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

[Opening remarks missing]

... try to steer away, gentlemen, in this treatment of love from the cheapness which surrounds you today. You call love, usually, "sex." You don't believe that for the love of Christ one could do great things. Yet the whole business of Christianity, of course, is based on the assumption that love is the power to nominate people. To nominate people, give them a new name. So the word "nomination" is perhaps even more to the point as naming. And I want you very much to think for the rest of your life on this problem of incest, seriously. That we know what incest is not because some doctor tells us it isn't good -- inbreeding isn't good, but because we all know this before there isn't any science, and any doctor, that we cannot love with full power somebody who had already a mild name of friendship in our neighborhood; somebody who has already been something else cannot be, you see, with full power the new love. Once you have understood this, gentlemen, I think you should be in a way immune against these incredible confusions of purely physical processes and the power that overcomes any man who has the great privilege of being in love. You are a different person, because in one other person's mind, you appear under a name, which nobody else yet recognizes, but which they do. The whole Gospel, as you -- written -- is written as a love story when one after the other of the faithful just gives Jesus the appropriate name, Christ. Then even Thomas, finally, falls down, the Church is founded. And that's the whole story. Peter is the first to recognize Him as the Messiah and Thomas is, so to speak, the last, and that's the whole content of the Gospel. And the whole expansion into the pagan world of Christianity came about by one man's, you see, suddenly hearing the Lord saying, "Paul, Paul, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" That is, "Why don't you give me the name whom you know -- which you know very well belongs to me?" It is all, gentlemen, these power processes. They go on in our community every minute. That if you are forced to call an admired man your friend, or your -- the hero, that in this moment there is order in the world.

Now, in order to set this out a little more straightforward, gentlemen, I want you to consider the worship of work, and the worship of love. In which we -- do we worship this sphere of work? As you know, today people not only treasure money, but there is another way of worshiping work, by overwork. But the overwork in America, as you know, has a very special way of expressing itself. It calls -- it's called "organization." We have today not only administrations, and deans of administration, we have even coordinators, as you know. The whole country is absolutely crazy with the idea that you have to worship work by organizing it, all the time. It's a craze. It's an insanity. America is at this moment

spending one-half of its time and its millions on organizing, on filing cabinets. Sixteen forms have to be filled out whenever one Naval application or letter is written. Sixteen times the same thing is filed away. It's absolute insanity, gentlemen, but everybody in this country is proud of, because the god of work is ruling. Laugh it out of court! I mean, it's absolutely silly, these 16 copies. They should all be destroyed, and the typewriters and the filing cabinets with it. But we are one -- I mean, we are so proud of it. Who is in the -- who writes English papers, in the English department? Well, you know what they have -- 54 little formulae at the end how to -- how to censor -- marks your paper. You remember? Fifty-four. I counted them. That's organization. Organization, gentlemen, today is the worship of work. And it's absolutely childish, and most of you will fall for it and you will all become organizers, administrators, assistant to the dean, or something like that. Empty straw! That's all there is to it.

Because it's the worship of work. Gentlemen, work is there to make you free for love. But it is not there to be multiplied in itself. Once you try to multiply work, what you call organizing it, and sitting down and making 54 marks, it puts between the professor of English and you just this organization. And instead of telling you you are an ass and an idiot, you have this wonderful remarks -- S means slang and P means punctuation, and T means trite.

It dispenses with your real relation between teacher and student. It's between you -- the organization, always. All -- that's what -- why I'm driving at this, gentlemen, not to scold or to rant -- but to make you aware that all organization tries to make impersonal. Work is unnamed, unrecognized, and impersonal, within any organization. In the Civil Office -- Service of England, which is a very good service, as you know, there always has been pointed out that there must be unrecognized service. That is, people in an organization have to work without getting individual, personal recognition, so you see there's something in -- inevitable, in the grandeur and in the tragedy of organization; it is impersonal. It is impersonal. Today, however, in this country, the god is Jupiter, the god is organization, gentlemen. And people in this country prefer impersonal relations to personal relations. In this whole college, every college -- all my colleagues think it is advantageous to have non-personal relations with the students. They're replaceable relations; that anybody can give a course. The same course, you see. One is -- gets sick, you see, and another takes the course. Is this possible in any personal teaching? It's impossible. But it is done here all over the place { } -- that's why my course has a number, you see, as though somebody else could give this course. Perfectly idiotic. You see, it's 40. That's organization.

You can very clearly say, gentlemen, that in a college where the courses have numbers, the idea is that the name is the -- well it's an inflection, an addition which is not necessary. Names are unnecessary for the structure of this college at

this moment, you see. You have -- need one president, and the rest are numbers. And it's the same with you. You prefer organization to personal connections. It's too dangerous, gentlemen. In this modern world, the only -- you know the only sphere where people become personal and confident is on the railroad, where they -- because they are quite sure that they will never meet the neighbor again, so they confide all their crimes to the neighbor on the next seat. Otherwise we remain impersonal. That is, we have really been able in our organized society, gentlemen, to put things on -- stand them on their head. We are personal where we are quite sure that we will never see the person again. And we remain impersonal where we are afraid that for the rest of our life we may be plagued with their presence, so we better -- don't become ever personal, because that's too vul-- you see, just may wound somebody and may leave scars. You live in a highly de-personalized world. General -- G.I., I mean, is the expression, you see, for this organization of the Army. What does it mean? Well, General Issue, you see, expendable.

Gentlemen, wherever you have affection, nomination, the word "organization" cannot take place. The -- therefore you always have the organization of the Republican party, or the Democratic party or the Progressive party in need for big names. Mr. Harriman has to come in or Mr. Eisenhower, because the Republican party is just an organization. And that wouldn't do. You can't win votes with an organization, because votes go for names. But you can work hard as a Republican party, and they did, because they are an organization. Gentlemen, in this country, you must stick to the great wisdom of the last 150 years of this republic, that the political machine -- which is just another word for organization, you see -- must always have a living name in addition in order to win. It is impossible to have an election, you see, organized by the machine and won by the machine. There is one item that must transcend the machine. The name Woodrow Wilson, or the name F.D. Roosevelt, or the name Eisenhower were chosen by the machine in due respect to the opinion of mankind; that machines are not to be elected or voted for, or to arouse any passions. Anybody who gets hot under the collar for the Republican party or the Democratic party is a very immature person, gentlemen, because that's just an organization; and an organization never deserves to be loved. It is made to exclude love. It's its purpose, because it is a purposive organization, gentlemen.

