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

Gentlemen, just a few remarks before we now then open the curtain for the second act for the common mental life of humanity in organized research in science. This second part will -- will have to be more voluminous in -- because there are more people and more centuries involved. But it will have the same simple character as the first part, which deals with your own biography. But when I listened to this report, there came to mind a very beautiful, little paragraph in a famous novel of an Italian, {Pogazzaro}. This man {Pogazzaro} wrote a -- a -- a novel on the saint of our own times, who had never lived. Was a very important book, because it was then -- the -- it was written by a Roman Catholic writer, and it was finally put on the Index, but then again liberated from this stigma. And {Pogazzaro} ranks with the recognized Catholic -- good Catholic writers.

But he tried to describe a true saint as contrasted to the talk of the town. And so this man, a layman, this future saint, or this true saint, becomes known for his ascetic life, and for his deep wisdom and insight and -- to society in Rome, and somebody -- it wasn't Mrs. Luce, but somebody similar -- rushed in to see him and to tell him that he should solve the schism between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. He should head the ecumenic movement. He should do this and this. And all mankind was waiting for his great leadership.

And he, being a real saint, of course knew that this all was talk, and talk, and talk, and -- and when she just was fortissimo, showing the whole picture of the world, as the devil did in the desert to the Lord -- this temptation, you see -- it's always the same. The talkers always organize the whole world. This saint knew it was just his personal way of thorns which might redeem -- do something to redeem the world.

So when he -- she said, "You have to do this right away!" he said, "In -- in this minute," and slipped out of the room and went into hiding.

This -- this is in French. I remember it, "{A` l'ins-} -- this was a French lady who talked to him. So he said, "{A` l'instant}, Madame," in this Italian novel, which made the more poignant. Those of you who know French -- means -- {… l'instant}, he has spoken: "I do it right away." He -- but he did it of course -- said it ironically, because his way was one into hi- -- in hiding and abscondity, you see. God is always the hidden god, and there is no god in the limelight of { }.

And you can -- you can see from this little anecdote how this transition from the "you" into the "I," into the personal life, is always the same as in the case of

Moses. When Moses was asked to speak, the first reaction was, as you know, "But I'm a stammerer. I can't speak." He wanted to be excused. And you take perhaps this as a last statement of importance for your own life, gentlemen. Important statements are never made by the public speaking bureau. Important statements in your own life are said haltingly, embarrassedly, and therefore truthfully, and fruitfully, and effectively. A good speaker never is a good speaker. That's a rule. That is, it's a -- the man who has to say something will say it most effectively if you have not the idea that it is, you see, polished and has been practiced before the mirror. And that's the real eloquence.

As you know, the Gettysburg Address was delivered in such a way that nobody at the time noticed what a great speech it was, you see. And the -- his -- his -- the draft of the speech had to be rescued from the pa- -- wastepaper basket, because Lincoln himself hadn't attached so great significance to the speech.

That's always the difference between talk and speech, and we have lost this -- this discrimination, I'm afraid. There is still some tradition in the Christian churches, gentlemen, in this country. In the Congregational churches -- I don't know how it is in the others -- I know for certain that it's a firm tradition that prayers -- real prayers said by the minister cannot be printed, and cannot be handed out. In prayer, very different from sermons, you see -- the sermon is something you can -- you can pin down, so to speak, the servant of the Lord to -- but you cannot with prayer. That is so spontaneous, that has to be timed, you see, according to place and situ- -- hour so much that it cannot be repeated. And must not be repeated. Would be -- if it is repeated, well, I won't call any names of New York ministers, but then it is vanity. Prayer cannot be repeated, if it is said, you see, really out of a full heart in this moment. Stick to this rule, gentlemen, because it will help you to distinguish between pigs and real souls.

And in this modern world, where everything is printed, where you can get the -- your -- your -- your sacrament of wedding photographed -- I have seen this even happening in a Catholic Church -- the betrothal photographed and the kiss, of course, between bride and bridegroom. Where this is -- seems to be the main point, that there is a photographer who can take pictures. You must learn, gentlemen, that all the important things are those who cannot be put on television and cannot be photographed. Nothing on television ever is important, or has ever any consequences. It's all { }. It's a showpiece. Real life never happens that way.

I'm all for television, as long as all the people who look -- at television know that this is second-rate, you see. Crime investigation you can put on television, because criminals are third-rate, and attorney generals are second-rate. I mean, the whole criminal procedure is, after all, just a -- you see, a -- a -- a defense

against relapse into barbarism. It's not even important. What is -- important about race tracks, or corruption, or any such things, I mean? Or all these -- these -- the- -- Cap- -- Al Capones and so on. It's bad enough. But I mean, they are just below parity, below the level of humanity. We have to get rid of them, certainly. But if you put this crime investigation on television, what have you got, you see? Nothing.


