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

So, whoever would like to ans- -- ask a question? Ja. You would? Yes? So you did raise your finger. Please.

(If I understood it correctly, I found that you put -- numbers at a secondary level in comparing them to words. You put numbers as a secondary {existence} compared to words.)


(Which you said denominated names and certain parts, whether logically could we figure the beginning of such a phenomenon, then we could place the priority {of one and the secondaries together}?)

Well, the -- your word "priority" obviously is in this ambiguous. It can mean two things. One is more dignified than the other, or the other is logically earlier. Of course numbers, and names, and words cannot be ascribed to any one moment in time -- one earlier and one later -- if you mean this by "priority." There probably -- according to the Bible, the names are older than the words. If you read the Bible carefully, the man -- man names, gives numbers to the things and their names. But he is called first and he receives this notion that he is to be called "Adam" from his maker. So the Bible is very -- quite explicit in distinguishing names and the words for things, you see. The word "name," you see, "nomen" in Latin, is ambiguous in many languages. It may mean "a word" -- "nomen" you see, as in the word "nominative," in grammar can just mean "word." And there's some ambiguity then in our speaking to each other. The word may mean "word" or "name." And let me make this quite clear. I'll put this here for your better understanding.

Of things we speak. To people we speak. And from gods we hear -- or we are made to speak. I've defined, you see, any power that -- who makes us speak, who forces me to speak, you see, or to fall silent -- that is, to change my approach to reality, we call a god. Love makes you speak and sing, you see. It is not the girl who makes you speak, -- sonder- -- because -- that you are in love with her, you see. So she has this overpowering influence. And 10 years later, she doesn't make you sing, but cry.

So it isn't true that she, in her -- simply as a -- as a person -- makes you speak. But the power, you see, of Venus makes her speak, for example, the goddess of love. So in the -- if you take three simple words, you may not confuse one and the other. And you will also see that we cannot decide what is earlier and what is

later. From the gods, we are forced to speak and we speak to people and we speak of things. And you can -- it is very easy to make this distinction between people and things, you see. Wherever you speak to, you humanize. You can speak to flowers and animals. A tame -- your tame horse or your tame dog you speak to. That means you treat it similar to a human being, you see. But on the other hand, you know very well that you can in general only speak of dogs, and not to dogs. You can't -- couldn't have an assembly of dogs, and give them a talk, as I try today, at this moment, you see.

(My problem, Prof. Rosenstock -- )


(When I talk to a certain thing, or a certain person, I presuppose things --)


(When I talk to something other than myself --)

Well, you presuppose that it can talk back, don't you? You fear -- I dread that you talk back now to me, you see. So I treat you as a human being. But -- of this table, I can say that it is brown, you see? But I expect not the table suddenly to get up and contradict me. You may contradict me. He -- it cannot. That's the difference between men and things. Isn't it?


So. That's a decisive difference. But in our modern world, we have neglected this. Speech has been degraded to something, you see, about things, and we always forget that the words we use may come back and tell against us, you see. I mean, most people are in safety, especially journalists and professors, you see. They -- they have made sure that nobody can talk back. In an examination, they have to answer questions.

I think this may really help, you see. From the gods, we are inspired and compelled to speak. Any love that is overwhelming -- we'll speak of this at the end a little more explicitly. It is very strange that this should have been overlooked all through the 19th century. And -- they said, there are no gods. If you think that God is the power who created the world, what do we know about that? The geologists tell us this was 900 million years ago. It's probably not true, but they say so, and we can't contradict them because they use numbers. And the -- we have just, you see, to be silent.

And, however, from the gods comes this compulsion to speak, and -- to men we speak or among men. And we are equals with others in this respect. And you can also now see -- follow this perhaps -- it's a -- good moment. I had reserved this for the beginning of tonight but your question leads to this. In men, the two worlds of speech meet. Here we are. You have a name and I have a name, and we participate in the divine presence. But we use words to each other, you see, and in this way we are in human society. And so in -- in men there is a division. I use words in society, but every one of the men participating claims that he has a name, that he is not to be confused with anybody else. And you of -- insult a man, if you insist that he's only a number -- in the state of Arkansas, any child born, you know, gets a number. You may know this. I think it's for -- all of the United States for fingerprinting purposes. Isn't it true? That we are all now -- they introduced this is during the Second World War, isn't this true? Ja. So, but fortunately we ignore this, you see. Mr. Winter is Mr. Winter and he's not 0003476.

So we try -- only prisoners are degraded to have numbers. It was the great invention of Mr. Hitler to take away the name of a person in the concentration camps. And they ended up as numbers, you see. And once you make a man into a number, he has ceased really to live. I mean, it is a -- very refined cruelty to treat prisoners to numbers.

So, what now? What else, please?

(May one speak to a god, to the god which has given him voice?)

Well, one can respond, one can obey, one can answer. If you think that the gods can be spoken to, I decline to answer this question in such a way because you haven't committed yourself, Mr. Hirschmann, to the question if they talk to you. Before you have not admitted this, it's no use talk -- telling -- telling -- saying that you can talk back to them. Most people today, you see, say there is a God. They are all deists, you see. But they would not acknowledge that the gods talk to them. And so this philo- -- philosophizing of Mr. Voltaire and family and -- you see, doesn't interest me. That won't lead anywhere. Of course -- I could admit it, Sir. But it would be misleading in this audience because the real mystery of the divine powers is only that they make us speak. As a consequence, we implore them. We invoke them. We may turn away with them. You can deny them. You can -- all prayer, you see, is an answer to their -- we acknowledge their power. But this acknowledgement has to come first.

And therefore, your question cannot be answered in this. You see, it's a second step that we answer. If you are interested, I mean the -- as you know, most modern men cannot define what prayer is. They say, "Well, the gods don't

listen anyway, so why bother?" Prayer is -- something airy in church from 11 to 12 or from 9:15 to 10; but otherwise, it is something for children. Now I don't think so. I'm very serious in this matter, but it is very hard for me to make myself understood. Most people today think that it is a petrifact, prayer, and it is not something that happens every minute. And this is quite serious, the question, "What is to be achieved with prayer?" you see. Only through prayer does anyone place himself in the universe, because only vis a vis, and in the face of the gods, can you or I know who we are. No- -- nobody of you can tell me who I am, you see, because it's mostly either flattery, or cruelty, hatred, or love. It's certainly not the truth.

So I invoke the gods in order to learn what a human creature on this earth represents, in general and in my personal case. Take a man rejected by humanity. That's why Christianity, you see, begins with the man who is rejected, you see. The stone whom the -- whom the masons have -- have rejected, you see, has become the cornerstone, you see. Because in his prayer, God alone could -- say -- tell him the answer, who he was. The men declined to know, declined to recognize. So, prayer is something constantly in everybody's mind. Whether you sigh or laugh or what -- whenever you have to readjust your -- your true nature in comparison to the flatteries, or the vituperation, or the insults, you see, or the ignorance of the crowd, you try to recover who you are and who -- else can direct you in this respect unless there is a power greater than you -- in the face of whom you try to -- to pass muster -- you see, to be tolerated, to be insulted.

Now think -- since we are abominable sinners, this is not so easily done. You know better about your shortcomings than anybody else, or at least you could. We know our shortcomings much more than anybody else, and that's the meaning of this Sunday prayer in church, you see. "Abominable sinner," you see, "and there is no goodness found in us." But it is not limited to the church. I mean, any honest man knows that most people have too good an opinion of him, you see.

