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

...has asked me to remind you that this is -- today's talk is called "The Blind Spot of Science." I'm a little --

(Say that over again?)

Pardon me? "The Blind Spot of Science." But I have first to finish up last time, before doing so, and sa- -- t- -- saying a little more about the cross of reality, I would like to ask, are there any questions? I think it was very profitable the way it went the last meeting, but you were asking questions at the beginning. So please -- Mr. {Hirschmann}? { }

(I was one of the { }.)

Pardon me?

(I was one of the { }.)

Well all the more you should ask.

(I have a question. I'm not sure if it's the right time to bring it up. I'm interested { } -- that you refer so frequently to the problem of schizoid society. { } psychoanalysis { } psychology only increases it, rather than helps it -- corrects it?)

Ja. I think so. I brought a specimen of such go- -- gorilla psychology to you -- so -- to try to -- show you what they are doing. And I may remark for others. I think I went too fast. Last time I tried to say that it isn't that the society -- members of the society themselves are schizophrenic, but that -- that the society is schizosomatic. The body politic -- or the body of Christ, as it used to be called formerly by the Church -- is itself split. People move in departments, especially of course, the scientists. They even call their existence departmentalized. So you can imagine what happens if the leading people -- boast of belonging to departments and knowing nothing of the other departments and establishing a complete chaos so that there's no department that leads the others or that is -- towers over the other, as formerly divinity did, or philosophy. But today, you have every field of human endeavor split up into smaller and smaller units.

They tell the story of the professors of history: one was appointed for the Middle Ages that ended in 1500; and one began with the modern times that began in 1500; and an unfortunate Doktorand is -- doctoral man wrote a book on

1490 to 1510 and it couldn't be -- you see, it could not be censored, couldn't be marked. None was competent.

Any more? No { }.

To round out what I said yester- -- last time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the scientists have evaded their possibility of seeing this enmeshment, this embedding of us in four different processes through time. I tried to show you that the respiratory tract, the digestive tract, which I omitted for brevity's sake, the regenerative tract of our genital organs, that they represent different relations to time, to the moment, because before the act, we have to be attracted by the scent for the future. In the act, we are embedded, { } anxious, we are singing like children in the dark who go through the woods and there we move in musical {and} inside the process that is demanded from us and from our fellow man.

In retrospect, once we are construed, once we are built up into some unity, like a church, or like a college, or like our own family home, we have the possibility of celebrating anniversaries. And as soon as we can repeat and it has the feeling of recurrence, we have a -- quite a different organ to express this: it's our memory. Tradition is not based on anxious feeling, on expectations; but you celebrate a birthday not the same way in which you undergo the birth. That's a very different attitude of the s- -- human soul and you are just a different person when you are able to celebrate your 25th anniversary. A bridegroom, as you know, on his wedding day is a moron. He's trembling in his shoes. It's the worst day I've ever lived through in my life. I had a migraine. I don't know if -- bridegrooms never confess this, but I think it's the most awful day for a bridegroom and the nicest for a bride. Now, certainly that is not true 25 years later. There is no anxiety then involved.

And then we said that in saying farewell to an act well done, to a pro- -- process well finished, we can analyze it and can pay the bills. And we get out from this act to which we were summoned and which we underwent and which we now maintain. History is maintenance, feelings -- the ar- -- the lyrics of a -- of a life are feelings -- I -- is emotional. But the beginning is imperative. That's very different from what people tell us today is the only reasonable approach, the objective one. And the great heresy of our time is to begin with the objective instead of knowing that this always is the end of things. It's the ash-heap. It's the dump. It's the city dump on which you dump your analyti- -- ana- -- analyses. Then it's all over. Nobody can fall in love when he begins to be objective. No girl can be married objectively.

And on this I have to say something more. In our body, there is an archaic

organ which hasn't even received a decent name. It's called corpora quadra ge- -- gemina. Corpora quadra gemina. Most of you have never heard of it. It's right here, and holds out against the brain. All our modern scientists in the last 200 years have insisted, as I told you, that the senses that telegraph their impressions to us, you see, are just landing in this brain, that is, of the moment, that is, in our mentality. But this archaic organ of these four little hills, it's here in back of us { } of the anatomy of the brain, seems to -- to be created to hold out for the completion of those stimuli that by the calling out of the name are evoked in us. You cannot hear the name of your child that is in agony without trembling while you are telephoning to the doctor, while you are taking a taxi {right away} to the hospital. There are many acts on which you have to use your reason. But all the time underneath there is this knowledge that a name has been called out and desires to be, you see, listened to, and acted upon.

It is this contrast for which obviously this archaic organ of the { }, the quadra gemina folds are the vestige. They serve as the polarity. The {crying}, a shout, you see, a deep feeling moves them, and they may tremble for a whole life. I'm sure that Michael Faraday had his -- had his quadra gemina moved by his decision. You know, he was a valet of a great physicist, Mr. Davis -- turned out to be the greatest physicist of the 19th century. And this command he has dutifully expressed in many of his writings, letters, and books that -- this was his lifetime vocation. I don't have to tell you any artist, any politician, any statesman, even I think Pat Nixon -- have their archaic -- gemina moved, you see, if she wants her husband to become president. Everything else is subordinate to this. Now she -- {commits} many rational or irrational acts in the process.

These acts are under what you call the scrutiny of your brain. They are rational acts. But the passion that tells her, forces her, you see, to do this, that has to be preserved somewhere and that must hold out against the little acts of the day and of the year and must live longer than the last election or the next election, you see. It's a ruling passion, as we call it. A -- quite a good expression. And strangely enough, this observation which any one of you can make, that you are somebody who then undertakes any number of acts to execute that what you are or are meant to be, this has found no explanation by the {analy- -- -ysts}. They have ruled -- they tell us, or they try to tell us, persuade us that everything moves on the same plane of today's stimulus and tomorrow's stimulus. Oh, just watch your s- -- your own steps. You know very well for the next year what you have to do. You want to become a doctor. It takes seven years, eight years of preparation. Now what -- where are you with your mind in those moments? You undergo many different mentalities. You know exactly that you have to be supported by your bride for many years, so -- as long as she does this, you obey her orders. And many other relations -- social relations are ruled by this, your well-known, you see, received order, "This is what I have to complete."

But you confuse the little rational, logical acts which we have to commit, you see, every day with this ruling passion which holds out against all the disappointments, that makes you repeat certain steps. You may take the exams twice, if you flunk them the first. That's never explained.