(Well, what do you think of the visible church, then? Is that also something that's not spontaneous?)

Well, there's always a mistranslation. Gentlemen, the Church problem, and the problem of life, as we shall see in this course now, is to become visible. That which is already visible of the Church is always its law -- "her law," I should perhaps say. And the grace is always in front. That is, you should not say "invisible" and "visible" Church so much as that part of the life of the Church already incarnated and therefore visible, like the pope in Rome, and that part of the life of the Church in your heart that isn't yet visible. In every moment, you must have saintly life, and confession, and remission of sins, and miracles done by people in the unknown, incognito, you see, anonymously. But the secret of life is that we are all meant at one time to become known.

I am, you see -- I'm believing in this fact that the past is visible, and the future is invisible. That's the real relation. You understand? It isn't so simple as you think, in space: something is visible and the other is invisible. But if we participate in the life of mankind, you think of the triangle again of man, at the end, we shall be known, you see. We shall be known, and then we shall be made visible. You understand?

This is the -- perhaps the hardest at this moment, gentlemen. That's why the division in Catholics and Protestants means nothing today. It is utterly obsolete, because the problem of Christianity today is obviously: do we -- still have a future? And that is the difficulty on both sides of the denominational fence, you see. There must still be incognito -- that is, there must be unrecognized deeds, unrecognized sacrifices, you see, which at first are done the dark, and sown like bread cast on the waters, you see, so that nobody knows when the bread will return.

You see, this is the problem today of the invisible. Jesus was invisible, totally invisible in His days. The Resurrection means nothing except that now He can become visible, begin to be visible, you see. And you are quite right asking this question. I'm very grateful, because it is a total misunderstanding. Perhaps this

ending, "-ible," I mean "visible," is at fault today. I mean, it is -- no longer conveys this -- what it did convey in -- originally, you see, that it had still to wait for its visibility.

The sequence, gentlemen, tho- -- who has taken Philosophy 9? You may remember there that the word there begins, and the "I" comes later. That's the outer, you see, when you are externalized, it -- you can be seen. But the seed is sown in the dark.

Now, at this point, let us break off with a personal story of man's growth into a responsible and named position into the ages, and let us ask: what has mankind done with this insight? Because although you have never heard of these 10 commandments of the mind, Christianity implied their knowledge because Christianity says that man is born at his death. As you know, the names of the saints in the Church calendar are placed there on which date?

(On the death.)

Yes, because that's their birthday to -- for Heaven. And since I don't believe in another world or another Heaven, I think it must be right here. God -- Jesus -- God didn't create two worlds: one for the dead and one for the living. He created one world, as we call -- profess in our Creed. So the dead are here, very much alive.

So the -- the -- the Christian peoples have always acted on one assumption, which I want you to write as a headline perhaps for -- for this whole second part: our values are our forbears. This is a strange sentence. I'll elucidate it right away. Our values are our forebears, or vice versa. Values can only be represen- -- represented by people who have gone before us. There is much -- who's -- is anybody majoring in philosophy? Well, those of you will know -- and the economic majors, too -- that there is much discussion of value in the world today. And people think that if something is worth a thousand dollars, it has value.

Gentlemen, all the so abstract values all depend on concrete values. When you a buy Lincoln car or an {Essex}, you still pin your hopes on the goodness of the name "{Essex}." That's why the manufacturer called it "Lincoln." Even the advertiser depends on forbears. Otherwise he would not call one car "Cadillac" and the other a -- give me another personal name of such a car.




Chrysler. This is the most important step you can take, gentlemen, in your mental life at this moment. You are haunted by abstractions, by the Good, and the Beautiful, and the True. These things do not exist. They only exist, as truth only exists, when a man has -- shows veracity, and then verifies it and embodies the truth finally. In the same way, gentlemen, all values of society have been created by human lives. And the first value, therefore, is always expressed by a name like Lincoln or George Washington. And later you can abstract from these values and say, "That is 100 percent American." If you, however, want to segregate Americanism from all the heroes from America, and say, "I know what Americanism is without George Washington, and without Lincoln," then you get McCarthy, because that's an abstraction, his Americanism. That's -- everybody is against him, or who hasn't been born in Wisconsin. Then -- this is, you see, unAmerican. You always get into hot water when you have any value in society segregated from the man who embodied this value first.

I once put this whole story before a young woman, and she gave me this answer, which I now have quoted.

"Oh, I understand now," she said. She was from Chicago, where they have a hard time to understand. And -- and she said, "I now understand that our values have forbears."