Now to recuperate your sense of balance, you have to -- have a vis … vis. The secret of all speech is that it always takes two people: one who listens and one who speaks. All self-reliances to my -- leads into the lunatic asylum. The people who say, "I'm the emperor of China" usually end in a -- strait-jacket, you see. And it's very funny that the philosophy of the last 200 years begins with self and ends with self, with the dissolution of self, you see. It's not an accident in the last 20 years this country has introduced into its vocabulary the word "schizophrenia," "schizoid," you see, et cetera. And you all take it for granted that most people in this country are schizophrenic. They probably are because they want to be alone. If you pray to God, you will not be schizophrenic, because somebody else will face you and you will face him and then you can learn who you are. If you tried,

however, to organize inside yourself this discussion, "Who am I? Will you kindly --" saying to yourself, "John," you see --, "Johnny, will you kindly tell me who I am?" you split. You have somebody has to -- is meant to tell you. And most people do this nowadays. And so of course they go crazy. And schizophrenia is the American disease, as you know. -- No country is so overdeveloped than here, because obviously atheism is the most widely spread virtue of this country. And is a practical atheism. I don't mean churchgoing or not churchgoing. That isn't decisive. But prayer. That is, the -- the knowledge that you can neither receive from yourselves the passport into heaven, nor can you receive it from your fellow man. Their esteem may be based on false assumption and yours certainly is based on false assumption. And therefore, the clarity only comes to anybody who speaks with somebody else.

And for this reason, Sir, you see the connection, you see. Prayer is an answer to the position that there are gods. There are -- is not a proposition to the -- to the truth that there is one god. That's already a conversion. And a convergence and a revelation that there is one god. But I speak of all men. You take the Birch Society people who begin with the allegiance to the flag. That's all right. It's a partial -- divinity whom they worship. That's very serious. And it's better than nothing, you see. It isn't enough, because it's only one god among many, the nation. It's not the only god. And -- and the research professor who -- asks for -- for a million dollars for his research, I mean, he has science as his god. Why shouldn't he? It's a master. But it is not enough, because he must also be willing to admit that it's sheer nonsense what he does. In many cases it is.

(Dr. Rosenstock-Huessy, you made a statement last time very quickly, but I wondered if you would go and clarify what you meant to me. You said, "God is only powerful in the weak.")

Have you never realized that? As you -- as long as you strut and stand before the mirror with your new dress, you are just human, you see. Obviously, any communication of the divine spirit to others can only come when you give way with your new -- put away your new dress and your spring hat and let the word of God pass through you as its -- His receptacle. As long as we strut, obviously, there is no God. So God appears only on the scene when we make ourselves very brittle and very frail. I mean, that's why the Christmas child appears in the cradle and on the Cross. In both -- in both situations, the Lord is perfectly weak, you see. He has no power and no beauty in the sight of man. And the --

(And you define "weak" as being no power and no authority? Is that --)

Ja, ja, ja, ja. What? You can test it in every one case. It's very easy.

(You mean -- you're not thinking of physical weakness -- that's what I thought you were -- )

Well, the baby in the cradle is probably chosen as the Muster for the physical weakness. But then there's moral weakness and then there is, of course, the -- no authority, I mean, no -- no security, I mean, that's Jesus on the Cross. All the situations in the life of the Lord are, you see, one of accentuated weakness. And it's physical weakness. It is auth- -- how would you call the weakness in authority, I mean, the absence of authority? We don't say the -- so much then the word "weak." But St. Paul meant all weakness is inducive, you see, to make visible the glory of the Lord who speaks through us frail receptacles. That's why out of the mouth and babes and sucklings the Wahr- -- truth may be told.

(But you don't consider Christ weak?)

Pardon me?

(You don't consider that Christ was weak, do you? In this sense, you would, wouldn't you?)

Well, if you read kindly the second chapter of Philippians, He -- He -- He de- -- declined His divinity and became man in order, you see, to -- through His weakness to glorify the Father. It's everywhere in the New Testament, this -- I -- it's not -- I haven't invented it. It is difficult to understand if you press the word "weak," because in the eyes of man, you see, the inspiration which it makes gives you power to testify in any one moment to an important truth that -- otherwise has been neglected. You may feel very powerful because God speaks through you. But in the eyes of the world you are, "Who are you, mister?" you see. Very weak.

What is the trouble in your -- in this -- my answer? You are not satisfied?

(I'm thinking of moral weakness. I'm thinking of all types of weakness, and --)

Well, when Lazarus died, Jesus wept. That's certainly very weak in considering to the event and to the demand made on Him to resuscitate him. You see, men in our society are so strong, they don't weep. They just go to the lunatic asylum, instead, you see. If more Americans would weep, they wouldn't have to go to the -- analyst. Weeping has been abolished in our society because it's a token of weakness. But I assure you that the shedding of tears is a very healthy -- function. And if peo- -- more people would cry, you see, they wouldn't fall prey to the psychiatrist. Too many people in this country shed tears. I assure you. And that is of -- it is considered a sign of weakness. I assure you it is not. The tear --

tears are just as divine, you see, as all love is, because you only wa- -- cry in sympathy with somebody else you love. Or some dread -- fear you have for the community. This is a -- very sore point with me in this country, you see. Crying has been abolished. People don't even cry at the cemetery. You see, the beloved -- you read just The Loved Ones. You have read it, {I see}.

(If you're saying humbleness, then this would not be weakness to me in the sense that I think of weakness.)

Well, it's a quotation. God is, you see, strong in the weak. I have not said it. The Apostle Paul has unfortunately -- has said it.

(It was translated from another language. { }.)

But it is Greek. It's {asdonaion}. It means "powerlessness." If you want to translate it this way, you see, that's the -- that the great truth must come to you not with the police force, you see, but as true. And that makes it powerless. It is -- the larger and greater and more pronounced your freedom is to reject this truth, the more directly is the truth, you see, to be understood as divine. God doesn't force you. He wants your allegiance. The allegiance must be freely given. If it isn't freely given, you see, it is false and forced. And you will admit, that if the -- the teacher of this truth, or the spokesman of this truth can use force, and has force behind it, there's little merit in your obeying this, you see. You are only, so to speak, meritorious; you deserve, you see, as -- our esteem if you do it freely. Therefore, the word has to come you -- has come to you outside a power stream. Not through the -- through -- under the power of -- be it the police force or the SS of Mr. Hitler or the Com- -- Comosols or the FBI or some such organization which simply doesn't ask for your consent. It acts, you see, over- -- overpowers you. Can't you see the difference?

(Yes, Sir. I see -- but I -- my interpretation of "weak" has always been quite different from the way you're applying it in this sense. We're not in disagreement with what you're saying. It's only in the implication of a word that I am having --}

Well, it is -- I can see it. The -- you see, the -- it is not -- wasn't my vocabulary. Perhaps I would have expressed it differently. But it's a quotation, and therefore I didn't tamper with it.


(I was been a little confused by something, and I'm sure you can straighten me out easily. You said that one of the great importances -- one of the great impor-

tances in language, in words, was the tense. I mean, in the sense of -- of tense. And I was thinking afterwards, that most abstract language, like the language of theology or philosophy or law quite explicitly is not concerned with tense. And --)

Is not? Do you think it isn't?

(Well, I don't know ---)

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(Well, conditional sense. But only in the conditional sense. Not in the sense of past, the present, the future. You know?)

Is it not?

(No -- )

That's a very important point. And you will allow me to build up the whole lecture today -- the whole -- on this question. It's -- if you are right, I speak -- I am speaking in vain. And since I am right, of course, I'm not speaking in vain.

Please. One more. Ja?

(Would you have something more to say later on your distinctions between the gods who inspire men to speak and the God who is with man in prayer? That is, between a plurality of gods and a singular god?)

Very glad. That's, of course, the deepest secret. Certainly. I do feel, however, let me say this today: I -- will not answer the question because it's really a -- the question of the transition from paganism to revelation. From pre-Biblical worship of any god -- god of -- our athletes wor- -- worship, you see, at the altar of sport -- and the -- and the patriots worship at the altar of the American flag. And so there are many gods among us, but we know a little better and we feel that these gods should be under God, you see, the singular.