Well, it isn't my invention, of course. A friend of mine was a great doctor and -- who fled to the Caucasus from the Ru- -- Germans and who then wrote me letters from the Caucasus, from this Russian bathing resort after the last war. Between '46 and '49, I received his message. We were old friends. We had published together a book on Paracelsus, the great doctor of the -- Renaissance. And so he turned to me. It was very strange, the letters actually arrived from the Caucasus in this country. And that was more than you could expect. And it was filled with his theory about the quadra gemina -- that's why he had to tell me -- and carrying out some insights Paracelsus had. He is -- who was much more modern than most doctors of the 19th century -- today are -- because he knew this counterpoint, you see, this point and counterpoint. And he knew about the -- the five causes that make us act, which I have tried to explain to you -- four of -- at least, of them. Paracelsus has said the great word which I recommend to all the ladies who are hysterical, that -- he has said every illness of man can stem from five different { }, different spheres. You can never say because you have a cold from which of these spheres you got it. It's the same with ulcers.

It's very profound. I only want -- wanted to hint at this. And I would -- ha- -- thought I should tell you that there is also physical, anatomical evidence for what we hold, and it is not true that the rationalists have the facts on their side. They have neglected this fact, that under a permanent and perpetual stimulus for a life decision, you see, the -- reason runs through all like a little mouse, you see, from one hole to the other, either tries to escape your commission, your duty, you see, or tries to find access to its fulfillment. But these little movements which the brain here harbors, and which take place in the brain, must not be confused with your destiny, must not be confused with your having heard the call and holding out. And I think those four quadra gemina hills or corpora as they are called in the dictionary, with a strange impotence of naming them, these quadra gemina points, are implanted in us -- that's why they are called archaic -- to preserve those deeper {cries}, which our smell, our eye, our ear, and our sense of touch, the sensory nervous system, convey to us, with such majesty, and such power that they ring in our -- forever, you see, in us and cannot be dismissed. And they create the bad conscience, so to speak, when they -- we do not -- are not on the way of following out their orders, when we try to escape.

I -- this is all said only to counteract your feeling, perhaps, that I am simply singing poetry. I think the facts are on my side. It is remarkable that as -- the school of anatomy that has now prevailed in philosophy, so to speak, for 400

years, has never taken account of this possibility, you see, that there is a polarity between the older archaic organ implanted in us, because we are humans and have to fulfill our destiny, and the little stimuli of everyday life when we wake up and wait till we can go to sleep again.

May I ask you now to look at the importance of this quadrilateral of our various systems. They are all of a -- different time lengths. The regenerative tract obviously goes by generations. We fall in love, and our love stays, you see -- as long -- children can be born and our potency and our relation to old and young {with this}, so we have one tract that -- that at least is 30 years long. The eye is of a glimpse and today -- that's why people have lived so speedy because they think if you have seen it, you see, you go to -- you go to Italy, and -- you know the story of the lady who went to Venice and -- with her daughter -- and, you know it, of course? I'm sorry. Well, I can't tell a joke that's known. And --.

({ } do it anyway?)

In German, you know, the time span for the eye is called "Augenblick," what you call "moment." That's a very wise expression. What the eye embraces is the moment. But what your generative sense embraces is the generation. What your ear embraces, I would think, is a year-week. The great commands of life conf- -- dominate, I would say, not for a li- -- for a generation and not for the moment. But they might dominate seven years, 10 years, perhaps -- 15 years, perhaps. In a university, the character of the place changes every 15 years. It is twice as fast as the physical change. If you -- have visited a place 15 years ago, which is called a -- here, Harvard, or -- or Heidelberg -- don't think that it is the same place. It's one of the great illusions of the -- our age that you think there's something attached to UCLA that remains after 15 years. Nothing remains. It's a different place. If people only knew this, they wouldn't send their schools -- their children always to the wrong schools.

A school has a s- -- a -- a faster -- a faster turnover, mentally, you see, and rightly so. The words, you see, vanish faster than a political decision to go in with a democracy, you see, or to fight slavery. Everybody ni- -- knows when he embarks on such an undertaking that is far beyond his own lifetime even, you see. That's what I have said, with 30 years is really the minimum of anything important in political life. Emancipation, you see -- independence of this country, you see -- you cannot expect that -- that this can be fulfilled in less than a generation.

And the important decisions of life, you see, will only be fulfilled by people who come after you. And if you cannot im- -- implant in them the eagerness to fulfill your task, nothing important can ever be achieved. You look at anything

in this world. Greatness of our master was, as you know, that He knew this and ended His life when He was probably 30 or 34, and left it to the Apostles, because otherwise He couldn't have been -- understood. The greatness of the apostolic succession is that the Apostles were the second half of the life of Jesus. They were not just the Church, you see. But they were something between -- later the Church of Rome or the Church of Corinth -- and the Lord. They could -- if -- by -- because they were able to look back at His -- then, you see, lived after His suffering -- they could express in their -- as you know it, in the Gospels -- as well as in the letters of Paul and Peter, they could express its meaning. And He, knowing this, is the only man who anticipated their lives and left it entrusted to them, you see, the saying what it all meant. He didn't, Himself. There you have a clear example, that He impressed them by His physical walk through life with a decision to undertake something that would outlast their own physical existence.

I have never understood why the Church makes so little of this abdication of the Lord, you see, in favor of the Apostles. That's His greatest act. That's real faith. He put Himself into their hands and said, "You will have to do it." Because only through this connection between His death and their preaching is there anything like Christianity left. It -- it is this way in which -- by which it came into this world. It is a very remarkable story and a very rational story. And if the people today think it is irrational, it is only because they have -- built up a psychology and a sociology in which the -- the time of Jesus is completely separate from the next 30 years. They only write life of Jesus. If they would write the death of Jesus, as it was meant to be written, you see, then they would understand that the Gospels and the letters of St. Paul simply carry out the act, you see, which He committed to their explanation and didn't try to explain Himself.

So I would -- I hope still to be able one day to write just a book on the 12 first years of the Church, because we know nothing about it, when the Apostles lived in Jerusalem, you see, and the Gospel of St. Matthew was written. That's a great story, that people worshiped the Lord every day, just in holding onto an event that had happened, you see, exposed to this political decision that worked in them: this must not be left unfinished, you see.

The moment, the 30 years -- I would insist, the 15 years -- of course, 15, you know, is just {to} say something -- and history is timeless. The retro- -- in re- -- any anniversary can be duplicated, and multiplied. You can have the 50th anniversary, the 100th anniversary. Nothing changes, officially, so to speak. In retrospect, time stands still.

