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

(According to this gentleman's report, you say that the student in his reflection and leisure in the -- in the classroom has no -- no -- loses the truth. Is that -- is -- that's what you said. Isn't that correct?)

(As the classroom is now, yeah.)

(As the classroom is now. Yet you say we have the -- because we reflect -- this was in your first lecture, I believe -- that because we reflect in the classroom, I mean we have -- we are in the unique position of being able to sit back and -- and reflect, that we will gain the truth. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. But that was my understanding of your statement.)

Will -- this is whole topic today, or at least for the -- of the first half of this hour of our class today. So your -- I'll take up your question right away, but let me answer it in context -- within context of what I'm going to say anyway. Yes?

(What is the literal translation of the metabasis --?

"To step over," you see. Is there any word -- basis -- you know the word -- know what the -- what is -- do you have in -- in the Greek word --.


Yes, it means "transgression." Exactly with the same meaning, you see, as a faulty thing, transgression into another kind. Ja? Eis means "into." Allo -- other. Genos -- kind. Ja? And Metabasis -- trans. Meta is trans-. And -gression is basis. Is that -- will that do?

What do we gain -- that's really your question -- by being able to sit back? There's a French proverb which I recommend you. I don't know how much French you know. It's the -- terrible, now. First I quote Greek, and now I quote French. But strangely enough, in Bartlett's Quotations, the French saying is given, and there is no adequate congruous German, or English, or Italian proverb for this meaning of sitting back and taking stock, and thereby improving on our -- behavior in reality. It's -- is cal- -- is said, "reculer pour mieux sauter." You go back for jumping better. The -- you see, you -- you -- in a jump, how do you call this movement backward? We say "take-off," but that isn't what I mean, that you -- you see, you have to take three steps backward before you jump. But how do you call this movement? The three steps away from the rope, or away from the barrier over which you are going to jump? Wie?


Reculer -- you have heard -- who knows a little French? Ooh! Is that all? Poor France. Oh heavens, you have given her up?

Well, reculer has to do, of course, with "recoil," but our word "recoil" is -- is too violent. Reculer pour mieux sauter -- pour mieux sauter. Sauter means "to jump." And we -- we go backward in order to be able to jump higher. It is very strange that the English language has no proper word, as far as I have been able to find, for this movement away from the pla- -- from the obstacle over which you are going to jump. How did -- would you call this?


Well, but "withdraw" is not -- doesn't give -- imply that you come forward again. You only go forward in order to go backward, in order to come forward with more energy. You understand?

("Take a running start.")


("Take a running start.")

Ja. But in "take a running start," I see much more the going forward six steps, you see. But I want to have this part of the running start, where you are going in the opposite direction. You see, if you think this through, it is -- isn't it very strange? In my life, it has been the same way. When I made an important decision, the first movement is not to go in the direction of the dec- -- in which -- which the decision would lead, but to clear the road, as I very often have to go, seemingly in the eyes of the public, in the opposite direction, you see.

For example, you see a girl, and you want to marry her, but there is a certain affair still hanging fire. Well, the first thing you have to do is to see the other girl, the wrong girl once more, and the {girl} sees -- thinks, because you see her once more, that she is the one. But you know already, yet you're going -- just to go and settle your accounts there and go over to the other lady.

Well, that would be the -- not the running start, Sir. And it wouldn't be the withdrawal, don't you see? But it is the preparation of -- of -- for your real start, you see, by going away from -- from the goal you already have in mind. Can you see this? It's a very complicated movement -- but that's how life is led, gentlemen.

Life always is most creative, when you are so confident, and so faithful, that you do not enter the promised land. Imagine what it took Moses to forgo the promised land, and never to enter it. In -- by staying 38 years outside of it, he made sure that the Israelites would get into it. That's -- that's the -- not the running start, but that's what I'm driving at, you see: to keep away from something in order to make it even better come true. This is very hard for you to understand, because you are head-on people. You meet a person, and you think you know him. Well, I think if you want to come to know a person, you stay away from him for a long while, and fi- -- try to find out how you really can meet him in an interesting way, you see, and not by -- not just by shaking hands.

I had a -- a young friend, a student in Harvard, who took a course in psychoanalysis. He was 17 years old, and very innocent indeed. And he came one day to me and said, "I am off."

And I said, "Where are you going?" It was the midst -- in the middle of the term.

"I have to go to Vienna. I have to shake hands with Mr. Freud. He's such a great man."

"Well," I said. "Mr. Freud has a cancer of the face. And he will not be very enchanted of having to see you. He doesn't want to see anybody."

"Oh, it can't be helped. I have a ticket and I have to see -- shake hands with Freud."

