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

(Philosophy 10, May 25, 1949.)

...groups of thoughts, the first on the mental process in the individual. And we had -- divided it up in these three parts of the child, the adult, and the elder. You remember the Ten Commandments of education; and you remember also that we used examples, especially for the last three commandments, to make you see that in a human life, one phase may be more important for the observer and for the man who hears of this life than others. We all play, but only on the case of a DiMaggio or Bob Ruth is the playing really sensational. We talked then of the elders, especially, and saw that ru- -- the ruler, as in John Quincy Adams' case, rules all for a short time. We saw in the teacher's case, that he teaches forever, but only in opposition to others. You remember Plato and Aristotle. All teaching is -- creates in opposition. If I say one thing, somebody will get up and say the opposite. Can't be helped. You can't rule that way, however. The ruler must be able to give orders to the whole community. When John Quincy Adams took the chair in the House of Representatives, for this -- these few days, he was in the chair, you see. And therefore that brooked no division of the House.

So gentlemen, the ruler rules for a short time, or for a certain time, all. The teacher can rule forever -- teach forever, but only always part of mankind.

The rules, gentlemen, of conduct in a group, in other words, we learned, are valid for all, but the rules may have to change. For this purpose, then you have to appoint a new ruler. The truth of a teacher, gentlemen--of Platonism, for example--are true forever. That what I tell you is true, gentlemen. But there is always somebody else's truth to supplement my truth, and to stress something else in opposition to this. So my thought is not doomed the very moment I disappear from the scene. There will be somebody to teach the same thing again. But there will also be somebody, you see, to contradict. And then we saw that the man who leaves a name behind, like Newman, cannot rule in his own time, but he can rule afterwards.

So you see there is a mysterious relation to space and time in man's intellectual importance on this earth. We saw that in the fighter, in the adult stage, man himself splits. Wanting to love, he splits inside himself into a listener and a speaker. And so there you have the dualism within himself. While he doubts, he doesn't know what to do, where to turn, what -- how to conduct himself. He's in suspense. When he suffers, when he protests, he opposes, as in a teaching proposition, you see. He opposes the existing rules of thought or of conduct. And then he suffers--these opposing rules prevail--and he is exposed to their injustice, perhaps, you see, for a while. He is persecuted and he's attacked; he's suspect.

So again, you see, in the fighting stage, there is duality. No man, in other words, gentlemen, in the middle s- -- age, is alone again with his thought. While he doubts inside, we said he is in love with somebody. He doubts, because he wants to get out of his old family, for example, and falls in love with a girl; so has to assert himself. And he has to distinguish where he owes allegiance to his parents, and where he does allegiance to -- owes allegiance to his bride. In other words, gentlemen, the second phase also is a proof that the intellect given to you, gentlemen, is a social event. That's what I'm driving at, at this moment. The result of our contemplation of the individual intellectual process shows that it isn't this man's mind that acts in solitude, but that while you leave a name, you are placed into society. While you doubt, you are related to people. While you suffer, while you protest, while you rule, and while you teach, there is always somebody else.

Now the same is true of the child, as -- the child is listening, and if there would be nobody telling the child to -- what to listen, how to obey, or what to read, if there wasn't a world which deserved to be discovered--you see, a world of literature, and of facts, and if there wasn't security of a fire department, a police force, it couldn't play. In other words, the child too depends for the workings of its intellect on the social processes which allow it to develop its intellect. The fighter depends on the resistance of the existing intellectual order. And the ruler, the teacher, and the -- there is no name. In -- in other languages, there is a name for the man who leaves an heir, the -- the "leader," you may say, of new thought--or the "founder," we -- is perhaps the best word--the founder must suspend his own values in the air, and wait until he has gone, because in his own time, the old order must still carry him and exist. Newman had to be a cardinal of the old Catholic Church, you see, before Newmanism, before his own character later on, you see, could leave its imprint on Protestants and Catholics alike. The Chur- -- Christianity has changed, because today Protestants and Newman- -- are interested in Newman, and Catholics, in his own days--as you well know from his biography--that wasn't so, you see. For the Protestants, he was a traitor. And they wouldn't listen to him at all, you see. They thought he was just tempting them away from their own faith.

What does this mean, gentlemen? We discovered in the first half of this course, that when we concentrate in the -- in -- in the -- on the individual, we discovered the mental processes of mankind. You cannot speak of your own mind, gentlemen, because there is no such thing as your "own mind." The mind in -- is our participation in the social process of thinking. What you call your mind, is only the reflection of your relation to the thinking of humanity. You think as a child, and you think now as a student, because we think, too. So you say, "Well, it's in opposition to me." You say, "Well, I wish to play; this man is terribly serious; I am not so serious." But by saying that you are not so serious, you experience certainly the distinction between seriousness and play, of which otherwise your mind would be -- have been completely unaware. Because before you came to college, you thought everybody perhaps plays, you see. It isn't -- nothing is serious. Now at least you can say I am a martinet, or a pedant, or I'm -- I'm stern. But you learn that your thought is one thing, and another man's thought is another. And they only -- you can only label them in opposition, in dialectical intercourse.

So gentlemen, our mental faculties in the first half were discovered by starting from the individual as leading into society. The mind is our rooting in mankind. Your feet are not rooted in mankind. They are -- rooted on the earth, you see. You are -- your body isn't. But with our mind, we participate in society. That's something quite different from what you assume when you come -- came to this course. You think -- thought that the mind was something that pertained to your body. That is not true. The mind are the roots which society puts down in you. They are the seeds which society sows into you. And they are perhaps the fruit which you bear into society, again. Can you see this?

