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

...was their ignorance of the scientist. They had no idea where the scientist stood, that he certainly did not stand in the time which the physicist, or the chemist, or any scientist considers. I like to say a word more about this -- these qualitative distinctions in time.

Modern man, who lives by the clock, believes really that this mechanical time, which goes from the past into the future, is experienced time. It's abstracted time. Nobody lives in this time that goes from yesterday to tomorrow. Everybody lives between the future and the past. And the conflict between the two is -- creates this, what we call the present. Whether you agree with me that this is God's time, that it is only a divine power in us to create the peace which overcomes our panic, our fear of d- -- death, and our running, running, running, which allows us to stand still and to devote seven years just in preparing ourselves for the study of medicine. In any case -- in all these cases, the future impinges on our actions, just as much as the past, and I hope more. As soon as in a country, as perhaps in Germany, the past takes over from historicism, the country is lost and goes to the dogs and Mr. Hitler is the correct result of the historicism of the educated classes in Germany. Since they believed that they were living in the past, somebody, of course, a very vulgar and criminal type, had to stand out for some kind of future befuddled as this was.

I think the blind spot of science, then is, so to speak, centers in the famous saying by Laplace, a physicist at the beginning of the 19th century, that the past creates the present, and the past and the present together create the future. If you look into your interior, you will believe this. But it is nonsense. The future creates the present. And where -- where a man -- is not stretched out in tension between his -- or mankind's future and the past, there is no present. And it is very strange that a -- allegedly youthful country like America holds this heresy. It always makes me feel that America is really a very old Europe. It's not a young country. That's one of those slogans which you ba- -- bandy around, but it has no meaning.

Hope, as I told you, is a carry-over from the past, because it's -- deals with known values. You cannot hope for what you have not seen. If this is only a country of hope, it has no future. Future is only with faith, and faith deals with the unknown, and is ready to meet it, even at the danger of death.

So, all -- although I cannot go into this, as you can understand, from the vast program have still to fulfill, I would like to remind you that in this cross of reality, man is standing here because the past tries to engulf him and the future tries

to attract him. And this is overlapping, just as you -- as any girl knows, who has to decide between her parents and her bridegroom. It's very simple; there's a conflict. It can be dissolved in the happy present, so that everybody gets his part, {but if} only her future is also respected by the parents. If not, if the -- the mother moves in with the married couple, the devil is -- breaks loose. Ich mein- -- that's the simplest form in which the -- any marriage will be ruined.

The past and the future form the present. The present is, as in mathematics, the result of this parallelogram of forces between the future and the past. Since this is not admitted, all our schools and all our techniques are bent to befuddle people and to make them -- make them schizophrenic, because what officially is said, they agree with. They say the past and the present create the future, but nobody can live by this recipe. Everyone -- be it a -- big firm, be it a corporation, be it a party -- lives in order to be justified by the future. Therefore, the future already is a reality. It -- it tells you exactly what to do, and not the past. If you only live by precedent, the country goes to the dogs. You cannot -- you have to decide between your right to call it a precedent and your duty to say, "This has never happened before. We must find a new solution." In every moment, any lawyer says, "This is an exception," or "This is the rule."

The -- are there chairs enough?

(Yes.)

Now this is perhaps the most difficult admission from a modern mind, who is accustomed to think that the time in the laboratory or in a factory is the only real time. I assure you it's a -- abstract time, when people today speak so -- so much about estrangement of the worker from his work. The reason for this is that while this work is proceeding, his lifetime is excluded. His future is not present in the factory. Where you work for, and have sold your time to somebody else, you enter this Laplace-time of the physicist, because you are pre-calculated, you see. And therefore your expectations of the future do not enter this hour or these 40-hour weeks, or what -- have you, in the modern labor market.

But everybody feels that this is nothing in the man's life. We say even this. This is a typical expression of workers that they say, "This work in the factory means nothing in my life," because the f- -- the future has been cut off. So he has to find his future in politics, or in sports, or somewhere else, or in his hobby, because his own time is four-fold. { } in the -- the full man is -- hung up between the future and the past. The lyrical man, the introspective man, who waits, who has a free hour, who goes to the movies, has a dream time, inner time -- and if he goes to the factory, he has an outer time; if he celebrates Christmas or any anniversary, we spoke of this -- he has a -- time stands still. There is no

time. That's a timeless moment.

So much for this. You can see that it would take a -- another six lectures to expand on this problem. And I said to myself, I have to choose. I have to hint at this problem, but I cannot completely, perhaps, refute your first instinct that you go on believing that time comes from the past and goes into the future. That this cannot be so, you can also perhaps see from the fact that what you -- we call the past is always selective. The whole past is not included. If you look back at the past, as the Birch Society, and say that 1832 all the misery began, still you do -- wouldn't introduce slavery again. So there are certain strange things o- -- to be omitted, if you want to go back into the past. Nobody accepts the whole past. Everybody selects from the past that which is fitting the pressures from the future and which are -- enable him to, you see -- to -- to solve this conflict between his origin and his destiny. Racial philosophy, of course, has in the last hundred years exercised a tremendous influence in favor of the past. If a man is what his race allows him to be, then he is of course dominated by the past, you see, and we have no future. And you can also o- -- overdo, of course, the future. I was told when I came out to California if I asked a man -- 80 years ago here who his grandfather was, he would shoot me. So that was certainly not racial, but that was more Manifest Destiny.

This is a serious, and I think -- the historian, for example, today is killed by this wrong attitude. The historian is only understandable as a part of the future, as a writer out of the future backward, because what does any historian? He saves those things whose future already got started in the past. It's an illusion of yours to say that an historian writes about the past. He conjures up those elements of life -- like the Emancipation, like the -- like the Declaration of Independence, like the birth of Christ, like Virgil or Homer, like anything that we need to carry in the -- into the future. That's what is the -- the past of the historian, and the rest he has to discard and not to mention. That's why history has to be rewritten in every generation, because our future reveals itself as a changeling, and many things about history of the last 500 years, of course, have to be put on the dung-heap in a moment where the nations of the world have to draw together and have to bury their axe, you see, of enmity. And so you cannot indulge in the Napoleonic Wars, or not even in the War of 1812 too much. I mean, the capital was burned, but it seems to me that the emperor of America is still in the making -- if you know the play, The Apple Cart, by Bernard Shaw.

