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

(Philosophy 10, May 23rd, 1949.)

...I'm not reading this report so that we may concentrate--where is he?--so that your report may not confuse the issue.

We said that each of the cycles will have its own tool. Mathematics, I said, is super-arithmetic--remember?--because it deals with the infinite, and it needs the infinitesimal small in order to see in the things below us already inklings of the highest. If the modern biologist discovers gravity, or light, or movement in the atom, he thinks then that he can explain even the highest life by the lowest. But he can only do so by the conception of the infinitesimal small, because only in this way does he feign a connection between our movement up to higher things, and our looking down to the smallest. It's a tremendous gap between the atom and your own heart, your own feelings. And yet, the biologist tells you, "Oh, with the help of the concept of infinity can I -- am I able to bridge this gap." He loves the small and brings it into con- -- connection with everything else in our -- around us, by this one conception which changes, gentlemen, the multiplication table into mathematics. In the -- multiplication table, the conception of the infinite doesn't exist: 2 and 2 is 4; 5 times 5 is 25 -- these are all simple operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, gentlemen.

And in all these realms, as they were -- arithmetic was used before 1500, the concept of transition from the lower to the higher cannot take place, because there is no infinitesimal, you see. It is only by the concept of the infinitesimal that you can, for example, come from a point to a line, in mathematics from a line to tri- a -- to a -- to an area, and from an area to a cube, you see. An infinitesimal number of points: that would give a line, isn't it true? The transition is really not logical, gentlemen. It's a jump. The concept of the infinity -- of infinity, if you once come to think of it--you have never thought of it--is one of the boldest inventions of the human mind, because it is an attempt to deny -- mutually exclusive thoughts. A point and a line--or a -- an area and a body--have nothing in common. It's just -- one is two-dimensional, and the other is -- three-dimensional. And when you {came to life}, that's four-dimensional. Even in the context of modern mathematics, it -- also begins time, the time element, you see. The transition can only be made by the conception of infinity, with which the three dimensions, and four dimensions, and two dimensions, and one dimension, and no dimension are still put into some connection. An infinit- -- an infinite number of points would be a line, or you can define a "line" as consisting of an infinite number of --? What is a line, do you remember? It is an infinite number of points. Ja, you don't give a damn; you say that's fiction. Wie? Well, but he's refuted; he just doesn't work. That's logic, not mathematics. A mathematician, you see -- Zeno is -- was not a mathematician; that's pure logic. Logically it cannot be proven. But mathematically you figure; you go with it all the time, with the { }.

Now gentlemen, in -- in Middle Ages, we had the system of concording, as I said. And I -- the concordance of the Middle Ages is a super-logic. If you take the proposition in the Middle Ages that the soul of every person must be left free, for example, to marry, and it is logical then that the Church should take over with, and rule out, the influence of the clan. But we saw that two powers existed. The worldly power taking hold of the material side of the family; and the Church -- taking over the personal. Now in mere logic, gentlemen, the area is always too small. For example, in any political compromise, the logical position of every one party is usually perfect. But it doesn't include enough of reality, you see. Logically you can prove anything by mere logic, from your own point of view, you see. But another fellow says -- and say, "I see -- the whole thing different- -- my logic is different." Any two people have a different logic, because they see different positions from the start.

Or, gentlemen, put it this way: logic cannot prove its first proposition. It has to accept any one proposition as a starting point, and that's arbitrary, because every one of us has a different starting point. "All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal -- Socrates is a man, therefore he is mortal." It's very nice. But how about the spirit? There is obviously something in Socrates that's -- doesn't seem to have died to this day. We still mention him, you see. If mortality would include the name of Socrates and his achievement, he would be included in his -- in the deadliness. It would be included in the mortality of the man.

Now we only talk of Socrates because he's not just a man. The only reason why we still talk of -- Socrates is therefore that he is not mortal. But logically, you can't prove this. If you once start with the proposition all men are mortal, down he goes to hell. And he must be forgotten, because so many men have lived, and we don't know their name, and they don't affect us anymore.

Now you take such -- any such logical proposition. You are -- very often intoxicated by logic, gentlemen. I have never been impressed by the syllogism -- by the power of the syllogism. You take any starting point, you see; you couldn't prove anything from that. Ma- -- of course, Socrates is a man. But gentlemen, nobody is just a man. That's just it, you see. And you know it. You yourself are not just a man. There's something divine in you which is just not explained by your being a man. You are a man plus something else. What, I leave open at this moment, you see. But you can say of another man, "Oh, he's just a Pole." Well, this Pole will slap you in the face and he says, "I'm -- besides, I am a fighter. Besides, I am your enemy. Besides, I am a disturbance. Besides, I challenge you," you see. "I'm as good an American as you."

Perhaps you have read in the New Yorker, the article by Mr. {Remington}, where he is there accused before the loyalty board. Have you -- has anybody read him? Who has? Oh, how interesting. This is -- alumnus of Dartmouth College, as you know, William {Remington}. And his case has been written up last week there, his loyalty case, in the New Yorker. It's a great study in humanity, because gentlemen, William {Remington} appears before the board and is -- examined for his loyalty, and he says, "I could have swapped with any man on the board. I could have just as well doubted his loyalty. We -- I found myself in the funny position that being once accused, I am tested for my loyalty. But since the whole thing is a moral issue, any one of these men, you see, could just as well have been criticized by me for his loyalty. I might have been his judge."

I felt the same when I was investigated. Why? I just made the mistake of not attacking first, not telling that -- that they were red. I could have just, with the same reason, told everyone in this room, or anyone in the college, that they were reds as I { } say this, or perhaps with even more reason.