Now, yes- -- last time I gave you four expressions. Stands still, time. I gave names to this. I said man, in every moment being involved in these four different circles of his activity, of his decisions, of his hopes, his fears, his expectations, also

his faith -- is for this reason to be considered, as at the same time being ultravert, being retrovert, being introvert, and being extrovert. When we hear, we are embedded in the tones that flood through us. When we look, we are extroverts. We look at something outside of us. When we are thrown forward, as the Apostles, you can really call St. Paul an "ultravert," because what we call with a philosophical expression, "transcendent" -- not a good word, I think. Has the same meaning as ultravert. Beyond, more. Tomorrow is the important day. And here in { } the past, of course, you have the retrovert.

These expressions were preliminary. I must invite you -- if I shall now today criticize science -- invite you to look at the terms they use -- the people who do not know that we hang in these four different spheres, who put our sen- -- senses in a -- something rather dead or sta- -- static, you see, into our brain and say, "Here I am and there's the world, and telegraphs to us smells, and -- and words, and sounds, and impressions, through the eye or through touch." These strange people, who call themselves "reasonable" -- I've never found more irrational people than the so-called rationalists; I'll tell you later why -- they call -- speak of objectivity, as you know, and subjectivity. Now these are very sick words which I do not like to use too much myself because in the 18th century, the word "subject" meant object and the word "object" meant subject. It is only -- for 700 years they had this meaning that what you call "object," you see, was called "subject." God was not an object of your praise, but it was the subject of your praise in the 18 hun- -- 18th century. It's a very recent usage which has led -- use or abuse this term, "objectivity." And I think it is necessary for you to know this, that it is a very temporal thing, this word, "objectivity." And it means that people begin at the dead-end street and end there. To be objective means to deal with things in as far as they are dead. So an objective scientist must treat the universe as something that can be weighed and measured. And where you have quantity, you have death. Dead things can be weighed and measured. Living things cannot. You will never catch -- say anything reasonable about any one of us in this room in as far as he is alive. You can describe him, you see, as weighing five tons, but only because he's doomed to die. Weight is dead weight. That's why people want to be slim.

It is very strange that this -- this incredible perversion is -- has occurred, that people pride themselves of being objective. That means that they hate me, that they leave -- omit me from their worries. They -- they don't dream of me. If I am trea- -- to be treated objectively, I don't count. Well, my answer is, "They don't count." Why should I count people who -- who try to live objectively? Let them be killed. Let them be executed. I don't care. They have said that they don't want to be loved by me. So I won't love them.

This word, "objectivity," and "subjectivity," however has reached -- they have reached such dimensions that before going over to their -- the scientist's primary

sin, or crime, or omission, or idiocy -- I would invite you to use other terms yourself, from now on. Or more terms. That is, to include into your thinking not just the subjectivity of a singing girl who is in good spirits, or the objectivity of a mathematician, but also the tremendous jubilation of a man who finally knows what he has to do and who is prejected into the future. The Apostles were neither objective nor subjective. But they were prejected into the future. Under the pressure of the Crucifixion, there was nothing for them left but to carry out this command. Every one of you does the same. We are all prejected when our task has to be considered as unfulfilled. This has nothing to do with "objective" and "subjective." It's just in another dimension. It's an -- a dimension of yesterday and tomorrow. And you are only satisfied when you can go to bed and say, "A little bit has been done." That yesterday, you see, is not all that is today visible, but there is already a beginning of tomorrow made.

I do not understand how anybody who acts -- and this is, after all, a practical nation here full of activity -- can ever have been satisfied to divide reality into "subjective" and "objective." I know very little of subjective or objective. Subjective usually -- I have a bad mood. My diges- -- digestion doesn't function; then I am subjective. That's what the people, at least, tell us, you see. And objective, I'm bothersome, I'm the bore. All objective people are boring, because -- there's no contact. I'm not interested in mathematics or in -- in zoology, but I'm very interested in a bird that is singing. That's very different. The other things are for encyclopedias, for dictionaries. You have to know, of course, what to avoid. All the objective knowledge is exactly like the eye of the horse. That wasn't given to the horse by its creator for seeing, positively, but for avoiding obstacles. If you have ever ridden, you know that the horse is very poor in its eyese- -- eyesight. It sees very little. But it must see enough not to run into a wall, not to run into a fence. And this much is the first implication of seeing -- that we can avoid obstacles. And I think if you would treat the eye today a little bit to its original meaning, that we must see in order not to run over a -- a person in -- when we drive a car, you would make very good use on your freeways on your sense of eye, of seeing.

Seeing is avoiding collision. This is the first. All the other things are transformations of a rather artificial character. The Madonna is not the Madonna of Raphael. In any deeper sense, if you haven't first heard the story and, you see, suffered with Christ and been initiated into the history of the Church -- then you can see the Madonna. Without it, it's just nothing. And our modern people who try to -- to isolate the eye sense cease to {contain}. There's no content. Abstract painting is not abstract painting, but it's objective painting. Again, this fantastic attempt to begin with seeing, without sympathy, without fright, without impression.

It can't go -- won't last long. At this moment, it seems that nobody has any commission for the future, and nobody hears any commands, and nobody has any story to draw on and therefore what else can the painter do? He is, I think, genuine today in insisting that he is deprived of the relationships to the other senses. That's very serious and painting must be -- all the senses must be trained, but you must see that we are in a -- in a complete destruction of the unity of our five senses, because of the sermon in the valley.

The last sentence -- term, which I would like to introduce therefore is "traject." Anybody who is today an American citizen, or cherishes Western civilization, or looks back to the history of science, or thought, or religious -- Church history has been transferred from generation to generation until he -- you here is -- are sitting, and in you, obviously we are in St. Augustine by-the-Sea -- even antiquity, even the time before our own era, you see, is represented. And so, any human being that speaks to anybody -- else in a -- in a civilized language which has existed now for so long, of course is trajected, transferred -- you know what a traject is -- as a ferry -- he has been ferried across the River Styx a thousand times, because the people who have formed those words and those expressions which you and I use daily, you see, -- of course have all died and yet they have been, you see, their -- their labors have been transmitted to us that we can feel that we are more than ourselves.

This is very important for all of you who have to teach the children or students that a teacher never only speaks out of his own generation to the child of the next generation. His authority is based on this power to connect all times and condense them into a talk, you see, of the living generation to the next. This is his dignity. If he doesn't do this, if he only teaches his own nonsense -- it isn't worth anything -- he has no right to teach, then. He's just an individual. He must draw on the wisdom of the ages. And on the other hand, you s- -- also see the immediate consequences, that he must treat his student as the protagonist of the whole future of mankind. You may train them -- a boy -- on tennis in his own body for the moment. If -- you can instruct a man for being a technician and a plumber. But you cannot teach a man only for his own lifetime. You must teach people so that even against their will and without their understanding, they carry something to the next generation.