So this is -- I had to say I think, to be -- to delineate the frontiers, and to tell you that I think the natural sciences have beguiled with their golden calf of an abstract time us. We live exactly as in Egypt. The -- we are back to the pharaohs, and to the sorcerers of pharaohs. People interpret dreams, and people think that it's all eternal recurrence and that the past produces the future. As soon as

anybody believes this, he is prey to any superstition.

My task today is called differently. And it is perhaps just as well if I break off here and tell you that I would like today to show you that this law of Mr. Portmann, my own -- that there have to be founders who present for the nestling, for the newborn child a new environment, that this law has been at work in our civilization in the last 900 years, and that's -- the development { } {ethics}, from geometry to -- to grammar, as I have tried to represent it to you, is a part of this strange process that any newborn child has to bite off its umbilical cord and make sure that it lives in a new environment, in a changing environment.

I have pondered how to do this simplest, and I think the simplest thing is to show you how the liberal arts, on which our college life is based, how they in a strange manner have been Christianized and baptized in the last 400 years. You may be surprised if I say that modern arithmetic, and modern mathematics, and modern geometry are Christian sciences. That is, they ha- -- they have been baptized and they do no longer correspond to the ancient pagan sciences of Mr. Archimedes or Pythagoras. We today have to solve the same problem in -- in field of grammar. And I'm trying to represent this to you, this new grammar, which has the same different qualities from ancient science as modern mathematics has, compared to Greek science.

There are seven liberal arts. Some of you may even have heard what they are. And I write them backward. They are called: astronomy, music, geometry, arithmetic. These are called the quadrivium, the four higher liberal arts. We go to the primitive, to the trivium -- to that which is trivial, you see, and belongs to the three other liberal arts. And they are: logic, rhetorics, and grammar. All these seven arts did exist before the Christian era. And they are best represented in the great center of knowledge, in Alexandria. The first encyclopedias, and the first grammars, and the first arithmetic textbooks -- all you can find in Alexandria at this cross-point of integration between the pre-Greek world and the Greek world. Egyptian lore and Chaldean lore met there with the Greek philosophers.

Now the -- you will say that -- "I'm not interested. That's all historical." You have to be interested, because in a very strange march of events, these seven arts have been touched upon and have been re-created in the last 400 years. It began with Copernicus, and with the astronomers. And as I say, God today is with the grammarians. You can no longer hope to restore human language or to save it from -- from destruction unless we get rid of our -- of our grammar books, which tells you that language has been created to say, "La rose est une fleur." And I tried to tell you that the Copernican turning point is that you learn that language is meant to place man before, inside, and after the event. And that this is

the meaning of any articulated language: that the person who speaks determines his relation to the event of which he speaks, and thereby creates history. There is no other way of creating history. And grammar has never been created for saying, "La rose est une fleur," but it has been created to say, "Europe was a great civilization, Europe is a great civilization, Europe will be a civilization." If you withhold this last sentence, you have taken a position in history, because you have decided that it's all over. Nobody can escape this. No -- even -- even not newspaper -- editors who would like to escape -- { } said nothing, I mean. It's a great art to write much and say nothing. And we have in this country developed a tremendous technique of doing this. You can print a whole forest on Sundays in The New York Times, but there are, out of 150 pages, 120 where nothing is said, with very many words. And I -- I don't have to tell you this about The Los Angeles Times.

Man today is playing with language and I think he's destroying it and I'm quite serious when I say I foresee a future, in hundred years, where very few people can speak. The rest will just shout, and repeat, and echo. Language is on the way out. And that's why grammar is necessary as a saving -- it can be -- there can be a renaissance of language, but it cannot be -- go on like this. Most people cannot distinguish serious t- -- speech and talk. They don't know the difference between an oath and a vow on the one-hand side, and an anecdote and a joke on the other. If they go to the wedding, they still make a joke, and the result is very jocose.

This is -- speech and talk, you see, are -- or at -- different ends and serious speech is always a public act. It's never private. Talk is. Talk you can call in and say, "I didn't say anything," you see. But if you have spoken, you are not a man and not a woman if you are not standing by your own word.

Now, before going into this grammar problem, which -- for which we shall have something to say -- at the last meeting, I only wanted to remind you that from 1543, when Copernicus wrote his astounding book about the revolutions in the sky, mighty revolutions, the British Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution have occurred always with the ascendancy of a new science. And in the 17th -- here you find astronomy, and the new music, by the way -- I only have to remind you of Purcell, in England -- and here you have the 16th -- 17th century Descartes, the great geometric wizard, and Spinoza, who wrote his book, Ethic in the Style of Geometry. That's why I put on my -- on our card this reminder that man has tried to use these seven liberal arts one after the other to explain everything. Now, you will admit that you can explain sun, and moon, and stars in astronomy, but the attempt made at that same time, of course, to renew the horoscope and to predict man's existence by astronomy has failed. You get astrology and nonsense.

That is, although astronomy has been revived, it has also been purified, and has been limited for the purposes, you see, for which it can serve. It's a pure science today, and not a humanly, so to speak, corrupt science. The same, of course, is to be said of dealing with the infinite -- the calculus, that's an invention of the 17th century -- infinity was shunned by the Greeks. They had a -- real fear and never used it positively. And if you read the brilliant chapter of -- by Spengler on this distinction between the Greek hatred of the infinite, you see, and the Faustian man rejoicing in its -- in its discovery and in its computation, then you will see that there has been a total revamping of what is -- called today mathematics. The mathematics of today have very little to do with Greek mathematics. They have no -- had no theory of numbers, and they had no notion of the infinite.

Now I hold that we today have to do the same with these arts: logic, rhetoric, and grammar. It may even be that this has already been done. But -- grammar is still in this shoddy and shabby state of Alexandria. People still say the single word, you see, has to be learned as a declension. A single verb has to be conjugated, and sentences are the highest. If you look into modern books on language, I'm ashamed of my contemporaries.

[tape interruption]

...incredibly stupid what these people print. I yesterday went over a whole stack of books on language and I couldn't discover anything that I could use for today.

To prove to you the -- the -- the vital character of this gradual renewal, I may -- remind you down to 1500, the Christian Church -- and the -- had their -- her hands tied up with converting the ch- -- the people to Christianity; that is, to this duty to renew life. They had to be told that regeneration and rebirth is an essential element of their existence, that to hold onto the past or to -- run forward into the -- an unknown future was both not worth doing. Christianity is the solution of the historical problem: how much past and how much future? And it certainly stands and falls, as you know, with the fact that the first Christian stood as far away from the past as from the future, and already took the future into our field of force as much as the past.