And -- however, the relapse into paganism is so prominent today and it seems that so very few people represent the discovery of the unity of our God that I had -- had to stress the fact that the pagans also worship, you see, names. Only they don't worship the na- -- the Name above all names, as the Bible calls it. And so I left it dangling in the air for the time being, because I tried to say something that is valid regardless of the weakness of any one man's creed, or belief, or theology. It's only to universalize the -- you see, my remark on the gods that I wanted to

embrace all the -- the Voltaires and Rousseaus just as well. And after all there are very few Americans who have resisted the modern trend to s- -- to say, "Well, it makes no difference. We are all good, and we are all nice, and we all go to Heaven," you see, this un- -- universalism is, after all, at this moment, the -- the general religion, you see, of mankind in this country. And it isn't enough.

And as a hint, I may tell you already today: the gods of the heathen, you see, are not understood to be the sources of speech. The word -- the living word of the Gospel of St. John is a great discovery: that God is the power who speaks. I couldn't have given you the definition of the gods who make us speak before the Gospel of St. John was written, you see, because in the word, the secret is revealed that through our maker we possess this wonderful gift of -- orienting us by speech. We co-create with Him. We can talk to each other about His purposes, you see, His aims, His creatures, and thereby participate in the divine spirit. That's what we mean by the Holy Spirit and by the Son and the Father giving us this revelation.

So today, it is easy to say that the -- say that the perfect divinity of course must be the source of all human speech, you see. The pagans didn't know this secret. They didn't know that Venus and Aries were only little fragments of this great power of man to speak, to sh- -- and to sing, you see. So that's the relation of God and the gods. And that's why the Bible is full of this -- of this scorn for the gods who are deaf and dumb. You see, they can neither listen nor speak. They are only little fragments of the real power. The Americans' flag is quite ob- -- you see, obtuse. It does not hear when you dance around it, you see. You may worship this god, but the American flag certainly does nothing of the kind. And, so there you have the limitations of any limited gods, of -- but they are -- the -- the Hebrew language, as you know, has always distinguished between the Elohim, as a name for God and Jeho- -- Jahweh, you see, the one god, of course.

And it is just as well if I go on from here perhaps now? -- is there -- are there any other questions? -- and tell you, you see, that the Hebrews, in the first chapters of the Bible, as you know, use this common word, Elohim, which simply means, "all the gods, anywhere" rightly worshipped. There are many gods. Youth is such a god, and any old person will tell you. And if he leaves us, it's very -- double -- painful. Love is such a god, you see. Courage is such a -- sports is, science is. Gover- -- government -- good government, is. And friendship is, certainly. There are family spirits, whom we rightly try to maintain and to -- to worship. And they are gods. And the Bible is full of this word "Elohim," you see. And there're also sentences in the Bible -- Mr. {Husak} will know this -- where it just says, "the gods." The gods ruled by the one God.

The discovery of the Bible is only that there must be one name which distin-

guishes the living God from these God-established deities, you see, like the nation. And the word, as you know, is Jahweh and there has been a big fight over the significance of this name. And people have -- as Moses receives his message in the burning bush, he is told that the name means, "You do not know where I'm -- shall be tomorrow." This is the best translation I can find. "You sh- -- you do not know where I shall be tomorrow." Usually it is translated, "I shall be whom I shall be." But the meaning is, you see, that you cannot tell where I shall appear tomorrow. And that's the living God. And God always appears where He is most unexpected. And -- in the weak, you see. In the inconspicuous, in the ugly, you see, in the rejected ones. There you have to dread the certain apparition, you see, of the next revelation. That's so exciting about life. You can never be sure that it isn't the president of the United States. He may in rare cases be blessed, as he certainly was in Lincoln's case, you see. And the more inconspicuous this Mr. Lincoln appeared to the gentleman from Harvard, you see, the more he was divinely inspired. And -- after Mr. Everetts had spoken for three hours -- Everett had spoken for three hours -- at Gettysburg, he got up and spoke 10 minutes, and then the paper disappeared in the wastepaper basket, you see. And it was the Gettysburg Address.

(I thought that was strength.)

That was weakness, because Mr. Everett and his clan thought, "What a weak man," you see, who mumbles a few words and then puts the paper in the wastepaper basket and Mr. Everett -- has written all up and was ready for the press. Is that -- would you really not see the p- -- my point?

(No. I -- the other man thought it was weak, but I thought it was strength in this man.)

But that's no contradiction. That's no contradiction. Strength in the man and weakness in appearance.

(Weakness in opinions?)

In appearance.

(In appearance.)

The public thought, "Who is this man from Springfield, Illinois?" See? He hadn't gone to any higher institution of learning. Not even to Yale.

(Would the word "meek" satisfy us all? Blessed are the meek. I mean, wouldn't "meek" be the word, rather --)

It is not, because it is not your own feeling about yourself, { } humility. But that the word thinks of you as -- as just nobody. That's very different from meekness. You can take this treatment by the world with pride, or with haughtiness, or with contempt, or with meekness. But obviously, whether you are meek or not doesn't change the fact that you appear in the eyes of the world, you see, as a very im- -- unimportant person.

When Hus was burned at stake, you know, the -- and the old women brought the faggots to the fire. And -- and he exclaimed, "{Sancta Simplicitas}," O Saint Simplicity, you see. He certainly was weak, but he made the -- the Reformation -- unavoidable. And a hundred years later, coins were coined in Bohemia and -- that said, "100 years have elapsed from the burning of Hus. Therefore the Reformation is bound to happen now." And it was true. This was in 1500 -- 1550 and two years later Luther stood up. And wasn't Hus weak? But God was -- was with him. And he testified that the old order could not go on. I mean, that's very serious. It is weakness and not meekness. You see the --? Meekness is only in your acceptance of your weakness. But the weakness is objectively and truly there.

(Weakness is strength then?)

Can be strength. It can become strength, yes. It opens up for strength, oh ja.

When -- when Jesus said, I mean, sure, there's strength. When Jesus said to the people who made Him carry the Cross, "Father forgive them; they don't know what they're doing," that is great strength from -- on His part. But certainly He appeared the weakest of the weak at this moment, in the eyes of the -- to the eyes of the world, isn't that? Who was He to say such a thing? They probably laughed.

You can say "weakness" in this sense is always when other people think they can laugh wantonly, without im- -- im- -- with impunity. That's a, I think, good description of "weakness," that when the other people say, "It doesn't matter whe- -- if I laugh at this man, nothing will occur. I will not be punished for it." Most blasphemers are of this -- the sort that they do not see when a divine command or order enters the -- the scene, you see. And they laugh it off. Wherever there is such laughter in the -- I have heard too many people blaspheme -- and it is even not known what blasphemy means. I -- I mean, the word "blasphemy" is going out of business, and -- because it is so rampant that people don't know what they're doing. I'm -- that's the sin against the Holy Spirit, and it shall not be forgiven. And I believe it. That's simply true.

I once talked about some martyrs under Hitler, to a group of very educated

people. The lady was the wife of the editor of once "The Living Age." Some of you may know that there has been such a magazine in this country. So she certainly was obligated to believe in the living spirit. She didn't. We talked, and the -- her grandchildren were present, and they all were -- touched to the quick and had tears in their eyes when I talked about these martyrs under Hitler -- Catholics and Protestants who suffered for their -- righteous faith. And the old lady began to -- to chatter and destroyed the whole impression I had made -- in the -- in these children, by saying, "Oh, it won't have been so -- so hot."