Every organization is a means to an end, gentlemen, and means cannot be loved. Every organization is a means to an end. Can you see this? Therefore it cannot be loved. We can only love, gentlemen, such creatures who are the last instance of being, and not some preliminary step. Means are all preliminary to reality. But a baby, gentlemen, has no finality, no aim beyond itself. No baby has a purpose. And I'm glad to say, you have no purpose. That is, I like you -- regardless of your stupid purposes. If I would like you because of your purposes, we

would found a party and organize. That's one thing, you see. But I like you just the same. Whether I disapprove of your purposes or not, you see, doesn't make any difference. This you cannot see. The boy who asked me the famous question, "What do I gain by the good life?" believed in the third sphere. Gentlemen, you don't gain anything by the good life, because in the good life, every creature that occurs there is an end in himself. You have no end beyond yourself, I hope. You have an immortal soul, and what more can you ask? Immortality means that you are the last end. Of course, you don't believe that you are an immortal soul. But if you could, this would just be another expression for having found that you are not a means to an end. And nobody else is.

So you belong into the fourth sphere, in power of what? Obviously, gentlemen, in the fourth sphere, all the terms by which we are labeled instruments or tools, must fall. Otherwise we will remain in the sphere of being just means. For example, G.I. is not good enough for you and me as a final title, you see. Then you must become General Patton or the famous corporal on -- in Corregidor. That is, you must acquire a name. Name. Namedness. A reputation. Something that nobody else has. Therefore this whole process of nomination or naming is something by which we emerge from the mere organization.

I told you the last time, I remember, that species was the way in which value or irreplaceability knocked at the door of nature. That an elephant had to be called an elephant. It's such a wonderful animal. Everybody admires him, you see. But we say 10 elephants, 50 elephants, five elephants, because underneath the elephant we hardly go. If you have a tame elephant, you may call him Jumbo; and then Jumbo is, again, you see, the last name. Wherever we put a name, we are in the fourth sphere. But wherever anything can be classified by one name, we are in the sphere still of purpose and meaning. Ten elephants can work hard, you see; Jumbo is a pet elephant, so he already becomes human. He becomes invaluable, you see. He cannot be just put to work, as a means to an end. And so it is with all our pet animals. They are -- borderline cases. I mean, the dog, and your horse and your cat -- they are when you have given them a name, and when you mourn when they die -- they have already entered, you see, the sphere -- can you see this, -- of something irreplaceable. But with human beings, gentlemen, it is very hard for you to understand that at every moment, we are partly organized, and partly beyond the organization. I am one out of innumerable professors of colleges in this land. As such, I am just a means to an end for giving other people instruction and education, you see. I have to tolerate this, you see. And the more I tolerate this, I mean, the more I, so to speak, connive with this conspiracy of taking away my personality, in this sphere, the more I may hope to rescue it. It's not use arguing, I'm just organized away into this maelstrom of college professors. There is even now an association of college professors, et cetera.

But as such, gentlemen, that's minor. All my organized elements -- yours -- that you belong to a fraternity, gentlemen; that you belong to a family, that you belong to the United States, that you are a resident of Norfolk, Virginia -- all these are minor parts of you, but this is not the man himself. And we have therefore to study these spheres. That's why -- why do I invite you to be serious about these spheres? Because we all part of dust, and part of life, and part of work and organization. But the more careful you distinguish what part of yours has to stay within these rings, you see, the more free you will be for being also a member of the fourth and the fifth sphere, of where the man only begins to exist. And in -- I assure you, inside an organization he is far from existing. He's just a garment worker or one of the many stockbrokers at the stock exchange. And they can be investigated physically. What's the average doctor earning? As if he had not been a doctor, you see, who has a special {care of patient} and is quite irreplaceable.

So this division between the third and the fourth sphere, today is really beclouded, because I think that for the last 20 years, as far as I can see it, America has plunged for organization. If you think that today a barber has to have a college education and a dentist has to have a board examination, and on it goes -- the country is crazy with organization. We now introduce very rapidly a guild and craft system -- towards -- compared with which the medieval craft system and guild system is just nothing. If you think a man has to study for a 33rd year before he can call himself a surgeon, it's just fantastic. Twenty years ago, you could still be -- one of the most distinguished lawyers and never have gone to law school. At 19, you read the law at home, you see, and at 20 you called yourself a lawyer, and at 21 you betrayed everybody else. And excelled in that. That is, gentlemen, in 20 years, this country has given up all improvisation. And is organizing, organizing, organizing, organizing, and you must -- you can decide that's good. I don't -- won't criticize it, but you must know it. Gentlemen, it's a -- phase of life which is not necessary. It is just so at this moment in this country; and I think three-quarters of it is absolute insanity, in my public estimation. No human being that comes to this country is treated -- as you know, they have now -- they put them to -- in jail now when they land. So all humanity is gone. They announce the closing of Ellis Island, as a humanitarian measure, when in fact it is the most cruel brutality, because the man who are now currently brought to Ellis Island has to be brought into a jail, at the Battery. And that's America, a humanitarian, Christian country. And nobody says anything. You are not interested. You have much more important problems of organizing your fraternity. You organize all day long. Everybody organizes. Gentlemen, every step in organization takes away from your humanity. You must know this. The people who organize feed their conscience on the third level, of the Jupiter level. Aren't we purposive? Aren't we economical? Aren't we rational beings? Certainly, but why do -- are you? Why do you waste your energy in -- into -- why do

you channelize your energy into this field? Because you don't dare to love. That's too vulnerable, that's too exciting, and too dangerous. And there you can go wrong. With organization, actually, I mean, have you seen "The Consul"? The opera?