Very many people are like Isaac. He was a very deep brother, as you know, and was perfectly sufficient that Abraham's teaching reached through Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, you see. They are only the successors, but Isaac was -- had to be there, you see, opening up to future generations what had been left behind. I think he had no power. He had just an experience. He had to speak of his father, because he was ma- -- miraculously saved. You see, his own execution didn't take place. And you will always therefore have to crit- -- you will have to scruti-

nize the modern educational methods which always begin with the child and end with the child. The child that receives an education is very unimportant -- as unimportant as the teacher is.

But today I have to say a good word for the teachers, because in our schools in this country, I think, it's the slave -- are slaves, these teachers, because they are made -- told that they are there for the happiness of this -- children. Perhaps the parents are, I don't know this. Teachers certainly are not there for the happiness of these children. Make them unhappy, if it helps. You can't tell help -- some people -- children have to be made unhappy -- some may have to be happy. It -- alternates. But I don't see why happiness of the child has anything to do with education or teaching. There has been a great story, and it mustn't be forgotten, and who -- willy-nilly, these children must be told so that they have enough shame and enough reverence that they tell their -- their children and don't call their children Ima Hogg and Ura Hogg, but give them a decent name, for example. Mr. Hogg obviously wasn't -- had just a schoolteacher who made him happy, and so his happiness, you see, outran all bounds.

This is incredible, this theory of education. What has education to do with the living or the next generation? It is the missing link, the -- the tie between the whole history of the past and the whole future of the human race. And these two very feeble links in between, the teacher and the student, you see, as of this moment -- cannot understand what they are doing if they think they learn for themselves. You know this expression which has driven me crazy -- { } here in my college here in America -- that the student has the right to say, "I don't -- didn't get anything out of it." He has no right to get anything out of it. He has to put himself into it. That's all. And if you -- he can't, he's just a poor student. I mean -- but the idea that he should get something out of it is absolutely foreign to the process of teaching, has nothing to do with teaching. It's a complete capitulation to the jukebox, where you throw a di- -- 10 cents in to be entertained. But entertainment is certainly not education.

I'm very serious. I feel that the only revolution due in this country is a revolt of the teachers of the -- of the grammar schools. Because they are slaves to the alleged happiness of the children. And so every year the children are more unhappy. The child is only happy when it can forget itself, into some bigger task. The rest is all nonsense. Look how they play. They all want to be different. No child that is really devoted to play wants to play itself. It wants to forget itself. They play marriage, they play soldiers. They play something that takes them far afield, outside of their impossible self. All ourselves are impossible. They smell, but not attractive.

So would you, therefore, understand why I insist that the Church, the family,

the poets, the artists will remain mutilated, paralyzed, as long as they receive this stilt- -- stultifying vocabulary from the scientist that divides the reality into object and subject. For a person who has to live daily, he himself is a traject, a miracle through time, you see; finds himself at a certain point in -- in time, 1962; and has great trouble to find ways and means to elicit some hopes and some expectations for the year 2050. But that would be the minimum of any educational effort, for example.

What do I care for -- for this moment? And as soon as you use these terms, "preject" and "traject," you suddenly understand the crisis of today. The -- the dialectics, as the Marxians call it, the logic, as the secular mind calls it -- is unable to realize this quadrilateral of our true le- -- true existence. These four senses, which I have tried to make important for your thinking, are so im- -- important because they take you outside this logical twist that -- there's only A and non-A, B and non-B, or A and B. That's not real life. That's timeless life. That's a life purely in space.

The real life of -- all of us -- and now let us begin with the -- and come here over to the blind spot of science -- real life is invisible to the scientist, because he cannot assume that not everything can be made simultaneous. The fiction of science is that we can know everything at the same time, in an ideal en- -- {state, so to speak}, because all the truth is available.

Now I've tried to show you that a man who is attracted, or a woman who attracts, that a -- a musician who fiddles and a listener who hears his music, that a historian who looks back to "we," to the flight across the ocean, or to founding of the founding fathers, and the founding fathers themselves -- that these people cannot be realized at the same time. You open the -- your Bible and you can understand one-fourth of it, perhaps in a -- at a happy day. And the next time you open the Bible, you can understand quite another chapter and other writer. It is a lie that any one on any one day can understand the whole Bible. That's the fiction of science. I understand these things very often not at all. And I have to wait a few years until I do understand. This is the same as with any Shakespeare play. It's the same with Homer. And if people would only admit it, they would be very happy, because they would know that our mind doesn't work simultaneously, because we undergo mentality. And not every mentality in our various moods and our various situations opens up to what is to be found there. You will just have to see that the -- the -- the Bible is written lyrically, dramatically, epically, and analytically. I mean, in the books of wisdom, as -- as -- for example. And obviously we are not in the full understanding of all these four states at the same time. When you have deep feelings, you see, you cannot understand complicated logical processes. And on the other hand, when you are a logician, then woe to your wife. Sh- -- he will not understand her lyrical mood at this moment. It's very

strange at -- that the fiction exists today that we can know everything at the same time. And it -- that's a curse. And that's the blind spot of science, on which I now have to ask that you to follow me a little more precisely.

The -- anybody who reduces knowledge to a timeless {sum-}word, to a true mind, to an eternal mind or what you call "reason," abstracts us from our real experience. Our real experience says that at any one time, I live at a different front, you see: forward, inward, outward, backward. And you all can test this. The family is given us to realize that even externally the daughter is on the forward front; the son is in the inner front with his new toys, mercurial thoughts; the wom- -- mother is at the backward front for the dignity of the home; and the father is on the outer front to keep out the enemy, and to look for the wherewithal on the material front. The son is the idealist, the father is the materialist, the mother is the historian and the -- or the ceremonious person. I mean, she says how any family celebration shall be held. That's dignity, but that's also tradition. And the daughter, as -- with her attractive beauty, changes the whole aspect, brings a new man into the home, and she marries. And that is, she renews life.

In these four people, you have a kind of example of how the human mind is beautifully distributed. And in bride and bridegroom, you have the pair, that therefore is spoken so vividly of in the Bible, who unite these four extreme polarities. Daughter, mother, son, and father -- they all meet in bride and bridegroom, you see. And that's why the human soul is the bride and the world is the bridegroom. And that's why Jesus is called 16 times in the Old Testament the bridegroom, because He allows us -- He transforms from any one of these stages into all the others, you see. He has created an open access to all these four fronts of life.