And she had no reason to say this, but she did -- was able to destroy this bridge that had been built, you see, between the sufferings of these people and the hearts of these innocents. And it was -- that I call blasphemy, you see. She couldn't stand the solemnity or the rigor, you see, of the situation, that something bigger than she had happened. She was the measure of her own -- of -- of greatness. Many people are like that in this country, you see. And probably as the editor of a journal, she was ruined for life. I mean, the printed word of course ruins more than the spoken word. It -- it freezes you out, I mean, you become superior in your judgments and more -- more arbitrary and more hard-boiled.

But this is just a little example of -- of the fact that -- here -- the weakness of my story. I had no authority. The people had all died under Hitler's hands. If -- if there was nobody who exalted them in his own heart, you see, to the majesty in Heaven which they could claim and can claim, there was nothing doing. She had, of course, the power as the Devil to laugh it off, and to chuckle and to say, ""Well, well, what's all of this?" you see -- she did -- proceeded to do. Perhaps it proves to you that God is weak -- you see, powerful in the weak -- but if you decline to believe, and if the -- God doesn't speak to you, nothing doing. She -- she was within her -- not within her rights, only within her power.

And it happens every day within this country, I mean. Blasphemy -- no -- no minister I have ever heard preaching about blasphemy. They don't dare to tell you that you can commit blasphemy. It's very strange, probably they commit it themselves. Ja, it is very serious. You see, there is no belief in God if you do not believe that blasphemy is possible. Then I don't care. If you think you can say what you please, and think what you please without committing blasphemy, obviously the -- the fact that you say, "I go to church," or "I'm a believer," makes no sense. One is the corollary of the other. If we cannot commit blasphemy, we cannot commit ourselves to the living God. We cannot fall into His hands. And He cannot create us or re-create us, either. It is so -- too -- too -- too simple, I think, to be believed. Let me -- may I now break off -- off this discussion? Otherwise, we can't follow through.

I do feel -- pardon me for now claiming a little -- a little importance for the

main statement of last time that language has not been given to man for the purpose of saying, "This is a chair." It has not been given to us to speak about things and number them. That is subordinate to the fact that we are made to speak, to be called into an event, to fulfill it, and to leave off and to get out of it, free again. All word- -- all names, invocations are command -- begin as commands. The first form of any name is the imperative, or the vocative. In your grammar books, you learn differently. You learn that the word, let's name -- Tuljus Cicero -- "Tuljus" is the so-called nominative, you see. The poet, the table, that's the nominative. You have to learn it in French, and -- in German, and when you learn a foreign language, you're plagued with the nominative, the genitive, the dative. Even you have been, Carter, have you?

All right, so this is perfectly untrue. The Jewish -- Jews, as you know forbid -- forbade the use of the word "Jahweh" and say instead, in all the -- places of the Bible when it is out -- read out loud, the Lord. {Kyrie -- adonai} in Hebrew. And people today imagine that the -- that's a taboo, as it taught -- called by these modern blasphemers, the so-called anthropologists. And that's of course nonsense. It's -- the vocative, Jahweh, can only be used by the high priest when he invokes the mercy of God, you see, by speaking to Him in the temple. Jahweh is an invocation, a vocative. And the nominative, dative, genitive -- when you speak of Him -- cannot be the same word because He's omnipresent and He's even there when you speak of Him, as -- though He was absent { }. Even when a theolo- -- professor of theology talks to his students about the qualifications of the divinity, God happens to listen in, whether the professor knows it or not. He does -- mostly does not know what -- and he thinks He's certainly absent. But He isn't.

Now will you kindly -- keep this in mind? The taboo, or the -- the -- what's forbidding -- I mean, the -- the noun for "to forbid" -- the -- the veto -- what is it? Wie?


Ja. That you should not use this term comes from the fact that you may use this name only in the imperative. The -- the true God, the living God, { } that is important for you, is the power who only can be spoken to in answer, because He has spoken to us, who must be used in the vocative, who has no other grammatical forms like this chair, or like you and I, you see, of whom and to whom we -- we can speak as though they were datives, and genitives, and accusatives. God cannot be put in the accusative, in other words, which is a very simple -- in His majesty, He is -- He is the only "I" in the universe, you see.

Martin Buber tells a story of two Jewish men in Poland. One comes at night to

the door -- window of the other and knocks and says -- and he is asked, "Who -- who is there, outside?" and he says, "It's I, Martin."

And the old man inside says, "Who dares to say `I' except God Almighty, Himself?" You see?

And you understand? The vocative is the only form in which God can really be treated decently. You cannot speak of Him as you can speak of things. We all do, but -- and that's how God has lost His punch, so to speak, over our souls. But the people -- when we speak of the -- God, it is wiser to speak of the gods, because this is not the living God.

So I have some reason to use the plural, you see, because otherwise I couldn't treat this in such harmless manner.

Mr. {Husak}, you may be interested. This is the problem, you see: the vocative against the other cases in grammar. That is the problem of the treatment of the name of Jahweh in the Old Testament. That's why it's -- put, so to speak, on ice, and cannot be used wantonly, you see, in the other forms, not even in the nominative. Not even the Lord, you see. You can only say "O Lord." But you cannot say "the Lord." Because "the Lord" may be spoken of in his absence. That's impossible; it's a contradiction in terms. The only way of speaking of Him is to speak to Him, and in His face. And what we -- I do here is -- can only be forgiven as an instruction, a preliminary measure to lead you where -- where this is no longer necessary.

What I was trying to say is that all speech begins with an invocation. I must hear myself called. Then I begin to operate. I begin to move. So all speech is provocative -- "evocative" is perhaps the old word, you see. The -- when in Rome, war was declared, they had a special college of priests. And feeling that war was a terrible thing, just as modern pacifists -- the Romans, this belligerent nation, felt just as pacifists feel today that it was an ugly thing to -- so they called first on the gods of the neighboring city against whom they were going to war and asked -- invited them to leave their city and come over to Rome. They evoked the gods. It may sound to you primitive. I think it's a very pious gesture. They felt they could not make war against a city in which the -- gods still were alive, so they asked them, "Come over to us," the fetiales, the priests of the fet- -- college of the fetiales had to do this. And after they had evoked the gods from the other side, they felt free then to make -- wage war against humans, you see. They -- they didn't want to make war against the gods. I think it would help if we felt the same way, you see -- that we do not wage war against their gods, but only against them as mortals and men. And that's the issue today, again, of course, among us, to make us feel, you see, that we cannot make war inasfar as

these other nations have also inherited part of the divine spirit.

If you -- understand that all language begins with an imperative, with an order to which you have to give obedience, that you are moved, then you understand that the secret of language is to go through this movement -- for example, "come." "I am coming," "we have come" -- "gone." "It's over with." Language is a drama, acted upon with any action that can be taken in human life, and we are always involved in such a process that we s- -- halt at any one moment in the midst of such an evolution from imperative to analysis -- to the analytical sentence: "It has been done." Consummatum est, the Lord said on the Cross when it was all over. And He's the only man who was em- -- empowered to look back at His own act and to say, "It is done."

But we all are involved in small things. "Read," "I'm reading," you see, "I have been -- I have read." The Hindus have a very beautiful story about the right order of things. They say that when a father says to his children, "Break wood in the forest and bring it to me," what is the correct answer? And the grammarian Pape- -- Panini has stated that the correct answer would be, that the children first go out singing, "We are going into the woods, breaking the wood for our father," that they must not say anything to their father before they have been -- gone and returned. And then the must say, "Father, the wood is broken." That's the an- -- right answer to the command, "Break the wood."

In -- in this country, you see, or in the New Testament, the Lord mentions the same type of schoolchild, you see. You s- -- tell them, "Go and do this," and the child says, "Yes" and does nothing.