But gentlemen, once you are labeled, logically, under one category--never forget this--once you are labeled, that you are the accused, the logic is that you have to prove, you see, that what they say of you or tell of you is not true.

Therefore, gentlemen, logically, any accused is in great danger of being held to be guilty. Now as you know, we have as a remnant of the Middle Ages today still the super-logical principle that a man is not guilty unless so proved. In the loyalty board cases today, you know, the -- the thing has been reversed. The man has to prove that he's innocent. And that made William {Remington} say this super-logic- -- he makes this super-logical statement which is fundamental to the whole system of medieval and moral thinking, to this day, gentlemen, that although the man is already accused and suspect, you see, you have to -- not logically draw the thing to the conclusion, "Oh, he hasn't proved his innocence"; therefore the label sticks. He is -- "Oh, that's the man of whom they say he is a Communist," you see. We know today that this logic would -- lead to disaster. The label of a man, gentlemen, must never be carried to its logical conclusion.

Now it is the great achievement of the Middle Ages, and that's my topic today--to develop a super-logic--which we have called so far "concordance." And I will give to you the fundamental discovery, which is at the beginning of this wisdom.

I don't know if I have also -- -ready mentioned this. In -- in the year 11- -- in the 11th century, there was written a confession. Have I written -- told you this story? The fundamental discovery, gentlemen, by which logic was replaced by concordance was a very simple technique. In the worldly courts, gentlemen, if a judge is entrusted with a case, he is not required to say to himself that this man and he are brothers, and my chan- -- might have to change places. But in the confession -- which gave rise to the new science of theology and law in the Middle Ages, any confessor, any father...

[tape interruption] only too happy that he is not suspect. In the human society, gentlemen, among grownups--and I think it's the case with you in this college already; in this sense, you are grown up--your first reaction is: "This could have happened to me. I might find myself in the same quandary." And of course, gentlemen, if a judge has a defendant who is accused of homicide, and his first reaction is: "I might have done this myself," what will be the effect on the -- on the -- on the judgment, on the proceedings? Instead of going, gentlemen, from the outside --. Here is the defendant, gentlemen. Take this as a circle, the periphery as which the man appears to his judge. Here the judge sits. And here is the defendant. The case is built up against him, and you can't look into this man's heart. He is shielded. He is obstinate. He says nothing. So all the means of third degree are brought against him. The prosecution says, "Look how suspicious this action," and "Look how suspicious the other action." All the evidence is focused around the label, "defendant." If the man is a defendant--today in a loyalty {court}--every suspicion is at first true, as long as it isn't disproven.

Now take -- this is then the logic of the case, that since he is accused, all the evidence can be interpreted in his disfavor. What's the limitation for the judge? Look at all the modern dictatorial, autocratic countries, you see. Mr. Mindszenty is the cardinal of the Church, therefore suspicion is: first, there -- that he already is a rebel, a traitor to a Communist government. He has a hard time to disprove this.

Now gentlemen, take -- so the judge sits there and focuses on this hard shell of the case: how it logically appears. The judge says, "Well, why should the state, why should the prosecutor, why should the police have worried if this man isn't probably guilty? { } many people who are not in court. I get this one man. I look at him with the idea that he probably has done something."

If the judge, gentlemen, however, uses super-logic, he suddenly starts in a -- quite a different manner. He starts from here. If he searches his own heart and says, "How would I have behaved in this position?" you see, he suddenly works the case up from the dark chambers of his own conscience into the periphery and say, "How could it happen that I appear on the surface as the guilty one? And how can it happen to me that behind false appearances, an innocent heart is beating?"

And he will -- because he has wavered, and said, "Perhaps I'm guilty myself," also finds access to this road from the defendant to the appearance as a defendant.

The super-logic, gentlemen, of the conscience means that the man whom I am judging is inside myself. And as soon as -- you have this conscience, gentlemen, you have two starting points to judge any event in the world. You have the man as he appears from the outside. And you have the man as you identing -- identify yourself with him from the inside. And as soon as you have these two starting points, gentlemen, you have super-logic.

It is perfectly illogical that Judge {Medina} should think of Mr. {Dennis} as a brother. But to a certain extent, you and I today expect that any modern judge does this, you see. Now no ancient judge had to do this. The ancient judge had just to be shown, you see, that something was missing, and the property was found in hi- -- this man's -- in this man's house; he was the thief. And you would have to hang him. That was logical, you see.

We still speak in this sense of "evidence," that what is evident, which can be seen. You introduce Exhibit A and Exhibit B in a case, you see. These are all still pure logical proceedings. All detective stories are based on this primitive logic, you see. But a great novel, gentlemen, like Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, or -- or Raskolnikov, by Dostoevsky, what do they do, gentlemen? What is the difference between Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and a detective story?

({ }.)


(You say that you put yourself in the place --.)

That's the whole novel is written around. The whole novel is written around this difference, you see, between evidence and conscience.

So gentlemen, all super-logic introduces two points of view: one inner, one outer. Logic tells you: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal, you see. Super-logic tells you that's nonsense. It's a -- it's a negligible statement. It has no value, the statement, you see, because the question, "Why you are talking of Socrates?" obviously is not finished, you see, by this logical pro- -- proposition of -- external evidence. Socrates has moved you and me in a special way, you see. And therefore we start from the inner Socrates, who could die with a good conscience. And that becomes our question, "How can a man, you see, die voluntarily, without minding?" And then the whole question of -- of death and immortality changes completely its aspect. The whole aspect is -- in Socrates is, gentlemen, that Socrates already during his life had acquired immunity against death. Whether we live or whether we die, the Bible says, makes no difference. And that is all you can wish for in your own life, gentlemen. At this moment, if you are fully in the -- inspired, it doesn't make any difference to you whether you live or die. If you act right, at this moment, you would have to accept both solutions. Whether you are hit by a lightning at this moment, or whether you are spared, you see, that cannot alter the configuration and the meaning of your life, as far as it is given you, and granted you.