The child roots itself in society. The fighter has ripened in himself, you see, the fruits of the former situation, and they become seeds of the future in the elder.

So in your own individual process, gentlemen, you are this tree of knowledge, you see, with the roots first put down in the first part of your life. Then with your own tree growing up into leaves and blossom, and -- and fruit; and then, as an elder, you sow. You are sown, you can also say, you see. Your thoughts are sown into others, so that they may bear fruit in them.

So gentlemen, the most individualistic approach to thinking, which we undertook by having only the Ten Commandments of education, focusing on you, singly, alone--as you can check it--leads you into the tremendously important fact that thinking is the way in which you are to be made an organic part of the thinking of mankind. Can you see this? Now once you discover this, gentlemen, you are free people. Most peop- -- yes?

(Could you please repeat that?)

I don't know that I can repeat it. The best things you can never repeat. Has anybody -- gotten it?

(I think { }.) Ja. Through our thought, gentlemen, we become organic parts of the thinking of mankind. Through thinking, all men form one unity, one man. In as far as we think, gentlemen, because we want to think the truth--and we want to think valid things, you see--truth, gentlemen, is a social concept. There can be no truth if you and I do not participate.

[tape interruption]

...time. The mathematical case, gentlemen, is a limiting concept. In mathematics, we feign that thinking does not take living time. "2 and 2 and 4" is, so to speak, the most { } in the sense that mathematical truth--take this down, perhaps, gentlemen--is the case of truth which takes so little time that the time factor can be neglected. Mathematical truth is treated in such a manner as though it didn't take time to convey. In mathematics, people abstract from the time factor that it takes to make sense and come true. That's why mathematical truth is the most indifferent truth. It isn't important for me and you. It's only important for the things of the world. Mathematics you use to explain things for which the time factor is unimportant. Perhaps you take this -- for -- mathematics we use for those things in which the time factor plays no part.

Now gentlemen, on the other hand, religious truth or eternal truth is that truth which takes infinite time to come true. Whether Christianity is true, we will only know at the end of time, because every one of you can still destroy it. Christianity will only have been verified and come true if it triumphs now over Communism. Before, it still can be a flop. You can never prove eternal truth by what has been -- gone on before. It has still to be re-approved, and re-tested by any one who listens to this truth. If it doesn't grow into him -- in him, and get as a -- into a fruit and into a seed, then it isn't true enough, you see.

All truths, gentlemen, then have the opposite aspect. A mathematical truth takes no time to convey. "2 and 2 is 4" I can convey to you -- next -- you see, takes next to no time, you see. You remain indifferent to change. The truth which your father tells you about your character takes your own lifetime. There are greater truths, that all men are born equal, that take centuries before they can be proven, you see, or thousands of years.

So gentlemen, truth varies: from mathematical truth, that takes practically no time to convey, to eternal truth, which takes the whole life of mankind before it is verified. You labor from the assumption that all truth must be reduced to mathematical truth, because you think that you have your own mind. Once you enter the circulation of thought, however, you see, from your own practical experience, you know very well that all more important truth waits for you. And you cannot share it before you are not prepared. Where is this truth then, at the time? Where is it? There is something, it's true -- men -- "Follow your conviction." That's only true for people who have a conviction. So you must go into this, you see. There is no other way of dealing with this fact than to give it time. If you -- if you can't be given time, you see, and be left alone, if the -- the secret police comes and says you have now to have this conviction that Hitler is called "The Almighty," you see, it wouldn't be a conviction. The whole process of truth would be stopped, it would never be verified by you, through listening, reading, learning, doubting, protesting, and { }.

Now we said last time, if you now may remember, that the truth about God has to be conveyed in such a way that everyone himself can make his own decision on this. You remember? You -- perhaps you understand now why. The greater a truth, gentlemen, the more it ti- -- time it takes to come true. The process of truth is not in all -- at all a thing -- that something is true--please take this down--the question of truth is not contained in the sentence, "Something is true." Everything that is true has also to come true. And it is verified only if the next, and the next, and the next human being may find it to be true himself.

Now you know the world today is riddled with this pest of -isms who think -- like--Communism, or capitalism--who think that people must believe something before they have time to have it come true in themselves. What you call "freedom," what you call "liberty," what you call "Christianity," on the other hand, admits this for the faultiness of his thought that, you see, you and I are left out of the process of the circulation of thought in this case. Communism then is said, "It is true." Therefore you have to believe it, you see. But all great truth is of such a character, gentlemen, that it can wait until it comes true.

The truth is a human affair, gentlemen, ha- -- is something organic, which waits in every man for the hour, and the day, and the year in his -- of his life, in which he can, you see, enter upon it. Truth is something every man has to enter upon. Perhaps that's a -- as good a phrase as any, you see. Truth is something that lives by universal participation. In order to receive this universal participation, gentlemen, it has to wait until everybody is ready for it. That's why truth is to be compared to a tree. It cannot be compared to facts in books, or to -- go -- doornails, or to -- to -- to so many pounds of iron which you buy. Truth cannot be bought, gentlemen, for this very reason. Truth has to come to life. By truth, gentlemen, we enter a biological process.