And that's why I give you the sentence. It's not my own invention. It's a strange sentence, but I think if you understand these four sent- -- words, you have taken a tremendous step into the real history of your own mind. "Our values have forbears." What is good is nothing compared to a good man, or a good woman. And from her, you abstract what is good, what is {nothing}.

If there were not a personal god, the god of -- whom Jesus called His Father, you would not know what the divine is. But in philosophy, people try to -- to sell you the Divine or the Good. It doesn't exist. The divine is the quality of God. Goodness is the quality of a man, or of a woman, or of a human being. Truthfulness, the same. Otherwise we don't know what it is. But you are all living in a -- wor- -- in a -- on a cemetery of thought, because you really think that to speak embarrassedly, and -- and haltingly of the Divine or of the Beautiful is more rational, is more realistic. It's just the shadow of the real {thing}. Whenever you use an adjective, it has to be derived from a noun. And the noun is a living {character}. And we have nothing else to go by.

The schools, gentlemen, the research, the sciences, the degrees, the professors, the books, the -- whole libraries here, Baker Library, this college -- everything we

do mentally to people to train them, or to make them exert themselves in living thought are based on this certainty that teachers must beget students, that values must have forbears, that rulers must educate people to obey the law, and to understand it, and to renew the law.

So the history of our schools, gentlemen, is the history of the application of the 10 commandments to the life of the community. And I divide this great adventure of establishing institutions which would make sure that in every generation the 10 commandments, at least among some people, actually are realized, so that no one, you see, can destroy their marvelous sequence. I divide this story into three chapters. We have from 1100 to 1500 the great story of the founding of universities, and of colleges. And Dartmouth College, you -- believe it or not, in this country is much more a medieval place than a modern place. In Europe, on the continent of Europe, such colleges as this here does -- do not under- -- exist. The academic world of Europe is purely given to an organization which dates from 1500. Your life here in this college is much more similar to the life of the people in Paris in 1300, because you live together in dormitories, for example. You eat together, and you play together. The student in Europe doesn't do this. He lives on his own. He only goes to classes. And all the friendships in a German university or in a French university are exclusively based on intellectual communion. Yours are exclusively based on an unintellectual communion.

So will you take down, gentlemen: universities and colleges have been founded in those days there. And that is still of lasting interest.

In the last 1500 -- 400 years, we have established academies. If you compare the two words, this is Latin, colleg- -- is a Latin word. Collega is -- was the -- the -- the man in -- in office in Rome who was the -- the two consuls called each other "colleg" -- colleagues. And a college is a place of -- of colleagues. And the word "universitas" is a Latin word, of a Roman -- root. Whereas, if you look at the word "academy," you see that it is a Greek word. It comes from Athens. It is a Pla- -- Platonic expression. Plato founded this academy. Those who write a paper on Plato know this by now.

And today, gentlemen, we are faced with a great upsurge of a new movement -- we don't know how -- when we will succeed -- of establishing field work, as we call it, with the general term, for the social sciences. The word "field" I will take up at this moment. I have another expression in the end to offer you. But it shows you that people in the social sciences cannot study everything they need in universities. And they cannot study it in academies. They have to go out, some third place. They call it "in-" -- "into the field." Well, this will prove quite important.

So I suggest, gentlemen, that the -- three great cycles of the 10 commandments as elements of the organized learning and education of society have -- been going on for the last 800 years in this strange order. In the first 400 years, people tried to organize this in universities, and then in the academies, and now in the social sciences in some kind of field work. You may here put, of course, together with "academies," the word "laboratory." The laboratory obviously is an element of the academic cycle.

We already -- I gave you already the cue. This modern world is haunted by the specter of man's doubt about his fellow man. That is, the 5th commandment -- which is the heart of all higher learning, because it makes out of a repetitive, imitative ape, you see, an independent person, a real, free companion of society, a citizen, you ca- -- may say, of the world -- this 5th commandment can -- is today applied to our not understanding man. People talk about communication, because they can no longer communicate, you see. They talk about speech, because they can no longer speak to each other, and people are terribly lonely and schizophrenic, and they cannot even spoke -- speak to themselves, because they are overtaxed in their strength. What is the modern mental breakdown as the in- -- inability of a man to go on l„ng- -- any longer to speak only to himself, and feeling that he can't give the answers.

So gentlemen, in the days of the physicist, however, when physics was created, and chemistry, the doubt were about all the objects of the world. The great rule of the middle part of this scientific campaign and crusade, of building up laboratories was: well, we know we are, but we don't know what the things are, and the things are not what they seem to be. It was a fight in the natural sciences to doubt everything. To doubt everything. Today we doubt everybody. The Middle Ages had another doubt. The cycle of the first -- the Middle Ages was the doubt about God. How could God put up with the corruption of the world? How could He -- allow all these disasters? You hear these -- these doubts today still uttered. When there is a world war, they say, "There can be no God, because otherwise He would not allow all these horrors to happen. So I don't believe in God, because the world is so -- in such a bad state."