Christ is the second Adam and He is the first perfect man. That is, He stands exactly in the middle, between beginning and end. Most people misunderstand this. They talk big today of eschatology. It's a very simple notion, even without this terrible Greek word which you -- nobody can pronounce and nobody can spell. It means just that the Lord has already arrived at this perfec-

tion between -- between old and new, which every one of us tries also to attain. The transformation, the power to respond and -- despite the fact that it means change -- that's Christianity. And that's the -- our cross. That's why man is in a crucial position, and a not in a position between A and B of alleged choices. When I hear this word "choice," I always think of -- get very angry indeed. Man does not make choices, but he is pushed forward and pulled backward at the same time, and he has to weigh how much forward and how much backward. That's not a choice, you see. But that's like treading water. That's a balance. He cannot give up any one of the two important things. The future has to be, you see, acknowledged. You have to bow to it. It's the -- exactly as the daughter who has a -- may have a choice between eloping or marrying. But marriage is an attempt to reconcile the parents to the marriage, to the new tie-up, isn't it? Or marriage wouldn't be called "marriage," but just "elopement." In an elopement, the future is alone present, you see. In a nunnery, the past is only present. In a marriage, the rec- -- parents are reconciled to being sacrificed on the altar of the new love.

I can show you this same picture in a more dramatic, and perhaps in a way you -- every one of you has participated in it -- in -- and you are still participating in this revamping of the pre-Christian past. You all have heard, at least, of Dante's Divine Comedy. I'm afraid it's a book more heard about than read, but it's very great book. And Mr. Dante conjured up from the pagan past, the last poet, you know who is this messenger through Hell, the poet Virgil. And so, I put here next to Dante, who wrote his poetry between 1300 and 1319, I wrote the Latin name Virgil. And Virgil is already popular in the Middle Ages around the time of the Crusades. He's called the "great sorcerer," Virgil, because the people at that time knew very little of poetry. But they knew his name, and that in the days of Augustus, he already had proclaimed Christianity in his great epics. Some of you may have read this long -- lengthy book by Mr. {Brock}, The Death of Virgil. Who has? One only. Ja. Well. That's some judgment.

And when you go on, you find that in the days of the Renaissance popes, I -- it's arbitrary, I could have -- any one of the Piuses, the man who is conjured up from the -- from the past is not Virgil, but is Plato. And if you put somebody in between here, you put Thomas Aquinas, and the p- -- the Scholastics, then Thomas -- Aristotle, you see, is a man who is read. So we get a sequence: Virgil, Aristotle, Plato. If you come to Racine and MoliŠre and Corneille in France in the 16th century, we are a little further back, the people read Socrates and Euripides.

So Louis -- le siŠcle Louis XIV is illustrated by reading the dramatists of the 5th century, before Plato. Let's put in here Socrates. If you come to 1800, you find that people translate Homer, have new theses on Homer. Goethe wrote Iphigenia, that is Iphigenia, the daughter of Agamemnon, who went to the Trojan War; and he

wrote "Achilleis," reviving the hero of the Trojan War. And since Ho- -- you all know Homer has been put on the map, not one man read Homer in the days of -- even of Shakespeare. His Troilus and Cressida does not come directly from Homer, that is, from later source.

So, I could of course replenish this list. People also -- Shakespeare as you know reads Plutarch and takes his stories from this biographer of the Roman emperors -- { } of the Roman Empire. What I'm anxious to show you is that man's renaissance of Greek and Rome -- Greece and Rome, has been done by going backward, that the -- the latest was received first. The Renaissance is not an act of receiving Greek and Rome in the sequence in which it was lived -- they were lived and existed, but it's a peeking and a piercing into the past, step by step, so today even Homer is obsolete and you go to Oedipus. Mr. Oedipus and poor Iocaste, you see, even precede Homer and for this reason they are just the right people today for selling and for making the -- psychoanalysts very happy indeed.

Mr. Robert Graves, who is a very sensitive man of our times -- a man on Mallorca -- the English poet, has written a book, Hercules, My Shipmate. I don't know if this is known. Who knows this book? Ja. Do -- do you know that this is -- are the Argonauts? And the Argonauts are Iason and his golden fleece. They precede Homer. In Homer's poem, the Argonauts are mentioned in one place as already preceding him. The poet -- poem -- poems on the Argo and Iason were written when Homer wrote.

A few months ago you may have read about the deciphering of the Minoan script. That's the great discovery of the last 10 years. Minoan script was written 1200 B.C. Homer wrote, by and large, 750 or 800. Socrates is 460. Plato is -- died in -- founded the academy in 387. Aristotle follows him, is even his pupil. Virgil dies in the year 19, before Christ. A very strange march of events. The whole last thousand years, man has received into his memory, and into his architecture, into his paintings, into his poetry the antiquity in the order in reverse. And at this moment he oversteps the boundaries even of the written word in Greece. We go back to myth and this tremendous interest in myth today, m-y-t-h, which I suspect is a great misunderstanding -- is based on the fact that before Homer, we have no written sources but only this religious mythology, you see, in the form of Oedipus, the Oedipus, or the Zeus, or the Persephone myth. And some of you have seen yesterday, this beautiful play, Persephone in the Hades. That's the religious myth probably developed in Greece in the days of the Trojan War between 1000 BC and 1500 BC. Not later and not earlier, because the Greeks are newcomers to the Mediterranean world and haven't entered it before -- 1500 before our era. They are contemporaries of the -- of the Jews. When they came to Palestine, the Greeks came into Greece. And both have destroyed the old tradi-

tions -- or have summed them all up. That is why it is enough today to know of Athens, and Jerusalem, and the -- whole of antiquity is thereby represented.

In this strange economy, now, I tried to make you believe that man lives in a very orderly process of historical digestion, and discarding, and elimination. History is nothing arbitrary at all. Every generation is forced and compelled to do something to a certain chapter of our human past. In the Christian era, Virgil and -- used -- is used by Dante, and Homer is used by Goethe, and the Argonauts and the myth of Oedipus is used by Mr. Freud or Mr. Robert Graves are there f- -- not for the asking, but they are there because they can demand to be redeemed, to be dis- -- to be -- ja, "redeemed" is the -- real word -- to be saved not only from oblivion but to contribute this part of them that is eternal and to be left alone with what they have to say which is not eternal. We will not take over from the Oedipus complex slavery, for example, you see -- or the punishment meted out there. But we -- very well take over the conflict. It's the same with all the other powers. Aristotle is impossible for science. It's obsolete. Already Jean Ramus in the 16th century proved to his great satisfaction that there was not one true sentence in Aristotle. That overstepped the mark a little bit, but he did it. And he was believed, and Plato took the place of Aristotle for the following three centuries.