Well, you see, this man had no idea of a running start, or of a -- of a preparation of this visit. He had nothing to talk to this man. Poor Freud had to shake hands with him. He spent a thousand dollars for his trip to Europe, and he was perfectly happy. And he thought he had achieved something. Well, he hadn't jumped high. He had not known that reculer pour mieux sauter. If you want to meet the spirit of Mr. Freud, you have to do something in his line of thinking. And you have to prepare yourself. But this kind of -- seeing big -- great -- big shots and to -- seeing great people, you never achieve anything. All the people who -- who hunt for autographs of people they haven't even known -- I think it's laughable. That's not an autograph. If a man in a bookstore, an author gives you his -- his -- his handwriting there, his signature of the book, because you buy the book, I have seen these autograph hunters. I think they are very silly. They get a minimum, you see. There is no contact between the -- the author and they -- them. They just got -- get the physical ink. But they cannot be proud of this signature. They even sell it in New York bookstores, don't they?

The signature. You pay 25 cents more, and the great author then gives you his signature. That's just all silly. Complete misunderstanding. Commercial treatment of something -- the signature only makes sense when it is -- means you, is addressed to you, when he really means to give the book to you.

I -- I received a book by -- written by a very famous American of this hour -- of this day and hours. I got it from Oregon, of all places -- Portland, Oregon. And the man had -- the author had been in the bookstore there, and had sat down. And anybody who bought the book could come there and say, "Now write a dedication to my friend here in -- in Hanover."

He really sat down, this author, I'm ashamed to say, and it is -- I thought it was a very good man, and said -- it is said, "With deep appreciation and best wishes to Mr." -- now my name came, you see -- "Rosenstock-Huessy," by the author. Do you think that's worth anything? It's ridiculous. And this is how -- I mean, it's prostitution. But people in this country are satisfied with such a thing, because they don't know that in -- human relations, reculer pour mieux sauter. You haven't earned -- I haven't earned the conaissance of this man, you see. If I really meant business, I would have -- have tried to write him a letter on his book -- and then he can say, "In deep appreciation." But the man has never heard my name, never seen me. "In deep appreciation." I think it was even "admiration." I don't know. Of course, you can admire a man as long as you don't know him.

So gentlemen, the whole field of play, reflection, ritual, and art is given us to sharpen our senses, to sharpen our moral powers, to sharpen our power of decision, to make sure that we do better than without this preparation. Therefore I again recommend to you: find me an ex- -- a translation which makes clear this human -- experience: that before you can jump high, you have to take a running start, you have to create a take-off that is proper. That's really what it means, you see: to create your take-off, to create your platform from which it is worth jumping into the river, or wherever you want to go.

This is -- again is -- is one of your strange handicaps. I think everybody knows that baseball and football are good training grounds for life, that you make. And develop a team spirit there, and so on. But just the same, when you go into life, you just head on. You try to meet the -- the fellow: "Hail, fellow, well met." Rotary Club, Elks, Lions, I mean. All for five minutes. You only see the man's face. Oh yes, I've always been surprised how many people are -- are known to each other in this country. Well, then you try to find out -- he says, "This is a friend of mine." Well, the only thing he did, he had luncheon with him one day, you see. They sat at opposite corners, and both tipped the waitress.

Reculer pour mieux sauter is -- could be used then as a headline of the meaning of our play. Man improves his jump in life. And life is always taking risk.

There again, you have the classroom, the academic thing: "taking calculated risks." There is no calculated risk. There is either risk or calculation. That's one of the most stupid things, "calculated risk." It tries to blind you to the fact that it remains a risk, you see. You can calculate, and you can risk. And you can of course do both actions, you see. But you cannot have a calculated risk, except in commerce, where you cover your one risk by 59 other, and -- by the law of probability, you have 60 sales, you see. In -- in 10 you incur a loss, and in 50 you take a gain. That's -- but that's not a calculated risk as to the single action. But it is within a frame of reference, you see, that the 60 bargains then together give you a chance of a fair profit.

But this is typical academic statement again, the "calculated risk." Gentlemen, when you marry, there is no calculated risk. If it is calculation, you can't marry. And if you -- if the -- take a risk, it's unlimited. I always -- only have to remind you of the automobile accident on the day after the wedding. And for the rest of the life, your wife may look very ugly. And where's the calculated risk? It's an unlimited risk. And gentlemen, be proud of the unlimited risk. To take -- be able to take a risk means that you have faith. A "risk" is just a secular term for "faith." It has nothing to do with rel- -- so-called organized religion. You cannot live without faith. And faith is the act committed, you see, because you have to do it, regardless of the consequences. May the chips fall as they -- where they may. And all important steps in life are taken in such a manner, that you are -- feel that you cannot survive the not-doing. You are ashamed of yourself if you haven't done it. If you jump into the water to rescue a child, that's a -- a risk. If you have any faith in life, you have to do it. And you cannot stand by and -- and -- and -- say, "It's too risky." Or if you say so, you don't jump. But it's an either-or.

So throw this out, again. It's the blight of the -- again, of the educated people in this country that you speak of calculated risk. No decent man on the -- at the filling station, no mountaineer in Montana, no -- can -- speaks of "calculated risks." As I said, that's good for running a business, because there you balance un- -- any number of risky bargains, you see, against each other. Our -- our system of selling and buying is after all based on the simple principle, you see, of cancellation of one -- loss by othe- -- another gain. The man in trade is not selling one house, but he is selling hundred houses, you see. The man who sells his own house only once in his life, you see, has no calculated risk. He has just very great risk. I have one house. When I die, or when I have to move away from here, I have to sell it. And there is no calculated risk in my sale. But a man

in real estate, he of course runs a business of selling houses. So see, that's a calculated risk, because 99 risks, you see, and the 100th must, so to speak, balance each other. So there it makes sense.