A friend of mine who -- took part in this course 10 years ago always called this course a "course on mental biology." I think I mentioned this to you before. Why? Because truth is nothing in the abstract, gentlemen. Truth is your and my stage -- phase of life; that's organic substance, you see. You don't believe this, of course. It's very hard for you to believe, but try it one moment. Take the truth out of the drawer where you keep your books and your examination papers, and put it into your own life. And then you will see that every man must have a different attitude towards truth in the different phases of his life. What is true is true enough for a playboy, if he plays with the idea. But if the playboy at 40 hasn't any conviction, then the truth has died, you see. The same thing may be played with for a certain time. But you have to become serious about it at another time. Or you have no right anymore to say that you think this is true. You may say today, "Here, in this course, good idea." Play with this, you see. "I listen to another professor, and another man, and another philosopher, and then I'm -- will find out." As long as you do this, you see, you are completely true to your present state of affairs when you are playing with something society gives you to play with.

Now if you at 30 still would say, "Oh, this is a good idea," you see, you would have missed the boat. You have -- would have not entered upon the lifestream of truth, before this mental biography. Can you see the difference? And a man at 70, who has no convictions, and thinks that everything -- everybody is right, and everything is true certainly is a sad sack. He has completely missed his own -- his own life. He has not entered upon the career of the truth inside himself. Truth -- you owe truth a career inside yourself. { } I express it in this manner. Is this clear to you, what I mean? Ja?

({ }.)

Now gentlemen, the first half then of this course ends in a paradox. The individual has no mind, but gets a mentality implanted into him. The mental process gets hold of you and forces upon -- into you its growth. And it goes through these three stages of putting down roots; of growing up into a stately tree, with fruits; and finally, in dismissing these fruits as a seed for the next generation.

What's so difficult about it, gentlemen? Of women, everybody knows that this is the -- way of life, the physical world. The intellectual world isn't built any w- -- other. The intellect is the male way of propagation. The man speaks and begets. The wife with -- conceives and bears. But gentlemen, you and I are just as much begetters. Only we beget rules, we beget laws, we beget forms of existence through our words, through our thought, through what we say, what we repeat, what we proclaim, what we doubt. Every one of you and I is just as much born and gives birth, is sown, and bears fruit, as a child is -- that comes out it's mother's womb.

Gentlemen, the circulation of thought, the mental biology, is an exact parallel to the physical processes of the individual life in physiology. There is no distinction in its organicity, if you understand this term. That is, both have to do with living processes, yes? Not with dead matter.

Most of you -- are materialists, gentlemen. Of course, you say, "I'm not a materialist, I'm idealist." But I'm afraid the so-called idealists treat the mind as dead matter, as though your mind was something you had, you owned, was a private property, would do you -- "I can think what I please." Gentlemen, you cannot think what you please, and you know this very well. Anybody who says, "I can think as I please," drops his conscience, drops the conno- -- connotation of truth, and then he cannot think.

All thinking, gentlemen, underlies judgment. And the judgment is: will it be fruitful? Thought must be measured, gentlemen, by nothing but its fruitfulness. That which is fruitful is -- can come true. And that which can come true can add up to the truth. But if it doesn't come true, it's a dead thing. And it has nothing to do with the mental -- circulation of real thought.

So gentlemen, what I'm doing today is: I reverse the fronts. In the first half of this course, we have seemingly dealt -- apparently dealt with individual thought, you see. In fact, in the individual, there is really, you see, the whole of society {inside him}. Can you see this? And that's our glory, gentlemen. The -- these intellectuals of today have no idea of this. They have no relation to the thought other -- other than to say, "I am thinking. I am an intellectual. I have a high IQ." Well, what of it? A high IQ is a temptation to abuse the intellect. That's what it leads to in most cases.

If you have two chauffeurs, gentlemen, one with a tremendously high IQ, and one with an average IQ, and you are a president of a -- a company, and he has to drive you through the streets of New York, whom do you hire? Which of the two is more apt to get into -- trouble with the police?

(The high IQ.)

Wie? The high IQ man, of course. Born scoundrel.

({ }.)

A high IQ, gentlemen, doesn't mean that the man has any more -- better relation to the truth, you see. He is more apt to manipulate it, and to escape from the organic processes by which he has to think, in response to his real-life situation, gentlemen. Today there is a crying need to discover the organic character of thinking. We think in relation to our life situation. And you may -- I may add up to say that this is the discovery of the so-called existentialists. They only however know it in a very drab outline. An existentialist says at least, "My thinking is connected with my living." What I offered you here is the ripe fruit of St. Augustine's, and the Church's, and the philosophers' teaching over 2,000 years. Every decent thinker has been an existentialist. The modern craze for existentialism, as I said, is just a contour line. They don't -- cannot yet distinguish the ten phases of education. But they tell you at least one thing, you see: that to think is organ- -- an organic process in your own life. And that's a good beginning. In this sense, gentlemen, the existentialists are the gateway to Heaven, but they certainly are not in Heaven.

Now gentlemen, that's the first half of the course. So, gentlemen, by dealing realistically, and empirically with the individual, as you and I really know him, you see, we have discovered that in as far as we think, you see, we are implanted into a field. As we say, "fields of knowledge," you see. That's a very good word, if you only take it seriously, you see. We are implanted into a process that goes through us, and that makes us into organic substance. Our mind must be organicized, you can say--with a new term, if you want to. We must be fertilized; we must be fruitful. If you use your mind just for clever purposes of your own, there is no truth in your thought. That is just all rationalization, as you say yourself. That has nothing to do with thinking.

Gentlemen, all thinking begins where self-interest makes no difference for the result of your thinking. We all have self-interest. But if I couldn't think at this moment here about this truth with complete indifference as to what I personally get out of it, you see, I cannot think. I have no right to teach, certainly. Because why should you listen to anything I teach only for pleasing you?

