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

Today is the 14th of December. It doesn't mean much to you. But it is -- happens to be the day on which the Congress of the United States -- on which the Congress of the United States required from the secretary of state a report on measures. And I have mentioned in the title of this lecture the -- this fact, that there was in this country, in the year of the Lord 1819, on December 14th, a request on the part of the Congress of the United States, to learn something about measures. These lectures here I've tried to build around the fact that in the 18th, and 19th--and till now--to the 20th century, man has learned to measure space ad infinitum, quite literally so. We are told that 130 million miles are flown by Gemini 6, or 7, or 8. But our budget is calculated for one year. One of the silliest things you can have, that a mighty nation figures its existence per annum and complains that this is 100 billion high, when nobody knows what is lumped together in these hundred millions. Don't believe one word of these hundred millions, you see. The whole Social Security is involved in this. Has nothing to do with an annual budget. And this is -- comes from the British crown, and the imitation of everything English in this country, including the Congress itself, is -- has of course led to this worship of the budget. You can't learn an- -- nothing about the finances or the economy of the United States from the American -- United States budget. I warn you: don't try it. You will become a professor of economics.

That is, we said--this was the content of these three lectures--that man, under the guidance of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, has unified space; has established a worldwide economy; has equalized the people at home and the people abroad with regard to their market -- behavior on the marketplace; has set in -- in motion a tremendous trade and traffic, what we call a worldwide economy. However, all the houses of men have been destroyed. In a corner, there -- they speak of "home economics," as though this was just a subsidy to the rest of the economy--home economics is not the home of mankind; the home of mankind is -- has retreated into little corners. The poor countries get poorer all the time. The richer countries get richer all the time -- time. The economy is in chaos. Then there are e- -- conferences on this, and then they will come home and say, "It's still in chaos."

The reason for this is that there is no measurement. You remember that in the superstitious times of faith, people did not believe that man -- lived by factories and education. I cribbed years ago the rather petulant verse: "They really try to run a nation by factories and education."

You can't. Because since God created the world, He is occupied, and

preoccupied, and very busy in making marriages. Marriage founds houses. Factories are not based on sex, but on the brain and on the hands only. That is, on the very mortal and unimportant part of us. And therefore you cannot run a nation by factories and education. This is the product of the teachings -- or the -- the image in which Adam Smith and Karl Marx, the liberals and the Socialists, have created the universe.

You have a man here in this town of Santa Barbara, a Mr. Robert M. Hutchins, who have expressed this very neatly in the sentence which I read today: "We can make anything work, except our society. We can understand everything except ourselves. We cannot look to science and technology to tell us what to do about ourselves and about society. They can't even tell us what to do about science -- and technology, themselves."

Now the wide world was the target which had to be encompassed by the new doctrine of a worldly economy. And it has been. Between the Old World in which Marx and Smith conceived of this wider world, and the wide world itself as in South Africa, and South America, and Asia, lies this country, America. And I have chosen the report on measures by the future president of the United States, John Quincy Adams, who at that time was only secretary of state--but perhaps more -- successful as secretary of state than later as president--because America has been, during these last 150 years, an in-between, between Europe and the world to be discovered. It was discovered. It was settled by Europeans, with all their hopes, and all their traditions, and all their festivals of home brew. Therefore, the disappearance of the house on the world markets had to hit the Americans more than any other region, because it shared the traditions of feudal and house-like Europe.

I brought to you not only this remembrance of the date of the 14th of December, 1819, where the Congress, rather embarrassedly asked the pres- -- the secretary of state to tell them something about how to measure things in this illimited -- unlimitable continent. I brought you also an unprinted something, which a friend of mine gave me to read. And it is from California. And it dates to the -- May 15th, 1849. And it parallels the impression I would like to convey from John Quincy Adams' reply and report.

"There was a man, {Miles Searles}. He had graduated from Yale College. He became the first chief justice of California. And he wrote in his diary on this May 15th, 1849, that he had gone here to see the elephant California. And he says, 'Are we led on by a kind of indefinite wish, to roam over creation's broad expanse, without any particular object in view? Or are we led on by the allabsorbing mania for getting gold? Or by the more laudable one of seeking for knowledge at her primeval source? Of surveying and admiring the majestic work of providence as displayed in their

native grandeur?'"