That is -- it's like a lemon. You squeeze and squeeze and then throw the rest away. These renaissances have judged the past, have been vaccinated by the past and they have been made fruitful, but in a great process of elimination. Today we live in some danger because this -- this select- -- -tive power of renaissance is denied. If I see my -- the anthropologists of today, I shudder, because they say they have no interest in education modern -- educating modern man in these wis- -- this wisdom of these primitive tribes, for example, but that they only -- are descriptive and they are the most horrid usages and customs there are just with great equanimity described as much as the wisdom of these old chieftains and the old medicine men. Obviously, we would perish if the anthropologist could not be waylaid by our common sense. What can we receive from antiquity is highly selective. You cannot -- human sacrifice cannot be introduced.

If you are only an enthusiast for the past without this critical vein of Christianity, which gives you -- the right to select, then you come, of course, to the pessimism of -- of a D.H. Lawrence, who wrote this great story, "The Woman That Rode Away." I don't know if you know this. It's the reintroduction of the human sacrifice on the American continent. And -- the wife of an American businessman is so bored that she offers herself as human sacrifice to the remnants of the Aztecs in Mexico. And they do it with great pleasure. Dead she is, murdered she is. And Mr. Lawrence thought that's -- was the way of res- -- you see, of reception, of giving birth to the old ritual.

Now fortunately, as you know, only in America has the occupation with antiquity been -- gone so far to re-introduce slavery. And that obviously is a taint on this act of renaissance. Slavery was the marrow of the antiquity. And our South here in this country thought they could afford the same, and they still for a hundred years proved from Greek and -- Biblical literature that slavery could be upheld, you see. So they -- they wanted to go back into antiquity wholesale. This cannot be done. I have to -- tell you that the great process of what we call "renaissance," rebirth of the past, is under very severe rules. You can only receive into our society that which respects the foundation, the cornerstone of our era, and that is the unity of the human race. And nothing what -- speaks against it can be really received. It has to go again. So the process of selection is a very sublime one. In antiquity, this one tenet, that man is one and marches as one great body politic over the earth, was unknown.

I always tell the engineers a story that as late as 1919 in Germany, after the war, a big factory of automobiles stood before the question: How to go back to peace production? And they produced the luxury car, the famous Mercedes -- you know this quite well. And it never dies. You see, once you have a Mercedes, you have to go on driving it for the rest of your life. And -- in 1919, I joined the staff of this factory, and I invited a famous psychologist and sociologist, who later ran for the presidency of the German Reich, to attend this decisive meeting in which there had to be decided what peace production should be taken up. And they had, of course, been in the armament business during the war.

And they all decided, "Oh, Mercedes has such a reputation, we can sell it tomorrow and of course, we go back to the old production."

And then Mr. {Hellbach} spoke up and said, "Gentlemen, you will do this, I can see. You have of course every right to decide yourself. But you have invited me to this meeting, so you probably expect me to say something. And I will only tell you that in the Christian era, no invention can be kept the privilege of any one class or any one group. And if you're wise, you will produce the Volkswagen."

He didn't use the word "Volkswagen," but a car accessible to all. You may have your luxury car besides, but that's not decisive. The main thing is if you acknowledge what has happened during the World War, you will know that since all the men were soldiers and all the -- women suffered, you have to offer a product in the long run that is for all. And if they had done -- this is my sideline remark -- there would have been no Hitler. There was no outlet for the individual's thirst for power in Germany, and if there had been what you call now Volkswagen, the people would have something to -- had to -- that showed them that they were somebody.

It's a very great story and I can tell you, I have told this story now after 40 years to a staff of hundred engineers of this same firm and they were all in total agreement with me -- that they had made a -- a real mistake in 1919.

This is very similar with anything that happens in our era. You may try to have privileges. You may have a -- a society, you see of descendants from royal bastards, or whatev- -- what it is. But it's just a joke. You can have it inside a society where everybody is an equal. You can build in these -- these pleasure trips to the moon. But it isn't the real thing.

The translation of -- then of all the antiqui- -- of all of antiquity into a -- something universal, that's the story of the last thousand years. And it is, I think, intriguing, if you think that from Virgil to Iason and to Oedipus, there have been a thousand years of antiquity recovered and under this severe rule of selectivity. And wherever, as in slavery, the people of our times have tried to forget this, and have revi- -- taken over the whole -- lock, stock and barrel -- a tremendous vindication has followed and the Civil War -- you must not think that this is an American event. It is not all an American event. The Russian czar had to emancipate his serfs in exactly the same year as you well know, in 1861. And why is here -- American Civil War always written up as a local, regional, or American event? You will miss the whole point if you do not see that it was the rectification of the Christian era that had to take place wherever it had been demolished. Most events in America, pardon me for saying so, are much more universal than the American historian care to admit it. Yes, Sir. We have here several professors of American history. Treading on dangerous ground. But it is a -- a provincial attitude to think that these -- these acts were done just in a sovereign manner by people who -- who did not try to fulfill God's commands. Most people do try to fulfill God's commands. People are much more religious than the min- -- the priests and ministers care to know.

They -- one is not pious and religious by going to church, obviously; but one is religious when one hears, when one eliminates some such splinter that has gone into our modern make-up, you see, in -- by misunderstanding of antiquity. This selective process today is in great danger, because the -- the people who deal with anthropology and prehistory simply have no responsibility whatsoever. To me, one of the most terrifying gentlemen of this field is this so-famous Mr. Malinowski, who -- who was just a child. And children do not know what love is. And so his description of the love of the {Torrianders} is just one big humbug. But everybody reads it because it's -- thought of -- a very obscene book. It's just an example how you are invaded with something uncritical. Certainly, I myself have studied these things at -- I had to, in part -- ancient marriage, and ancient incest, and ancient -- heri- -- rules of inheritance -- and they are great elements of loyalty, and of enthusiasm which we will have to revive, because our families

break up. And the intensity of feeling and the intensity of unity between the generations is something utter -- very much to be desired. And -- but you must always know that the mandate is given to us to select. And we cannot go back wholesale and revive the Oedipus complex.