({ }?)

Yes, you can reach a state of complete indifference to your self-interest. You cannot professionally all the time think against your self-interest. That's the error of the altruists, you know, and the selfless people, or the other people -- the materialists. You learn today the question, "Either I think for my self-interest," you see, "or I betray myself." Everybody has to follow his self-interest. And there are then certain idealists, and pacifists who can say, "I can be selfless." Neither case is true.

But you can exalt your thought to such a pitch, where it makes no difference to you, whether the result, you see, serves your self-interest or not, you see. This is something these people never consider. You can -- your mind can grow into such a situation -- don't you think that any decent scientist in -- in the physics lab- -- labor- -- is quite indifferent to what happens to him, when he wants to -- to investigate the secret of the atom? You see? He must go indifferent to the {result, I mean}. There always will be a result in there for your own interest; some positive, and some negative. Don't mistake them, you see. Of course our self is interested, you see. But you can say, "Well, what of it?" Any soldier does this. You expect him, too, to attack, whether he loses his life or not, you see. That doesn't mean that he is not very interested in survival, and that he hasn't diarrhea, you see. But then he gets a -- glass of whisky and gets over the diarrhea.

Gentlemen, all people are cowards, you see. But in thinking and in fighting, you have to get over your cowardice. That's all. There are no heroes, except after cowardi- -- be -- admitting that they are cowards. Timidity and cowardice are with us all the time. So is courage. Thinking begins only where it makes no difference whether you feel good or bad in the -- in the matter. Gentlemen, I'm not a hero, but I have to stand up for truth many -- often in my life. I never thought I was a courageous man. That happens to you when the -- passion or the fascination of truth overcomes your trembling. I have sweated cold. Cold perspiration has run down my spine when I had to stand up. I didn't like it. Do you think anybody likes it?

I once remember -- I was asked to suppress a book I had written in favor of a -- of a priest, of a Catholic priest. And the powers that be at that time wanted to have a concordat with the Catholic Church. And so I got a telephone call from the cabinet meeting of the ministers in Prussia that of course they expected me not to publish this book, because it would make trouble in their -- political negotiations. The people would resent any concessions to the Church if the Church would proceed against this priest, and I defended him, said he was right.

Well, it's a complicated story, but I mean to say is this: but when I then came into Berlin for the negotiations, and I said to them, "Here is the first copy of the book. It's just out," they were very much amazed. And they -- I said, "What are you going to do about it? I mean, I'm a free man."

They said, "Well, we can treat this as a causa belli, as a -- an act of hostility against us, and you will see the consequences for the rest of your life."

Now, I'm married, I ch- -- had a child. I wanted to get along in the world. And I wanted an -- increase in salary. Everybody wants that. Here you are, you see, with your interest. Of course my self-interest, you see, knocked at the door, you see, and said, "Fie, what a fool," you see. This self-interest is there, you see. But if you are -- have used your thought right, there comes a point where this -- this self, you see, which carries the thought, so to speak, in this great process of all mankind, you see, is expendable. See? That's all. But it is very unpleasant, I assure you. I'll never forget the -- the -- completely { } -- what a -- at what an -- { } impasse I was, you see. Here, my career was ended. So I went to Dartmouth.

Not quite. Lest I be misunderstood, it wasn't so simple. But -- but I only mean to say: never believe that the people who die -- who deal honestly with truth are in themselves -- indifferent to danger, you see. The -- this isn't indifference, or foolhardiness, and in- -- stupidity, you see. They may do it with fear and trembling, as the Bible says. Such an act is done, you see, with cold sweat and perspiration. It's very disagreeable. Didn't like it at all. I mean, I -- there was nothing boastful about it. You see, I didn't brag about my -- my -- you see, I -- I was very sorry that I had to be brave. Ja?

(In a case like that { }.)

Pardon me?

(In a case -- in that case { }?)

I wouldn't call it "defiance." You see, defiance I think is always aggressive. That is, the defiant man, you see, takes some pleasure in starting the bout. I didn't. I hadn't known that I would get a telephone call. I just acted as an author and a scholar, you see, and a speaker, who used his privileges of the freedom of speech and thought. Then suddenly, upon me is brought this pressure. Now where is my defiance, you see? The question was only: could I stand the pressure, you see? That's not defiance, I would say. Wouldn't you agree?

The word "defiance" is always putting the starting point of the whole action into the individual, yes? In this case, however, I wasn't defiant. I had come to the rescue of a friend. You can't -- can hardly call it "defiant" when a man jumps into the river at a place where there is a sign, "No trespassing," to save somebody who is drowning, you see. And then the police comes, or the owner of the -- of the lot and says, "No trespassing." And he goes through the garden just the same, and goes into the river. Is he defiant?

(Well, how can he be { }.)

Well, but I started something else. The man who sees a man drown, you see, decides to save him. So he starts the act of saving. In the process, he discovers that he has to trespass on foreign land, you see, on -- on another man's land. This was not in his decision; but it's a minor, you see, incidental thing. Can you see it? So I wouldn't call it "defiance" if I go through this other man's land. Because my intent is not to defy his property right. My intent is to save this man. You remember what we said of intent last time. My intent is not on the act of trespassing. My intent is in the direction of -- of saving, you see, a life. Do you see the difference? Defiance means that what I'm doing I'm doing in order to invite this man's, you see, resistance. And there are boys who enjoy this very much, when they -- jump -- you see, trespass somewhere, and the landowner looks out the window and begins to -- to scold them, they say, "Wonderful we have gotten this man's bile and gallbladder." See? That's defiance. Ja?