Very beautiful text, but you see the fiction of the American mentality reflects very much the picture of Adam Smith or Marx about man: he's alone; he's an individual. He says, "Are we?" but what he describes is only one man's fulfillment, or one man's vision. There is no home in this. There is no country. There is no nation. There is no house of God, no temple. Yet it's a wonderful text, very eloquent. But the fact that this country has been built by congregations; the fact that this country has been built by mutual help and brotherly love, in the -- educational textbooks on America, goes unmentioned. There have been homes in this country, and this country couldn't have existed one day without a deep wisdom of parents to their children--and let me say this, in addition, because it is not done in Europe--a great wisdom of the children toward their parents.

I myself had a student who was a -- quite a -- rather wild man. And he seems to be doomed by his arrogance, and his pride, and his recklessness. Gifted boy. This is long ago, 25 years ago. But how surprised was I when this American, who could have written this text of {Miles Searles}, which I read to you, went out, dropped all his own ambition and slaved for three years for the one purpose that his father, who had not had the means before, should have leisure to write a novel. You can go all over Europe and not find such a son. A son who sacrifices his own growth, and his own future, because he feels this father has -- something, and he has to get this done. And the father wrote the novel. By the way, it was a successful novel.

I take my hat off to this boy, but I say there is no room for what he has done in the imagination of modern psychoanalysis, where you have to kill your father and sleep with your mother. It is quite different, in fact. You find -- can't fou- -- find more devoted children than in this country. But it isn't mentioned. Of course, they are certain times -- they are sometimes very -- very disagreeable, because they try to educate their parents. That has to be admitted. However, they -- these parents exist as real people to them, and not just as authorities.

So the picture given in the texts, the books written on this country, and the facts of life are very far apart indeed. And therefore, I think this country is--as Robert Hutchins shows in his quotation there--is more in dismay, that the vocabulary used in our daily papers, and -- message of the -- to the Congress by the president of the United States has little to do with the real problems of our future. Much less than you think. It doesn't matter whether this budget says $100 billion, or $105 billion, or 95 -- savings or waste. All this is not important, compared to the real -- much more -- greater things of investment in the future, in the -- next generation.

I once was in -- asked in Eur- -- over in Europe what was the most urgent question today. The society which called me to speak there was called, For the World Policy -- For World Policy -- and -- in economics, by the way. And I said, "To be practical for a hundred years to come."

Obviously nothing that we do today is a -- practical for a hundred years to come. It's practical for tomorrow. And that's unimportant. If you can't be practical for a hundred years, then don't try at all. Because who cares what's tomorrow? It is very important, however, whether the Argentina people live -- love us in a hundred years. Even if they have to go through the hardship of now being disciplined perhaps for one year. I don't know that they have to. But I mean, this could be. It's the same as with children. You can't educate children if you ask for their approval today. You must ask for their approval when they have their 70th birthday. Then they must look back and go to your graveyard and say, "My parents were right and I was wrong." That's the only thing that is important. Whether these -- these children are satisfied tomorrow is utterly unimportant. Or they are no parents, but just apes for vanity, and want to be pleased -- pleasing. This is not interesting, whether you are satisfied with what your father forbids you to do now. You must be satisfied 50 years from now.

So the long-range view, as it is called, was the concern -- all these 150 years with all the people who had to struggle against the frontier spirit, against the Gold Rush, against the immediacy of action. That they had no foot to stand on, so to speak, because the term "individual"--which is a nasty term and a useless term, I think, because it just means you cannot be divided--dominated everything. You see, the result of the individualism is -- has been that now we teach that everyone is divided; everybody is divided against himself. We are all double. We are all -- in -- our analysis shows that we are one-half this, and the other the other; and now you are not modern if you aren't schizophrenic.