But don't run your life on the illusion, gentlemen, that you can run it with a kind of compound of faith and reason. Faith is one thing; that's about the future. And reason is another thing; that's about the things already known, of that -- the things that have come about. And they are two -- you calculate where a thing is already here, visible in the flash -- flesh, and can be weighed, and paid for, and bought, and moved, and -- and tested by touch and so on. But any act of importance, whether this man is -- go -- be your friend, that's an infinite risk.

So gentlemen, reculer pour mieux sauter -- it can be the headline over this whole, one-fourth of human behavior, which we call "reflection," "play," "game." And now I -- I think I have answered your question.

(Yes, Sir. Thank you.)

There's one more thing I should like you to mention -- to -- to note -- take note of. I already told you that beginning and end are reversed in play. You remember. And we have learned a number of other things: control of time, control of space. There is one more thing. The -- who is the man who plays? Well, he is one out of many: pluralism, manyness, polytheism, the beli- -- belief in many values. That's always coincident with play, because you can have one play and another play. And there is a different value on wrestling, and a different value on studies, you see. So all the story of values, gentlemen, is polytheistic. A man in the classroom will always be inclined to become a Greek. And the Greeks worship many gods. And therefore, in itself, without Paul's guidance, man in studies, and man in reflection, and man on the playground is always dealing with one fellow as good as any other. It's impersonal. Or let it -- call it, "pre-personal." It's like the kittens at play. These kit- -- they are not yet full cats: tomcat or she-cat. It's this side of good and evil, play. And therefore, anything that is this side of good and evil is im- -- pre-personal. There are no real persons in the world of -- of play. There are ideas, and there are games, and there are habits, and there are types, and all these things.

So pre-personal. Impersonal, if you like, too. Manyness. Polytheistic. And gentlemen, that is the reason why the Greeks first had to go out of existence with their paganism before the -- we, in our -- the Renaissance period 1500 years after Christ, allowed Greek and Latin to enter the -- our studies again, and now we have a liberal arts college, you see, and a course on classical civilization, because we were so far removed from polytheism, that even your talk of values no longer seems to endanger -- to imperil our conviction that after all, man is

one, and driven by one, divine spirit in all mankind's -- of mankind's branches.

If you lose sight, gentlemen, of the pre-personal, impersonal character of Greek thinking, of academic thinking, you will all be overtaken by polytheism. One form of polytheism is nationalism. When a man says, "I am an American," "I am a Frenchman," "I am an Englishman," then you have many gods. You begin to have many gods. I'm -- in -- Europe is dying from this reason, that a German is excused for his vices in his own eyes, because he says, "Well, that's German." A Dutchman is, you see. They just think that when they label this with some commodity-label, you see, "Dutch," that they -- then they can be voracious eaters, for example, like the Dutch. Or they can curse and -- and -- bury themselves in hard work, as the Germans, and be pedantic. Or they can be great lovers, and great agnostics, as the French.

Gentlemen, is it -- an excuse that you say, "I'm an American," for your vices? Is this is -- but that's what happened today under the influence of education, that you actually say, "Well, I am an American." Is that the end of the story? I have been in Europe and it has driven me crazy. In Switzerland, which is considered still a rather sa- -- healthy part of -- of Europe. They have given up all idea of being human beings. They -- their only pride is that they want to be Swiss. And they are absolutely -- stuck with this polytheism, because when a human being says, "It is enough to be Swiss," then he is in a dead -- a dead-end street, because it can never be enough to be Swiss. You cannot be -- you see, it is better to say, "I'm a human being." Then they are -- at least your avenues are open.

And here I come to the more serious label for this whole chapter on play, gentlemen. You can study this especially in the analytical prose of the critic, which I do not -- which is very important. In play, we de-create our type. We decreate. It's a -- artificial word, but it is -- exists in the English language, I'm glad to say. To de-create, to undo. To undo ourselves, that is the great, wonderful power of play. By playing, we remain flexible. We remain pliable. We remain plastic, fluid, liquid, whatever you call it.

A boy in Charleston made an excellent speech the other -- two years ago. A valedictorian speech at his college in Charleston, South Carolina. He said, "Gentlemen, you have always spoken to us about the solid South. I'm now going to deliver my speech on the liquid South."

Well, he was young, and he had used his academic -- years well. And his result was that the South should become liquid. That is, his education had enabled him to de-create the frozen type, you see, of a Southern gentleman in- -- -side himself. And as -- I think it's a great saying. If you come out of this college,

of Dartmouth and say -- feel that you are liquid, you have achieved a great thing.