Well, that is the daily bread of the medieval thinker. The medieval thinker says, "There can be no God, because I'm myself such an abominable sinner. So if God had existed, He would have already blotted me out long ago." A very reasonable remark, because really, the patience of God with all our -- with all our foolishness is tremendous.

The other day, a boy came to me and said that he only cared for himself, and for nothing else. Well, the earth didn't open; Heaven didn't fall in; but I have never heard such an infamy in my life. He didn't even know how infamous he

was. Why should anybody speak to a man who says that he only cared for me? He's just a brute animal. He's not of any interest. Certainly he can't be a student in an academic society, in which people together are educated to -- to learn the truth, because the very exposure to a social organization of education means that people -- knows things that are more important than they themselves. They try to fit in. They try to find where they are needed.

I still haven't -- quite overcome my shock that a Dartmouth student could -- could say -- of course, he could say it from mere stupidity. But I'm afraid then he shouldn't be regi- -- registered as a student at Dartmouth College, just because of low IQ. I'm afraid this man had quite a high IQ. But in the higher sense, of course, he was utterly stupid.

Because the three doubts, gentlemen, are in every person. When you doubt yourself, you doubt the existence of God. That's identical, because you have alway- -- are always faced with the question: do I not deserve to be blotted out? Shouldn't I commit suicide? Shouldn't I run away? Shouldn't I hide? All these questions -- about your own value are always intimately connected with the question: am I to be tolerated? And this can only be decided by your creator. We'll come to this -- it has been -- this very question, gentlemen, about man's own person -- personal unworthiness has been the root of the whole first cycle of learning, of what we call the "scholastic age," because the people who founded universities and colleges called themselves the "schoolmen." And "scholasticism," gentlemen, comes from the Latin and Greek word "schola," which means "school." It originally means in Greek, leisure, skhole, you may have heard this. Today we speak of "school," the medieval people were quoted as the schoolman. Thomas Aquinas is a scholastic, is a schoolman. But their concern, their doubt was about their own personal worth.

The question of the second cycle, gentlemen, was only about the -- things. When the second cycle began, you get this great sentence, "I think, therefore I am." You have heard of this. Who said this?

(Ren‚ Descartes.)

Well, you see how this man transformed the whole world into uncertainty, into non-being. Something had to remain in this ocean of doubt. So the thought remained: I am, you see, substantially the only certain substance, by thought. But everything, every object I can think, I can scrutinize, I can doubt. That is the great transformation of the scholastic cycle into the academic cycle, that we doubt the things, and do not doubt our thought.

But today, as I said, we doubt our fellow man. The Russians certainly doubt

the Americans. The Americans doubt the Russians. Mistrust rules. And we -- mistrust part of us, it is not the despair so much of the -- of the old theologian that he said, "How can be there a God if I am so injust -- unjust?" But today, people doubt parts of themselves, their inheritance. They say, "From my mother's side, I have just this handicap; from my father's side, I have this handicap." You know all these kind of partial excuses people tend today build up, with all the little knowledge they have by extrapolating part of their social background. And say, "Just because I'm Jewish, I have this handicap. And because I'm from New York, I have this advantage." And it should be the other way around. Because he's Jewish he has an advantage; and because he's from New York, he has a handicap.

So we doubt today our fellow man, and our- -- in ourselves, our neighbors, as represented in us, the group to which we belong. And that is, what we -- say is our social doubt today. The social gospel and the social doubt, of course, are just two halves of the same topic. Doubt about society. The doubt about the other fellow. Doubt about the way to speak, to get on with people.

Gentlemen, these three cycles deserve to be called "cycles," because they all follow the same pattern. Now this pattern is exactly what you asked me. Pardon me, will you give me your name once more? Your name?

(Rock Grundman.)


(Grundman. Grundman. G-r-u-n-d-m-a-n.)

Grantham? I don't see it on the -- wie?


Whatever {they gave you}.

He rightly asked this question of the visible, as against the invisible. Gentlemen, in these 400 years, every one of these cycles has become more and more visible. That it is -- it has become flesh. It has be- -- been what we say, "realized." And therefore, these great institutional cycles have gone from idea to commonplace. Would you take this down? From idea to commonplace. That is, they have started in one man. They have gone to a few. The few have carried it to many. And finally it has become the property of all. And whenever it has become -- becomes the property of all, something new begins -- must begin again, which is only to be found in single, unique people.