That is, the individual doesn't hold water. As soon as you try to make man the cornerstone of -- of reality, he busts; he splits; he is halfened, at least, usually quartered. Because he is--I assure you, and now I'm -- going to be serious--he is as much of his mother, as much of his father, as he is his son and his daughter. We have indeed the whole future and the whole past of the human race at heart. The heart is eccentric, so that we may be reminded of this fact that at this moment, whether we sh- -- open our mouth very loudly, or whether we whisper, the whole humankind is -- demands to be represented by what we say, what we think, and what we do; the whole past, and the whole future. And this little pouch here, and this little stomach, and this little hand, and this little brain are no good if they are not in the service of this long-range conversation through the ages. And that is certainly not an individual, but it's a highly divided person.

It's a person who must depict, whether the housing authorities like it or not, the human house. Because in the human house, there also are represented at least two, possibly three, generations. There are represented both sexes, and they are represented in two different age groups: the parents and the children. There are sons and daughters. And these sons and daughters have again a problem of being brothers and sisters. And there must be another house out of which the bride can come, and the bridegroom. And you cannot dis- -- discover a country in the world which can build an economy out of individuals. That's impossible. It has to be built out of houses, und their mar- -- intermarriages. And if you don't do that, you will have the plague on both your houses, as Shakespeare has rightly described the -- a -- a situation in which the houses can't get alone with each other. This is very simple.

And let me return once more to the report on measures, first, to see how a wise man, John Quincy Adams, was so well instructed by his father--the second president of the United States, John Adams--that he tried to persuade the Congress that measures of time were not under the -- command of mathematics, of abstractions, of the new metric system--this new-fangled idea of the decimal system used in France since the -- Revolution, and therefore very infectious indeed, and very attractive to the freemasonry of the beginning of the 19th century. It seemed so obvious that we should have a decadic system, and we shouldn't have the mile, and the foot, and the inch; but we should have kilometers, and meters, and --.

So he had been asked to report on what was true. And he said then:

"Thus then it has been proved, by the test of experience, that the principle of decimal divisions," which is the abstract principle of mathematics, "can be applied only with many qualifications to any general system of metrology. It is natur- -- its natural application is only to numbers. Time, space, gravity, and extension; and people inflexibly reject its sway."

That's a remarkable sentence, because there are very few people today alive in the world who would even understand how you could state such a thing, but -- because you all are 10 times as abstract as the members of Congress in 1819.

"Nature has no partiality for the number 10. And the attempt to shackle her freedom with them will forever prove abortive."

I think that's quite a sentence, because it applies of course also to physics, you see. Physics deal with the speechless and dead universe. Now you and I happen to be spee- -- full of speech--at least full of the power to listen. And we

are not speechless. And therefore physics have nothing to do with you or me. If the physicist tells me that you are just a rotation of electronics, that can't stop me from writing a poem to you. However, electronics cannot understand this poem. And therefore it is a fabulous contradiction today on the one-hand side: the physicists tell you that you actually are just a skeleton of rotating electrons. And then you write a poem to this lady. Where are we? Obviously the abstraction has to fall by the wayside. It's an error to say, "You are a rotations -- rotating skeleton of electrons." You are, if nobody stops this physicist from pretending this, you see. If he can build you into a corpse, and -- make mincemeat of you--as -- as Hitler did in his concentration camps with people--then the whole physicist is just somebody who describes from far away what the unliving part -- not-living part of you and he may be called, and be used for. He treats the universe as absolutely dead and frozen. And I hope you and I treat the universe as a very hot potato. The warmth of life has nothing to do with physics.

And this is the immortal wisdom of John Quincy Adams. He was a very important man, as you know, because we owe him the Smithsonian Institute. Thirty years after this, his report was reprinted. A great honor for a -- for an official report, as a book. So famous was it in Europe. The Europeans wanted to read it, too. But not this alone. Before he died, he composed the statute for the first scientific institution of the United States, the Smithsonian Institute. He knew in a long life--he was born in 1770; he died in 1948--he knew what long time is, what it means to be practical for a hundred years. He had incredible patience.

And how human he was, I'd like to tell a story, because it shows you also that this country really has been built up by houses. In 1825, the first Norwegian group of emigrants came to this country. They came on a boat, because of religious persecution at home, which was too small for the law of this country. There had been so many accidents that the government in Washington had passed a law that you had to be of a certain size before you were allowed to land in New York.