Reculer pour mieux sauter. It's the same thing. You go backward. Well, to de-create or to -- be liquefied is the same thing, you see, to undo the prearranged form which seems to -- to -- to be inescapable for you, that you must become a Rotarian, and a Baptist, and a Dartmouth alumnus, and so. Nothing of this is the whole of you, you see. You are still free to jump into some other form of existence.

One more point: the sexes are treated in the world of reflection in an interesting fashion. In studies and in sport, gentlemen, we are sexless. You cannot be an athlete and -- without a love affair interfering very poorly with your record as a boxer. {Tennis}. All these things are put over your existence a kind of -- of robe of the individual, sexless being. The word "individual" really is, you see, man regardless of sex, of his own partiality, of his own need for other people. That's what we call an individual. Man reduced to himself; that would always be man, regardless of his sex. In studies, too, you can have education in a classroom, because a lecture can reach the -- the -- the mind of a girl as much as of a boy.

But when it comes to ritual and art, gentlemen, it is the victory over sex that is celebrated. Take the ritual of a procession. Take the gown of a commencement graduate. Take the gown of the robe of a judge. Take the famous novel, The Robe, this unbelievably cheap stuff. The best is the title, The Robe. These -- these words -- these garments, gentlemen, come -- declare the victory over sex. The priest wears a woman's gown, so to -- so say he's neither man nor a woman. And all the higher professions. When a -- when a man in court has to investigate -- examine a -- cross-examine a feminine witness, a woman witness, it's a great help that he wears the gown. It puts between him and her the barrier, you see, of -- a triumph over sex. There is no sex. He's not the male, you see, and she is not the female. It would be indecent if he would inves- -- examine her -- or -- or less decent, let me say, without such a garment, which suggests that at this moment, in officiating, he is able to triumph over his sex. Or -- it would be obscene. "Obscene" means "off scene, outside the scene,: where people can see each other, you see, in full confidence and trust.

You have forgotten this. But gentlemen, that's why we go dressed. We go dressed, because it's a ritual that in normal times, we are able to triumph over our passions. And in art, of course, what is celebrated in every piece of art is the -- the fulfillment of love. Art is this side of love not yet fulfilled. Ritual is on the other side of love: love already stepped over and transcended toward the higher plain, you see. It is not sexless, but it's beyond sex, which is not quite the same,

you see. Sexless is this side of sex, as in a boy or a girl who haven't yet been wo- -- awakened to the sex urge. But in the ritual of the Church, of a -- coronation or what-not, you find that the beyond-sec- -- beyond the passions. And in the art, you find the way into the fulfillment of the passion.

So you see, it is all very wisely arranged really in our world of -- of semblance, our world of beauty, our world of reflection. Man has taken up there in his various aspects this side of passion; on his way through passion; where the -- where he has to be beautified by art; sexless, just physical, the athlete, the sportsman, you see; and forgetful of sex here in this classroom, where you cannot think if you are obsessed at this moment with your passion.

The conclusion we have to draw, gentlemen, is: that we, you and I, in our first philosophy of this strange world of seeminglessness, of -- of unresponsible, irresponsible preparation for life, you may call it, that we are organized in four different ways: as body, in sports; as mind, in a classroom; as souls, in art; and as roles, as carrier of offices -- I call it briefly a -- "roles," as -- roles, as playing a role, in ritual.

And that's -- I give you this as a great relief. There is no question, gentlemen, then that man is divided in mind or body, or that he has a soul. That's all nonsense. Here. But if you look at man as he historically is, you play the role of an American -- that's your ritual. Your -- you see, you sit here as an -- a Dartmouth student, with your green sweater: that's your role. In as far as you are not yet fulfilled, are -- you are able to change your mind, to give up your role, to be de-created, to become liquid, you believe in your soul. Soul is not a luxury, but soul means that you have a future beyond your present state of body, mind, and social appearance. And everyone wants to have that. So nobody can deny that he has -- is a soul. But we are this in various -- in various -- states, or phases of our life. Man is mind. Man is body. Man is soul. Or man is role -- plays a role. And we alternate.

In order to understand this, gentlemen, we just have to see which organs are specific. If you take the role of a man, well -- it's visible in his appearance, it's -- his dress. And that would be his -- well, his {rump}. How do you call the whole -- the whole, concrete figure of a man -- outside face and what -- what do you -- what is covered by -- by your -- our dress? The head is free. The hands are free.




Well, if you allow me this word. I prefer it, too.

(That implies no clothes, though.)


"Torso" is always { }.

(It's waist up. Waist up.)


(It's the waist up. It's from the waist up.)


(Well, it isn't stature.)


Not "physique." No, that is not. { }

({ } the clothes alone?)

Is it {rump}? Wouldn't be {rump} possible?

(That's { } part.)

Oh, that's not true. But only you use it this way. But the old English term of course means exactly what I mean. I am right historically { } Harvard, of course, or Hanover {where you meet} slang. I mean, Shakespeare is -- is on my side, but I don't know how you have replaced Shakespeare now.