[unintelligible]

Wie? Have you seen it? Well, it's all there, isn't it? Anybody who hasn't seen -- or the records of "The Consul," or the play itself, the opera, should really listen to it. Gentlemen, it's the greatest piece of art of our period. That's -- it is great, I think, I don't care for the execution, because a man has dared into a sphere which has not yet been conceived, as a tragic -- part of our existence. And it is the most tragic part of our present-day existence, this being organized, you see. And ceasing to be anything. Happens in Russia. Happens in America. All the Europeans say, "What's the choice? America is just as bad as Russia in this respect. Everybody is filed away. Everybody has an IQ. Everybody has 82 percent or 77 percent of something." And the Europeans say, "We've not heard of such a thing. I'm not 57 percent, I'm not 140. I'm not blood pressure 125. I mean, I'm not interested in being organized, you see.

Have you seen, oh -- "So Green Is My Valley"? Well, Mr. Priestley, the author, you see, wrote a very wonderful lamentation as an inhabitant of this green valley and said, "Now I am asked to choose between America and Russia. And I really find no difference. Absolutely no distinction. America is just as boring and as organizable as Russia. I -- what's the difference? I want to escape both." And he's a very good man and he knows what he's talking about, gentlemen. And you don't even know it. And you're bored stiff. You see, anybody who is organized ceases to be interesting. Organized people are boring. All trade unions are so boring. All chambers of commerce are so boring. All golf clubs are so boring. They are all organized. Everything is predictable. Gentlemen, what's organization? Making things predictable. And as soon as you are predictable, gentlemen, nobody cares for you. You cannot love a predictable person. Will you kindly take this down, gentlemen? It's very important for you to know. You cannot love a predictable person. And why can't you, gentlemen? You can't trust her. You can't trust any predictable person, because for any unexpected emergencies, such a predictable person is no good. You see, I must have a wife who can emigrate with me to the North Pole. If she were predictable, then she would only be able to move in set ways. But I know that she is absolutely indifferent to all routines and set ways of life. Therefore, she will follow me to the ends of the world. Your wife will not. She will say, "I have to stay in Scarsdale, New York. I cannot live in another region." And she will even prescribe to you what kind of candles she will have to have on the table, and all these things. More and more of these young women in their desperation become organized fanatics, too. They think they

have to have doilies on the table. And they have to have candlelight on the table. And they have to have the certain set of television. All these -- is all nonsense. You have to have nothing, if you love. Absolutely nothing. And once they begin to think in those terms, they become so boring, these women. And the more diamonds you buy them, the more boring they are. The diamonds may be very interesting, but not the carrier, the bearer. The only person, gentlemen, who is interesting, is the incalculable person, because you can't calculate her by any standards of organization.

This is all heresy to you, I know. But at least what I have to tell you, gentlemen, why there is so very little love, and so many {Sheppards} in this country. There's no -- why should there? These people all die from exhaustion from their love faculties. They are all impotent, in the deepest sense. They may have as many physical successes as they can, gentlemen. And most Don Juans, most people who have to sleep with a woman 10 times a day are impotent, spiritually impotent. That's why they have to be Don Giovannis. Any sober person, gentlemen, who can give -- write a poem for his sweetheart and be -- hear the name with him -- she calls him is satisfied. The only way in which you can quiet the quest of your body, gentlemen, is by fulfilling your thirst for being named. Then all these passions suddenly die. That's why a monk, or a nun, gentlemen, who is named with a new name when he enters the monastery have relatively little fight or very little temptation about sex. Because there it is taken seriously that they are named to a new position.

I had a friend who was put on the Index of Rome as a Catholic priest. He was a great writer. And he said, "As soon as I was ex-communicated by Rome, I had to marry; because as a priest" -- he was 50 -- "I had never any trouble. My congregation loved me. They called me Father. Such a man doesn't have to have intercourse with women. Or doesn't have to marry. But when this broke down and these people were my enemies, I had to belong somewhere." So he married. And has four children.

That's all very simple, gentlemen, but it is so simple that nobody tells you. You have separated sex and speech so totally that you don't know that this -- sex without speech is sin, without naming. And speech without love is sin. We speak in order to make love. But we do not, as you think -- we are not free to use our body in separation from our total man. You are not your body, gentlemen. Your body is one element of your existence. And if you want to learn who man is, you must only know how easy it is when you are in desperation and feel you must get drunk, or must have some orgy you meet on the street some nice girl and she says, "Hello, John," you are cured for the whole day. Everybody knows this. One smile, one friendly gesture, can cure the wildest -- the wildest and most infuriated and most passionate heart. This one name is enough to put him right. Isn't

that true? Why don't you observe any facts? You go to laboratories to observe what you can know every day yourself. You can make no experience, gentlemen. That's your worst trouble. You don't trust your own experiences. Otherwise you would know this relation of name and poetry and writing poetry and you wouldn't stop writing poetry at the age of 12. You would know that you have to write verse now. And since you don't do it, you can't love. Because love is, just simply, gentlemen, the application of your power to speak. And vice versa.