Now these poor Norwegians, with -- under the leadership of their minister, arrived in 1825 in wintertime, and it was found that the measurements of the boat were too small. Which meant that they had to pay a tremendous fine of several hundred dollars, and the boat had to be confiscated. That -- this would have ruined them totally, because the simple reckoning had been: we have this boat, we'll sell it in New York, and with the money made on the sale of the boat, we can then travel into the interior, you see, into Ohio, and begin to live there. So there they were, bankrupt in wintertime.

A merciful master in the harbor took the case to the president of the United States. And he was John Quincy Adams. And he relented. And the upshot

is that the first Norwegian colony, and the -- all the Norwegians of Minnesota owe their flourishing state to the understanding of John Quincy Adams, that a congregation arriving from Norway, even though breaking the American law, you see, had to be helped.

Before advancing to some request, or some tentative answer of how we should go about in fathoming the living quarters in which mankind is -- is asked to move in its -- thinking from this world market, and this open sky under which we have boom and bust, I may give you perhaps some quite impressive quotations on the situation.

In 1963, there was an international conference on the world's economy. And the leading speaker said, "Economic phenomena chop and change to such an extent that any attempt to grasp them is like grasping a handful of water." I think it is remarkable, you see, that modern man tries to build his order on such a thing that is like grasping a handful of water. If you listen to Mr. {Martin}, and the -- advisors of the president, you know that this man has not exaggerated, you see. Every 24 hours, you can either uppen or down the discount trade. Nobody knows.

I think the expression is very eloquent. It's of course an Englishman who has spoken in this manner. It's like Shakespeare. "They chop and change to such an extent that any attempt to grasp them is like grasping a handful of water." If you want to follow this line, and see that I'm not exaggerating at all, you must look into the bookkeeper accounts in any factory and any shop. From times immemorial, it seems--at least from 1700, I have found--they divide the wages paid to the people who work in their place, in the factory today, between productive wages and unproductive wages. That is, the wages you see done, so to speak, on this -- on the piece, are called "productive." And all the wits, the inventions, the care for re-arranging these lathes, or these machines, you see, are called "unproductive wages," and put on top. So you have, for example, a production which is -- which is -- needs -- 10 men, then the wages paid to these 10 men on this -- on the machine is figured as "productive." And the -- the office, including the accounting office itself, you see, and including the -- work of the president and the inventor, and -- cetera, is called on top of it, "unproductive."

There have been protests on this in the last 20 years. And it's diminishing now, and with automation, of course, it can't last, you see, because there then will be no wages paid on productive work, because the machine will do the work, and all the allegedly unproductive work will have to be called just "work," because that's what is left, on top, you see, the arrangement and the re-arrangement of the automats. But it is significant for the absolute blindness of the 19th and 20th century in this respect that you could call the weaver's work, or the

lathe-man's or the millwright's work "productive," and the man -- the engineer's work "unproductive," because he was not derec- -- directly handling this piece of metal, and this piece of work.

The -- it -- gives you the best picture of the victory of Adam Smith and Marx, who both said, "All production is labor, the fruit of labor; and what isn't labor is unproductive." That's -- as I told you, the -- the first sentence of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. And from there, all these errors have sprung. That we have to know now for five minutes what is productive. Obviously, you see. God is not productive, because He created the world for millions of years, you see. That's too long for the bookkeeper. He has to know it for 60 minutes. So then he can put down--he can see it--that something changes at this machine. That's productive, you see. Of course, it may be just waste. It may be not -- very unproductive. I assure you, in this modern economy of ours, I won't say how much I think is unproductive; but I think even Christmas cards may be unproductive today, because there are too many.

That is, to call "productive," you see, that which has immediate market is no argument in -- at the throne of God. You may be a very faulty servant indeed, if you only do this kind of measurable work. If you remember, I said in the beginning, in the first lecture, that mankind had received a measure for time. In the last hundred years, people only have wanted to know measures for space, things in space. And therefore they seem to have lost sight, that the measurement in time have to be related to eternity, to our distinct -- destiny.