Now gentlemen, comes part 2. In part 2, I said we have the real -- one tree of li- -- of thought, of knowledge, as it is -- has unfolded, since 1100, in these three phases: the knowledge of the eternal, through conscience; the knowledge of the world, of change, of movement, through consciousness; and the world of man through self-consciousness. And we said this is a one -- tree of knowledge, and it begins with the founding of the universities, and goes on with the addition of academies, and it is now seeking its third form. And I proposed for you the idea that it would have -- lead to forms of camps, camping mind.

The reason was that the medieval university dealt with people who had listened in chapel. The academies were institutions in which thought was nourished by the facts from laboratory -- laboratories, and experimentation, and research.

So the feeding of the university comes from chapel. The mind must, so to speak, elaborate on the fact that people have { } God, but the conscience of God is gone; He is absent and He's present. You remember, we said that last time. And the second phase, the academies, man tried things. And the facts do not drive the traditions. We said research and tradition are in opposition in academies. And that's tested out in laboratories. And Number 3 today, ruling, and teaching, and creating traditions is gone out of our society. Nobody can appoint his successor today. Everybody gets them furnished from schools, for example. Take a former businessman. His son would take over his business. Today the poor man, the president of a company, must go to Tuck School and get a successor -- a potential successor for it. That is, a man who is trained by somebody else, who is not, you see, trained by himself.

So today, gentlemen, the -- the rules of eldership are threatened, and we are looking for these powers that can create the relation between one man, the seed; and the next man, the fruit. That's our problem today: how to bear fruit in other people. Most teaching, as it goes on today, is perfectly fruitless. I am very much aware of this. { } you will bear me out on this, at least. That's one truth which you cannot escape.

Fruitless talking today is so horrid. Perfectly fruitless. Now gentlemen, this means that the tree of knowledge of the his- -- in the history of mankind is creating one great man. Man consisting of thousands and millions of people over the centuries. And yet, like cells in one body, building up this one organic thinker: man as one. For 400 years, the roots were put down in u- -- in the form of universities. And we still have universities, and will have them until the end of days. They won't be given up. We -- have then added laboratories. And I'm sure we won't forgo them, you see. And we must have now third institutions, in which even the physicists must learn what it means to govern. And you can't govern with the atomic bomb.

So the next phase is still open, this super-grammar of society, in which you -- "you" will turn into "I," and "I" will turn into "we."

So we -- in the second half, gentlemen, we have learned to personalize this vast, historical process over centuries. In the first half, we have seen that the -- your own privately owned mind in fact is your participation in the circulation of thought through mankind. Your problem is of your putting down roots, your becoming a living tree, and your becoming the seed of your own fruits.

In society, it looks terribly abstract to read up the history of universities, and to read about doctor examinations, and commencement, and departments, and academies of science. Who would think this has anything to do with you and me, you see? It has! Can you see it now? Because in all these institutions, gentlemen, of higher learning--you can put this down--in all the institutions of higher learning, man ha- -- is trying -- is trying to build himself up into one living tree which bears his fruits--year in, year out--and which is able to bear fruit for all men.

So all these many stories of Paris and Salerno, and the academies of science must become ali- -- come to life in you by your -- the insight that they actually try to transform you and me -- into the cells of one thinking man -- m-a-n, in the singular. {Cowles}, can you see this?

[tape interruption]

...in the life of the western world during the last 900 years, in its creation of sciences, that I took the liberty of leading you through these various things--academies, universities, and the future--in -- not a chronological order. I wanted you to realize that whether you deal with the social science of the future, or whether you deal with theology in the Middle Ages, or natural science as of today or 1600, you are dealing with the same endeavor of man, you see, to cover the problems which the three times of his life throw up. His youth, where he must trust in something waiting for him eternally; the adult man's interest in manipulating in the world around him and mastering it; and the necessity of bearing fruit in future times when you -- we ourselves are no longer are alive, of surviving in our thought, since we cannot survive in our -- in the flesh.

Therefore gentlemen, for our course here, the -- 1200, 1500, 1800, 1900, 2200, are all equally near and equally far, you see. If you deal with one man, it is -- he is utterly indifferent whether Mr. Bonaventura said something about the itinerary of the mind in 1270, or whether Mr. Einstein says something about -- about relativity today. Can you see this? Once you accept, gentlemen, that man is in a common campaign, to create himself into one body of thinker -- thinking man, then I'm not teaching this course so that you may know some historical facts of the past, you see, but that you may keep all of the features which universities, which academies, and which future social thinking require.

Conscience, gentlemen, consciousness, and self-consciousenss are all three essential for your and my cogitations. Nobody can think--we said about the natural scientist--who has not first adopted the fruits of the medieval cycle. That all thinking, you see, is universal for all; that there is always a laity and an expert, and that the expert must be respected by the laity; and on the other hand, the laity must benefit from the expert. Nobody can think, gentlemen, without some specialization, becoming some expert, some specialist. And nobody who becomes a specialist must lose sight of the fact that what he does as a specialist, you see, is meant to be generally good, generally true, generally acceptable.