Death, gentlemen, has nothing to do with super-logic, but with logic it has, because -- death is something external. Take killing, take the act of -- of -- not of death, but of making die. There again, you can see that a man can be provoked, as a soldier, to kill a man. He can be forced to shoot at an enemy. He can have to execute, as an executor, a prisoner in the electric chair. He may have to take justice in his own hands and shoot a kidnaper who tries to kidnap his own children, you see. These acts on the outer evidence would be the same. But inside of these three men, the workings are all very different. And if you take a murderer as the first case, you see, there again somebody is slain. But would you ever mistake a man who acts in self-defense for a man who -- who murders a man in cold blood? You wouldn't.

Why, gentlemen? Only from conscience, not from evidence. A human life has been destroyed in both cases. And for the first time in the -- 1150, gentlemen, do we find the distinction between intent and between -- accident. That is, gentlemen, our distinction between murder and homicide is a creation of the Middle Ages. Only the new theology inspired the lawyers in Bologna to that extent that from then on there was made, you see, a distinction between homicide and murder. There was made a distinction, also, between burglary and petty larceny.

If you take a piece of bread from a baker's shop to feed your child, the -- medieval doc- -- new doctrines taught, you do not do the same as when you steal a purse. Before, gentlemen, 1100, theft was theft. And the only distinction was secret theft or burglary. If you take something by violence, then the man from whom you take it knows that you are taking it, you see. Or you are a pick-pocket, then the man doesn't know, and you try to hide, you see. So gentlemen, before 1100, the distinction in all crimes was secret crime or open crime. Perhaps you take this down. After 1100, the distinction as we have it now -- inherited it, is intent, or -- how would you call the other case, what's the official legal term if there is no intent? Well --.


Wie? Un-premeditated, ja.

As you know, we have this case right now here in the college, where this is all -- the whole story. Unpremeditated.

In 1100, the -- this distinction was unknown. Today you take it for granted. It is the work of the medieval university, gentlemen, to have superseded logic and evidence, you see, by super-logic and conscience. Because, if the judge says, "Every crime I might have committed myself," the line from here to here becomes all-important, gentlemen. This line from the heart to the hand is the line of intent, you see. The hand acts both ways in the same manner. You see, somebody is killed. It is only in -- in the relation of the hand to the heart that you discover the real meaning of the crime. Now you can only discover intent in anybody, gentlemen, if you have the courage to identify yourself with the man. Because we don't look into another man's heart except through our own.

So it is high time, gentlemen, that you discover that this empty phrase of the "brotherhood of man" is not an empty phrase, that even our legal proceedings have incorporated it, that the "brotherhood of man" is an all-pervading principle of human existence today, and it wasn't at one time. Our modern institutions, gentlemen, have absorbed the doctrine of intent. We are today, however, backsliding. It has been weakened by appearances. We categorize people into DPs, and into Germans, and into Negroes again, and into all kind of minority groups. And in this moment, you drop intent, you see, and you go back to evidence.

A man in the state department, you may have read, was fired because his cousin is a Communist. There any -- any application of medieval principles is dropped. The man is dismissed on the evidence of an evident, transparent tie with somebody who is a Communist, you see. The external lines of communication alone prevail. The inner relation of this man to his cousin cannot even be mentioned. It plays no part, you see. It's all evidence, you see, and no insight, and no intent, and no conscience.

The whole Church, gentlemen, is based on the congregational principle: con- -- that consciences meet. If you have segregation in the churches today, the churches have given up the -- the building up of their church from the inside of the human heart -- of human hearts to the outer evidence of social groupings and -- and { }.

So gentlemen, the introduction of more and more conscience is then the process or the progress of science in the Middle Ages. If you can more and more dismiss evidence and put conscience in its place, men grow more and more identified. They become more and more brothers. That's the content, gentlemen, of the march of civilization from 1100 to 1500.

May I remind you that I'm only repeating the process by which science of nature has become possible. You remember that we said a scientist must think that everybody will think the same in his place. He must think that it is -- benefits everybody. He must think that everybody will look up to science as the greater and valuable and desirable truth, you see. And he must think that all are heading in the same progressive direction by promoting science.

Now gentlemen, this kind of brotherhood, of the scientific -- fellowship, had to be prepared by the development of a highly refined conscience. I'm only repeating today--and I've delayed the identification so that you might see how -- in how many ways this can be expressed--the -- the scientific progress of the Middle Ages, gentlemen, is based on the identification of all men. And that's a slow process, a very slow process. It has taken 400 years. And in 400 years, we have nearly wasted this capital today. You have to restore it inside yourself. That's what Mr. Merton, for example, in his Seven-Storey Mountain obviously tries to do again. There's nothing new about Mr. Merton's books. It is terribly archaic, as I think -- when I read them. There's nothing startling in them. But he can bring back to you the inner road of the human soul toward the outer world, which is completely lost. You all are back to 1100, because you all judge by evidence--or at least you are told to judge by evidence, through all our illustrated magazines. You really think that a six-foot-four-inch tall man must be the better man.

The Bible says that it is easy to be hospitable to a rich man, but it is very difficult to be really hospitable and brotherly to a dirty man. The King James Version s- -- of course cannot stand such a -- such a statement, so it says, "to a poor man." But the Old -- New Testament is much more drastic against the evidence, and says, "a dirty man," a man who hasn't washed. It is very difficult to get him to your table, you see.