The scientist cannot -- neither see this human family as a necessary distribution -- division of labor so that nobod- -- no one of us is the whole man, you see, but always need his -- how do you call it? sup- -- supplement? ja, probably -- implementation by the three other types of the human family. But the scientist can therefore not discover the existence of the human soul.

For all psychologists today, mind and soul are identical. They call this "psychology." The famous -- most famous textbook on psychology in this country, written by William James, is -- begins with the -- with the incredible sentence, the blasphemous sentence: "Psychology is the science of the mental processes." Do you understand? If my mental processes, which change every day, you see, from these various fronts of existence, you see, to another -- where I can write poetry, and solve equations, you see, and vote in an election, you see, and read the Chronicle, since they are all made one by the scientist, the mind is all. One mind,

you see. And they even dream that my child should have the same mind as myself, and I am so pleased that it has quite a different mind. This idio- -- idiocy, one mind for all men, is, as you know, the curse of our age.

You try to give it -- I had a -- I had a case -- my son is a psychiatrist and to him came a -- came -- parents who had ruined their child. Was very musical. And they insisted that the baby -- who was one and a year-half and a -- one year-anda-half old when they started this -- this crucifixion -- had to know the names of the composers whose music this child listened to. And by three, it was a vegetable. And it has never recovered. They have been able to destroy this child in their adoration of the one-mind mentality.

And that's quite usual, I mean. I read today in the paper, in this Los Angeles Times, that a 13-and-a-half-year-old boy was allowed to take -- finish his freshman year at UCLA. Shame over you! This man must go crazy. It's not allowed to change the ages of a human being in such -- in such -- tyrannical meas- -- measure. And all the IBM is -- you see, was only due to the fact that the boy was allowed to go to Harvard at 14, and to graduate at 17. Then he invented -- of course, with a childish mind -- a childish machine.

Obviously. This is truth. That's what the business computer is about: about the mentality of a -- of a child. And you know even the man's name. I know him, too. Or it, too.

The giant mind today, is the -- is the destroyer of nations, of whole peoples, and also of the peace of the world. They can't sleep, the people who have only a mind.

The soul is something quite different. The soul is the power in us that can bury mentalities, you see. The freedom of all of you consists in this fact that at any one moment, you ta- -- actually do decide -- everybody does it, who is healthy, you see. You can dismiss in the evening all your worries and go to sleep. And an- -- nobody who cannot do this, you see, is a human being. And this dismissal of the state of mind in which you were the day before, you see, is a condition of your survival. So unimportant is the mind. The -- a mind is of the day.

But to -- we write "mind" -- not just the "m" is a capital letter, but "i," and "n," and "d" are, too. It's a very small thing. The human soul is denied by the scientist. Mind and soul coincide. They have, therefore, a strange science called psychology, which is a -- you see, a science without its object, the soul. "Psycholo-" -- "psyche" means soul, you see. But it's quite an achievement for these -- all these psychologists to -- to deal with something they deny exists. And they liter-

ally do deny it. They call it now the "subconscious," you know, to make it into something swinish. But the soul is very noble and it is not just unconscious. But it is better than consciousness. It's the power to change your consciousness. What is consciousness? As I told you last time, I think, I'm try -- not to -- I'm not conscious while I'm talking here. I'm trying to tell you something that's important. And in order to say it with conviction, I have to be quite unconscious. If I'm self-conscious, I s- -- begin to stammer and forgot what I wanted to say the next minute.

But, here, I have an example of this gorilla psychology. They make us into gorillas. That is, in people who have no deal with future or past, who are of the moment. It's quite serious. This is a book on contemporary theories and systems in psychology. And the man quotes -- it's a quotation -- "Semantically, death is a misleading term, since no such thing as death ever existed." Quite an achievement. So, sorry the man isn't here. We could turn his -- twist his neck.

This I wanted to read to you. Such nonsense can be printed in such fat volumes:

"Semantically death is a misleading term, since no such thing as death ever existed. The name "death" does not contain any designates, nor does it represent any object, function or state or any category, class, or system of object, functions, or states. Actually, one cannot make logical statements about death, because the only meaning of death is non-existence, not-life. Life includes a variety of phenomena. Death does not include any. Life means "is." Death means "is not." So, it doesn't exist."

Well, it's natural that you should have The Loved Ones here in -- in Los Angeles, because it is an attempt to -- to deny that death exists. And this is the -- the -- the -- as you know, the -- the -- the power of persuasion which science has gotten over the populace, that people repeat this and eliminate death from their thinking, while it is dominating everything we do. I mean, you can't -- you can't build up a trust for your children, you can't make a will, you cannot decide that your childre- -- child should move into another country, you see, where the future, it looks brighter. You cannot emigrate from Italy into the United States, for example, or from Sicily, if you do not hope that something shall survive your death. Most people whose lives I observe do all their reasonable and important acts only from fear of death.

So this man, who calls himself a psychologist, you see, bases his statement that death -- death is not in existence on this gorilla fact that the gorilla does not know where he came from and where he's going. He's of the moment, you see. The gorilla cannot look beyond his grave or before his parents' grave. But tha- --

that's why he cannot think. That's why he has not the -- this freedom of going -- undergoing several mentalities and switch to various means of understanding. Here he has to understand the mountain. There he has to understand the flood. Here he has to understand his neighbor. We can. We know how to cope with living beings, our brothers. We know how to obey the divine powers, and we also know how to use commodities, things, you see.

I have tried to show you that words, numbers, and names, you see, convey to every one of us this tremendous trinitarian power, you see, that -- in relation to our maker, in relation to our comrades in arms, and in relation to the dead weight -- things around us -- we use very different language and we use different means of em- -- exploiting, or employing, or obeying to them.

So this -- this exaggerated sense of objectivity, which leads to the picturejournals today, and to the movies, and to the attempt to make religion the "verbofacture" of man into manufacture of man -- we are created by the word, because the word enables us to change, as I have tried to show you even in the -- in the grammar of a word, you see. There is an imperative, and there is the subjunctive and there is an historical tense, and there is the infinitive and the participle which says it's -- consummatum est, it's -- has all been done, now let's look at it.