And -- the -- it is very strange that today there is this division. In the Middle Ages the priests were the Renaissance -- were carriers of the Renaissance. Today we have two groups. The priest thinks he has to hold on to what was true yesterday, and the so-called scientists dig out anything of the past without any relation to the needs of today. And I think this is disastrous. And the common staff doesn't exist. It is in the making, perhaps, under the theme of sociology. The sociology -- -ogical branch of human knowledge, tries to unify the secular branch of knowledge, you see, which is called prehistory, anthropology, social psychology -- analysis, and how all these terms are meant -- and the religious role of the educator, the priest, the minister, the -- the teacher who is in danger, of course, to be too narrow and not to make use of these new possibilities of selecting from the past something that will revive his poor schoolchildren.

But it is a very majestic process. And I thought after having talked to you only of individuals in the {fourst fir} lectures, I wanted to try at least to show you that we, as one great body of men, are marching very meaningfully through the thousands of years. It is very meaningful that the Church, in the -- first thousand years, had enough to do to beg the people out of all the orders into which they were marooned and petrified. None of these orders accepted change as a necessary element, you see, whether you went to Osiris, or Wodan, or Odin, or the Greek god, Zeus, obviously they were there for eternity, unchangeable, and unliving, and mere idolatries.

As -- Christianity therefore, for neun- -- for 900 or a thousand years, had nothing to do but to convince people that a balance between change -- between change and conservatism, between loyalty to the past and loyalty to the fut- -- our future destiny had to be practiced.

And we do not find any such renaissance, as I have put them here on the blackboard, in the first thousand years of our era. And that's why many people today say the Church is just conservatives, reactionary. They forget that the element of change, which is -- natural with you, you see, did not exist when Christ entered the world. Once a Jew, always a Jew. Once a Greek, always a Greek. Once a Roman, always a Roman. Once a slave, always a slave. Even St. Paul had to write his -- his letter about the escaped slave, you see, with regard to this fact that nobody could be compelled to emancipate his slave. He had no natural law he could invoke and say, "There are no slaves." He had to beg from his slave to go back to his master.

-- That is to say, it is totally overlooked today what the element of newness is which the Church introduced. The Church has introduced this chewing process, that we have to bite off something of the past, you see, which must not return, and we have to bring in elements of the past that have been forgotten.

-- Man, if -- I may put this into a formula, which I think is useful for you and perhaps it's worth your while to take it down: man marches forward by looking backward. That is the Christian attitude in which He reconciles men, the past values and the future necessities. It's very strange. You would of course think, since you all abuse the eye, that you pierce the veil of the future. Since the future has been lived by faith alone, the eye cannot see into the future. But it can be used usefully and very fruitfully by explaining us the past and conjuring up the past.

So you, of course, think I'm a fool because I say, "Man gehs forward and -- by looking backward." You'll say that he falls down, because he cannot see where he goes. I assure you that no man who -- or no woman -- for -- by that matter, who takes a decisive step can see what he is doing. He can sense what he is doing. He can trust. He can do many things to secure even a little bit. He can even take out a life insurance, but he cannot see the future. So the eye would be lascivious. It can -- of course, a voyeur can see the future. What's this, I mean? That's just obscenity. But we -- what we can see is the past, in its horrors, and in its nobility, in its beauty. And the selective power of the whole renaissance, which is an eternal process, it is not limited to the 16th century, is -- makes us use our eyes indeed. What has taken shape before can be seen and must be seen. And therefore, funny as it may sound, man can only go forward, as long as he also looks backward.

Between husband and wife, the division is very obvious in many cases that she holds onto the past in the forms of -- in which the household is kept. No fifth -- no Thanksgiving party without the lady of the house determining what shall be done and -- and all the forms of celebrating in the household are in the hands of women who preserve the past. And he, the -- man, brings in the new debt, and the new mortgage on the house, because he has bought too big a place.

But -- the decisions come from the man's side and that is novelty. And the regular comes from the woman. But this -- this adding of a forgotten past, this digging deeper than these two people alone can do, that is the -- effort of organized society. We all together must keep in evidence this arsenal, this treasurehouse of past things and accordingly select what in this very moment can revive a part of our dying order.

This fills me with great reverence, I must say. It's far beyond your and my

doing. Our museums, our schoolbooks, our literature, too -- I mean, the historical novel -- they are all doing this -- nobody commands any one individual to do it, you see. But it is the world in which we move and by a certain har- -- in- -- unknown harmony, there is a division of labor between those people who dug up the fu- -- dig up the future at this very moment -- Margaret Meade is just as normal a person as Mr. von Braun. And the one is there for the technological innovation, you see, and the other is there for the selective possibilities of the far, remote past.

Now I come back to grammar. If there is a meaningful march -- of events in the field of the mind, then it is no wonder that after we have higher mathematics, calculus, astronomy, the principle of relativity of Einstein is, so to speak, the -- the climax of this reception of the four liberal arts of antiquity, you see -- they couldn't understand this, the -- ancients. And yet it is -- he is, you see, he stands on their shoulders. He has renewed something they could not bring to this perfection. I do feel that we have the same duty to the Alexandrinians in their -- the matter of grammar. That's why I have a good conscience that the Copernican turn of our relation to grammar lies in this, what the ancients could not see: that acts which have to be fulfilled by the community are presented to us in our relation to them as demanded from -- from us, as commands, as in the Ten Commandments, as filling us with excitement, keeping us going in song, lyrically, as having to be told epically, and as having to be put on the -- on the dump-heap, as "have done" in the -- in the analytical form. I have not to tell you that this is eternal. If you look at literature, you will always find these four branches: lyrics, drama, epics, and the novel which -- modern novel which is naturalistic. Take Zola, take Balzac, take Joyce, it's analytical.

People avoid today this term, although they're all analytical and -- but they also avoid the word "epical," and there's great confusion. Most secular writers cannot accept this cross of reality. They want to have done with two. They say, "One is lyrical and the other is -- is epical," or some such thing. I can't help you. We all, you see, as far as something called into us from the future, live a dramatic life. Anything is dramatic which is -- which is unsolved. But the solution of which, you see, pushes us on, and then pulls us up and demands from us expectation, and fear, and trembling. The expectation is the essence of the drama: that the hero is as yet to become known, and -- it is the task of the hero.

I have not to tell you that lyrics express feeling why we are moved, and that epics -- looks back at the facts. And Madame Bovary, by Flaubert -- great example of the analytical novel -- is concerned with states of mind, you see. It analyses this. And again, what would be the best example for this in America? Certainly not Gone with the Wind. Mr. {Martin} perhaps tries it {today}. Don't you think? That's analytical.