So gentlemen, the medieval cycle has created the premises, the roots upon which the tree of knowledge of the sciences has been es- -- could be erected. And whether this tree now becomes capable of bearing fruit and becoming seed is yet to be seen. It doesn't look like it at this moment, where people squander the energies of the globe in such an extent, because they do not think of plant succession. Who said this, "plant succession"? Yes. Because they don't conserve, you see, but they just exploit, which the fighter does, you see, which the manipulator does. But which is not the elder's way, who rules the earth, you see, so that it might go on forever.

Now gentlemen, therefore I thought it would be fitting if I concluded deliberately this class with a reading from Thomas Aquinas on -- it will teach you two things. First, the form of the medieval investigation -- scientific investigation in his -- the form of his book. And second, because the topic he deals with is conscience -- his conscience. And no scientist can have consciousness of the world if he has not a conscience as -- about the truth. It's obviously that he can only claim to be a scientist if he's very conscientious. Now where -- why should he be conscientious, can you tell me? His natural sciences offer no reason for him to be conscientious. If he is just dirt, and ashes, and so much carbon -- dioxide, why should he be conscientious, gentlemen? Can you tell me why any scientist, from the findings of his own science, could be made into being conscientious, if he's just dirt, and ashes, and urges, and sex, and glands, and nerves? The -- one thing we should allow him to be is to be arbitrary, to deal his -- to serve his own benefit, to do as he pleases. Because it can all be explained by his glands, you see, by his itch. Now you expect all the scientists to be consc- -- conscientious, to have a conscience.

Now gentlemen, the conscience of a scientist is his participation in the medieval cycle. Would you take this down? The conscience of the scientist constitutes his participation in the medieval cy- -- cycle. Through his conscience, a modern man is rooted in medieval thinking. Through a man's consciousness, he is rooted in modern science.

({ }?)

Through a man's -- through his -- through his conscience, a modern scientist is rooted in the medieval cycle, because how to cultivate your conscience is the topic of the medieval cycle. Through our conscience, we are rooted in the medieval cycle. Through consciousness, any man of any time participates in the struggle of the natural scientist for knowledge of the world.

And through the -- self-consciousness of sciences -- scientists, and through the -- their self-consciousness--their pride, for example, you see, or their bashfulness, or their clumsiness, or their always forgetting their umbrellas, the -- they're being distracted, the distracted professor--thereby is rooted in society, is his selfconsciousness, you see. The self-consciousness of the scientific group -- of the group of scientists, places the scientist with the problem of the social science of society. Any professor, any research man, any man in physics today is rooted in the Middle Ages. He is blossoming through the grants of the scientific foundations. The question, whether he can bear fruit in society, gentlemen, depends on the development of a social science, which will give him his proper function in society. The very simple question, "Shall the atom bomb be dropped?" you see, that decides over the usefulness of science in the long run, after all, you see. Whether the whole thing was terrible, you see, or good.

Now the poor social -- the poor natural scientist depends, for the fruitfulness of his scientific endeavors, you see, not on his laboratory, as you -- you see, and not on his conscience, which only taught him to tell the truth, you see, and all -- nothing but the truth--on whom does it depend, gentlemen? On the -- responses of the rest of mankind, on the laity, on the governing bodies, you see, on the rulers. It depends therefore on his relations to his society. Can you see this? Therefore that the modern scientist suddenly realizes that he depends on the coming-true of a social science, which he cannot build up, { } incapable of; there must be other methods.

I cannot say sharply enough, gentlemen, that every living natural scientist, by his very great fear that his science will be used wrongly today, cries out for a social science which shall not be based on laboratories and on mathematics. You must recognize, gentlemen--this is the -- your main, greatest problem--you all worship still the idea that for society, there -- we find a chemical formula, or a list, or a truth which can be expressed in mathematical or so-called scientific form or logic. A decent scientist will never even for one moment wish -- he will dread it, he will dread it, because he wants to make sure that the atom bomb as a genocide will not be used -- genocide will not be used, you see.

Now to teach people not to use something is -- is nothing -- has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics, you can see. Because -- why not, gentlemen? Because it takes time to sow such a truth. Mathematical truth is impatient, and doesn't work today. The math is just -- are indifferent to the { }.

I have a friend who was a Christian minister of high standing in this commu- -- community. And he told me two years ago, "We have to drop the atom bomb on Moscow, to- -- tomorrow."

Why? His paper, his bonds on the stock exchange had gone down.

That's how the modern mass man--even though he may call himself a Christian minister, and he -- by the way, he introduced his sentence with the wonderful statement, "Of course, we are all Christians, but" -- "the atom bomb has to be dropped tomorrow on Moscow."

So I reminded him of Nrnberg and aggressive war. That's how modern men in this country spoke a year ago -- here. Here, we have a student on campus from Europe--I still remember sitting with him in -- in the Indian Bowl, in those days when Mr. Forestal was waging war against Russia. And he had a milkshake -- each a one -- had one. And he said, "There's war coming. I'm a Norwegian. It's terrible. I must go home."

And I said, "You'd better stay here. There will be no war."

And he thought I was mad, because the whole town said there was war, that -- that a man could not conform to this general judgment, seemed to him impossible. And -- gentlemen, the truth that this is the end of World War II and not the beginning of World War III has taken four years to seep in into the American consciousness. Any man who has gone through the First World War could know it all the time. It was not very difficult to know that the war was over. But you have been hoaxed into this feeling for the last--it's nearly forgotten now. Can you still reconstrue the feeling of last summer -- last May--can you? Well, many people--including Mr. Forestal, by the way--whose end is very tragic, but has to do with this turn of events. It has nothing to do with Mr. Walter Winchell--or at least not all.