The road of these three cycles by which they deserve to be learned by you as real epochs, and in which they explain each other, looks like this. Idea, represented by one or two -- we'll see that we can always find two men -- by one or two -- both alone. I won't argue with the -- some people may {then} ask for a third -- third person. The main point is that anyone who has this new idea of organizing the life of social thought at that moment stands alone. There's nobody to understand him, nobody to back him up. You see, he is all alone in -- in saying, "This has to be done. This is the way to proceed now."

We'll see that this is very true in the social sciences. Everybody in the social sciences -- do -- who imi- -- imitate the natural sciences is in the second cycle. He tries to make the social science just into one of the already-known sciences, and treats man as a chemical. But that is -- aren't the interesting people who will solve the riddle of the social sciences.

Well, to go back here, gentlemen. The idea, the man stands alone -- I'll give you the name of these people right away. Then the thing becomes a question of scientific treatment. It becomes a science. And experts in science, of course, are only a few. For a few. But they cooperate. They form a group. Sciences, gentlemen, are always organized ideas. You can't have a science as long as one man says something. You get Nietzsche, or you get Socrates. That's -- they have an idea, but they are not yet a body of scientists, obviously, you see, because nobody knows what they're talking about. And so Socrates is put to death. And Nietzsche goes -- insane, because people do not -- understand that they are the beginners of a whole cycle. But they are. As you know, the result of Socrates was the Platonic academy. But in his own days, he had no colleagues. He had no scientific brotherhood. He had to -- to bring up this possibility of an academy, you see, in his own private, personal conviction in life.

So, the great difference, gentlemen, of -- when you say "science" -- and this is very popular in this country to speak of science -- you don't know that all science has sprung from pre-scientific carriers. All sciences are created by lonely individuals, are power- -- more powerful than scientists. Mr. Einstein and Mr. Newton would have never existed without the greatness of men like Cop- -- Galilei on the one-hand side, and Paracelsus, for example, on the other. That is, people who were not understood at all, in their own days.

Newton had the whole royal society as a platform, and the -- the -- the room inside of which he could read his papers. That's a great difference. Nobody doubted, in Newton's days, that there could be physics. But in the year 1500, you were burned at stake as a witch if you said there could be physics separate from theology. So it took 150 years before Mr. Newton could read his papers to the royal society -- and this is the heroic time of the first play -- of the first phase of

any new cycle, gentlemen, that there are men who cannot be recognized for what they're doing, because they are outside the group.

This would be group-knowledge, all science is groups' knowledge, because they throw the ball at each other, they help each other, they inform each other, they criticize each other, you see. And that is what you call "science." You live in a -- in a rather -- well, not in a strait jacket, but in a padded room in your thought, because you think that the world consists of laymen and experts, or of people -- scientists and low-brows. Gentlemen, the life in this earth is a little more -- richer. It consists of beginners; and then of groups; and then third, of schools. When this group is -- is held in high enough esteem, when Newton is famous -- as late as 1800, gentlemen, it became fashionable even for those people who went to Oxford and Cambridge and never thought they should learn anything -- as you know, you don't go to Oxford and learn something there -- they were exposed finally to some smattering of physics. But it took 150 years before physics became the topic for an examination. And in Oxford, it hasn't quite won out even today. The greats in Oxford, you see, are still dealing with subjects which are older than Mr. Newton.

That is, schools, gentlemen, are for many. They educate. And we reach here the state of education. Again, you don't like to hear that education is a special stratification of society, which distinguishes then between people who get an education and those who don't get an education. You think that's undemocratic. But I'm afraid I didn't go to American public school and a college, so I never got an education, you see, in your sense of the word. I didn't. And you have to bear with me. I'm -- very pleased to say that I'm on the side of the educated people in this country, because it isn't true that everybody can be educated. The education may be for many, gentlemen, but it isn't for all.

It is good that there should be people who can thereby show up education for what it is worth. Mr. Flanders, as you know, went to school only eight years. And I think he is a very fine man, although he has no college education whatsoever. And when Woodrow Wilson was -- came here to Dartmouth College in 1909, the future president of the United States, he made a very remarkable speech. He said, "While I look over these people in Webster Hall," which was then just opened, "I had to ask myself if, from your ranks, there could spring a man like Abraham Lincoln. And I had to say to myself, `no.' A man like Abraham Lincoln doesn't come from the educated people."

That's a great indictment against education, and it should only warn you against education making a racket by -- saying that everybody can be educated. It will only have its value if it is for many, but not for all. That's a very important story for your consideration, gentlemen. We are just in the great danger that

education for you becomes a dead -- a dead issue, a slogan, and that people go to college who shouldn't go to college, as you very well know, because you are so convinced that what is good should be given to all.