Since we are able to do just what the gorilla does not do, it is only decent to say that we owe this to our prescience of death. Because we know we die, everything centers around the ways and means in which we can -- have -- celebrate victory over death. That's why death is the cornerstone of our existence. Man is not an animal because he knows, in advance, of his death. And accordingly, all virtue, all asceticism is the shelving of your -- momentary passions, you see, in favor of those who are needed to continue the work of creation in general and for the whole. Every one of us is asked to forego certain pricks of -- of your senses or some sensuousness. Nobody who would indulge for one day to anything his -- his sense of sight -- suggests could survive. He becomes -- obviously, a waif of the society. Either it's the drinking and a -- you see, becomes a drunkard or a drug addict, or he ends in a brothel as a lecherous person, or it -- will be -- go bankrupt because he spends too much.

Not one of our actions in life can be reasonably computed and organized without this respect for death. Death is omnipresent. You may know it or not. And of course, as I've tried to show you, it's not death at the end of life, but it's the death of being a child. It's the death of being an -- adolescent. It's the death of being in California and moving elsewhere. We bury our dead constantly. And the -- more often we do it, the more we have life. Why did St. John live to be 90? Because he was present at the cross -- at the crucifixion of his Lord, and took the

death of Jesus deep into his heart. Anybody who faces death in time can live long, because we must die partially very often. And then you have long life, and life everlasting. And the people who want to l- -- live long don't live at all, because they do not dare in the meantime to die to the stages of their existence. As you -- we all must. Look at all the mothers-in-law, and this misfortune, you see, that it breeds when they cannot die to their motherhood.

I heard a fine story yesterday. You -- may I quote it? My hostess yesterday told me that when her child was born, her mother said she wouldn't interfere with the child's education, but she wanted to say only one sentence. "Your child you only have 18 years, but your husband you have forever. Make this the law of your behavior. Then you can't go wrong." This means that after 8- -- at 18, at the -- on the wedding day, there must be some death, voluntarily, you see, accepted. If not, a crisis is on hand and all end at the analyst.

Ja, obviously. That's what happens. Most people who go to the analyst cannot bury their dead in time, and we have to bury many things in -- during our life. The whole problem for every one -- human being is to decide what is mortal and what is eternal, you see. But that's not arbitrary. And certainly the relation of parents and children, you can become grandparents, you see. But in order to become real grandparents, I assure you, you have to cease to be parents. For a while you are just not caring, then you become grandparents. And then you are very much in demand.

Isn't this true?

(Too true.)

What I've tried to say is, I think, of primary importance. Every act or process that the divine creator expects us to perform -- peace among men, the building -- the settling of the cultivated area, the bringing up of animals or of children, the building of schools -- whatever we -- we do un- -- with the -- with the knowledge that this is what we ex- -- are expected to do runs through this gamut of command, of getting involved, of looking back and holding on and fast to it, and of saying one day, "It's all over." And life is therefore -- is not so much our own physical death at any one given moment, but our respect for this cycle that everywhen -- -where where we undergo and understand a will higher than ours, we have to take the pain of loss upon us. You cannot gain without this loss. Nobody can foretell you when the Lord says, "It's over with." I didn't know that I was -- would have to come -- leave my country where -- in -- in -- at the age of 45. I already had become quite a -- a vain man because I was the special article of -- of -- in the encyclopedia of my country now. Anybody who's in the Encyclopaedia Britannica thinks he's arrived, and the next thing is a peerage. And -- but my

story be- -- only began. And so it was compressed, so to speak, in half a generation, in half a life, what usually would be extended into a whole -- a long -- longer life.

All these things are known to everybody. And I think in America, it is even -- this cutting your losses is very common. I think people know this, and do it. But it's done strangely enough without any relation to their mental philosophy. The scientist has completely ruined their thinking about this cutting your losses, this moving away to another place, this alibi -- I mean, this saying, "It's all over." I find the -- the American male in a tremendous tension between his innumerable locations, his innumerable positions in life, his willingness to change, and this exile from -- of death from his mind: death must never be mentioned because it occurs constantly. I don't know. There must be some relation -- no European dies so often to the things he has created, to the positions he has held, to the achievements he can muster, you see. And no European who wouldn't complain and feel miserable. Yet, when it comes to the general statement of fact, what this means, you see, that death is in us, with us, de- -- makes demands on us, he has a complete repulsion, revulsion. People don't mention it. "Death doesn't exist." It does exist. It exists as much as life. It's like breathing in and breathing out. Nobody can live who cannot die.

And the more we voluntarily die to those deadening circumstances, the more can we hope to save life for another chapter in our existence. Well, I think you all act upon this, but it is very strange that you allow the scientist to tell you, as this gorilla does, that death doesn't exist. It exists as much as life exists. It's the condition of life: no life that is not, you see, condemned to die.

And that's the meaning of the cross of Jesus. He really died. His resurrection is not -- is not not-dying. And it is infamous, when D. H. Lawrence wrote a book, you see, in which he describes how Jesus escaped death. I don't know if you know this book, it's { }. I think it's the greatest blasphemy ever perpetrated in the history of Christianity. In his dying day, D. H. Lawrence, who didn't want to die, and had always only described vitality, and life, and being vital, and so on, wrote a book -- 1927 I think it only appeared -- do you know it? Well, how is it called?

(The Escaped {Cop} is one title.)

Wie?

(The Escaped {Cop}, The Man Who Died.)

Ja, Ja. Well, I think it shows you. I mean, I hold the -- the clergy responsible for

this total misunderstanding. The poor man, of course, had never seen a church after his 15th year, probably, you see. And up to that time, the Resurrection was misunderstood for not-dying.

Now, this brings up one more important point. The scientist cannot understand that children -- that people who have not been visited by a vital command, as in this quadra gemina organ -- can happen, who have not fallen in love, who have not made a vow, cannot understand the divine truth. There will always have to be two languages for the whole, ultimate truth of our life or religion, for children and for {adults}. And all the attempts of the last century have been directed, as though the child of 7, or 8, or 10, or 12 could be told. It can be hinted at. It can be promised that one day it will understand. But woe to the church that tries to teach only things that children can understand. That is impossible. And it is not meant to be, because the senses of these children have not been realized. They have not gone through such movements of the soul. They cannot love. You cannot tell a 7-year-old child what love is, or what sex is, before the -- they are capable of loving. Now our children of 14 also, they know sex, but they don't know what love is. So they -- and -- and a -- a man must first learn what it means to promise and to stand by his word. As long as he -- just running, running, running, how can he marry? It's impossible. So it's -- it must break down.