Now we have here -- you see, you see how -- how modern -- the modern Christians have escaped even the simple distinction between evidence and intent, and conscience by simply replacing the word "dirty" in the Bi- -- biblical text by "poverty." Oh, you can forgive a man his poverty. If he is -- passes through your house and doesn't ask for a loan, you see. But the Bible is much more drastic, and says, "No. The -- don't make it poor. That's after all only a long-range proposition. You don't have to pay this man -- poor man's bills, so why not be nice to him? But if he's dirty, you see, then the poverty has come to bear traces on him. He -- it is on him, this poverty, you see, as dirt, in the form of dirt, and that's much more difficult to bear."

And if you look around, gentlemen, today, you are in -- in great danger to lea- -- lose this whole process of the Middle Ages. Now of -- of this process, I'm now going to talk some -- more specifically, gentlemen.

The first concordance -- we go through the four stages. The first concordance is a super-logic that Anselm of Canterbury laid down in his famous soliloquies--Anselm of Canterbury--was the paradox: that he was a priest, he was an archbishop, he was an abbot; and he prayed every morning, and every noon, and every night to God, and that he on the other hand held the opposite proposition than in his heart of hearts, as he explains: he only knew of the absence of God. "O God, where art thou?" I read this to you before.

So there is a paradox, gentlemen, between the person who prays, and the person who thinks. And theology is based on this super-logic, gentlemen, that you and I at times act in the presence of God, and at other times only resent His complete absence. Now logic -- ja?

(Excuse me, Sir. Would you repeat that?)

I'm glad to, yes. The whole process of theology is based on the paradox, on the contradiction that at times every human being--at least in your boyhood, you do--acts as though God was present; and in other moments, you realize that you are dismissed, forsaken from His presence. So the paradox is, gentlemen, that God is omnipresent and omni-absent.

Theology is based on the paradox, gentlemen, that when we speak of God as an object, we treat Him as dead and absent. And yet we speak of Him in the same breath as omni-present. Is God at this moment present in this room, where I do not turn to Him, but speak of Him? Obviously I treat Him as a dead object. Therefore I deny God. Any theologian denies God during the time he talks of Him, because in God's presence, you can only kneel, or fall prostrate.

So God in His great liberty -- liberal -- liberality obviously allows His children to treat Him at times as dead. The solution, gentlemen, the concordance is in this fact. Do you know the solution? It is true that in all divinity schools, God is treated as lying on the cemetery, as dead, because you cannot speak of God if you believe in Him, as though He wasn't present to you. And the only dignified attitude of speaking of God, if you believe in Him, is to kneel before Him, or to pray to Him. I cannot here believe in God and now talk to you of Him, as though He was just another problem, like a pancake, or like a mountain. But you all do, gentlemen. That's why your bull sessions are so incredibly funny. You never -- talk of God when you talk of God, because you don't even know what a paradox you commit by debating whether there is a God or not. God just laughs. That's what He does. He has a great sense of humor.

How -- where is the solution, gentlemen? Gentlemen, our mind--as our body, our knees, or our hands who fold in prayer, or our mouth to sing the Psalms, or our heart that is religious and pious--our mind too is asked to participate in God. And so the mind is the rethinker, the reproducer of all things that exist. And therefore God is merciful enough and allows the mind gradually to reproduce His presence. For this purpose, the mind has to start with His absence, with God's absence. That is the mercy -- the remission of sins granted to the human mind, that the mind is allowed to sp- -- begin with the statement, "I don't know of God. I'm ignorant. There is no God, as my premise." In order to reach Him, the way of the mind, gentlemen, of reconquering God, is that from the farrest point away, where you turn your back on God. The conscience, gentlemen -- consciousness, is the state of mind in which our back is turned on God. How you say? "On?" Yes? Right? "Back -- on?"

But the reason why we are allowed to do so, as Anselm said, the reason is because we still remember that we must return to Him. Consciousness, gentlemen, for the clear thinker, is a phase--is a phase--is a moment in your and my life. At times, man must forget. At times, man must play. We know this already. At times, man must for- -- give up his consciousness to reconquer it. And the moment in which we dismiss God from our mind is the beginning of a rebi- -- His rebirth, of His resurrection. "God must die in order to rise" is the discovery of the medieval theologian. The super-logic is -- then is that it is true that for the living soul, man -- God is always there. But for the operating mind, God is never given.

If you get this, gentlemen, the secret--I cannot be very explicit on it--you get the fact that theology is a very bold science. It is the problem of the paradox of existence and non-existence. Just as you say of a point, it has no extension. And yet you say, "An infinite number of points adds up to a line," you see. That's a contradiction. Can you see this? In the same sense, gentlemen, and in a similar manner, theology introduces the contradiction that: on the one-hand side, God is omnipresent; and on the other hand, He is never present when we talk of Him. He's dead. He has died. He waits for His resurrection. He is present in the form of the one killed by us at this moment; assassinated, crucified.

This crucifixion, gentlemen, is not a -- historical business of putting somebody somewhere in the grave in Jerusalem at some time, or --. But it is a condition of your and my existence, gentlemen. With everything we have, we can be immersed in the divine present, except with the mind. The mind, in order to get operative, must have a goal. And the goal cannot be the starting point. Therefore you have to put atheism at the beginning of your thought, in order to come to see out a theism as the end of your thought. The one part in us, gentlemen, which is thinking, the intellect, cannot begin and end with the same content. It's impossible. Therefore, if God -- shall be the end of your thought, it cannot be -- He cannot be the beginning.