Because in love we communicate in such a way that we make sure that we belong, are partners of a larger alliance, or as Mr. Mendez-France over the radio said, "alliance." Love, gen-- what is love? Suddenly seeing oneself inside a larger body. That is love. Seeing oneself suddenly within a larger body. Because you don't do justice to your sweetheart if you just want to devour her and eat her up. If you love her, you want to place her together with you within one larger group -- for example, a family. That is love. Therefore love is not idolatry. You must not idolize your wife, but she and you must have a common faith. Inside the same temples, the same sanctuaries, the same cosmos, you must begin to live, and to move as partners, as members. Therefore, gentlemen, there is no possibility of loving -- love between husband and wife between -- without some relation to the name above both of you. You have to love in the name of the god which rules your marriage. It can be passion. It can be Christ. It can be Jahweh. It can be Jupiter. It can be some god. But all married people -- all people who speak to each other, gentlemen, invoke some name above their alliance, to whom both their speeches remain related. You must -- after all, if you write a letter to your sweetheart, she must believe you in the name of love, in the name of truth, in the name of God, in the name of the United States, in the name of patriotism; but some power must make you speak to her so that she knows what you mean. You don't know all this. It's all destroyed in our wrong teaching in our schools, I'm afraid, because we live in a rational, purposive society where all words have become advertisements for selling the toothpaste. Gentlemen, we don't speak for selling things. We don't speak for communicating facts. We only speak for nominating each other into membership into some common group. That's why we speak. By speech you and I begin to believe that we really form niches and parts inside something we -- that must be built up out of us. Some superstructure -- or structure, I should really say -- some common house inside which you are the vice president and I am the clerk. And so on. When you organize the house, you see, then you begin to speak in such terms, that the speech, you see, puts everybody into his own, you see, righteous place. And when a husband begins to write to his future wife, he begins to ascribe to her the future place he wants her to have in his life. You assign rights to her, to listen about certain things; you'd be silent about other parts of your life. The more such things you do not mention, the more she will be excluded from these parts. Every marriage is different in this. There are people who are very, very married and yet the husband never

speaks of his business to his wife. And there are others, where every sorrow and every worry, you see, immediately is communicated to the wife, because in this case -- in one case the household is so organized that both are in business, so to speak: one at the receiving end and the other at the doing end, or there is a separation and she has the children and the kitchen and the guests and the friends and he has the -- to get the money. That's usually those cases where he isn't very interested in his business. When a good man is really interested in his business, I think he must feel that he doesn't love his wife if he excludes her from all his experiences in this business.

But as I said, there's no rule about this. What I mean to say is, whenever you love, you organize a unit inside which you and the beloved person have a certain role from now on, a certain function. And you do this by every word you speak. You just pave this road. You beat the trail. This is how we build roads, gentlemen. We don't build roads by macadam. We don't build roads by all this cementing and so on. The real roads in humanity lead by our speaking to certain people about certain things and to other people about other things. You go to a doctor and he becomes a doctor because some people go regularly to him and tell him about their diseases. So he becomes an expert on physical disease. No other way in which he can become a doctor really, you see. And so you speak to me, you see, on certain abstract problems of philosophy or religion, you see. And on it goes. But you never see this, gentlemen. You always get stuck with what is said. The main problem of the fourth degree of life, gentlemen, is: WHO SPEAKS TO WHOM? That's the important thing. Who is introduced to -- ? The very beautiful word, "introduce," gentlemen, how can we introduce to each other, if not something opens up between you and me so that -- so we have something in common now, you see? Introduction means that this skin and my skin go, you see, and we certainly are operated in such a way as though you would put { } from one end to the other. There is a connection to this, { } isn't there? A conjugation, an alliance, or whatever you -- convention, association. Whatever words you use, gentlemen, it means that when we are introduced to each other, we are really introduced in to each other. That is, we are inside of each other from now on. You can't get out of the system anymore, after you have -- really have met a person. "Introduction" is a very stupendous word, because we are introduced to each other in such a way that we grow into each other. The Greeks, when they spoke of "handshake," they said one man's hands grew into the other man's hands. They said this organic process, you see, by the handshake. That's -- it was like -- like a tree taking root in the palm of the other, which is very -- a very right idea. The handshake in this country still has a little bit of this, you see, sentiment of this power. That something special then happens. Otherwise you don't shake hands.

So I have tried to build up this whole fourth sphere, gentlemen, from its upper

roof -- from, not from -- how -- the way how it organizes organic processes into named people, what you call "sex" -- but by affection and love, stoop down into organic life and use it to overcome death. But gentlemen, now you can see clearly that the relation which work has to dead matter -- to things, is exactly the same relation that love has to organism. By work we incorporate dead matter into life, we said, you remember -- by manufacturing, by operations, by work, by what we call production. The whole production line uses dead matter, metal and wood, et cetera, paper, and brings it into your and my life. Now lovemaking, which of course leads to the procreation of the human race and procreates beyond corpses, life, does the same with organic substance. By love we incorporate organisms that otherwise die, you see, into the life everlasting of the race. That is, every love process sets free in you and me those substances -- the sperm -- that out -- lives out my -- your and my death, your and my passing, transient existence. If you see the parallel, you see this is quite a -- what a cloud before our eyes is, because most people cannot un-- discriminate these things. If you read the Kinsey Report, he thinks sex is work. He actually does. They all do.

You know when -- what Mrs. Kinsey said when the interviewer came to her. And they said, "Where's Mr. Kinsey? We would like to interview him."

"Oh," she said, "Since he has taken up sex, he never comes home at night."

Well. If any living organism, gentlemen, can live, he doesn't have to be incorporated into a working machine, but he must die. He must die. And love is that process that is -- overcomes death. That is the great hymn in the New Testament and the Old Testament, in the Song of Songs, that love is as strong as Death. That's nothing, gentlemen, to be looked away from, or to be fooled with. It is tremendous. Where there is love, you can save the United States from decay, or you can save the human race from decay. Whatever love does is, it perpetuates life. It renews life which otherwise is, you see, dying. So dead things are incorporated by work, because they have no life. And by purpose. But living things can only be kissed into the victory over death by love. And the first thing therefore that -- is to open them up so that they volunteer their life-force into some lasting unit. That's why courtship is the most important chapter in love, and not the sexual act at the end, which is only of any use if it leads to this fruitfulness. By their fruits you shall know them, gentlemen. That is the important rule of the Fourth Commandment. Any sex process has only meaning and is only a blessing for the people who perpetrate it if it is fruitful. That's why I think the Catholic Church has a very great point, by saying that you cannot know beforehand that your love affairs must be -- remain fruitless. You sterilize your love. It isn't that you have to have children, gentlemen, but you must allow it to grow. The problem is no purpose. All this planned parenthood or artificial semination and so is to me against the very character of this whole sphere of love. Love is taking the

risk of bearing fruit, tearing or taking the risk of being transformed. He who allows himself to be called by a name of love, or he who speaks to somebody else in love, gentlemen, is ready to be transformed, not to remain who he is today, but to find himself dragged and drawn and chased and lifted or debased into a new formation. And when after you have loved for 30 years, you are a different person, gentlemen.