So wherever -- when -- if grammar and when grammar would discover that these four forms of literature are nothing but the forms of grammar on a higher scale, that the past tense and epics is doing the same, that lyrics and the subjunctive, you see -- "Let us go," or "We are in love," you see -- are the same, that imperative and drama are the same. Any one sentence, "Go," you see, and "Suffer" -- you would already see that literature is not using language, but is simply language, as higher mathematics are, on a higher scale, on a higher level. The literature is not using language, but it is nothing but language im- -- integrated, you see, into its proper usages.

I can assure you that when a Hindu heard a command, it was just as exciting as when you see "Hamlet." Because the question is for him, "Shall I kill my father?" And for Hamlet, it's the same. "Kill him" is -- can -- be just as dramatic and can last -- keep you occupied for 10 years, just as in the case of Hamlet. It is unbelievable how people have tried to widen the gap between the language and the literature. It's the same. It is the same in a more complex form, you see, and growing all the time on us. But woe to us if we omit -- this { } to the simple thing that all these four forms of literature represent. If you do not hear a command out of a drama, the drama is rotten. If you not hear -- lyrics but something perverse out of the poem, then the poetry dies, as it does today, because people have estranged themselves from these -- eternal roots of their existence. We do have to represent in our existence the future, the inner, the outer, and the past. And if -- if we decline to do this, a -- total degeneration must follow. And -- life is much simpler than the modern professors of literature care to admit.

I'm always horrified with the theories of language which denigrate language as something -- the best is always when a man says, "Of course, I have very deep thoughts, but language is so poor so I -- I cannot express it," you see. The language is then made the scapegoat, because he's an idiot. The language is always wiser than he who speaks it. That's just incredible. Any language is more powerful than the best speaker. But he doesn't know how to speak it.

And -- for this reason I believe that grammar today is overdue. For the last 50 years there has been some concern, but nine-tenths of what is written on this is just nonsense. It would be not fair to -- attack individuals in this. It's not their fault. That is a -- the tradition of the geometrical and arithmetical age, that Mr. Spinoza thought he could prove geometrically, and he had to prove geometrically the existence of God. We -- you know that his Ethics was written according to the laws of geometry, and that every paragraph ends with a "Quod erat demonstrandum," -- "What I had to demonstrate," you see. And it's just built up, this whole Ethics, as a mathematical textbook. It's unbelievably stupid. And nobody can read it today, but that's not his fault. The grandeur of Spinoza's undertaking remains that in the 17th century people thought the revamping of geometry, you

see, from antiquity into a modern science, would solve all riddles.

Now there's no doubt that we only can fly because of Descartes and Spinoza. And don't misunderstand me. He has made all these technological -- feats possible. But as with the golden calf -- when the Egyptians invented the -- found the -- the calf could plow their wheat fields, it was the greatest discovery of the -- all ages, because it made settlement possible. And people could stay in the same place, you see, without starvation. Before, they had to hunt and to fish; and this exhausted them, so they had to keep moving. In Egypt, to this day, no Egyptian -- leaves the country. They don't go to America as the Syrians do. And the deepest reason why the Syrians and the Egyptians cannot get along together is that one of these nations is a migratory -- group and the other, the Egyptians, do not migrate. They don't understand how anybody could live without drinking this corrupt Nile water. Only the Americans in Luxor don't drink it.

-- I mean to say once more, pardon me. We'll go back to this. The golden calf and Spinoza's Ethics, {More Geometrico}, are exactly parallel. The Egyptians were so grateful to the calf that they made a statue of it and said, "That's our god," the golden calf. They were right and were wrong. The -- gratitude was in order, but not the carryover of this invention to all other fields of life. The same is with geometry. Don't forget that our planes here, on the airport, really are depending on the -- on the doubts and the mathematics of Mr. Descartes and Mr. Spinoza. But when it came to human relations, of course, it miscarried. So if you read Spinoza -- I have brought his book today, I bought it in town -- and -- was quite lucky, this is only one half of it -- I found that not -- never is there any question of speech. Nothing is said. God cannot speak. God is nature, for Spinoza. God is deaf and dumb. He doesn't know that by assuming that he can speak and God cannot speak, he makes man do more than he can, so to speak, has a right to do. If God is not the power that has endowed us with speech, then there is no use for God. And as in fact, Spinoza, as you know, is a pantheist and is quite honest: since God doesn't speak, He is the same as nature. "Deus sive natura," you see, he -- has to say in geometry.

And there's one other thing I might mention to you, which is of some practical value. For the 17th century, in which most Americans today still live, the -- you do, mentally. Pardon me, but it is a fact. Most of you live in the 17th century, because you do believe in mathematics and in geometry as the real -- basis of science. And this, of course, for a grammarian, is just nonsense. It's proved certain things, but nothing -- only of -- about dead things. No baby can be measured by geometry.

What I was trying to say is that the logic of Spinoza in itself is majestic. I can only prove with my new system of geometry, therefore everything must be

deaf and dumb. And I alone, I, Spinoza, can speak. It's -- it's -- this neat assumption of all the scientists that what they say has to be listened to, and what we say has not to be listened to.

But I had another point, and at this moment -- has escaped my memory.

I like to show you now from a distance the difference of a ethic that is based on grammar. The idea of Spinoza in geometry was that every one of us is out to save his own skin. And he defines man as a being that wants to preserve himself. It seems to be a very poor definition of a human being, but that's what he only can find. I -- now I know the point -- and because he believes that God is -- Himself a geometrical mind. It's very strange that to this day people think if they prove that something is geometrically right, they will admit some reverence of the divine. Now the one thing we know today is that man's geometry is not divine. God creates irregular bodies. God creates neither circles, nor points, nor lines, nor squares. All these forms are just in the human brain and they never reach perfection. There has never been in the outside world anything that is a square, or a circle, or a line, or a point, you see. It's an imitation -- it's an effort of approximation in us. {But} to assume that God is interested in straight lines -- He has made us terribly crooked. And God's creatures defy mathematics. That's just so interesting about us -- our life. You can never -- any painter knows this, I think -- that the -- the form of anything living defies mathematics. But there is, as I said to -- in you a deep reverence for geometry. And I think if I say that God is not a geometer, you think that's rather blasphemous. But -- the only thing I know for sure about Him, that He has nothing to do with geometry.

That's very strange. It's really your prejudice. You believe that I blaspheme because I decline to acknowledge that God -- that God is interested in geometry. He admits it, of course, for our stupidity and our approximation, because we cannot do otherwise, to imitate the beauty of His forms. But our mind is so far distant from the divine spirit that we dabble with -- in geometrical forms as abstractions. But -- the first thing any child learns -- that nobody has ever seen a point, and nobody has ever seen a line. And I'm sure God is not interested in them. He's very much interested in children. And they are quite crooked.