Now I think I have given you some food there. I cannot possibly go into the details of this problem. But gentlemen, I only want to say that just as infinity is the tremendous step from arithmetic to mathematics, so this tremendous admission of the partial absence of God from the mind is the -- real foundation of the super-logic of the Middle Ages.

The -- the judge, gentlemen, who has the courage to say, "I might have done this myself," what's he doing? He gives up his sanctity, he gives up his righteousness for a minute; he plunges into the hell of doubt that he perhaps is a sinner. Isn't he given up his divine {nature} at this moment, too? Certainly. What I said of the judge, that he says, "I might have done it myself," is the renunciation of his own divinity. Therefore don't be surprised that Anselm said, "God is absent. Where are You, God? Can I find You? How can I demonstrate You? I've heard of You. I pray to You every morning, night, and noon, but now I sit in my cell at my desk, and I shall prove my monks that You exist. How do it do it? I don't find you anywhere. If You don't lie -- aren't lying on the desk. I'll never seen You. Everybody is full of Your praise. But where art Thou?"

This corresponds exactly to the problem of the judge or any human being, because in saying, "I might have committed this crime myself," gentlemen, I give up the one feature, my state in grace, my -- grace, my sanctity, my righteousness, which makes me into an image of God.

So as much as in law--perhaps you take this down--in the law of a science of jurisprudence, in the law of the science of jurisprudence, the judge must give up his self-righteousness. In the science of God, God is deprived, pro tempore, of His presence, of the power of His presence.

(Can you repeat that last sentence, Sir, the last half?) In theology, or the science of God, God is deprived, pro tempore, of the power of His presence.

Now gentlemen, if you get these three levels--God, man, world--then you will see that what the theologian does to God, the lawyer does to man, the judge, in jurisprudence, because he assumes that any human action can be explained from the inside by intent, and must not be explained by external evidence alone. In the same way, as long as our heart is open to God, we say the evidence on God, the external evidence, isn't enough. "I'm cold. I'm blas‚. He hasn't spoken to me. I've never heard -- I've always heard of God, but I haven't met Him. I haven't been introduced to Him."

And so the mind is in suspense, and the judge is in suspense before judgment is passed, gentlemen. Both sciences discover a state of mental suspense. That's the discovery of the first -- the founders of theology, gentlemen, that the human mind is in a state of suspense.

Now this state of suspense deserves some better analysis, which was given to it by Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura. We come now to the scientific state of medieval theology. And that is marked by Thomas and by Bonaventura.

Now most of you have heard of Thomas, and no one has usually heard of Bonaventura. They are -- they are pals. Bonaventura's books describe the state of mind of Thomas. That is, if you read Bonaventura's books, you come to know what was operative in the creative processes of the Thomistic mind. Thomas -- Bonaventura, so to speak, has as his content: how does a divine mind like Thomas Aquinas' operate? Thomas Aquinas has a -- quite a different -- books -- he has written systematic books on the science of God. And he compares now, through his famous Summa, how the world appears to the philosopher, Aristotle, to whom only external evidence proves anything, and how it appears to the Christian to whom God has access through his heart, through his sufferings under the Crucifixion, through his love of Christ. The whole Thomistic Summa is a book of this wealth, of this length. In former courses, I had more time. I used to bring the books here to -- look for -- to you to look at it. It's a constant struggle between external evidence, gentlemen, and in-...

[tape interruption]

...a Christian will laugh at such a proof. To me the proof that the world is reasonable is not much of a proof that there is a God. It's unsatisfactory, to say the least. And certainly if this is all which we knew of God, this would be a very shoddy god. A god who is just a first cause, and then retired with a pension, and let the world run down like a clock. That's how most of you think of God, a man who -- who started a business and then let it run amok.

No, either God is omnipresent, gentlemen, or there is no God. Aristotle's God is a god from external evidence, and the external evidence on the existence of God never points to God's presence. Because your mind, your consciousness which looks for causes will never admit that at this moment you aren't God yourself. Anybody, gentlemen, who philosophizes about the causes of the universe, has put himself in God's place. You are all little gods when you philosophize. Therefore you have no room for noticing that at this moment the devil governs your thoughts. You think you are God. And anybody who thinks that he's God, and -- and makes up a theory of the universe, is of course ridden by the devil, but he doesn't know it.

God is not to be seen in our consciousness. You can only have Him in your conscience. God is not to be seen consciously. Whenever you focus attention on something, gentlemen, consciously, that word "consciously" -- wie? -- whenever you focus your attention -- your attention on something, consciously, you see, this something is beneath yourself. Now if there is a God, -- He wouldn't be beneath yourself, because He would be your creator. The mind can only grasp things that are beneath man.

You will never perceive God through the mind. That's quite impossible. If somebody smiles at you, a baby, and you say, "That's a divine smile," it doesn't -- hasn't entered your mind. But it has touched your heart to the quick, that a human being should be so innocent, and so naive, and so happy, you see. You identify yourself with this state of bliss. And in this moment, you can dismiss your consciousness. And because it is not your consciousness which dictates a judgment, you are apt to say that this is a -- a child of God, or a smile of God, and a revealing -- a revealing -- Christmas is a revealing time. The child in the cradle is really more divine than you and I. But consciously, if you focus on this baby with a microscope, and a fever thermometer, and diapers, and pablum, what is this child? Just a very dirty little brat. Nothing divine about it.

The more conscious you get of this baby, the more it approaches the state of a guinea pig. Because, gentlemen, when does this child really smile to you with a divine smile? The more you yourself put yourself into this baby. Now consciousness separates the observer, or the conscious mind, from the object. All consciousness, gentlemen, separates subject and object. All conscience identifies brother and brother. Perhaps you take this down. All consciousness drives apart--constantly extremalizes, so to speak--drives apart object and subject.