That is, in our language today, we have lost the time sense, we have lost this miraculous fact that any one verb wants to be conjugated through all its tenses before this word leaves us uninvolved. It frees -- we are free then from this one obligation. Any one human being says on one day -- let's take a -- take this modern scientist who -- has to say one day, "I'm going to be a scientist. I feel that is my mission." He's under the imperatives. God seems to tell him, "Become a scientist." As long as he hears this, this is a long stage. He has to prepare his parents for this fatal step, and himself. And his fianc‚e, of course, she has to support him many years. And then he -- he sings in his fear, of course, of the great task, "I'm going to be a scientist," you see, "I am going to be a scientist," and he whistles in the dark. And finally he can say, "I am in research," you see. "I am in research." And he begins to sing. That is the attitude of being involved in something in the present. The command {points}, "Become a scientist." That's the future. The song, "I am in science," you see, "I am in research," as they all try to say now -- sing now, "I am in research," that's the so-called -- what you call the present tense, which is a very complicated thing. And then they -- people

give him the Nobel Prize for the research he has done. And then, in the history of science, he occupies a place, and his role is analyzed finally, you see. And people look back on this man, Mr. Faraday, or Mr. Einstein, or whoever it is, and say, "This and this has been achieved in his day, you see, and now we are up to other things. We -- analyze him away." Analysis in retrospect tries to free the way for new tasks. You go to the analyst to get out of your sickness and begin a new life.

So we have four tenses or four orders of speech for any one verb. And the meaning of our language is not that I can say, "This is the chair" and "You are Mr. So-and-So" or "Mrs. So-and-So," but the meaning of speech is that any one act can be looked upon before I get at it -- it is in front of me in the future. I go through with it. I'm in it. I can -- I am allowed to state that I have done my part. I'm allowed to get out of it. And finally, other people --third people can look upon it as having d- -- been done by me. And now -- then it can be criticized, and that's what happens to the poet by the modern multitude of so-called literary critics.

And today you all, ladies and gentlemen, act and treat language in the opposite sequence and that's why we live in a dead country. What's death? When you begin with analysis and then -- try to deduct from analysis what should do. Nobody can ever know from analysis what he should do tomorrow. That's the end of a good life, and not the beginning. But in this country, you see, you think seeing is believing. It isn't -- not even in Missouri.

There's a deep illness today in the world. It's a complete relapse in- -- into paganism, because you treat speech as though it began with numbers. There are 3 billion people on the world; there's a population explosion, therefore you have to use artificial means for prohibiting new births. These swines who go around and proclaim that because there is a population explosion children must not be born -- they try to deduce from the analysis of figures the commands of the living God. It's just incredible. Decent ladies do this. And perhaps some of you are in -- members of this society, too. And -- I'm not, because that's a most personal manner. Every one couple of people may decide or may not decide, but certainly you cannot generalize it. That's the end of the world if you do. That's everybody's unique decision -- how he should lead his -- his life with his spouse. It's very serious, I think.

I -- I know a lady in Chicago, she's one of the richest ladies of this country. A very nice lady, by the way. And she has innumerable millions of dollars that's now going into the billions. As you know, if you want to be decent in this country, you cannot be a millionaire; you have to be a billionaire. She is -- and she also has a house in California -- and she is of course a prominent member of this

birth control society for the Japanese. She has four children, but the Japanese must not.

This is fantastic, but it is true. And -- but this -- not her fault. In this country, you see, you have -- you ma- -- confuse the senses. All commands, where you are called in your name, place you in a -- in a new situation. Gropingly you run somewhere and you scent perhaps, you flair -- you have a flair for -- a hunch where God is turning to. Gold rush -- that's a scent for the new -- the new -- how would you call it? -- a new direction of life. It is not the eye that redirects humanity. It is the nose. And just as we carry over from the eyesight the word "insight," so you must understand that from the -- from our scent, and flair, and our sense of odor -- by a sense of smell, we also smell the future. The English have for a long time known this and they are very fine chemists, who have -- yes, chemists, I -- you wouldn't be s- -- believe it, my dear Baldwin. Chemists who have followed the meaning of -- followed out the meaning of smell. And it -- they say smell connects man with the future. You'll run where there is a good smell, you see, because there's life. A flower, you see, flowering gives off this wonderful odor.

And -- a very learned chemist in Germany, a -- a Mr. -- na- -- great-grandson of Mr. Virchow, what's his name now? pardon me -- I've used the word -- book so often; now it com- -- just escapes me, it will come back to me, his name -- already 40 years ago proved that there were only six forms of smell. Three towards death and three towards life. Ja, you wouldn't believe it, ja. And -- flowery, fruity, spicy -- that's life, you see. And burning -- and -- burned -- and foul, and one more -- au go–t -- how would you call it? -- the au go–t of -- of -- of deer or -- au go–t in French -- and it's just at the verge of, you see, turning from freshness to -- to -- { } seasoned. Wie?


Ja, well it's just this side. Tolerable.


Gamy. Yes, exactly. There are only these six classes of smells, and they -- are degrees of vitality, degrees of futurity, or degrees of pass‚, you see. Burned means it's over with. No -- nothing can grow there anymore.

I mean to say the imperative has in its translation into action, the power to attract us into a new -- realm where we haven't moved before. It involves us. And that's -- is meant by hunch, you see, government by hunch. -- Mr. {Keppler}, who spent -- this may impress you, he m- -- is my authority -- who spent in

10 years $74 million for the Carnegie Foundation, always said, "I -- I give it by hunches. I have no time." Seventy-four million dollars to be given away in 10 years. That's very difficult, you know. And he said, "I cannot read questionnaires and memoranda," you see, "I must," you see, "I must follow my hunches." And he managed to get rid of the money in 10 years. And very wisely so. You may have heard his name. {Keppel}.

And I'm very serious. -- Where there is -- man has a nose, he can go into politics. We have a minister in Germany who is very famous for his economy, Mr. Erhardt. He has not the slightest nose. No sense of -- you see, of scent. No flair. So, we all hope over there that he will not become the successor to Mr. Adenauer. But the bankers don't know this. They have no -- no nose, and so they think he's wonderful. He -- knows statistics, all at his fingertips, you see. He sees the world, but the w- -- he who sees the world is perfectly inadequate for governing it, or for leading it. Leadership doesn't come from eyesight. And the curse of this country is, of course, "Life" and -- and all the other magazines put together. I mean, the photographs, the still -- still life, you see. That's life, still life, stillborn life.

It's very dangerous. This country is in great danger because it tries to know the future from seeing it. And that's impossible. That's forbidden. The sequence is odor first; hearing and obedience second, you see; touch and contact third; and eyesight last. I will now put this on the blackboard. Where is it? Of course, I'm -- { } do you have to leave? Ja.

Because my whole discovery -- or the discovery, of our time in the last 40 years made by anybody who has approached language with the -- reverence as a religious fact, and not as a fact of acoustics, or the fact of -- of -- of -- what shall I say? -- of -- children's three R, but as a serious business of a -- as our privilege that we are allowed to speak, who have taken this serious- -- have discovered that the meaning of speaking is to place us in time and space. This -- the -- the Kantians, the philosophers as you know, for 150 years, have poked fun at this limitation that we only -- that there is time and space. The divine brain, of course, was declared superior to time and space. And the truth about the bomb can be known at any time and any space. Mathematicians assure you they think outside time and space. Except for their own promotion.

And -- nobody can live one moment outside time and space. He needs a name even to be tolerated, and not executed when he's born. The child has to receive a name, because otherwise anybody can kill it and say it's not a human being. So speech is the protection of -- around our human existence, and therefore it is our divinity. It is nothing technical. And you have today the -- every one of you has to decide whether he's on the side of the devils or of the angels. The devils say,

"Speech are tools. Language is a tool." Most books I read, I open and I know noth- -- I can learn -- can't learn anything from them because they believe this: language is a tool. And then, you see, they are suddenly very much surprised that they are treated as Americans or as Japanese just because they speak a certain language. {And it} has tremendous religious and political consequences, whatever you say or whatever people say of you. And they are quite confused because in fact, we all live by words and by the names said to us in our absence and to our face, you see.