In the -- our grammar, in -- the ethics, in the commandments for our behavior, I -- think I can show you one point in which -- is very -- of very practical importance to say goodbye to the geometry of the divine spirit, and to admit that God has nothing to do with this; and that's about the growing up of any one of us into manhood, into maturity, into fulfillment of His task.

As I see it, there are three stages in your and my life: youth, manhood or

womanhood, and what you call now "senior citizens." And -- the hoary head, the old man, and the old woman. These people have all their prescribed task. All of them. The child must come of age. The men and women must live natural, unaffected, ingenious, genuinely. And the old people must feel that they are irreplaceable, that they are indispensable. If a man has not at one moment of his maturity the feeling that he's doing one thing or the other, you see, which is unique, he has missed his -- the boat. You cannot satisfy a -- a young man with uniqueness. He is just one of the tribe or one of -- Boy Scouts. But you must satisfy any old person. That's why all the measures now taken for the senior citizens are so horribly wrong. They imitate the herd instinct of the young, but anybody who has a good old age cannot be subsumed under anything else. He's just Mr. { } or whoever it is.

The cruelty of modern man against old age is -- is really something to behold, because these three stages are never ethically, morally, spiritually distinguished. And it's interesting that a mathematical age -- as the last 300 years actually have been a geometrical, arithmetical, statistical age -- do not even know that the question is not between good and bad. That's Old Testament law. The New Testament knows nothing of this law. How can we say to anybody else, "This is good or bad"? Everything is -- every day is different. Every one of you knows this -- is just nonsense. This is no -- not this moral- -- moralism of a list of acts which you cannot commit. How do I know? What -- I -- if I speak of the acts I had to commit, they certainly were not in the -- under any rule of any moral -- moral code. I created this moral code under the strain of my existence.

I always like to tell a little story. Pardon me. I just say it, really. I have other bigger stories. It's a small story, but it makes perhaps my point. I was -- leading a troop in the siege of Verdun under heavy fire, over a road. We were with horses. We -- ammunition was drawn -- pulled by these horses. I was on horseback. The -- the -- the others were on horseback, too. And great confusion occurred, and the people threatened to strike.

So I took one of the men and gave him a slap in the face. I kept him from being shot in -- in a court-martial. And I kept the troop from going to pieces. And ten years later this young man -- he was -- very young man at that time -- brought his wife to me and said to me -- said to her, "This is the man who saved my life."

Now you can never explain in any ethical code that a man should slap another man in the face. And yet it was the only solution in front of the others which solved my problem. I didn't have to shoot him, you see. He -- could get somewhere. And probably, in -- if you read a modern psychologist, he will more readily understand that I shot him, or had him court-martialed, he'll never

understand that I had slapped him.

It's very strange. This is -- he has choked in his imagination the freedom of the children of God. And there is nothing that you -- cannot be asked to do. I have seen -- I won't go into all -- the illegalities I have done with great fervor. But there is no law for a believing man. But there is a necessity to act, to conjure up, use your imagination to solve a -- a deadlock.

So good and evil, that's for children. It's not for you and me -- because we neither know what is evil nor what is good, to tell you the truth. The -- the results will tell. You have to invent the next act. Every one of us has to do this.

And I can show you this in the -- in the simple story of the -- which is -- the ministers are so hectic now about -- and the social workers -- about the juvenile delinquent -- when is a man -- does a man come of age? Or a girl? When can you put her on trial in a court and say she must be judged according to the law? When is she or he in her five senses? And we have talked of five senses. Now obviously, if she has experienced the workings of the five senses. And to make this more clear, a boy of 18 can be judged and be called a murderer if he is able to perceive and to understand the voice of his father, of his mother, of his sister, as much as his own voice. Such a man cannot commit rape. Such a man has to break the law. Such a man has not to be obscene or to -- to over- -- break the -- the -- the habits of the community. It's very simple. Because God has put into us the power to live in a family, these four people represent the full power of human speech. And anybody who has the luck to live in a family or whose orphan asylum has been able to replace these educational impressions can be judged. He is of age if you can, so to speak -- make sure that he has been exposed and has been able to understand at certain times of his life these three other voices. The complete man is the man who covers this ground of which I have talked to you the first lecture -- you remember? -- that he can understand how a -- his sister feels, understand how his mother feels. Two ages and two sexes must have entered the mind of a normal human being before he can represent the human race, and can fall under the verdict of the law. The law protests that it will only deal with people that are of age, you see, that are not minors.

And the whole confusion of our society is, of course, in this, that you ask such a boy -- the judge may ask him, "Do you know what is good and evil?" Of course, he doesn't know. Yet he does know in practice very well what is good and evil. He knows that he cannot insult his mother, and cannot rape his sister, and cannot box down his father, just because he's a little more forceful than his father. There is an office for all three people in his own heart and in his own mind. That's a very practical yardstick, ladies and gentlemen, that you can apply. And it would immediately show you why I speak of grammatical ethics, because

it is grammatical that we speak to each other, you see, and that we wander through the various relations simply by coping with people of the other sex and people of another age.

And only then -- and that's why the mob that bands together -- boys only or girls only, or fathers only, or mothers only -- of course demoralizes society. And all the concoctions of the -- against the juvenile delinquents in the streets of New York will not carry weight if there is not a Horace Alger or some nice man of the older generation who is present with these youngsters. You cannot have them in a gang. That is not education. That doesn't make them grow up. They will remain childish for another 20 years. And you can have Al Capones all around.

Very strange you see. If you look into any textbook of ethics, it nowhere has dawned on any minister that grammar is wiser than his ethics. He only sees this one individual and tries to persuade him to be bored stiff and to do nothing in life from fear of going wrong. That's not life. I mean, I reject all such ethics. I think they are the poison of our age, as far as they're still there, printed. Nobody of course obeys them, anyway. They go -- I mean, I know all these priests who recommend ethical -- textbooks to their children. They themselves go to the analyst.

There is a great -- it's like a grave, the Church in this respect. You cannot talk business with them about ethics. There is no Christian ethic, but there is communion. And I have only, of course, picked about the representatives, mother, father, daughter, and son -- it's a much richer world in which we can be entered and there is -- are substitutions. You have orphans, you have parents that don't function. I know all this, of course. Still, I think for the practical purpose of showing you what grammatical ethics would be, it would be the opposite from Spinoza. Spinoza says, "I prove mathematically," you see, "that God is a figure in geometry." And he really says so, you see. And therefore he comes to the result: there is no God, there's just nature.