Think of the man who observes an operation in his own brain, when a tumor is removed. Theoretically thinkable. "Who is who?" is a great question: the man who -- whose tumor is -- is operated upon, or the man who looks at the tu- -- at the operation? You could establish a system of mirrors by which it would be perfectly possible theoretically that the man could observe his own operation. That's the ultimate in self-estrangement, gentlemen, because object and subject are estranged from each other. They are broken into two opposites.

Therefore gentlemen, wherever you have consciousness, you have opposition; wherever you have conscience, you have unity. Conscience makes for unity, gentlemen; consciousness makes for action, for parties, for opposition, for object and subject.

Aristotle is pure object-subject situation. Christ is pure conscience situation. Therefore Thomas is the concorder of these two approaches. -- Thomas writes of the reconciliation of the outer evidence and the internal tension in our relation to anything that the conscience or the consciousness can grasp.

Every article, gentlemen, of the Summa of Thomas is built in this manner, for any proposition. "God created the world," pro, contra. "Philosophus { } it. There are three points: in favor, against it--Aristotle says; and then comes {dicendum}. And I say as a Christian theologian." And that's how the whole Summa is built, from page to page, there are always these first two logical propositions, and then the full wisdom of the ancients: all the natural evidence, and then the Christian answer which keeps the conscience, and therefore keeps the identification with all living things created, you see. That's creed. The Apostles -- the -- the philosopher says, "That's the thing." The Christian says, "That's me." And the thing looks -- the two approaches make the look -- the thing very different to you.

The -- the crudest point, gentlemen, and which comes -- this to an issue is of course in the treatment of Jesus Himself. For Aristotle, the best man is still just the best man. The best man, Jesus, is still just -- would be still just the best man; one man, you see, among many. For Thomas, Jesus is the man.

So the in- -- decisive difference is, gentlemen: consciousness can only use the indefinite pronoun. Conscience can use the definite pronoun. Conscience can say, "She is my mother." Consciousness can only say, "She is a mother." Or even more so -- about a father. Nobody can prove to you that you have a father. A father is always doubtful. You just have to believe it. You just say to one man, "He is my father," because he said so, and he acted this way, you see. But how do you know?

All fatherhood, gentlemen, all your recognition of fatherhood is based on mere faith, because the rest doesn't count; it's indifferent. With motherhood, it is different, I have to admit. It can be proven.

Aristotle and Christianity are com- -- to be compared like the -- like the introspection of physical motherhood and spiritual fatherhood. That Jesus is the son of God can never be proved by external evidence. That Jesus was a men can be proved by external evi- -- evidence.

Now gentlemen, look at this. It can be proved that Jesus was a man, but it is not important. It cannot be proved that Jesus was the Son of God, but it is important. Only conscience can decide this issue, and never anything else. You can never prove by Aristotelian reasons, you see, that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet it's the only important question. Why should we talk about the silly carpenter in -- in Nazareth? Why not dismiss Him? He's just one man. All, gentlemen, external evidence leads only to indefinites, possibilities. All internal conscience, gentlemen, leads to definite decisions.

There are many girls, gentlemen, but only of one can you conscientiously say that you want to marry her. Once you make this decision, the external evidence doesn't count. You will find that the happiest marriages are those that are made against all the external, statistical evidences. Anybody who wants to -- to -- marry by statistics cannot. He -- he can only sleep with many girls by statistics. Promiscuity, gentlemen, is the result of external evidence. Marriage is always the result of a conscientious identification with this one soul. In other words, gentlemen, man in the medieval -- university tried to reconcile the problem that we are all one heart and one soul, and the other problem, that by external evidence, we are all different.

Bonaventura wrote now up the workings of this mastermind, Thomas--and I have to tell you one word, after the recess, on the -- on Bonaventura. Let's have five minutes.

[tape interruption]

...of you can say you have heard of this man. Bonaventura is a Franciscan monk, and Thomas is a Dominican. And in this opposition, the whole contrast between two schools of thought is given. The Dominican is a teaching order. And the Franciscan order is the order of the imitation of Christ, of following in Jesus' footsteps. That He is -- the Franciscans prize experience of the heart over all. And the Dominicans prize efficient, effective teaching. It would be the difference between a hermit and Dartmouth College. Dartmouth College would be Thomistic, because it would -- the order -- the Dominican order sets out with the idea, "I -- we must teach all these ignoramuses." The Franciscan sets out with: "How do I experience the bliss of life?" That would include teaching, too, because it is part of the bliss of man to teach, and to impart his own knowledge, you see. But St. Francis is the one great imitator of Christ, gentlemen, and the Franciscan line -- that is the line closer to Anselm, the lonely monk in his cell, who says, "God is absent, where art Thou, God?" And the Dominican line follows Ab‚lard, the man who has thousands of students in the University of Paris, and draws them out and says, "You have to learn better things and newer things." In Thomas, gentlemen, the scholastic principle of the Middle Ages reaches its height. In Bonaventura, the experimental stage reaches his height, that man is God's holy experiment. Man -- for Bonaventura, man himself is God's holy experiment. Gentlemen, the word "experiment" can only be used of man if God experiments with us. Never you experiment with man yourself, gentlemen. You are God's experiment, but not your own.

I'm always suspicious when a man said he's "just experimental," because then I know he isn't serious. And I don't like to have to deal with people on any subject where they aren't serious. Why should I? I wish to meet people who -- who are serious. Then it's worth talking to. But otherwise I prefer to play bridge. To talk, just for example, for play -- to speak is not a play; it's not experimental, gentlemen. It's serious. If it goes wrong, it goes wrong. But in a -- on the other hand, gentlemen, the Franciscan knows that every man is a new experiment of God to create the real man. Jesus is God's most successful experiment, up to date.