And only to show you the involvement -- now very simply I would like to put this on. Wherever something new strikes you -- where, for example, a politician says, "There's something foul in the -- there's -- rotten in the state of Dane," and moves in this direction, he is led by his hunch or by his flair. And that's -- I put up the word "flair," or I could use the word "scent," and you can think of all the nice Parisian scents that you could buy at Orly Airport in Paris without customs. And it is this what moves men. Whenever a man takes a new direction in politics, for example, he must have a hunch, you see, like in the Estes case for Mr. Wilson, that there's something to be gotten out of.

The second thing is, as this man in research, he said -- he's -- whistles in the dark and he says, "I am in research," as this beautiful English ballad, you may know it: "There is a ship, and it sails -- she sails the sea; And the sea is as deep as deep can be; But not as deep as the love I am in; I know not if I sink or swim."

Now this, "I am in," is the best definition of the second step, you see, for anybody who has obeyed a temptation or a summons or an exhortation, you see, or a duty -- whatever it is, the second step is, "I'm in, for --" you see, "for better, for worse." And I -- that's why I quote it, because I haven't found in any other connection this simple word, "I am not so -- not so deep as the love I am in." I -- this I like very much. But as I said, you can also say, "I am in research." "I am in love."

This being inside is expressed in our language by a special form, "I am going." The "i-n-g" which you hang onto the imperative "go" is the answer of the man who has obeyed the order, you see, and says, "I'm going." He's in it. He's draw- -- has been drawn into it by this command. Now all religion begins with commands. There is no religion by theology. Again, this is the curse of modern times that people believe today when they say "theology" they mean "religion." It means irreligion. Theology is after the event, when you look over religion and describe it, and analyze it, and systematize it. Most theologians who -- whom I know now -- I will not be impolite -- but this has nothing to do with faith. Faith is when you obey an order, you see. Religion is when you are already accustomed to do so; it's a routine. Theology is when you look back and said, "I don't

understand why my grandfather was so superstitious."

Now -- this country dies now by mis- -- confusing theology and religion, and religion and faith. Religion is nothing but crystalized faith. And theology is looking back on religion and making the best of it, or the worst.

This is quite serious. "I am in" is the second station. This is the first. The third station is -- when Mr. Lindbergh returned from Europe, he wrote a book and he called it We. And all looking back is "we," never "I." He was asked why he called it this way, and he said, "I had to include my plane at least. I was -- went alone but the plane was with me, and it represented all the workmanship of Am- -- the United States. So I called it `We.' The plane went with me and I went on -- in the plane." It's a very beautiful story and I think it was Mr. Hoover who welcomed him back. Isn't that true? Ja -- Hoover. And he mentioned this in his -- in his welcome to Lindbergh that this was Lindbergh's humanity that he said "we." And it is.

The various persons of the grammar -- "I" and "you" and "we" -- are not at all lifeless figures of a grammar book. They belong to various forms of action. God s- -- calls us by our name and "thees" and "thous," as the Quakers think He does. And if you call God "thou" in your prayers, it is obviously that He will not say "you" to you.

It is very strange, of course -- it is very strange in the English language that the "thee" has disappeared for men. But you still say, fortunately, "poor me," and that's better than to say "I." The proper form for humanity is to call ones- -- us "me," and not "I." That's -- is the true form in which we find ourselves. When somebody's hammering on us, "Do this!" you see. And we answer, "Poor me will have now to go to the market," instead of the wife.

It is four -- the fourth state of affairs for any such verb that you tell the story, "Once upon the time, there were people who... " you see, and you speak of them in the third person. And the place for the -- and -- of the -- of the -- the right word, the best word for the analysis, is "it" and "they," you see. That is objectifying. Now in America, everybody begins with objectivity, as you know. Never is, but he says so. And objectiv- -- -tivity has become the plague of this country, because you can only be objective when you are outside of the thing. To begin in this way is not possible. You will never get volunteers who are objective. You -- a man who's -- has to enlist in the Marines cannot act objectively. He must do the opposite. He must obey orders. And he must long for getting into orders. He must have a hunch that there his honor, and his personality, his whole -- his heart -- will grow.

And so, the sequence of speech is always from verb to verb; from one through two, to three, to four. This is in the event. This is before the event. This is after the event. And this is from the outside, when the men who have done it are dead or outside of it, you see. Or, I feel, this is over with. Like Mr. {Rodia} now, in San Martinez, California, the man who built the towers in Watts, you see. He now no longer says, "I've done this." He doesn't want even to speak about it, you see. It's objectified. It's outside of him. And that's a tragedy. It shouldn't.

I was privileged yesterday to see the towers, so I am quite filled with my -- the impression that this is a great thing.

Could you for one moment see the result of this little analysis of living speech? We constantly halt and pause at a certain state of action. We are either in the fourth or the second, or the third, or in the fourth act. It's a drama, whatever we say. Whether we go to bed, or whether we get up or whether we eat, or whether we write, or whether we are in love, or whether we vote. It's before the event that we have to be attracted to -- that the event may take place -- may eventuate, you see. And we -- eventually, we say, when something is not yet, you see, quite certain that it might become an event, but the event spreads out its -- its wings over our life for quite a certain time. In certain things like marriage, and profession, and political conviction and religious conviction we get -- stay involved all our life. And he who has received the name in the cradle can only depose his name and be analyzed when he is buried.

And the whole meaning of -- of a name -- we talked about this last time, you will remember, at the end. And I said the blasphemy of modern naming is in this fact that -- a name is something of a moment. But a name is something -- is a -- is a -- is an assignment for a whole life. It's an imperative. And my whole discovery of the reality of speech began in 1912 when I wrote in my first book that proper names affect the -- its bearer as an imperative. And this was considered unscientific, and my -- the faculty which -- which commissioned me with my first professorship said if -- I had to omit this from the -- from the 200 copies I had to hand over to them of this book. Well, I did omit it in these 200 copies, but it is -- was printed in all the other copies. And I think still -- this is an important discovery that names are imperatives, you see. They are commands, and if -- and as long as men take their names as honorable orders of enlistment -- enlisting in God's army on earth, you see, man knows what he is there for. And otherwise, if this name has not this power, and he is cursed. He is the most unfortunate being among men.

All this has -- is denied today. The -- the man, you see, who thinks -- he begins with theory and he begins with analysis to live, and forms will, and order, and direction after he has looked at things -- totally reverses the order of the universe.

In the universe, the little flower, you see, in the spring, attracts you by its smell. And foulness, stench, makes you flee this -- this part of the world where there is something rotten. And it should. And just as we use the word, "insight," in a metaphoric sense from "sight" and know that "insight" is something that takes place not only on the things visible -- with the physical eye, you see, but to be seen with an inner understanding, so it is, of course, with smell and scent, metaphorically, the whole world consists in dying and growing substances. Every minute, something comes to the fore and has to be, you see, thought out as the promise of the future. And other things are rotten as can be, and have to be put on the city dump, and have to be --.

Any one moment, the metabolism in us demands this dec- -- decision: certain things are dying and must be eliminated, and other things must be helped to come to life. And they are inconspicuous, the important thing that has to do with "God is powerful in the weak." The beginning of any seed, you see, of futurity, of a promise, is inconspicuous. And I think that's the deepest reason why St. Paul says, "God is powerful in the weak," you see, because inconspicuous is a form of weakness, you see. You can be -- it can be like this woman, where I had so- -- elicited in her grandchildren some deep feeling; she extinguishes, you see. And this extinction is possible in the beginning of any new seed.