Gentlemen, then you don't give it to anybody. The result, at this moment, of our millions of boys in the colleges are that there is no college education. That you can -- you can destroy college education, but you cannot give education to everybody. That's impossible. You don't believe this.

And therefore, I have to add a fourth stage, gentlemen, to your noticing. Everybody today drives a car. Everybody can telephone. Everybody has a little smattering of mathematics. Everybody can say, "2 to the square is 4." That is, the natural sciences at this moment in this country have become commonplace. There is, beyond education, gentlemen, a phase of all knowledge and all thinking which we call "commonplace." And that means that you get it without a special education. It's just in the air. Everybody has it. This is Figure D. This would be Figure C. This would be B. And this would be A.

Now, I -- to -- repeat, gentlemen: every of these three cycles of the scholastic, the academic, and the social science cycle has to penetrate the human society, the existing body of mankind in any one period in these four steps: one, a few, many, all. Here I put "many," and by -- in "commonplace," I put "all." And I'll give you -- away my -- one of my best secrets right away, gentlemen: when theology became commonplace, we had the Reformation. The Reformation is that moment at which theology became commonplace. As you know, the Bible then was translated and put in everybody's hand. The meaning of the Reformation has very little to do with the real story of our faith, but very much with the history of theology. The Reformation has made every man in the street a little theologian. That is, at that moment in 1517, when Luther publicized his 95 theses against the indulgences, he invoked the criticism of the man in the street, as we rightly say, because there they were, at the gates of the prince's palace, to be read -- or the prince's church, to be read. Therefore, gentlemen, commonplace, you could also say, "That is known by the man in the street," which is a very good expression.

Let me prove this before -- well, yes, before I have to break, with a very simple statement, gentlemen. To have, to begin a new cycle takes the whole life of a person, youth and old age, childhood, everything. He is just pre-destined, so to speak. Every ounce of his tradition, of his inheritance has to work into this. He is the martyr of this new type of thinking. Science takes a lifetime, but a lifetime rightly understood is only one-half of life, after you have been a student. I mean, it lasts perhaps from 22, when you become a doctor, or 23, to the end of your day, you see. So when we say "lifetime," we do not include childhood {really}, practi-

cally. But we say, when you decide that you will be a doctor, then you become a professionalist -- or when you become a chemist.

Therefore, gentlemen, scientific groups demand lifetime allegiance, if you want to perform. And you want to have credit -- get credit and be appointed as a research man, they are -- demand from you an allegiance which lasts 30 years. Education, you allegedly can have in four years. Certainly it takes not a lifetime, and it doesn't take the whole man. You can undergo this painful process of education in a few years. It's a part-time business.

Now the fourth stage, common sense, gentlemen, you get without any special outlay in time. "If you want something to know about Goethe, I can tell you this in five minutes." That's what the man in the street tells you. That's the commonsense approach to knowledge. The shorter the better. Reading time: 3 minutes and 5 seconds.

Well, gentlemen, this may help you to understand that I'm talking about brazen facts. These four stages exist in every moment in society. When a man gives himself, heart and soul, so to speak, his lifeblood to something, he represents always the creative stage. When he just does it professionally, because it is a paid job in -- here, you see, as a physicist, or a chemist, or what-not, he is in the group of the professional school, of the scientific group. That's all right, too. The third is that he undergoes it. You have a smattering of geography, and a smattering of -- of English literature. After you have left this college, you have been exposed to some of these thought -- thought processes. And they leave you, however, or you leave them, and you go onto other things. That's education. And the common-sense knowledge you have is quite a bit. You pick it up here and there, and you never devote more than a -- occasionally an hour to reading a book, you see, that interests you or two bo- -- two -- two hours, perhaps, or you listen to a broadcast of a general, informatory character.

Gentlemen, I offer you this as -- for your own self-knowledge. Investigate -- not now, but later on in life, occasionally -- what wavelengths you are traveling on in your thought processes. If they are thought processes which you just occasionally become conscious of by picking up a receiver and listening to somebody's comments, you are trying to get common knowledge. You are the man in the street. If you undergo a whole course of training, are willing to write papers, even by correspondence, you certainly are -- getting -- going -- to be educated, you see. But still you are not intending to stand for that what you learn there for the rest of your life. You see, you -- you enjoy it. You go to college, for example, as you do now.

And these two other stages, well -- it's easy for you now to face them. I hope

every one of you is -- loves some truth so much that he will follow it, pursue it all his life. But make this distinction, gentlemen: discover these four types of humanity, of human mental life inside yourself, and you will be able to know where you are responsible for, and -- were responsible, and where you are really quite irresponsible. Today, most people live completely on the commonplace level in their thinking, and think that's Gospel truth.