This is, I think, the greatest curse of the scientific mentality: that they say that anybody who has a mind at all must have a scientific mentality. And therefore there is no -- no such thing as preparation, and as gradual understanding, you see. There are no secrets that must become known. And they poke fun at our favorite term of old, "revelation." And they can't understand it. They say, "Nothing has to be revealed." Well, if you don't feel that the veil is before our eyes, I am very sorry. As I told you, many a time, I open the Bible and it's perfectly ununderstandable to me. I have a veil before my eyes and by an act of grace a day later, I may understand it better than anybody who has ever read the Bible.

Because we all change between moments of ecstasy and megalomania and moments of humiliation, and clumsiness, and blindness or deafness. I think this is the most important handicap today for -- for any spread of spiritual unity among mankind. It's a wrong monism, a wrong idea of democracy that everyone can understand everything. This is simply not true. And as long as you hold to this, you will have mob rule. And it will spread. And that's the mob. The mob is the -- the demons, the people who are corrupted by the heresy that everyone can understand everything at any -- all the time. We don't. I don't, certainly. And you don't. And anybody who admits this, ne- -- knows that from the hands of the -- impure hands of the non-understanders, you see, the truth has to be saved. It has to be protected. You cannot entrust everybody with the truth since we all have in our lives three-quarters of the time not the ability to understand it and to treas-

ure it, and to protect it. We -- we run away from it. We sacrifice it. We say, "It's un-understandable. I know nothing about it." And the special case of course is the -- with the young child. With regard to love, I think the whole 19th century -- "the century of the child," as it has been called, as you know -- was na‹ve in this respect, that they thought, "If only all the great news is told to the children, then mankind is saved." Then it perishes. It's the end of the world.

This is the hardest doctrine I know, to consume, and -- because people feel they -- it may be true what I say here, but how can I say this to anybody else without being called a reactionary? I'm sorry, but it is. The truth must come out, I mean. You know it as well as I, that this is a fact. And I think you can convey this message to everyone when you say it of yourself. When we begin to admit that we move through these various spheres of understanding, again I want to see the universe -- I know very little of what it's all about. When I am obedient, I understand a little more. When I go into history I understand still more. And when I obey the next command, I suddenly understand that the whole world was comma- -- created by commands of the same character.

Again, I think the Church has been very negligent in this respect, to oppose the scientist. You know there has been Biblical criticism, there has been Church history. But nobody has told me. I had to rediscover it myself, and my generation had to rediscover it, that in the days of Samuel, and Saul, and David, and Solomon, the Bible was written re- -- in retrospect. And these two good ch- -- people -- Hannah, the mother of Samuel, who had no child, who was barren, and implored the Lord, and -- was given a child, and sh- -- dedicated it to Him, is, obviously, the starting point for the whole Bible story and what did these -- these Israelites say to themselves. They hadn't existed when the world was created. They didn't want to write fairy tales. But they said, "As we have experienced the mercy of God and our prayer has been heard and -- fulfilled, so the world must have come -- everything in the world must have been created in the same manner." While you -- people today, the Nazis, you see, tried to breed people as cattle, the Bi- -- Biblical tradition says, "We have been created by love, and obedience, and prayer, so the world has been created in the same way." That is, you can apply your experience of life to the rest of the world, you see, and say that it has been always the same way. That's Biblical, the Biblical principle: to go back and say, "God said to the lion, 'Be there.'" And it was like -- just as Hannah was told, "You will be with child," and she was with child.

This is one method that the faithful -- a matter of faith. And the scientific method says, "I go to the farthest electron, and then I deduce myself." And here come -- I come to the second expression of the blind spot of science. If you try to breed children as we breed cattle, you see, then you follow the science principle that goes from the most remote, smallest entity -- most far away from you, you see -- and tries

to rule your life not from your experience, you see, but from these deductions -- from far away, from Mr. Niels Bohr, or from Mr. Einstein, or something like that. These people -- these science- -- -tists -- the scientific theory has only one little fault: Mr. De- -- Bohr and Mr. Einstein are { }.

Christianity today in the eyes of science is only represented by the scientists. They are the real McCoy. They are the real guys. They can talk of electrons, you see. And they are living for the future of science. It's the only point in the scientific heaven where the future is not the result of the past. Every scientist of any greatness, of any genius, you see, is the man who knows everything that people have known before, dismisses it with a shrug of the shoulder, and says, "We have to start all over again." This was done by Planck, when he said, "All the -- theory of gradual," you see, "graduation, of graduality, must go. There are quanta in reality," you see, "which nobody has seen so far. But there just there. They are creatures." And don't allow your children to say, when they are 13, and look up the Encyclopedia Britannica, that they are in research. "Research" is a very religious word, and a very important word, but it has fallen among the dogs, and among the scientists, and among the psychologists. Rescue it. Research means that man is free to stand at the end of a line of Noahs and to say, "This knowledge isn't good enough," and to resist the whole burden, you see, of tradition, and to defy the authorities, and to go against their sacred word and say, "It is all wrong. I found out differently."

Today this is unknown. We pay so much for research that the people, of course, in order to get the funds only discover things that can be known beforehand. I despise this situation. This country is not yet secure against the total stagnation of its industry and its discoveries, when you go on bribing your young with money. Pardon me, Mr. {Baldwin}, but that's very serious.

So far, for 300 years, scientific research has Christianized the universe. That is, has torn it away from God, and from witches, and from the spir- -- evil spirits and has made it a beautiful whole, as long as there have been scientists who defied the tradition of their science. That is, nothing -- no -- there is no continuum in -- in the -- in research, but there's a break. And the condition for your right to un- -- you see, to interrupt the thinking as hitherto obviously is in the fact that you have suffered patiently in filling you with the knowledge hitherto acquired.

A scientist must be able -- and here I come back to my central theme -- he must die to his own best knowledge and to the knowledge of his time. And even -- there must be a seed of faith, a grain of faith in which he said, "Although all the authorities say this, I cannot help feeling that I must enter a new -- usher in a new day, a new dawn, a new life."

What is con- -- totally overlooked by these foundations and by the young who now are attracted by the money available in research is the danger, the risk that they have to stick their neck out and to say something that is not approved by the authorities, that goes against the tradition. And only those truths are important. The other is -- just technology. And in this country, as you well know, technology is mistaken for science. Technology is the carrying out of good cameras, because you have learned on faith. That's one thing. But scienti- -- science is something quite different. Science is the courage to die to your knowledge, or to let this knowledge fall to the ground. And when Copernicus said, or Galilei, that the earth was to- -- turning around the sun, they knew everything anybody had ever written about the movements of the -- of the sky, in the sky, you see, and then said, "It isn't good enough." That is, a youngster cannot be in research because he has to search first for what is already known. At 14, the child has to know what people have -- other people have said. And if he stumbles on a discovery, that's not research. That may happen, I mean. I will not dedy it -- deny it. But pardon me, for I see to be dow- -- seem to be down on the children, but they have been spoiled in our reasoning processes, you see. They have been admitted to the inner court of justice, of mercy, of wisdom, where they don't belong.