Well, this is really rather unfortunate that I have nothing { } -- with the brain, it is simple, you see. That of course, a mind -- we call "mind" that appearance of man in which the brain is foremost and his hands, his -- his stomach, his heart are -- come second -- take second seat. And -- I could go on with feet and legs. The organization, gentlemen, of a man as mind means that we first think of his head -- his brain. And all the senses and all the other parts of his body come second. If you think of the body, then his hands and legs stand out. That's why the best thing in America are the legs. I came too late to this country for my own


The soul, gentlemen, that would begin with a human heart. And the rest of the body would -- would be organized, you see, when you -- know that a man has no soul he says his heart's -- has no hands. These are terrible people, I mean. They cannot articulate { }. Everybody has a heart, but he doesn't have to have a soul because soul is that capacity of the heart to penetrate into all the other parts of the body, just as we say that the mind has a good mind, you see, if his brainpower can get control of everything else, the coordination. If he can put all his other energies into the service of -- his { } -- of his mind, his mental powers, which you always take to be a simple thing. But with a soul and the heart, there is a great distinction. There are many people in this people -- country who have a good heart. And there are very few who cultivate their soul, because they think that the rest of life has to be given to the pr- -- mind only, to the brain. Good-hearted people are the most dangerous people, because they have an -- they have an undisciplined heart. They are good-hearted, yes, but they are also faint-hearted.

To live by your heart, gentlemen, is as much a training as -- for a football man to -- to -- to play football with his whole body and mind, you see. This is very difficult. A -- a man may have big hand and big feet. That doesn't make him into an athlete, as you well know, you see. He has to bring the other parts of his being into the game. He has to think fast. Otherwise he can't carry the ball to victory.

Well, what I'm driving at is, gentlemen -- is that when you speak of a -- of a wonderful athlete or -- boy -- man -- beautiful body, you always mean that this body has taken over, and that the whole brain power, the whole heartiness of the man can go into the play, for example, or into the sport, that they serve, although the outstanding thing is his appearance, his physical appearance. The same now is true of the role, gentlemen. If you have a dignified queen, Elizabeth, her beauty, that is, her -- her physical appearance, her soul, and her mind are in the service of fulfillment of this role as the queen of England. And anybody who has seen the movie in the coronation knows how this is just the story, how this -- this is so impressive, you see, how everything in her appearance, in her personal appearance and -- is -- is subject to the -- to the control and to the command -- "demand," I should say -- demand of this occasion of stately performance.

So we -- I think, if you follow this out yourself, that's why I made it clear, the role, you see, for organizing the human appearance. The -- first there is the skin, the outside, the dress, the way she -- she's the queen. She wears the crown. But her whole being has to be melted into this, fused into this crown and into

this dress, you see. Is -- it mustn't be an empty gesture, as we call it. Empty, you see. She has to throw herself heart and soul into this. She is -- she serves, as the pope does. If you see the pope, poor man, he has to play a -- a role, you see, where everything is prescribed. But with the present pope or most popes, you feel that he's -- he's there completely. His frail body, his soul, and his -- these three, and his mind are all working so that he may represent Saint Peter.

How shall we say then? I really need one word between "torso" and "rump." Well, it is really.





("Attire" would be -- or "countenance.")


(But that wouldn't give consideration of body.)

Ja. Well, then the word "role" is just as good.

Now gentlemen, then that is the sum of what we have learned in our first philosophy, and I think it is very important to you to think this through, because you are not going to be able to see the consequences. Body, mind, soul, and role are states of aggregate, of -- of every human being. As water, and ice, and steam is an aggregate state of the same, H2O, in the same sense, gentlemen, it is utterly destructive if you think of yourself as having a mind and having a body. What you can do is organize yourself in various directions. And some other part of you can take the lead at times. Can you see this? It is a constant reorganization, gentlemen, of ourselves. I think that's a very profound secret and a very -- I should think -- it must be -- should come as a relief to you. All this talk of the division of mind and body is utter nonsense!

When I am a writer, and I write in fever, because I have -- feel I am inspired, do you think my whole body is in the service of my mind? Of course it is. But I have made my hand subservient, and my leg, and my seat, and everything. I forget how to -- to eat. The eye, the senses -- everything is organized so that my mind come -- can be served in such a way that the brain is first. Isn't that -- but

you have this strange idea that here is a mind that writes poetry, and there is a body that has to eat. I've never seen an author who didn't have to write or to dictate. And in this very moment, he needs physical power, you see. He has to speak. He has to get a secretary, or a typewriter, or ink, or paper, and -- you are so disembodied people, so abstract, you live in such an unreal world that you actually believe that th- -- it's the mind that writes books. My dear people, I know that I write my books with my own fingers. And they are just part of my -- of my mindness, being mind at this moment.

So gentlemen, body, mind, soul, and role please begin to consider as borne out by your own activities when you reflect on life, as being your whole man. Then you will come to understand why the word "self" is one of the most ridiculous words. "Self" is the corpse in us. The dead weight. Every man to himself is impossible, because then the world is dead. You can only meet so- -- live in society as a body, as somebody; or as an officer of the community; or as a mind, reasoning it out, you see; or as a soul preparing the future, the fulfillment of that {which was} unfulfilled. Don't believe that you can ever find your place in society as a self. Self is that which cannot be organized either as mind, or as body, or as soul, or as role; so to speak, the -- the -- the clay, the dead weight, that which remains unfeasible, unpene- -- impenetrable, unensoulable, mindless, demented, anorganic.