But gentlemen, what you talk in politics, for example, and so, isn't worth very much. It is common sense, and we ha- -- need you. Everybody must contribute to this. But you belong to just one of the four rings of thought.

Let's have a break here, and then I'll explain to you how you can test -- test this.

[tape interruption]

I think it may help you, gentlemen, to show you that this is really a story of forming, molding people, this story of the last 800 years, if I tell you that these four stages of the single man, having a new idea for the first time, of the scientific group elaborately discussing and -- and exploring it among themselves, the educated group, being exposed to its impact for a while, and the common-sense man hanging it in -- as an everyday affair -- that this is represented by the four great nations at this moment. America means by "democracy" that everything is for everybody. It is this emphasizing the fourth stage. Even the expert has to speak in this country as though it was just commonplace what he said. That's demanded for him, you see. The high brow in this country must pose as low brow, or he -- nobody wants -- wishes to listen to him.

In England, you have the educated society. What they call "society" in England are people who have been educated. In England, when you meet a professor, he tells you that he's just going off for a weekend. When you meet a German professor, he will always tell you that he's completely overworked with research. That is, the research man in England tries to pose just as an educated man. The educated man in Germany tries to pose as a scholar. The -- the scientific group sets the standard of behavior to Germans. That's why they are -- impress you as bookish and as learned and all the handbooks, and dictionaries, and textbooks, and grammars of all languages of the world come from Europe -- from Germany: the atlases, et cetera -- and because the scientific group life, the professional life is in Germany developed highest. The few, as colleagues. In France it's the single individual. In Paris, that is Vanity Fair of the individual who has a new, bright idea, wrong or right. It's outside the schools.

So we get a strange representation of these four terraces, or cataracts, or

platforms over which the spirit moves downward. It begins with a single individual; and in Paris, every Frenchman tries to be such a beginner of a new idea. In Germany, you find the scholastic treatment of a scholarly group, the expert treatment, specialized, thorough, but for internal use only among the experts. The rest doesn- -- isn't made to understand. "You can't understand us," they would say to -- to the general student. "You have to be in my seminar before I will talk to you about it."

Then you get the educated course. That is the typical English college course. In Cambridge and Oxford, you get an education. Science, ideas -- Englishman, as you know, always when you talk to an Englishman about an idea, he thinks that somebody is going to cheat him. And it's usually a Frenchman. So an Englishman is not interested in ideas. He just isn't. And he is not interested in scholas- -- scholas- -- scholarship. He's very much interested in education, in gentleman-like behavior, in good society.

And I think for you it is useful to notice, gentlemen, that these great -- this great venture of ideas, and sciences, and educations, and public life has -- and in the commonwealth -- has led these four great nations to behave differently in their daily arrangement of expression and of behavior.

They tell the story of a -- this is a real story. It happened to a friend of mine who was a professor. He visited us in the evening when he arrived at our -- in our town. And his wife went to bed in the hotel early. She was tired. So when he came home at night, he wanted to join her in her -- their room. And the -- the -- the concierge, the man at -- at the desk said, "Well, I can't let you in. I don't -- I don't know you. I can't let you in the room of a lady."

He said, "But I'm a professor." So he was allowed in.

Now in this country, you may achieve it by saying you are a Harvard man, in New England. But in -- in the Wes- -- the Middle West, where they don't recognize Harvard for anything, you see, you would have to say that you are the very well-known football player. Then you would be allowed in.

So then these are the -- mores of different countries. The impeccable, you see, the man who cannot sin is a different person in England, a diff- -- that's a gentlemen, you see. Here, the athlete cannot sin. And he does, of course -- and the gentlemen -- do sin. But they are supposed not to. And in Germany, the professors can't sin. And there -- in French -- in France les ‚crivains de France, the people of ideas, cannot sin. And you go to the Pantheon in Paris -- you know what the Pantheon is? Does anybody know what the Pantheon is? What is it?

(It's the temple of many gods, isn't it? Temple of -- one temple they built for many gods?)

Well, that was in Rome.

(Oh, I'm -- oh, I didn't hear what you said.)

Then -- has nobody ever heard of the Pantheon in Paris? What is it?

(All I know about it now is that Balzac, and the great -- some -- some of the great authors are buried un- -- under it now.)

Well, that -- you see, these are the gods of France now, not the gods of Rome. Now we'll find the Pantheon in Rome, that was an imperial Roman building dedicated to the many gods, and is now a church. It's a very beautiful architectural building in a circle. The -- in 1783, in Paris, they built a new church in honor of the patron saint of Paris. That is Ste. GenŠvieve. The -- was built by Louis XVI. But when the Revolution came, they secularized the building and devoted it to the -- to the -- all the good geniuses of France. And had Rousseau, and Voltaire -- Voltaire's ashes or bones -- put there as the first inhabitants of this new building dedicated to the glories of France. It's the intellectual Valhalla, the intellectual Olympus of France, the Pantheon.