How many s- -- germs have been extinguished by raw -- coarseness, you see, because they were not given time to gain weight, and the protective coloring, and all the sheathes of defense which, in the process of living, we develop? You see, the first is the weakest. Therefore, God is where the creation begins. Something new. And the newest is always the -- the feeblest, you see, the -- the least visible.

And this is so terrible because we try to discover, as you know, all new things before they are seen -- visible. Before they can be seen. You want to see God, as in these religious movies for the abolition of all religion. And so on. The d- -- really divine cannot be seen. It can be scented. You can have a flair. And it can be obeyed.

A very fine book by -- written by an English lord on St. John and it said, "Every religious act begins with a command." And I heartily agree, you see. But in this country, it begins with a theory. And nothing begins. Children are not born by insight. It's against all visible that the new things start, you see. Against that what is visible. Against the powers, you see, that be, against the skyscrapers, the new -- newness takes its way.

So, language is not a dictionary in -- to be found in dictionaries. In the dictionary, the frozen-out words appear. Language is only there where the verbal

process engulfs me in such a way that I know not if I sink or swim, because -- I'm -- so deep with the love I am in. We all can only live with some love, some involvement in any one moment. If you go home, it isn't that you are separate from the rest, but there is an involvement which carries you through. Some love, some affection, some hatred, some fear, some greed, some -- some pride. Any moment, there are innumerable numbers of commands pressing on us, you see, and are fulfilled. And you -- if you ask yourself, "Where do you stand?" you will find -- and that is now Step 2 I would like to take still today; I will not plague you very long, but a little bit I would like to say -- not only that every action which can come to man is only with you and understood by you if you follow it through from obedience to analysis, and not in the wrong direction. If you honor our senses in such a way that you begin with the un- -- invisible and then let it incarnate -- become visible, it is al- -- a good lesson in under- -- what this means to understand. The word "understanding" today is a poor second against this word "theory," and against the word "insight," and against this whole creed of "seeing is believing. Make it visible. Put it in a picture. Photograph it. Illus- -- illustrate it." "Understanding" obviously literally means to stand under. Under great pressure. Under the pressure of some command that waits to be fulfilled. And you know very well if you -- if you back out, it will not be fulfilled. One man has to do it.

I always like the story of the man who -- the commissioner in Germany, in the inflation -- who was appointed to eliminate all superfluous offices and his last action was to abolish his own office. And that's a good man, you see. He blew himself up in -- fin- -- in the -- in the last analysis.

It is this recklessness of our devotion, be it to duty or to beauty, which makes man vital, makes man alive. And then he understands. That is, understanding is not to be had unless we carry through the act through its various stages. Now this has tremendous consequences. If "understanding" means to absolve oneself from this involvement by these four steps of following the scent, of being the command -- narrating the result and the community which has been founded in the process, the "we" that you found necessary, you see, to form in order to pull it through because nobody can act alone. Everybody needs in the process of such an obedience to join the Marines, or to join a group of scientists or to -- you see, I cannot speak here without your kindly coming here. We form, at this moment, a "we," you see, just because I have obeyed the invitation, you see. And I need you. But you -- I hope you need me, too, to -- to follow through.

So, all mankind is in this constant process from -- from "me" to "we" to "it." This coming to life and -- of one action and then burying it, and saying, "It's over with; I go on to the next." Because we must die to our former actions. We cannot just stay and look back and say, "I did this once." It doesn't help an older man. He

has to go on doing something.

And if this is the -- the full understanding -- a dramatic march through the various forms of my own being -- then you will understand that our four -- the senses which our maker has given us, may represent these four stages. What are the senses? I have already mentioned them. To smell, to see, I have mentioned. To touch would be number -- another sense. And to hear is the fourth sense. The sequence of these senses, I think, is smell, hearing, touch or contact, and seeing. Seeing is the most distancing one. When we see, we look back; it's done. We get out of it. You can only see something outside your own {side}. You look at a picture; it's even in a frame because this is hanging in a second space. Your space and this space is -- are clearly two spaces. They are separated. That's the meaning of a frame.

As long as you -- this -- these brick walls -- they are much more part of us than this picture. This picture is detached. Now, the eye sees only, as you know, at a certain distance. If I put my hand here before my eye, I see nothing. It has to be there, outside of me. So all eyes -- the eye estranges objects. And what you call "objectivity" means that the thing is rather remote, that you can distinguish between you and the object seen, thing. This is very different than a man says, "I am in research over my ears." There you see, he can't see anything. He is himself in this business; it's -- he's in the dark, even. He's in doubt. He's tormented. He's basking perhaps, one moment in the glory of the discovery; and the next, he is visited by doubts. He is in -- more -- much more as in a -- in an ocean wave, up and down, tossed around, that certainly he cannot see. If he tries to see at this moment, he'll make no dis- -- important discovery. I mean, with his physical eye, he may observe a little machine, but he must be in this research over his ears.

Now, all this is today poked fun at. People may know that a man in research is a little crazy. But they do not worship, or they do not revere this craziness, which he has to go through in order to make any important discovery. But it's the same with something -- with anything a -- a housewife does in -- in preparing a f- -- a feast. I mean, there is at this moment no objectivity. But there's devotion or obedience.

And the word "obedience," you see, and "hearing" in a -- are in a strange manner unfortunately separated in the English language, which has divided the spiritual and the physical in all -- in every respect. It's a great curse. In other languages, "obedience" and "hearing" is just the same word, you see. And "Harken, Israel," there you have still in the -- in the 10 Commandments some identity between hearing and obeying. It is the same thing. He who listens, really, you see, obeys. And it's a serious question, the disobedience of man has { } produced this wonderful result that he can hear without obeying.

We only hear in order to obey. If you, however, now see what happens physically to the man who hears and the man who sees, in -- in hearing, you are inside the musical or tonal word which gives off sound. The -- funny thing is when you are at a concert, or when you are singing yourself, the waves are around you and you are inside of it. It's the opposite from a painting -- a painter's situation. The painter has to hold the -- painting away from him. And you as a concentrating animal certainly stand at a distance. Otherwise you can't see it. You even have to find the right distance for every one modern painting. It can be quite far away.

The opposite is -- the opposite is true of the musical event. If you analyze it carefully, the -- the flood of waves goes through you and you basking inside of it. And it's a very strange fact that it is an inner cosmic situation in which you find yourself. The world is not divided there in two spaces, this -- the world of this picture and your own world, but it is unified. It is one world full of sound, and the sound enters you and leaves you. And you -- in hearing, we coalesce with the event. That's perhaps the best expression. You know we commit this crime today because everybody starts with the eye, that our children are forbidden to -- to lipread. They must lipread! It's a scandal that in this country is it allowed to kill the -- life of a child by asking him to read -- eye- -- eye-read -- or how do you call this vice?




Sightreading. It's scandalous. Speech is living speech. It has to be joined, and lipreading is the proper -- I lipread. I read very fast, I can assure you. And -- but I to this day -- lipread. That's why I have -- kept my -- my reason. A person who eyereads must go insane. He treats the -- the -- the -- the read things not as something to be heard, and to be obeyed, and to be consumed, and to be digested, but as something to be looked at!

You will earn -- harvest the fruits of "Spartacus" where you see other people martyred. Martyrs are not to be seen. It is a scandal that this film can be shot in Hollywood. And it will have consequences in 30 years. The people -- the mob will demand bloody sacrifices and bloody -- bloody -- games, you see. It will not be enough that people die in boxing and wrestling. They'll have to die in their fight against animals and tigers.