Well, it's not to laugh. I mean, the case of Mr. Forestal is a very great case, and I have the greatest respect for this man, and really great reverence for his fate, gentlemen. But he paid the penalty for all of you, for your hysteria -- I mean, the country's hysteria. Because he was -- represented a direction of hopeless preparation for the Third World War, when it was perhaps the only way in which this could be handled. Then he couldn't find the release of -- from this tremendous tension into a -- quite a different state of affairs, when the war is over and an era of peace is opening. That's the end of this man. And I think he has -- he is sacrificed for all of us, because this country prefers to move in these violent shifts, and have -- must have the jitters in order to digest well. The jitters here are part of the -- of the well-being of the American -- the educated people. I don't know why businessmen love jitters, but they seem to. Any -- any four months there has to be some scare, Communist scare, or Cold War, or -- some jitters. Depression, I mean. And they do not feel very well if there is not something to raise their bile. F.D.R. is dead, so they have nothing to go. So it's { }.

What I mean to say is, gentlemen, if you see these people in their blindness, and in their extravaganza, you see one thing: all social truth takes immeasurably long time. You can never have the idea that this will be like "2 and 2 is 4." Any man who thinks that gov- -- society can be governed by a mathematical formula is a fool, because he does not bring into consideration his own foolishness. If you remember what you felt in May '48--it's hard for you { }; can you do it? Do you feel anything then? Probably not. It's amazing what has happened in 12 months in this country, you see. A complete change of { }. If you see this, gentlemen, then you will know that social science takes time. Mathematics don't. Mathematics deal with things in space, which are not different, as time goes on. The sun turns in cycles, and there is no difference whether you observe her practically in 1500 or in 1900. Astronomy and physics, you see, they are the same, more or less.

In other words, mathematics is that method which neglects the time element. Social science is that method which stresses the time element. Ja? I say this because all -- in mathematics there is a time element. As I told you, it takes time before you understand that 2 and 2 is 4. But it can be neglected. Ideally, it is true already or -- before the child has learned it, yes. Because we are quite sure that within one hour, we can prove it to a child, you see; and we neglect this length of time it takes to teach you the Pythagorean problem, you see.

However this is not true of the social sciences. You cannot teach a child of 12 citizenship. That's nonsense. Citizenship can only be taught over a long life. All the ideas that you can anticipate the teaching of citizenship by sending people on a joyride, in a bus, through Manhattan. That's nothing. That's just a beginning, you see. The thing has to become serious. And after 30 years, you see, then you will know whether one of these children has -- has become a good citizen. It has to be verified, you see. The examination, in other words, on citizenship, cannot be given after -- after one year in high school, you see. The real examination, the real test can only be handed out as a Pulitzer award 40 years later.

Social science, gentlemen, deals with time. Super-grammar describes how long it takes to chan- -- transform people into the bearers of different roles in society. Now the modern scientist, for the first time brought up short to his own destruction in the atomic bomb business, you see, suddenly realizes that he is a social being, and that the behavior of the governing people, the government, of the -- of generals, of aircraft people, of -- electorate of other nations have an influence on the meaning of his science. The place of science, gentlemen, is decided over by the social science. Will you take this time? The place of science in the history of mankind will be decided over by social science, because it still can lead simply to disaster and destruction--as one of you talked with me just during the recess, very rightly--or it can bear -- be made to bear fruit. People may throw away the atomic bomb and say, "That's not for us. Too good to be true."

Now gentlemen, consc- -- any scientist then needs three sciences. Only fools among the natural scientists can deal without -- do without law and theology. And only fools can do without politics. But that's what the modern scientist--very many of them--think, you see, that their science is all they need -- their -- their natural science, and their nat- -- scientific methods. The -- methods, gentlemen, of the natural sciences, cry for the two other methods. You need, if you have a super-arithmetic, called mathematics, you need at the same moment a super-grammar, and a super-logic.

How many minutes do I have?

(Four.)

Wie?

(Four.) I'll take 10. Any social truth takes time.

This is the first volume of the Summa The- -- of Theology, the Sum of Theology by Thomas Aquinas. This is, I think, in -- in four volumes. So it would be four times the size of this -- his life work, his main work. He has written many others. The library of Thomas forms 50 or 60 volumes. But this is his Sum of Theology. In other words, gentlemen, I told you that Ab‚lard wrote a theology for the first time, a science of God, with the concording principle of "yes and no," you see, of contradictions, of super-logic.

Now this is after 150 years. Ab‚lard writes in 1125; Thomas writes, after he has finished this, it's 1275, or -6--you must have it in your notes. There is already a sum of all the discussions, of all the contradictions of God. This is divided, gentlemen, into three parts. It's worth your knowing this. In three parts. But we quote it, strangely enough as First Part, Second Part, First Half; Second Half: Third -- Second -- First Part, Second Part; Third Part.

So if you read any quotation from St. Thomas, it comes this way: S Th: Summa Theologae -- -ae at the end, that means "of theology," the genitive. And then it goes on: Paragraph I, article -- let's say, 14. Or it goes: I, 2, 1, article 14, or it might be: II, 2, article 14. That's something that comes only from the old manuscripts. I only mention it because you will read such quotations more in the future years. As you know, Thomas Aquinas is very popular today with Miss {Bentley}.

I shouldn't have said that -- article. Before the article, there comes the question. It's divided into questions; and then the -- the questions are subdivided into articles. So there would be first--who -- only to give you a problem on method--"Is conscience power -- a power? Is conscience a potency?" literally translated. Quite interesting question. Conscience to most modern scientists officially is nothing. It's just an itch. It's a derelict. It's a -- it's an appendix. It's a der- -- it's an archaic organ which should be neglec- -- be neglected.