When Goethe married his little friend, who was certainly a very minor matter at first in his life, he wrote a very wonderful poem. He became very serious. He married her finally after 17 years. It's a very great story how this poet of love discovered love, or rediscovered love, after he had lived for 10 years in complete abstinence in an idealistic friendship with the famous Frau von Stein. He discovered that he had done violence to his full nature and he gave up this idealistic and really monastic vow -- from 1778 to 1788 he was exclusively the spiritual lover of the Frau von Stein. That's -- for a man of great power and vigor an incredible vow. He was a secular monk. And then he turned around and turned to this little girl and lived with her as husband -- first as lover -- as was his mistress -- and he finally married her. And he finally wrote in justification of this rather astounding step to his friend Schiller, a very great poem on this extramarital relation, in which he compared himself to an oak tree overgrown by ivy. And he said that the ivy finally would pull down the oak, it was so heavy, completely overgrown. But as his blood and his life and his energy flow through freely into this ivy and took away from his own mighty growth, he says, "He who trusts love ..." let me say it in German first, because it's a good verse -- "Wer sich der Liebe vertraut, h„lt der sein Leben zu Rat." Whom he trusts love, can he economize with his life? That's impossible, gentlemen. Love is life in -- to the second power. Love is life to the second power. And we have here -- two is life to the fourth -- first power. And this is literally true. You can follow it through all your mathematics and your logic. Love is life to the sec-- to the square. It means it is that power which can produce life.

And we will see that the fifth sphere, gentlemen, is love to the square, or life to the third power, to the cube. And this is not -- { } this of course known to the New Testament, or to Goethe, or to these people, but you all laugh off these things. To you, love, life, spirit, are all just words somewhere in the corner. Gentlemen, there is a very strict order in the universe, that matter, life, love, spirit, are related to each other like the single power, and the square, and the cubic power. If you don't know this, you become very, very unhappy. We all become the { } -- the slaves of spirits, whom you do not recognize for what they are. What's McCarthyism? The actions of a spirit that comes out of love must always lead to the {obedience} under a spirit of hate, because without spirit, no great nation can live. And so we have to hate, if we cannot love. And since in this country, the spirit and the inspiration are forbidden, you have this division of

mind and body, and you have organization, and you have work and all these { }. Therefore you will always have crazies, and you will always have Ku Klux Klan, because hatred must take the place of the spirit. { } some spirit, or there is a faulty spirit.

Now, at this moment, I'm only driving at the simple fact -- or not simple fact -- but very -- a fact which I recommend to your insight, that love is life to the square. It is not inside life, gentlemen. It is not a part of life, as you like to think. It's not a nice experience in life. The fourth sphere is as comprehensive, gentlemen, as all the other spheres. The whole sphere of work -- you can see that production is mighty thing; your offices are a mighty thing; your schedules and you budgets and your tariffs and your commissions and your committees -- and you will admit that's a whole world, the world of production. It's very hard for me to sell you the idea that the world of passions, the world of life-begetting passions organizes the whole universe also in its special way. Right through. But just as you can look at everything from the standpoint of the producer, you can also look at { } from the standpoint of the creator, from the artist, from the man who loves. And then the producer gets a very low position, and rightly so. And he has to be checked by -- and in this country doesn't. Everybody overrates the producer in this country. He nowhere gets his -- he's laughed at. My colleagues sit eight hours in their business offices, because they think business is the only way of life. The whole college community, gentlemen, in America is absolutely indebted to business for setting the standards of education. Well, gentlemen, I {move} with education in the fourth sphere. And that is without any time schedule. Where you have love, gentlemen, you have no hours. You have no hours. You are going -- how I prepare myself for this lecture, gentlemen, that cannot be measured by -- by a yardstick. This is nonsense. You cannot figure out how long it takes for me to prepare this lecture. Don't you see this? I had to live 66 years before I was able to tell you these things. That has nothing to do with work.

When I came here, a friend of mine, a very methodical lady, asked me if I had found enough books in the library here. Heavens, I said, my whole problem is: in order to teach you to forget sufficient, to forget enough, I must know less while I teaching you than I know. Not more. But that's impossible for business viewpoint, for the man in the third sphere. You think more is better. Gentlemen, I can't tell you -- imagine what I have omitted here! I haven't plagued you with any of the seven sacraments of the Christian church, not with the dogma -- and we're talking all the time about religion, aren't we? But I never mention any of the things I know. That is, I know outside the context of what you really can at this moment understand. This is the problem. So in the sphere of love, gentlemen, less is more. In the sphere of business, more is more. All artistry is omission. People have said, the great piece of art, what is it? Omission, you see. A great

artist shows you -- like Rembrandt -- shows you some shades and some light and that's a great picture. And the photographer who works his head off with the best Leica, with the best lens, {shows everything. Worthless}. Uninteresting. Now, no art, no creation, because no selection. Gentlemen, love is selection. And he who loves is selective. He's not only selective in the choice of his girl, but also in what he speaks to his girl, and also in what he allows her to read. He doesn't want her to read all the trash. He doesn't love a girl more by -- who gives up 10 subscriptions to 10 different magazines. He loves her most who says, "Don't read any of them. They aren't good enough for you." That's selection.