You conjure this up by your own practice of making everything visible. It's forbidden. You can't do this. If you had -- would hear the cries of the victims

inside of you in a musical symphony, that wouldn't happen. I mean, this is the inside approach and that other is the outside approach.

So we have learned something. Every act of mankind has to go through four stages. It ends on the outside, where it can be put away, and forgotten, and buried. It has to enter our inside. And we feel that we are inside the universe when we are in love, or when we are in research. We are part of some greater pro- -- process which carries us away. As we say, the language is very eloquent; it carries us away. And when we can speak of the community we had to join in order to carry anything {on} -- this flood, which carries us away carries us to a shore in which other people do the same thing. We have to find friends. We have to find helpers.

So we -- the community speaks in what we call the epics of the story, the narrative. That's another -- form, and the sense which -- the art, which best rep- -- represents this seeing clearly where we have come out and how it has all come about, is strangely enough, in words, its history. But in -- in the sensuous world, it's architecture. If you look at the statehouse, that is organized movement, already know- -- or the courthouse, or anything -- the railroad station; the highway; here, this room -- we are here the heirs of history, pro- -- proven forms of movement to each other and from each other. How we go in, you see, how we leave. This's very simple. All this has to be tried out.

As you know, it -- was not so simple to construe even the seating in this room. Only experience of the first time taught us that there should be nobody seated there and nobody there. Now we know. So the -- the outcome today is that we have learned the architecture of such a meeting. How to do it.

So, it will surprise you, but just as in -- politics are the -- the largest expression of the hunch and the flair with which the grouping of political parties is the program -- they cope with the future of California, of the United States, of the nations at large -- so architecture is that remnant of past experience where we know how people should move cooperatively and in -- in unity. Whether it's the organization of a factory, or a railroad, or a highway, always there is built in experience of groups who have moved in this way without hurting each other, you see. We only repeat those buildings where we do not perish in the flames or in the cons- -- weak -- too weak a construction. And it's very strange that this high character of architecture is not even welcome today to the architects. They have lost sight of -- in a strange manner, that they're building on past experience, on organized movements that already have been tested. Because -- but that's the only thing they have to go by. They must know if people in this way -- take the -- the -- the corridors, the halls of a big -- of the Pentagon, you know. You get lost in this building. I think it is an anti-architectural undertaking. -- People had no

experience how so many people should cooperate, you see, only with paperwork in a building.

They tell the story of the captain -- or the colonel, I will beg your pardon -- who went down to the restrooms in the Pentagon and -- with his -- with his typewriter and put a table up there in the entrance of the -- you know the story of the restrooms? -- and sat down and began to type. And they asked him why he was sitting there in this part of the building.

And he said, "Because it's the only place where the people know what they're doing."

So that is the consequence of wrong architecture. It stifles movement.

Our four senses, then, assign us to different stages of our way through life. That's very important. If you look up the dictionary about the senses -- the five senses -- it says that these are communications to the brain, with which the outer world sends its messages. Nothing could be further from the truth. The five senses are split to the bottom -- they give us contradictory messages! When you hear something -- the melody of a nightingale -- you certainly don't know how the nightingale looks. And you cannot at the same time listen to the nightingale and -- and look at her. She would run away -- fly away, I assure you. The funny idea of the monistic century, of the liberal century, of the 19th century, in other terms, of the French Revolution, of the Enlightenment, is that man is simply observer and there's the world for the asking. And so there is this tremendous abstraction as though man existed here as an intelligent being, and there was the world of our maker, or without a maker, you see, and we look at it. We stare at it. We exploit it. We buy it. We -- we sell it. And that's all our relation to the universe.

Any verb, from "love," "to write," "to dig," "to travel," refutes this, because you cannot commit any of these acts without commitment to this good earth and to your neighbors. You have to get involved. That's why people now speak in literature, Mr. {Hirschmann}, of involvement, you see. That's the slogan today. And schizophrenia is the result of this desperate attempt of the scientists and the monists to say that all these four senses are simultaneous -- at our disposal simultaneously. They are not. One after the other, Lady, you see. If you do not wish to follow their fl-- your flair, you will never discover who your proper husband should be, if you wait and sit down until you see him.

Seeing is not believing. That's very serious. You have to combat this -- this slogan. It's considered a joke, but I think it -- the -- American manhood is ruined by this idea that seeing is believing. It is not believing. You cannot see and be-

lieve, and you cannot believe and see. It's divided. At different times of life -- a young man who doesn't believe cannot become anything important. If he wants to see, as they do now in Dartmouth College, they come to the seniors and bribe them, you see, to join this company or this company. The only thing they can make them see is the salary and the pension plan. That can -- they can see.

So I have asked one young man, "Are you going to join and to follow this corruption?"

And he said, "Yes."

And I said, "What are you going to do between now and the moment you will retire?" He said, "I don't care. I can retire at 65. That's all-important."

So the poor man preferred, you see, a visible misery at the end of his life to an invisible life. He would never have any life. And most of these young are today the -- inherit the heresies of their grandparents, who have seen - - said that the world is visible. God's world is not visible. Man's world at the end is visible when the roads are littered with -- with toilet paper. I mean, the -- the -- the -- our -- our world, of course, we make it visible. But that's the end of the world always, you see. Then the world must start again invisibly.

Well, that may be too -- too abstract a lesson, but I mean to say -- mean to say, and that's the important rediscovery, we are involved. Our four senses promote us from one state to another. The four senses can only be -- I'm only speaking of the four, I could also speak of taste, although that's -- in this moment -- perhaps it may be forgiven if I omit it -- smell, eye -- ear, and touch -- transf- -- transpose, traject, carry men into four quite different vital situations. Where you use your touch, you move -- can move already. You inherit the earth, because there are roads, there are paths, you see, there are hallways, there are staircases. All this is history which you inherit. You enter upon a process that has been already formulated. When you follow your hunches, and you go, you see -- that's quite different. You are in the unknown. You are the first. You may not look -- others may have done it, but you don't care. You don't follow other people's path here, but you blaze the trail. And the trailblazer must follow his -- here, it's very hard to describe. I wished -- we live in a very dangerous world. I have to rediscover this by words, because your children will not be able to go into any land which has not been chartered.

I am the last American, I think, who has been able still to climb a mountain that had no name, that was not on the map, and give it a name and be accept- -- found acceptable by the geographical authorities. And I am very proud of this. And it's gone. There is no white -- spot on the map that is the visible simile of the

good life, that as young people we enter the unknown, you see, and follow our hunches faithfully, can no longer -- the parallel in the physical world -- can no longer be handed over to the young. It's all too well known. And I don't know what's going to happen. That's probably the -- this yearning for the space travel, you see, that they try to find something that is not yet traced, and is not yet, you see, projected to the eye sense. But I'm afraid the next time that Mr. Carpenter goes up, a photographer of Life will accompany him.

It's more serious than you think. I think we cease to be able to found communities, as we are already now, when we begin by eyesight. The person next door doesn't look nice enough to join a community. Religion can join a community. That is a common obedience to a common command, as this whole country has been settled by religious communities at first, you see. Because that's the only way. What they saw was horrifying. It was deterring. They looked poorly. They were in rags. They froze. They had red noses and blue -- blue ears -- and they certainly were an ugly bunch in this distress, you see. But that -- what did it matter? Their children looked...

[tape interruption]

...for anything. I mean, this man is just pestiferous, and he- -- he'll corrupt anything. Any order of society that is -- is filled only by people who want to be shown, cannot stand for one moment, because we cannot tolerate, you see, anything that is not perfect. Now we are very imperfect indeed. The first thing is -- we have to learn is that in the meantime, as we say, you see, we look mean.

I think the time is up. I'm not satisfied with what I have done today because I have not carried the thing far enough. I'll try my best next time.