Because, gentlemen, you see, you come -- we come from such a terrible time of the last 400 years, where people went insane with -- with trying to make us into dead bodies. But body in itself is a wonderful word of life. A body is something alive, organized, highly organized, spirited, breathing, able to procreate, able to move. That's not a corpse. But actually when you sp- -- say "body," you actually mistake it for meaning the same as "corpse." It's the opposite. A body is not a corpse. A body is the configuration of the human, filling out this moment totally, with the presence of mind, and soul, and heart, and with throwing the whole weight even of your background, of your social role, into the fray.

When you have the president of the United States throw a ball at a ball game, to begin it, to start it off, well, isn't he there with his role? That's why you ask the president, you see. Because it is very important that it should be the president who throws the ball -- first ball. So here he comes in his attire, as president. Here he comes with his mind, his superior mind knowing exactly why he's going there, you see, because he must be seen by the people as one of them, you see. That's a reasonable action which he takes. And then he is there heart and soul because he wants this -- his own people and himself, so to speak, to march into a future. And here in the -- on these playgrounds of America, they are preparing it. But don't you see that by throwing the ball, he's not just there

physically? He's there completely. But it's so organized that you -- the symbol of his being there is his body, his hands, you see, and his cleverness in handling them. But the whole man is there. The president of the United States.

Can you -- if -- if you can see this, gentlemen, you have conquered the -- worst inheritance of the Greek mind, which has ruined the academic profession, the division of mind and body, the refutation -- the repudiation of the existence of a soul and of a social obligation in society by your dress and your historical tradition. The Greeks went so far in their abstraction that they said, "The body is bad, and the mind is good." And gentlemen, anybody who looks at this list know that it is just nonsense. There is utterly no -- nothing better about the mind than the body, or the role, or the soul. There is no just -- such question of "better," or -- or "less good" about this. My mind isn't better than my body. God created just as much my little toe as He cre- -- created my intelligence. You are not more divine by being clever, than by being strong. The whole creature is there.

And you have to throw this out, gentlemen, or we are poisoned. The Russians of course have unfortunately in their so-called materialism -- have really gone Platonic. They think also that the mind has to rule, and the body has to serve. I don't believe this for a minute.

I can't go into all the consequences of the doctrine, but as we go along, you will see that once you free yourself from this ludicrous curse of the academic profession -- the last 400 years, you are able again to understand the great truth of all religions: that we are creatures on this earth, mind and body, role and soul. And there is nothing better or worse about your physical excrements, and your inhalation, and your sp- -- and your -- and your breath, than about your human spirit. It's all earthly. It's all this side of creation. You are not God because you can say that 2 and 2 is 4. I have seen more wickedness in the mind than in the body, certainly. And you know what Shakespeare says, that there is nothing wrong in the world except what mind -- the mind does it.

But you, with your sex troubles and so, you actually are inclined to think that the body is wicked and gives you trouble, and the mind is good. It's the other way around, gentlemen. As far as your mind -- your body behaves, you are absolutely innocent. It is only when your mind tries to accelerate or to exaggerate your sex troubles that you go wrong. But as far as your power, your vigor, your -- your puberty, your -- your -- your virility goes, there's nothing to complain about. But it's always the other way around with these Platonists and the Aristotelians. They always think that the mind is -- is divine, and the body is dirty. I have only seen dirty minds. And the dirt of the body you can wash off. But the dirt of the mind, that's very -- much more difficult.

So you see it has -- grave consequences. Can you see this? Once you admit that mind, body, soul, and role are ways of meeting ourselves in life, and overcoming the dead self, the gravity of our self, then you can see that these are the four ways of life to which we are dedicated, into which we are created. You cannot live without all the time alternating between these four attitudes. No way out. You are always one or the other of these four, as long as you live. When you are dead, the corpse, you see, that's the mere self. The self is the disintegrated human being that is no longer able to enter on these four -- into these four changes, into these four aggregates, into these four aspects, or these four declinations of the human life, you see.

Whenever you say "mind," you are organized; whenever you say "body," you are organized; "soul," and "role" -- you are organized. But it includes always its opposite. There is no mind without a body. A disembodied mind, it's just, you see, not there. And a soul that hasn't to conquer its social role -- well, a king who abdicates -- well, there's a royalty, a crown to put down. Then he can go into -- become the Duke of Windsor or go into the monastery as Charles V of Spain.

Whatever you do as a soul, yearning to get a -- reach a better state, is always connected with the price you have to pay to give up the role you have played so far. You resign, you retire, you sacrifice your money, you become a priest -- any such decision is valued according to the amount of role, of social importance you have to sacrifice, you have to give up. And the same, of course, with your behavior. If you become a -- a nun, and you give up marriage, you do sacrifice, you do -- constrain your body to be put in the -- in the service of a -- of a universal future of the human race, and you don't care for your own individual fecundity.