Now the whole race, gentlemen, as you know, lives by selectivity. Darwin wrote a famous book, The Selection of Species, didn't he? But you have never thought what selection is. Selection is the power to ignore quantity. That's selection. A Don Juan has to say, "I have 50 girls. I want to have them all." A lover says, "Fifty girls? No. Not interested. Not interested at all." One. One is more than 50. You can't understand this. But I only want to announce, gentlemen, that you are utterly blind to this fourth sphere, because you haven't discovered your power of being selective. And you aren't proud of it. You have no philosophy of selectivity. You actually -- when you think with your lower mind -- think that more is better.

You know Heraclitus of Ephesus, who was perhaps the greatest thinker the Greeks ever had, said if the people could get their wishes fulfilled, they wouldn't be better off. This is {a cut} against the third sphere, where the people think the more they want, the better off they are. Now any real person knows that his wishes are a very minor matter, that God obviously has -- with a { } provides a much better answer for his real needs, you see. That there are his opportunities -- not what he thinks up, what he would to have in his savings account or -- wherever it is. It's a very good lesson, gentlemen.

If all your wishes could be fulfilled, you would not be better off. Because it would stagger your power of selectivity. Wishes are all on -- wishy-washy. I mean, they are all without the strenuous forcefulness of selection. What are wishes? They are all on the same plane. I mean, here you say, "I wish a dish of caviar," or lobster, and there you wish to have friends, and then you wish to have riches. Gentlemen, that's no selection, because you are never forced to think what comes first. Now love teaches you what comes first. Organization makes everything of equal importance. If you see the list of your cen-- marks in the English department, these 54. They appear there, because they are organized all 54 in one of -- as being of the same importance. Gentlemen, in life that isn't so.

Will you take it, gentlemen. Neither the first, nor the second nor the third sphere have any criterion for -- of importance. They must say everything is of

equal importance. Love is the only power that is selective. And to be selective means to know what is important. And all things are less important than the thing that has to be done now and first. As the politician will always tell you, "This bill is good and this bill is good. But the first thing is that I have to be elected. Because otherwise all these bills are no -- not of the slightest interest to me, because I can't do anything about them. So you first elect me and then later you see what laws you will pass." That's selective. This man is highly selective with regard to his own person. He knows that the only important thing is to elect him.

In The Apple Cart, by Bernard Shaw, there is such a wonderful line. The king of England, you know, The Emperor of America, it was also called, the British Commonwealth -- who has read it? The Apple Cart, by Bernard Shaw? You haven't? You know what it is? Who knows? Is it totally forgotten? Gentlemen, it's still very much in the making. Bernard Shaw 30 years ago predicted that United States one day would annex England, the British Commonwealth. We are in the process of doing just that, as you know. And -- we already have stolen Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and on it goes. And -- we'll do more. Now we are just annexing Egypt at this moment. And -- we call it, of course, antiimperialistic policy -- and exactly in the same line of our anti-imperialistic policy, and our great contempt for the British Empire, which we wish to inherit, the -- Bernard Shaw said the Americans are going to sell the British this idea of annexation by saying, "Oh, the president of the United States from now on will have the title, Emperor of America." In deference to the British monarchical ideas, you see. But we'll elect the emperor every four years, but we call him emperor. Well, it's a good joke, but the main point is the king of England then receives one demagogue, and the other political leaders of the country in the -- at his castle, and the demagogue is very nasty and says, "The king is no good," of course, and so the king says, "Well, sir, if you want me to dissolve the house, if you want to have new elections -- all right, if I do it, what are you going to tell the electorate what to do?" And {the man is painted} a little bit after Lloyd George, you know -- David Lloyd George, and so David says, "Tell the people to elect me!" That's his whole policy, you see.

So this is selectivity. But if he can -- you can make persons love you, they will elect you. That's the funny thing. Elections, gentlemen, come from selectivity. You always forget this. Election does not come from an arbitrary crowd, but it is from your standard of whom you wish to select and forget the rest. That is, it is a positive measure, selection. And it is perfectly indifferent to quantity. In this country, you cannot win when you say that you are not interested in quantity. And yet everybody should be convinced, gentlemen, that quantity is very second-best. Because even when you elect quantity -- elect quantity as your most important thing, you still do the selecting. You can of course say -- that to -- you elect quantity, but it is your selection, of your value. And without it, quantity

wouldn't win with you. But you are given up -- surrendered to quantity as though it was the only deity. And that is the third degree, deity, and not in the fourth. And so what you have to recover is the fact that you once made the decision in this country that mass production and quantity were the best thing for America. I believe it is. Your contribution of America has been in mass production. But because it has been in purposive mass production, gentlemen, you must still recover your power to decide, that you made the decision that mass production is the best. Mass production is not the best, but you have selected to say that it is. That's a different story. Because that means that you can also regulate the selectivity and say, "It is not better to have seven wives, instead of one." And you can have therefore a different divorce rate. And you can have a different legislation. But today, as I said, if my colleagues don't sit seven or eight hours in the office, they have a bad conscience. And if a man doesn't get a divorce, he has a bad conscience. Because they feel it is better to be married twice. It is more interesting, obviously, than to be married once. I assure you, it is much more interesting to be married once. It is very miserable to be married twice, and very poor to be married thrice. That's an emergency. It can happen. I don't -- you know. But to say -- the quantitative yardstick just breaks down in this case, doesn't it. To be married once is preferable to be married many times. Why that is so, is very hard to say, gentlemen. It just means that it is a more fruitful love, the one marriage, because it shows by standing up 40 or 50 years that it's very rich, that is full of qualities still to be developed. That you are -- have such an imagination that you can whip up a souffl‚ -- omelette souffl‚ every day out of your married life over 50 years, whereas the man who has to get married three or four times like all these rich playboys, they are just boring. There is nothing in their head. So they have to go in the outside world and find a new face, to be interested at all. The selectivity, gentlemen, taps unheard energies in the smallest atom, in the smallest quality. But imagination has been forbidden in this country. You don't allow your imagination even to take place, so to speak, because you don't write poetry. Or you write poetry -- it is not poetry, they are short stories, or you write --.