Therefore, science has this blind spot, that the scientist is a courageous man, a man under God who dares the community, who is not a conformist, and he -- who dares to stand alone. If you think of the great scientists in the 19th century, {who} -- Semmelweis, {who} discovered the -- the puerperal fever, you see, and saved millions of women, you see, from certain death. He was persecuted, he was put in a luna- -- lunatic asylum, just because he was right.

Now, you may say, "We abolish this. We adore research." I doubt it. Real research will always appear dangerous. And if it is not dangerous, it is not a branch of the life of the Church. That it is. To me, the natural sciences are just the next step to Christianize the universe. And after the fathers of the Church, and after the scholastics, you see, came this era of the last 400 years in which the world was free from incubus, and succubus, and witches. And that's a great step. But it was connected, as you know, with great diffi- -- trials and troubles for the men who discovered it. And that's as it should be. Why do we -- you tear apart the history of the martyrs of the Church and the history of these martyrs of truth? It is a limited field. The world, of course, of things, is a negative to man, because it's the world of the dead things. The stars are not alive. But if you do not un- -- investigate their movements, as mathematically proven, they might again become gods. And you might have the astrological column in the Los Angeles Times.

Well, all these things, if not achieved in one direction, you see, will always

take you back in the opposite direction. And pre-Christian superstitions loom very large here among us today. And I think in Los Angeles you have a good cross-section. I think you could just write Encyclopedia Americana from collecting the evidence here, and you wouldn't have to go outside Los Angeles -- 6 million people and 10 million superstitions. I mean it. It's very true. And if they wouldn't be guided and held up by the rest of the world, they would indulge in this, you see, and all become oranges.

It is very tempting. Any small part of the -- mankind is in -- constantly in danger of doing just this. And I think the scientists are exactly in this group today, that is absolutely superstitious. It has abolished the distinction between mind and soul, without ever investigating whether a mother shall ever talk like a father, or a daughter ever shall talk like a son. They shall not. To the end of the world, a bride must talk differently from her mother and from her little sister. It would be in- -- terrible if everyone's mind contained the same equations. Every man who lives in the future has to say, "Two and two is four? Not at all. Not for me."

So this so-called scientific truth today has become a hindrance to living. Death has been abolished by these scientists. And now comes the climax, the last thing I would like to say today. Would you bear with me? Is it too much? I'm always overstepping my rights, I know.

This is: there is no present in the world of science. It's -- it's a fiction. -- You speak of the present state of affairs according to which a cancer has to be operated -- cancer of the breast has to be operated. A doctor is obliged to do this under the code of his profession. And he uses the term, "Today, we do this. Perhaps tomorrow, we'll have found a way where we decide not to do it." What is this "today"? In reality, in the outer world outside of you and me, "today" doesn't exist. The present doesn't exist. There is only in -- if you observe the facts in the external world, there is only "yesterday" and "tomorrow." As Homer calls it, it's a razor-blade edge, you see, that divides yesterday and tomorrow. Today, or the present, which we all heed here, in our presence here, I -- you gave me kindly now already one hour and-a-half -- and this is one moment in time. And it oversteps the visible dial of -- digit of the clock. One hour and-a-half we have been transforming into a present moment. And you see, the -- I can prove this to you, because at the end of these one hour and-a-half, I'm still able to convert or to retroact anything I have said in the beginning. I could now come out and said, "You mustn't misunderstand what I said an hour ago," you see. And as long as we are here now in our confidence, in our room, together, the newspapers haven't reported my {speech}, you see, I'm perfectly free to contradict myself, to explain, to convey. Man has the divine power to bring time to a standstill, to the eternal presence, or the divine presence. It's a miracle. Now all sciences do this.

They have a today, which is set off against yesterday's results and tomorrow's hopes. And they meet, and they have conferences, and during this -- conferences, time stands still.

We only, and only the human soul can create a presence. We call this with a more political expression, "We can create peace," where two people are not animals that are greedy for food, but sit together at a common meal. You don't begrudge your husband the best food. Wherever this happens, where a meal is taken together, some artificial, historical, religious creation has taken place. Have you ever thought that animals cannot do this? That any animal will try to get at the food of -- of the neighbor. You cannot feed two horses without risking this. Domesticated animals may do differently, or the mother and her -- her cubs.

But I once attended a CCC camp meal in which the morale had sunken so low that these boys -- they were 18 to 22, perhaps -- grabbed the food from each other. And the educational officer in this camp said, "You see, they are like dogs. They have fallen so low, there is not even the morale, you see, that they can have a meal together."

You remember that Mr. {Meyer} asked me about the five- -- the fifth sense, the taste. And I didn't like at that moment to go into this secret of the taste. Our four tracts, of which I have spoken, you see, are all drawn together in this most momentary, the digestive tract. When we eat together, you see, a tremendous creation takes place. We taste together the same food, and that's the ultimate peace you can establish between people. Not when they think alike. Not when they speak alike, you see. But when they are so one, that what one, you see, receives is received by the other. It's a great miracle. It doesn't exist in the animal kingdom. And as you know, the Church has been built on this very simple ritual, that all, you see, are glad that the other fellow can ta- -- participate. Participation is the secret of this created peace though which, wherever peace exists, it's a creation of a power higher than your or my will. You cannot create peace. I cannot create peace, you see. It can only happen when a third -- third power is present. You can have peace in the name of your profession. You can have peace in the name of your country. The highest peace, obviously, is in the name of God, because any enemy and you can participate in this peace. And it is, strangely enough, the most realistic -- the digestive -- and the most short-lived tract in our existence, you see, which points to this completion of all the other senses in one great act of reconciliation.

I only wanted to say that I didn't omit taste, but as you can imagine for good reason, I didn't want to -- to prostitute it too early. At this point, I think I may say I haven't done enough, but all I can do today.

(May I ask one question? { } of { } come together. Does that begin the very beginning, when you're born? Is that {developed}?)

They always exist -- it's in every human -- every human brain. The quadra gemina corpora, as they are called. They are called in anatomy an archaic organ. That is, an -- and organ that ceases -- stops having any development. Why should it? { } not to develop.