So this I think is important enough to command an intermission now, five minutes of...

[tape interruption]

...situation in which man is no longer in control of time or space. That's war. The essence of what we call "war" is the ignorance when and where we are going to be attacked -- when the -- enemy is going to strike and where he's to strike. War is on us 24 hours a day. It's a running battle. And that's why we put out guards, and in every way have to -- to expect the worst. Now if you compare the situation in this classroom with the fire department, and all the taxpayers of the United States supporting you here, and protecting you, and you take war, it is the -- on the absolutely opposite end. Nothing is known as to the length of the catastrophe which is around us, you see, and nothing is known about the limitations in space.

War -- we have a world war, you see, fought a world war, and through a great surprise, it ended in Korea. And you can't cho- -- choose in war your opponent, your -- the time, and the place -- space. And that's very much against the American grain. That's why people in this country now only five -- seven years after the -- the two world wars -- the end of the Second World War -- are a little bit alive to what war really means. And it's a little belated. I find always that when you -- discuss war with Americans over the last 30 years, they're just like children, because they really think that war is of our own choosing. Obviously it is not, gentlemen. War is the situation which accrues when our organized way of life breaks down. And when it's -- proves itself to be yet -- as yet completely unorganized. It is not only de-creation, but the de-creation which we play with in the classroom carried out into real life. The nations suddenly don't know how to behave towards each other.

Gentlemen, war -- I cannot exhaust this at this moment -- is the most serious problem before you, because it has never been thought through in this country, that war is a part of our real destiny -- of our real fate. The -- the United States of America are the most bel- -- greatest belligerent of all times. The United States have fought more wars than any country in Europe in the same time. But of course, you have the legend that this is a peace-loving country. And the educated people for one-half of them were pacifists, and so it is very hard for you to get orientation about the real fate of man, because you have built up a wonderful pipe dream society in which war is unnecessary. War is unnecessary. Now it has -- you see, and so you have this wonderful 19th century in this country, where people think that by being good, being charitable, having dances for -- for -- and sales, and church suppers for the poor that thereby you can abolish evil and have peace for all times.

The little red schoolhouse { } you had all too many women teachers. And they don't know what war is. It's not their business for a woman to know what war is. But for a man it is. Man is at war unless peace is made. That is, peace is not an automatic situation, but is always concluded. Peace has always to be created. Peace is not natural. And the great fiction of your mind and your heart is that you think peace is natural, and war is unnatural. It is the other way around, of course. War is simply natural. Without provision made, we are at war with each other. Every peace, gentlemen, of when -- which we benefit, this peace which we are enjoying at this moment in this classroom, has been stated, has been concluded. Vendetta one day had to be abolished, for example. Duels had to be given up.

No step forward in society, gentlemen, as to peace, comes about by accident. It comes only about by founding fathers. It is an act of creation. That is, it entails conscious effort: speech and inspiration in common spirit. If the common

spirit doesn't befall two enemies, there is no peace.

I had a terrible experience in this country. After the last world war, gentlemen, when Germany was completely eclipsed, and the Russians were getting what they should never have gotten, this heart of Germany by the misdeeds of Mr. {Wynant}, and Mr. Eisenhower, and the other people in the United States, they have given away this center-heart of Europe: Bohemia, Czechoslovakia, and the center-heart of Germany, Weimar, and the Wartburg, and the country of the Reformation -- they gave it away on a silver platter just -- because they didn't care. And they didn't -- they think -- thought that "Well, war is over, we go back to the natural state of peace." They didn't know that peace had to be made, that this was very difficult. Now we know.

We invited to my house a number of people, 35 grown-ups, it was about -- between 30 and 40. And we talked about the situation. And among other things, I read them a story about the great Scipio Africanus, the man who conquered the -- the Roman Empire, who got the empire for Rome. Under him, the -- Carthage, the great Punian empire in Africa, was eliminated; and Greece was conquered, and Spain was conquered. And that foun- -- was the foundation in 146 B.C. for the 500 years of Roman rule over the world. And we haven't much advanced over this. The Mediterranean is even today not quite united -- unified. So they did it, already.

Well, I read them this story, and there is a very strange report. When the -- the city of Carthage -- that's right in the -- center, as you know, of the African coast into the Mediterranean -- stretching out into the Mediterranean, the city of Carthage was about to surrender, the queen and the commanding general came out. And Scipio, the gen- -- the Roman marshall -- field marshall, was seated in order to receive them. And next to him was his teacher, a Greek professor and historian, Polybius, the greatest historian of antiquity. He has written this story himself, and that's why we know it.

And he says, Polybius, that at the moment of the surrender, Scipio took his toga, his -- his mantle before his face, and wept and recited some Greek verse.

Well, that's a very strange attitude. If you have read the reports, how the surrender of the Germans was done in -- this time in Riems by the American generals, there was certainly no weeping on the part of the American generals. Why did he weep? Polybius was curious. And he said to him, "Scipio, what's -- kind of behavior was this? Why did you do this?"