And when you go there, you find a strange tomb. Very impressive. It's just a list of the writers of France who were killed in the First World War, "Aux crivains de France." Now you cannot go to any other country in the world, where the -- les crivains, the writers, form a special leading group of recognized genius. Here, in this country, you would have the presidents of the United States, you see. In France, that's a laughing stock. To be president of France, you know, that's just to be funny.

Ja. So different are the different countries, you see. You want to have an average man like Mr. Truman, you see, of whom you can see 10,000 in any bus, streetcar, or street or -- and that's your president, because we love common sense, commonplace. We love the man in the street. Well, isn't that true? But in France, the only man who interests the French people is les -- {l'‚crivain}, that is, the man who has an inimitable style of his own. His handwriting cannot be mistaken for anybody else's. He is unique, because that is the -- best criterion of a -- such a man in a first phase, that he cannot be mistaken for anybody else.

In this sense, I offer you these four countries as illuminations in their whole structure of these four phases of the mental life. You see, life is really very miraculous. It's interwoven between the visible, you see, and the invisible. The stream

is invisible. But the various phases of the stream have been -- become visible in these four great nations.

Now the consequence, gentlemen, of this relation of the invisible life of the spirit and the visibility is this: that at this moment, France, and England, and Germany are in great danger of becoming the caricatures of their own special form. If every German is just a professor, you see, if every Amer- -- Englishman would be -- would be a gentleman, you see, if every Frenchman would just be a man like Andr‚ Gide, it would be terrible. Obviously the full life of the spirit demands all the four stages. And we need some common sense even in France, where they don't have -- seem to have any at this moment. You understand?

And you need here in this country a little respect for the other three phases. You must allow a man who is not low-brow not to be low-brow. You {cannot} hunt him down like -- like Ezra Pound or Herman Melville. Today the -- here people are penalized who want to have their privacy. Think of Charles Lindbergh and the press. That's a tragedy. It can't even be repaired by making him a general. He is not popular in this country because he cannot live on the fourth level. He cannot. Well, why -- what can you do about it? It's just so.

So, gentlemen, all these countries are in great danger of isolating themself from this process. And perhaps you begin to see, gentlemen, that the nations of the Western world are nothing geographical, and nothing physical. They are all spiritual members of the great process of inspiration. And these nations are only what they are for the reasons that the institutions of higher learning reached them at a certain moment of their development. In this country, it was in the moment of the greatest technical progress where you could immediately reach everybody by telephone and television.

So today here we say "everybody." Three hundred years ago, gentlemen, you had to say in England, "at least the gentry." Four hundred years ago, when Luther was professor, you said, "at least the professors." And in Paris, in the beginning of the Western world's crusades, there was at least one or the other great fellow who begin -- began to -- to do some things.

So these countries, gentlemen, are nothing outside our course here. They don't belong into the history where you learn them, with their wars. They don't belong into geography. They don't belong into anthropology, with racial measurements. That's so very strange. In this course, Philosophy 10, you can learn more about the French, and the English, and the Germans, and the Americans than you can learn in courses about French and American history. If you begin to understand this, the whole history begins to make sense.

Does -- really anyone want to believe that the people of this earth are just brute animals, who -- where dog eats dog? You know better. People wouldn't be in this country if they had believed that. But what we teach the boys today is actually that this is the whole story, that there have been wars all the time between the French, and the English, and the Germans; they will be there forever. This hopeless -- I -- teaching is -- always happens when you try to understand people without what they are saying, and what they are trying to tell others.

The peoples of this world are much better than you -- you really at this moment are allowed to think they are. They want to -- to have this -- participate in this stream of life. In -- the Gospel, there is made this very na‹ve supposition that everybody wants to participate in life everlasting. Well, that's such a stock phrase. Who of you has a sleepless night about life everlasting? You take a sleeping pill and then you have sleep everlasting. Or you take benzedrine, for keeping up.

Life everlasting, gentlemen, is however the concern of all good people. And the nations of this world have tried to be partners of this life everlasting of the human spirit. And that's why they have this strange character. And at this moment, as I said, they are exceedingly imperiled, because they have developed one of these phases so totally that they may get stuck in isolation. And this is your problem, gentlemen. That's why I'm teaching you, because it is not possible to be -- have life everlasting merely as an Englishman, or merely as an American, or merely as a Frenchman. If you try to, you see, you begin to look funny.

Well, my time is up. Thank you.