rests. If we cannot alternate, if any one of you tries to be either "thou," he remains childish or "I"; he goes insane. In all the insane asylums, you find people who have lost their capacity of turning into "we" and "thou." They are all fix- -- have a fixation, that they always must say "I." And therefore they no longer can adjust themselves to their -- the way they appear to other people.

So -- only to show you in a short way that higher grammar is as real as higher mathematics. If you look at all the life stories which I have given you, I have tried to show you that although John Quincy Adams was president, he still appeared to the other people as "thou," a member of the -- of the Adams clan, a child of the family. And only when he became congressman, you see, was he "I," "Honest John Quincy." Before, he thought -- thought he was "I," but they didn't take him as { }; they couldn't { }.

So gentlemen, liturgical -- liturgy or higher grammar is the science of the future. And it will take 3- or 400 years to get it as highly developed as modern mathematics.

( -- Excuse me. Won't it, when you reached the "we," won't there be a -- a relationship between the process by which you reach that and the -- { } process { }.)

Well, let me embrace you. Certainly. Wonderful. All these things. I try to show you that in every one sentence all the three sciences are really connected. Just allow me now to go into this. {But} you have understood it {fully}. { }.

A scientist who says, "This is true," of course, believes in God, you see, because the truth is divine. So there also is a scholastic element in an academic subject, you see. You can't get out of this. Any one statement, I remember -- I told you, is a question of your conscience, because you don't wish to lie; it's a question of your consciousness, because we say, "This is brown," you see; that -- and this is a -- it's a -- question of your self-consciousness, because if you are shy, you won't say it. So the power to make any statement always in- -- you see, comprehends a theological aspect, which is your relation to the truth. A material aspect, which is the content of your sentence, you see, the statement which you have before your consciousness. You see, this is a brown chair, ja? And your power to speak to me at all, to make the statement, is a social {aspect}. Ja? That's in society, because somebody prods you, and you say it. Or you are silent. You don't have the power to speak.

So you see, in this one sentence, "The chair is -- is brown," you have -- you are one-third a theologian, one-third a scientist, and one-third a -- social --.

(By telling you that.)

By telling me that. Or by writing it, or by printing it, or by teaching it, you see, or by learning it. However, in the sentence, "The chair is brown," our interest is -- completely concentrated on the material aspect. We would -- you s- -- it's called, a s- -- you see, a sta- -- a statement of fact. So we are only interested in the fact, you see. If you wish to have a sentence which is more clearly one-sided theologically, you will say, "God does not exist," you see, because then you will provoke all the other people to praise God, you see. Certainly it will happen outside the realm of this chair, outside the realm of mere facts. But "The chair is brown" has as much religion in it, if you think it is true, you see. Then any { } only it is hidden. Most people think only, "That's a fact," that the chair is brown, you see. And they don't know that a speaker must believe his sentence to be true or he must believe it is a lie, you see. And he must also have the courage to say it.

Gentlemen, now comes the -- no, my time is up. Sorry. So next time, I wish to develop a little further the relation of logic, mathematics, and grammar.