"Well," Scipio said, "I had an old verse from -- in Homer -- running

through my mind. When they surrendered, I recited: `There will be a day where {Ilius} too must fall. Priamus and his people must perish.' And I knew in this very moment, that the day would come in which Rome also would have to surrender, and would perish."

Now in 146 B.C., Scipio Africanus anticipated the fall of Rome in 476 A.D. And you may be sure, gentlemen, that because he wept at the moment at which his enemies had to surrender, that he was able to make the Roman Empire last 600 years. The anticipation, the identification with what he saw there going on before his eyes, has the Rom- -- enabled the Roman Empire to stand that long, which is the greatest miracle of human history. We know of no empire in the last 2,000 years that has lasted that long. If you take the story of Byzantium, it has even lasted, as you know, till 1453, although that is, all told, nearly 2,000 years, or -- 1600 years.

Well, gentlemen, this then is the question of war: that it is sublime to end a war, and it is not ordinary. It takes this power of Scipio to see the enemy inside himself which enabled the man to have -- { } peace. Because a man who can weep at the moment of the enemy's surrender has a spirit that encompasses his and the enemy's mind. They are both together in one. And this spirit, you see, is then able to make peace. In order to make peace, gentlemen, you have to have a spirit that can be shared by your enemy. Otherwise there can be never -- any peace. And that's we don't want to have such a spirit. We will never have -- write a peace with the Russians. And they will not probably with us. It's mutual. But the conditions of making peace are unknown in America. Absolutely unknown, because you laugh at the spirit. You say, "Spirit? Never heard of this." I mean, "I can't subscribe to the spirit."

Gentlemen, it's something very real. The spirit is simply the power to identify yourself with another frame of reference. When two frame of reference, with different soul, different body, different mind, and different role can be brought together, then you can have peace. Therefore out of the play-world of yours, you can only enter into a world of war, because peace is the common spirit between two different worlds. The Russia and the -- America. You have only to think of this. Or Germany and -- and -- and England, you see. People play there differently. They speak differ- -- different languages. They have a different religion. Yet you can have peace between these people, if you find the power that is -- transcends human reasoning, you see. That's why the Bible says -- the very simple saying, that the -- the clerics, the minister, every -- end of the service has to wish you the peace that transcends all reasoning. That should be the translation, not "all understanding." Who knows this -- who knows this -- this blessing at the end of the service? You see. "The peace that transcends all understanding."

Well, that's simply -- that's not theology, gentlemen. That's not religi- -- it's the condition under which human society has been able to live at peace with various sovereignties, you see. Montecchi and Capelleti, the two families in o- -- ancient times. Today two states, you see. You have to find a peace that transcends the individual understanding, the individual reasoning, the individual role, the individual habits, the individual ritual, you see, because in every country that's different.

You won't hear this. You don't wish to know that war is natural and peace is artificial, because you condemn everything artificial. You think if something is not natural, then it isn't good. Gentlemen, we are very artificial. My lecture is very artificial, but it's an excellent lecture. If it were natural, you wouldn't have to listen to it. It's ridiculous. Your -- your hatred of the -- of the done, of the concluded, of the created, and of the founding effort goes too far. You all want to be nature boys. Well, the end is -- are two world wars. That's what you get when you want to be nature boys.

(Well, I think the mere fact that you have something like United Nations shows that -- that the people -- the world understand that it's not natural. That they have to create something.)

We'll come to this. I -- we will see that the very weakness of the United States -- Nations comes also from this very fact, you see, because real people are real people. And they are not just numbers in a -- in a -- in a role call, you see. Or -- well, it's too early at the -- in the game. I see your point. Certainly the United Nations is the admission of this necessity. Quite right. Absolutely. But you know how torn Americans are at this moment about the United Nations. We had United Nations Day. I -- I think lip service was given to them -- to the United Nations. But you also know they hate the -- the -- the -- what the Republicans have done over the last three h- -- three years in -- just raging against UNESCO, you see, because it was going to abolish the sovereignty of the United States, cutting down their budget, et cetera. So it isn't -- it isn't -- it's -- we are torn. One-half of -- the -- knows already that this is something serious, you see, but the other half is obstructing it in -- in every body. It's not a party- -- line, you see. Every one of us is half against it and half for it.

Now gentlemen, one thing, only to announce what I'm going to do. I'm trying to show you the type of man that is needed in war. There has to be a general, there has to be a soldier in battle, the front soldier; there has to be a man behind the lines; and there have to be recruits. When we analyze these four types of people who are needed in order that there can be waged any war, you will find to your surprise again a tremendous enfolding of human nature into these -- something very similar to these four types: soul, body, role, and mind.

And then you will begin to see that the spectrum, the color-spectrum, or the light-spectrum in which man's nature is split -- is grouped in reality, is something very lawful, something very startling, and something where, if you don't know it, which must become an obsession with you. I want to cure you from this idea that any one of us is able to play only one of these four forces in -- inside himself. We have to come to terms with all four aspects. You have to be the general and the private in one man.