And I, on the other hand, hear and find people living by speech, and by the way in which we talk to each other and of each other. And I may add to these -- to these eth- -- first ethical rule a simple observation which again, nobody cares to make: every one of you lives under the impact of three streams of force, currents of force, electric currents -- however you call it, it doesn't matter. One is the way you think of yourself. You talk to your yourself and say, "You -- I have made an ass of myself," which you usually do, and -- I don't know how ladies say { }. And -- well, there are she-donkey. And -- the second way of -- we speak, we know we are spoken to. People behave graciously towarQs one or not graciously. They scold us, they praise us, they greet us, they -- interest themselves in our well-being. Then there is a mightier ring around our existence. That's the

way the people speak of us in our absence. That's also speech. And it's very powerful. And most people know very clearly that most people do not say the same thing in their absence as they say in their presence. And that has a great power, too. And these are the three ethics of the grownup life -- these three cautions. What do I think of myself, or what do I say to myself, condemning me or bearing with me under the load of my dissatisfaction and disappointment? And then there are these two other rings: the way people speak to me and I speak to them, of course, and the way people speak of me.

These three rings must be united. And he is natural and genuine who is able to do something about their union. The second age of man consists in this battle. No boy of 18 can be recognized for what he is. He has to show it. So there is a long way during which he finally unfolds, and if we are lucky in our old -- in -- on our -- last day, the words spoken at our tomb by the minister or by our friend, and what we thought of ourselves, will coincide. They will be identical. If you -- that's bliss. -- It's not too -- asking too much, is it?

Wie? You're not convinced.

(Oh, I'm convinced, if it could be true.)

Well, I think that is what we call a good end. I think that if this is so dissolved, that there's unanimity, you see, between the people who speak of us, the people -- who speak to us and myself, who speaks to myself, there is peace. And then probably my role on this earth has fulfilled its purpose.

Which is this purpose? To do something that nobody else can do. This is the third. Any hoary head wants to feel that in one way or the other, he has been indispensable. If you could convey to any worker this feeling, you see, he is delighted.

I have had such an experience. An old worker in Germany, in this Mercedes factory -- he was a leading pacifist. He had written a very beautiful brochure on his -- at his own expense, naturally -- on world peace. And he came to die and I heard of it and I went to see him. And we had a long talk and he said, "Doctor, any man wants to have been loved and to have loved." And this pass‚ {de fini} was very beautiful. You see, he used exactly this phrase, "Any human -- man want to have been loved and to have loved." And I think he is right.

Now love is selective. You don't love in general. If you do, you lie. You may be very kind, but you certainly have no love. Kindness is not the same as loving and again, there is a big illness in this country. People think if they are kind that they already are in love. Don't marry for kindness.

So I have solved -- I have given you at least the -- beginning to understand that at the end, this sentence that this man said to me -- this man, {Hasseck} was his name, I'm still moved by the memory of this good man -- and he had gone further. He had construed a -- little bit like Mr. {Simon Brodian} a world globe, a planetarium. And he presented it as a gift to this factory, to this totally heartless, idiotic factory, you see. They didn't deserve it. But -- but he couldn't help loving them. He was unmarried. He had no family. He died. He was perhaps -- I don't know now, it's so long ago -- 75 years of age. And -- he gave to this factory, you see, the work of his hands. He was the skillful mechanic and this is what he did, because this is a unique act. And it's real love. It's not kind. But it's something much more. And there you have the true death and the true life of a very good man.

To do something that nobody else can do, because he's not in his place, will do -- that is the desire of every woman and every man when they look back on -- have to look back on a long life. This is grammar, because the singular and the plural, and the terrible word, you see, anybody can. All these are grammatical -- clauses, and any human being in his heart of hearts is trying to say to himself, "You have done this and nobody else has done it. It had to be done. And at least you have done your duty."

And -- not one of these grammatical rules of consciousness and speech is ever mentioned in any ethical book. I have never found in any ethical book, or in any philosophical book, or any theological book, Sir, or religious book it ever mentioned that it is tremendous pressure on us to think what other people say to -- of us in our back. Think of all the black people in Alabama. They know exactly how they are called in the white -- houses of the white. Do you think that's easy to bear? That's the real pressure on these people. Not the way the white people -- behave in their face, but the way the white people speak of them in their absence. That is the immense cruelty in this country. The Jews the same. The -- the Basques the same. The Dagos the same. Wherever you go, you take the liberty of talking in the absence of these people, you see, in a way you would never dare to speak to their face. That destroys any community. And why doesn't -- isn't this ever mentioned? The rules are all individually do-good. Oh, for Heaven's sake! Who knows what is good? Certainly not the minister.

"Good" is a -- is a creation of the moment. It's a -- takes imagination to become good for this act that has to be performed. There is no rule in the dictionary what is good. It may be good to slap a man. It may be good to stroke a -- a child. It may be good to pay your -- the -- a -- friend's bill, or it may be very bad to pay the friend's bill. How can you ever tell what is good? Nobody knows. Nothing is ever good or evil, you see, as Shakespeare said. But -- it's -- of the moment. You have to be very crude, very rude sometimes in order to help such a

man.

So, I -- think I have to stop now. Thank you very much. And I hope you have understood why it is a -- quite a great story that the geom- -- geometry of the 17th century and the grammar of the 20th century, 300 years apart, in 1662, Spinoza wrote his book, we have -- are writing now 1962, that is of the same urgency and import to save us from geometry as it was at that time, you see, to {plan} for the geometry.

May I say -- say one more sentence? It's for the ministers who are present. I don't have them here always. And -- Mr. {Thorvaldson}, I have one objection against the language of the Church. And that is that God is an object of praise. And I hope that even the Book of Common Prayer will eliminate this pagan phrase. God is not an object of prayer. I have here -- several sentences. Of course, John Dewey uses it all the time. He says, "Morality is the formation of the voluntary self in which the love of the objects will make this transformation possible." Now, to Hell with the love of the object. You -- don't you understand that you can only love somebody who can talk back? And he has ceased to be an object. The word "object" makes it impossible to assume that the listener or the recipient of your praise, you see, listens in. And it makes for atheism. Now the Church, of course, is more or less an atheistic institution. To cover that up, you use these routine prayers. But you shouldn't give away the secret and say that God is an object of praise.