A young woman of mine -- of our acquaintance came very close to committing suicide. And for some reason or other, I was able to rescue her from this despair. And of course she was very grateful and we became great friends. And after this great crisis in her life, she went to the unfortunate place called Radcliffe. And there one day she was asked to write a paper. And she managed -- it was very good taste, I dare say -- to write down this experience of hers, her desperation and how she came out of it. And she received back this paper, which was a real confession and a real victory, with the signature of the professor and the one remark: Saleable. Saleable. If I had been the father or the mother of this girl, I would have demanded from her to leave this hell immediately. That -- to that low, I -- education has fallen in this country. That a young woman whose -- who tells her personal story in a paper is then lauded, is then praised, because then

she could sell this to The Saturday Evening Post. Saleable. There you have the complete confusion of all the spheres. Can you see this? It is a very simple example of what happens when you con-- you see, when you mistake one sphere for the other. What should you do with such a -- please -- this is really an issue, gentlemen. This is death. This is a death warrant under the soul of this young woman. And it happens in a college of such standing. It's famous. Harvard has $365 million endowment. And for this very reason, probably it writes under it, "saleable." It's a crime. Can you see that it is a crime? I mean, I would debate it -- be glad to debate it. But this is a crime. That is not a response, you see, to the honest word of a young woman. And she didn't write it in the -- except that in this trust that in an educational process you might be, you see, become personal.

I -- let me try today to say one word to -- about the richness of the fourth sphere. As in the other spheres, as we have seen work and play, sleep and deep sleep, speed and just imperishability of the material, so we have a split in the sphere of Venus. You can go more to the courtship and more to the fruitfulness. You can worship the mother, and you can worship the bride. You can say that the beginning, the great passion, the love poetry is all -- or you can say that the fruitfulness is all -- the result of love. So you can have the family, so to speak, you see, or the lovers adored. And there is therefore for you of great interest, gentlemen, today the great controversy in America whether we have a matriarchy or not. Now there is a total misunderstanding about the use of this word "matriarchy." And it all has to do with the proper division of the fourth sphere into really A and B. You can today say that the women in this country play a very important and prominent part, more important than the men. They have more money, they have more opportunity, they have more privileges. We have to get up when they have no seat and so on. They don't get up when we have no seat. But there is in the word "mother" itself, especially in the word "young mother," there has crept in a terrible misunderstanding. The woman of 20 can physically give birth to a child, and yet be still a very attractive person. But a mother in the sense of mother Mary in the Catholic Church -- she should not be called, because she's just old enough to physically give birth to a child, but only if she has the moral and spiritual standards of, let's say, a woman of 40. That is, in the word "mother," there are two different -- quite different situations today contaminated or confused. The spiritual maturity of a woman, which only comes in her second half of life, and her attractiveness as a woman, which then is covered up by "mother," "matriarchy." But it really means just a young woman for whom you then have responsibilities, because she has given birth perhaps to your own child, so you can't run away from her. But a 20-year-old girl is still just a 20-year-old girl. Her merely giving birth to a child may exalt your respect for her, and your care for her, but it doesn't give her any spiritual authority in affairs of love. Now with the word "matriarchy," we however mean the highest goods of the country, the religion, so to speak, the arts, culture, civilization, politics, are in

-- in -- put in their hands. This has been done in civilizations with the proviso that these women were mature. And in the word "matriarchy," as I hear it in this country, you see, there is no requirement, no standard of maturity implied for the women. If there were -- if they had to, so to speak, if they were tested like a soldier, a veteran, it would be a different story. But you -- as you know, the Mothers of America and the Daughters of the Revolution, and the Spinsters of the Revolution, all they enjoy a tremendous reputation regardless of the content of experience in love affairs which this should really imply.

And therefore I at this moment at first, from the American viewpoint, would suggest that we make a difference, not so much to clear this up, between the bride, the Aphrodite and -- on the one-hand side -- and the Great Mother of sex, on the other. The word "Great Mother," is an ancient expression. The Asiatic people had the Great Mother of Pessinus, Cybele, and she returns in St. Paul's Letter to the -- Acts, the story of Paul in Ephesus, you know, when the goldsmith cried, "Great is the Diana of Ephesus." That is really the Great Mother, who is protecting mankind by her householding, by her wisdom, by her experience. And these two goddesses, then, gentlemen, have to be -- should be discriminate. What you call Venus, or I may call Venus, if I ever call it this way -- what you call love in general, really means the first part of the love relations -- the seed, not the fruit.

[tape interruption]

You must on -- be on your toes yourself, and you must see there are two reasons for expressing the relations -- this whole world of affectionate and passionate relations -- from two sides: from the side -- aspect of its results and from the aspect of its starting, from its getting going, of its setting out, adventuring into new human relations, gentlemen. Your own -- you can only sanctify your own love relations, or sex relations if you make this distinction. A man must remain spiritually superior to his young bride. You must be the courter. And the mere fact that somebody is physically a mother does not invite anything but your tenderness, or your caring for her. It has -- gives her no right to put you under her care, which is the implication of matriarchy. The right of a woman to be wise in counsel over you, so to speak, or in the counsel of the nation would only come after she has borne responsibility for a large family and raised them, so to speak, so 20 years later. It's a crude way in which to express it because we have killed all these relations. In antiquity, or in the Germanic tribes, the goddess of Freya, you see, Freya -- who gives her name to the day Friday -- Venus, of course exemplified this higher wisdom, of fulfillment. Venus more exemplified the courtship in the -- we have lost all these names --to you, that's all just abstraction. I think it is in your own family relation, it's experience. You do worship certain elements of householding which only a good woman, and a good grandmother, for example,

can supply. If you take what the grandmother stands for and a mother together -- sometimes the grandfather -- then you have a little bit of what I tried to say what a real matriarchy would be, you see. People removed from immediate decisions, but equipped with the wisdom that people who in business also would not have, executives, or fighters. But tested people. The main -- my main point is that there is a motherhood, a matriarchy which is based on test -- tested life, on achievement, on being able to bring up these fruits of love in a -- into a new order, and fulfilling the meaning of many; that is in grouping power. And it's the opposite, gentlemen, from organizational power. If you take a great mother, or a great grandmother, a real -- I mean, in two words, a real grandmother, what is her great power? What is so astonishing? That every grandchild has -- keeps its individuality, is utterly different from every other grandchild -- I don't think a good grandmother will ever make the mistake of trying to -- coordinating all these grandchildren as though they were all the same branch or the same vintage. What parents cannot do, individualize, grandparents can do. Who will bear me out on this? Any experience? Who has still grandparents living? Well, don't you think that they are more -- actually let you breathe your own freedom than your parents? Isn't that true?