"Is conscience a certain power?" Who -- that's article 13th, in the -- 79th question. Now under which question would he bring this up? Let us see what the whole question is called. "On the powers of the intellect." "On the various powers of the intellect." Very good. See, you think conscience is not a power of the intellect, you see. If you don't, you have no tree of knowledge. Because then the sequence is not first to develop the roots, you see, the powerful roots of questions. Then to develop the peripheral leaves and branches of knowledge, you see, and -- of science. And then to -- of consciousness of the world, and then to develop the propagating forces of fruit and seed. So you see in this little, one question, the whole difference between the Middle Ages and modern times occur -- turn up. Thomas knew of the whole tree of knowledge. The modern scoundrel, the modern sophist in a liberal arts college, thinks that only his own science exists. And he never asks: where does he get his scientific conscience from? How come that you all go to Dartmouth College conscientiously believing that scientific truth is something good? That comes from conscience, you see.

Now this is the question -- brought up by -- by Thomas: is conscience a power? Is it a power of the intellect? And this is discussed at great length. And you can of course go against the solution. There are always two schools of thought. Let me read it to you.

"Thirteenth Article. Let us see whether conscience is a -- a kind of power." Now he brings up three quotations on one side, and then an experience on the other. "Origenes says that conscience is a correcting spirit and the taskmaster, which is associated to the human soul, by which the soul can be separated from evil, and can be made loyal to good. But the spirit in the soul calls her a certain power, or the mind itself." The conscience calls--"it," I should say--"calls it a certain power or the mind itself," as we read in Ephesians--that's by St. Paul. "We shall -- you shall be renewed by the spirit of your mind, or we call it imagination, or we call it an imaginative, spiritual vision," as for example by St. Augustine, who literally writes, "Conscience is a certain power."

Then, "Besides," second point: "That which is capable of sinning in us, must be a power of the soul." Now conscience certainly is the subject of sin, of crime. St. Paul says in his letter to Tit- -- Titus, "They -- their minds and their conscience have been sullied. Therefore it would seem that conscience is a power."

Third point: "It is necessary that conscience is either act -- an act, or a habit, or a potency, a power." I don't know if -- yes, "potency" is perhaps the most right word. "But it is not an act, because then it would not stay al- -- then it would not stay always in a man." Any act passes, you see; it's done, it's over. "It can also not be a habit, because then would conscience not be something unified, but many different things. For in our actions, many different techniques of thinking led us on. Therefore conscience must be a power. But there is an argument against it. Conscience can be left aside." A power we either have or -- have -- you cannot do anything, a power. If you have strong muscles, you have them. Therefore conscience cannot be a power.

"Now this is my answer. We have to say that conscience, properly speaking, is not a power, but an act. And this is revealed first by reason of its name. Then also, because according to common usage of speech, we attribute certain things to conscious -- conscience, which go with action. According to the propriety of this word, conscience always implies some kind of scientific order with regard to something. Obviously 'conscience' literally means the science -- which I have together with somebody else."

"Now such science an only be applied by an act to anything in the world. And out of this, it would appear that conscience must be an act. Also the attributions -- the attributes of conscience point in this direction," because it can be said that our conscience testifies, my -- conscience binds me, we may say, or it instigates me to do something, or it accuses me, or it makes me -- it bites me, or it -- reproves me. "All this means that it is a knowledge for action. And we apply this knowledge in three manners..." Well, that's not -- interesting.

So you have here the system of the discussion, that first there is: what points in the direction of making conscience into a power. Then that is mentioned which points in the direction that it is not a power, because it can be shelved; it can be neglected. Then he gives his response.

And now comes then the final touch. "After he has given this response, that properly speaking, conscience consists of acts"--which I think is highly in- -- interesting; we'll talk on this next time--now wait a minute, gentlemen. I have to make a proposition: anybody who is really interested in these problems, I shall be glad to meet him in an some extracurricular form next term. So if there are any interest in you to form a group or -- let me say 5 or 10, to go on with this, I would feel that my conscience would have acted rightly. Because I feel that I haven't given you enough of this. It is impossible in so short -- short a time. If anybody should be interested, I would conscientiously discharge my obligations. So perhaps one of you -- take the two who asked, if there is such interest, and we can come -- do something in the next term, privately.

What I wish to add however today here, at this moment, is the ending, that you may understand, gentlemen, that mathematics is only one method. An example of the super-grammatical method is my own course. If you ask yourself, "Which method has this man followed in his own course?" it was not mathematics. You can see this, { }. There was some concording. There was some logic, you see. There was some factual description, as a natural science. But the main point was to lead you through these three phases, you see, of the you-man, the Iman, and the we-man. That's not grammar; that's super-grammar. Can you see this?

Now here in -- in -- in Thomas, I wish to say one word. We said he concords. The schoolmen themselves said they distinguish. The end of the Thomistic -- any Thomistic question is -- are three distinctions. It is to say --. "When conscience sometimes is called the spirit," that's said impropri- -- how do you say it?--improperly. That's just a metaphor. Secondly, when we say that conscience be sullied--and how can an act be sullied?--it is only meant that I know in my conscience that I am sullied, not the conscience is sullied. But what is meant is that through my conscience, I know that I myself am defiled. Again, a distinction, not the conscience.

[tape interruption; end]