Now gentlemen, Bonaventura wrote a booklet, very small, The Itinerary of the Mind to God -- The Itinerary of the Mind to God. It's a travel lore of the human mind. And he discovered the law of concording, the law by which progress in science is possible to this day and to -- in the future. This progress of science, gentlemen, is something you have not the faintest idea of, and perhaps it may interest you to know what he discovered to be the law of progress. The law of progress in science, gentlemen, contradicts logic. In logic, a man begins with ignorance, and then goes on to knowledge. That's learning: "He" -- "I have not known yesterday, today I know; I look it up in the dictionary." The progress of science, gentlemen is always confused by you with this naive process, "We don't know, and then later we do know."

May I point out, gentlemen, that the progress of science is based on the opposite assumption. When Mr. Pasteur discovered the -- what's it called, the hydrophobia or what? -- of the dog? { }. What has the dog?

(Rabies. Rabies.)

Rabies, yes. Thank you. Every doctor in the country knew that he was wrong, because all the doctors knew what was the matter. The only man who said he didn't know, and he wanted to try something new was Mr. Pasteur. That is, gentlemen, the condition of the progress of science is to forget what is known. And the progress of science must therefore be made by a man who knows everything there can be known about a subject. And then -- he grows so dissatisfied with the ultimate, the high peak in knowledge, that he starts from scratch. He rappels and goes down into the abyss of ignorance, you see. In the progress of science, gentlemen, ignorance follows science or knowledge. In the process of primitive learning, of mere logical learning for a -- of a child, knowledge follows ignorance. But in the process of the progress of science, ignorance must follow knowledge. That's much more difficult. Much more humble. Because it is the great scientist who suddenly wakes up one day and says, "This cannot be true, although we all think it is the highest { }." Can you see the difference?

So gentlemen, that's why in this -- in this country you have these crackpots, fools, amateurs, dilettantes who always think, "Well, you -- you -- you participate in the progress of science, anybody can." They haven't the faintest idea of what is known, and they propose something that just runs through their head. They are a great nuisance. They have the primitive logic of the child, from ignorance to knowledge. But the progress of science, gentlemen, the orderly progress is only possible if everything that is known is held up at one moment, put to the test and if--although it is the best that has ever been known--it is found wanting.

({ } classify knowledge -- reclassify it and all of a sudden it's wrong, would you say that was knowledge? I mean, wouldn't you say -- the whole thing { } is wanting?)

Now that isn't enough. You have of course to have your -- you have to bring up the pearl from the ground, from the bottom as the next { }, you see. { } criticism, it's wrong, he will believe you. You have to prove { }.

(It's beyond that. I don't think I made myself quite clear to you. You say that -- that they have a certain knowledge, and then they start from the beginning again. But then they disprove { } knowledge...)

[tape interruption]

...ages about conscience, you see. Our future science of peace and society will certainly do justice to the medieval cycle, but will show that it isn't large enough. All former truth, gentlemen, is partial truth. It isn- -- never absolutely false, but it isn't enough. It isn't comprehensive enough.

Modern astronomers point out always with great care that the -- the Ptolemeic system of astronomy is not wrong, you see. It has its po- -- merits, but it isn't good enough. Copernicus is -- is better, you see. Gentlemen, no knowledge is absolutely worthless, and no knowledge is absolutely perfect. But the important thing is, gentlemen, that the step into the next knowledge is not a straight line, as you think it. The -- a step to the next knowledge is always through a gap, through an abyss of ignorance. Man is suddenly plunged into something --. When Mr. Planck discovered the quanta theory, that -- matter did not move in perpetuity, in infinitesimal degrees, but in real leaps and jumps, you see, when he took back this notion of infinitesimal for physics today, he thought he was crazy. He thought he wouldn't let -- allow his own student pass an examination if -- if the students would -- said such an enor- -- enormity, you see. And he had to go through the abyss of -- of noxiousness, of doubt in his own sanity, you see. It took great boldness. It take -- all -- always takes great boldness to take a next step, because the next step is not a straight, logical line, but is something in another direction.

I always give this one example, gentlemen. For the last 30 years, cancer has been -- has been treated in the Pasteur ways, as an infection. A friend of mine lost his whole career, because in 2- -- 1923, he published a book in which he said that cancer and arteriosclerosis had nothing to do whatsoever with infection, or with germs, or with bacteria; but they were two constitutional deviations from the straight path of the virtue of shapeliness. And -- and arterial sclerosis was a hardening of the arteries, so cancer was, so to speak, a softening of the cells, a luxurious growth. And that only if you contemplated the human body as a rope walker, a tightrope walker, who had to straddle and had to keep a very narrow ridge of shapeliness could you understand that the body in his life -- its life could fall down on one way by a too-intense taking-shape in arterial sclerosis, that there was not enough leeway, so to speak, of formation; and could also fall down on the other side into the abyss, of too little shapeliness, you see, that these cells no longer would -- would try to conform with the duty and shape of the normal body, but would just simply -- decay. And -- not decay--how would you say?--grow, yes, but grow in a wrong -- I mean --. If I had only a --.

({ }.)

Yes. So -- now this vision, you see, of the human -- body aiming at a certain shapeliness, aiming at a certain beauty, aiming at a certain fulfillment, you see, and falling down left and right, was in complete contradiction to the vision of Pasteur who saw a human cell fighting for life against hostile influences, from left and right--bacteria, as we say. Millions of dollars have been spent and are spent today as you know for cancer research in this country in an obsolete method. Because it was simply assumed that Mr. Pasteur's discovery had to make sense for every other disease in the world.