(Is { } true? The amount of freedom they would allow -- is that what you said?)

Well, that is, they trust more in -- that you have a life of your own, which cannot be -- has not -- doesn't have to be coordinated, so that it gibes with everybody else's life.

[unintelligible]

Wie?

(I would say grandfather more than grandmother.)

Well, then, you're lucky, I mean. { } that age, you see, { } grandparents are just quite regardless of sex, you see. They are just, you see, your elders, that's all, I mean. Grandparents and grandchildren have no sex relations. They're just old. We have our -- again, we have so impoverished, you see, that we can -- we always have to think of grandmother and grandfather. In -- in many primitive tribes at 50, the chieftain just takes -- puts on women's garb, you see. That's why our priests wear gowns, you see, the woman's dress; and our judges wear robes, in order to show that as a judge, and as a chieftain, and as a doctor and as a priest, you have no sex. And that's exactly the situation of any elder, any grandparent, you see. There is no sex relation. And again, this is all so distorted, because you live by two generations only. You think in terms of old and young,

gentlemen. Life becomes only interesting when you think in terms of three generations: grandparents, parents and children.

Any professional man, gentlemen, belongs -- is an elder in this -- in society. When you become a lawyer at the age of 35, and you plead and you have to examine Mrs. {Sheppard} or Mr. {Sheppard}, it is not obscene, because you have a gown. And if you are a good lawyer, there is no obscenity in your cross-examination. Although you have to tell them -- the dirtiest, you see, details of their personal life. Can you see this? We have means and ways of putting even a young person into the garment of an elder so that he is treated as though -- so that he can behave as though he were a grandfather. Now I'm trying to build up in you this notion again that this word "matriarchy" -- I only -- a starting point to show you that you have foreshortened this whole sphere of four. As soon as the fourth sphere consists only of young people who make love to each other, or of parents and children, it's too short. It's too -- the real relation, gentlemen, in the sphere of affection, gentlemen, is always between three generations. And the matriarchy of which I am willing to speak seriously would be one which is includes grandmothers. But I'm not willing to talk -- to give the honor to a matriarchy, just because somebody has married somebody and then -- now kneels before his wife because she has been good enough to go to bed with him, as so many American boys seem to do; they are overcome by the goodness of this woman.

But that is no spiritual authority, gentlemen. That isn't good enough. You have to have more. You have to see the whole width of life. And wherever somebody has gardened the many fruits of love, like a grandmother, and has allowed every one of these creatures to be a species of their own, there you have the right to rule. Because in the sphere of love, gentlemen, you do not organize. But as love selects, so the fruits of love, gentlemen, what are they? They are not organized. They are recognized. This is the great thing, why a speaker in the Congress has to be recognized by the president pro tem of the Senate, you see. Recognition means to leave everybody in his own way. Organization means to do away with everybody's personal character. Now, your parents must make short shrift if they have seven children. They have to organize a family in some way. Otherwise they don't get by in time. But your grandparents -- they can allow themselves to recognize you. Do you see the difference? Wouldn't this be agreeable to you, this term? Do you understand the difference? Parents are hardput to recognize the differences between their children. But grandparents are not. That's what -- they -- the whole business. Any elder, gentlemen, carries this privilege over the fighters, and the breadwinners and all these gentlemen, these successful executives and these smart alecs, that they can recognize people for what they are. They can recognize. And nobody else seems to be able -- we -- you are too much in a hurry, you and I, you see, to recognize people. We want to get

by and say, "Just 10 students, I met 10 students from Princeton, you see, the other day." Can you recognize them? Not one of them, you see. They are just a { }. Whereas an old man, who meets them, he -- even an old farmer here -- he meets two boys and he very well, you see, recognizes one for what he is and the other for what he is not.

So the very word "recognition" has to do with allowing a man to have his own name. That's recognition. Allowing a person to have his own name. And all fruitfulness of life, gentlemen, leads to this: that we recognize that every one of us is a species of his own. And for this we have a special group of people, the elders. And they do not occur in the third sphere, because in the third sphere, you go by quantity. Now a man who is selective perhaps cannot work hard. But you can't do without secretary of the -- Stimson or Knox, the two secretaries who led the war, as you know, as Republicans in the Democratic cabinet to success. They were great old fellows. And they had this power of recognition. If you read Mr. Stimson's descriptions and characteristics, that was his outstanding description. He was 78 when he entered the cabinet of the -- the war cabinet, you see, in 1940 -- and he certainly wasn't -- and Hull the same way, by the way, Mr. Hull -- and they had this power as old men that they only moved in Sphere 4. They didn't care for organizing work. That wasn't their business, you see. For this you have Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson's exclusively in the third sphere. That's why he made this funny dog remark, you see. That could -- had to happen to a man who only can organize labor. There's nothing bad against the man, but he just has never lived in the third -- fourth sphere. Doesn't know what that is. So he can't speak the language which a worker wants to hear. You remember the great squabble at the -- during the elections. That's the difference between the politician, gentlemen, and a businessman. That's why you shouldn't have businessmen in the cabinet. We should have political people, because they can at least speak the language of affection and of recognition. The businessman can only speak the language of regulations, and of organization, and of production. That's not the language with which you bring people together.

So, now I wish you a very good Thanksgiving.

[tape interruption]

... with the selectivity for the turkey.