There you see the best men today, you see, of -- as of today believe one way, that this is the ultimate truth. The discovery of the next phase of vision, as to human health, today is -- as you know, very far from us. There is this man with his vision of the living body, and I think he's the most advanced. And you get these psychosomatists, who have an inkling that there may be some such thing in our illnesses, that this -- the drive of man for his shapeliness, you see, may express itself in diseases in various parts of his body. You may have heard of this new branch of medicine. But certainly there is very little hope or expectation among the serious people that cancer can be--with all the millions of dollars invested in these research institutes--ever be thought in such a simplistic, logical way, as though the whole body would get out of shape because of some little bacteria introduced { } somewhere, you see.

Now what is the important thing, gentlemen? That it takes a new central vision of the whole human body before you can propose a solution for the cancer. Therefore, the over-extension of your lines of -- in one direction, you see, where you en- -- visualize everything and everything based, you see, from -- the body's, so to speak, situation on the battlefield of human -- of -- of -- of bacteria, has to be dismissed with a bang. The man who has prepared the next step into cancer simply was not a bacteriologist, in other words, and must give up being a bacteriologist, you see.

Now since in this country, bacteriology--since Martin Arrowsmith--has been deified, no foundation in this country will give this man a cent for his research. To this day, he can't get any foundation to give him anything to prove his point. He is just not scientific. In my mind, he's more scientific, but he is in the philosophical stage of science, gentlemen, where a new foundation has to be laid, where the next progress has to be made.

Now take this down, gentlemen. The progress of science is not logic. But the progress of science -- consists in the dismissal of the highest principle of the science attained at that time, and replacing it by a new principle. The progress of science consists of the dismissal of the highest principle prevailing in one science at one time, and replacing it by a new principle.

What is going on in our laboratories today is just extension service. I mean, you have -- your ride it to death, this principle today, this principle of the bacteria, you see. These are no great minds who do this. They may be very good technicians, plumbers, electricians, et cetera. But I have no great respect for them as scholars, you see. They are no -- no real -- that's not important. The man who -- who -- who makes really a -- a date, an epoch in his -- in his science is the one who has this tremendous courage, gentlemen--take this down again--of becoming ignorance -- after he has known, of becoming ignorant after he has known; the light must go out before it can be rekindled. And this is the process of the itinerary of the mind. The process of the itinerary of the mind is from having to non-having, and then to having better. The process of primitive logic in your mind is from not-having to having. But in the great tradition of mankind, gentlemen, there is in every moment the greatest expert. Here in this moment, you are learning in many fields. But in this field there is a great man -- a man -- a great teacher who knows. Now the progress comes when this man's knowledge is superseded, not when your knowledge is superseded. Can you see this?

So progress, gentlemen, is also super-logic. Progress is a super-logic, because it reverses the logical progress from ignorance to knowledge by saying "No, Sir." You, single individual, go from ignorance to knowledge. But the whole of mankind, at the very moment that it teaches you, must go on from knowledge to ignorance. That's the -- that's the courage, the boldness of research, you see. "Re-search" means to begin once more, as though from scratch, as though nobody knew.

I think that's quite exciting, gentlemen. If you get hold of this, you will be immune against many crackpots, and many hoaxes; and on the other hand, you will have reverence for real scientific progress. You need both. It's very hard to -- both to reconcile. The child is the amateur of thinking, some bright idea, you see. The -- sci- -- process of science, gentlemen, is one that works up to great heights, and then sees a new phenomenon and says, "Because of this one phenomenon, I must sacrifice all my pride of what we have known so far, and begin from scratch." It's a humility, gentlemen, of the pro- -- scientist, which Bonaventura discovered at the bottom of it. Humility in the sense that without admitting for a while that this, you see, knowledge doesn't solve anything, you see, you cannot take the next steps. So the next step in science never is logical, gentlemen; is always anti-logical. It is logical to say, "Cancer is a bacteria -- -iological disease," you see. It is completely illogical to say, "Let's start from quite another end." Can you see the difference?

You don't like it? Make your point.

({ }. It's too much for me to swallow. { })

Ja, but that's all very -- always very doubtful. It's always over-extension of your heart. Any -- you know it in your own life, gentlemen. You have made one experience with one girl, then you say, "All girls are." In your heart of hearts, you know that's all nonsense, you see. But everybody is so proud of deduction. And if you make one experience -- we all are that way, you see; that's primitive. Primitive logic always says, "I have made one experience, therefore that's the whole story." Well, it isn't. As long as you live, you see, you can make quite a different experience. But most people exclude this. The man in cancer today excludes a new start. We know already that Pasteur was a great man 60 years ago, therefore --. See? The one experience stands them in good stead for all other { }.

And we always have to coerce the disciples and the -- the followers. These big laboratories today are terribly handicapped, because they -- they fix mentalities, you see. Three hundred years ago, scientific progress was much easier, much more radical, because there wasn't so much invested. But today, think of all the physicists -- are paid, and all the doctors who are -- chemists, you see, who are paid in fixed institutions on certain assumptions, that certain things will -- can be done in this way.

A friend of mine--let me tell you this as a fi- -- finishing story, today, if you give me a -- this minute--I have a friend who is professor of physics at Harvard. And one summer, some years ago, he traveled to California to Berkeley, to study the cyclotro- -- -tron. And then they had to build a -- similar machine in Harvard for $60 million.

And he said -- came back very sad, and he said, "We'll have to do it..."

[tape interruption, end]