Two hundred years from now, we will see whether on State Street in Santa Barbara, most of the things bought there were nonsense or meaningful. You can't know this, and I can't know this, you see. Time will tell. You may pay much money for it, but perhaps you are quite wrong. How can we know today? You do it.

Now the secret connected with this is that only where there is an unlimited investment is there any real fruit, is there any real outcome. The factory doesn't live by the wages paid, or by the salaries paid, or by the dividend paid out to the -- to the -- that's only as a -- apparent. It only lives by the worries, by the dreams, and the sleeps of the inventor, of the manager, and of all the people who do Sunday work, who do unsigned work. Not one little item in a home--every housewife knows this--can be done simply by reckoning, by calculation. You and I -- believe me, you all live by incalculable effort. And all the measure things -- measurable things are second-rate. Of course, we buy a piece of chocolate and give it -- I give it to my grandchild. But obviously my interest in my grandchild is much more important than this piece of chocolate. It can be replaced by anything else. The piece of chocolate doesn't prove anything. A -- a

foreigner can buy the piece of chocolate. An enemy can poison the child by the chocolate. I can ruin the education of the child by buying against the will of his mother--as I do. And so the value of this piece of chocolate is absolutely incalculable.

So calculable things are the shadow, the projection of incalculable life. And any society has at its future only that amount of investment in incalculables that will make all things that can be bought inferior--"subservient" is perhaps the best word--instrumental. The instruments of life can only be estimated rightly if you know the goals of life. And therefore, to go hungry for a student is an allright thing, if by this means he can study. And he is much better off in his hunger than the man who earns $10 an hour, and has nothing to look for in the future, and doesn't use these -- this $10 an hour as a preparation for his real aim in life. The whole scale of values has nothing to do with the scale of money. The poorer we are, the more hope is that we do our things -- use our things for -- for better.

Poor Mr. Getty, as you know, has now written a book How to Be Rich, because it is very difficult to be rich and not go to pieces. Most people go to pieces -- by being rich. It certainly is no goal to try to be rich. Next day, you won't be rich.

This is so simple, one is really gˆn‚ to say it, but it seems if you compare the amount of nonsense and lying -- about wealth that is going on in the advertising business and in the -- in the -- on the marketplace, that I have to say that these trivialities which every one of you, of course, carries out every day --. Every one of you does not live by money values. Every one of you relies on the fact that I'm not going to lie to you. Why should you -- otherwise listen to me? And why should I make an effort to tell you the truth, which is most disagreeable? It's a miracle. We believe in miracles. Everybody does. Everybody believes that a man will be such an ass to be disagreeable, because it's the truth. You can't explain this. We are inexplicable. Fortunately. Man is much more of a miracle than you seem to think.

Now, as to measures. We still have some inkling of a real world in which we call things by their names, because we want them to be members of the household of man. We still speak of a flower as "forget-me-not," which is utter nonsense in botany. Because in botany it is classified. Because anything that is classified is nameless. And we still speak of "gold," and we still speak of "water," but we should only call it "H2O." Now you can't write a -- a real poem on H2O. You can write a doggerel. And the quandary of this -- marching in a real world which has names, like "foot," and -- and "hand," and "arm," is given expression here in a new poem which was not printed in 1819, but imagine!--in 1965. And

it's -- although it is also a doggerel, on this -- on this attempt to make everything numeric and -- and measure everything in terms of figures, it is quite witty.

"If of old, measures were foresakers Gone: rods, perches, poles, and acres, Gone: the gallons from the inns, Gone: quarts, pints, firkins, nipperkins..."

Does anybody know what "nipperkins" is? It's in English, you see. It's not in American English? What is nipperkins? Does anybody know?

"Gone: quarts, pints, firkins, nipperkins, If on our standard progress pounces, And gone: pounds, hundredweights, and ounces, How describe it? There are cries for metrification: Metricize! Now in powers"--that's the government--"corridors, technologists make laws For proper English. And they state a preference for: Metricate. And who against their taste would go of Mr. Cousins and Lord Snow?"

These are the officials in -- in England who now imitate the technocrats in this country.

How important even today measures can be, let me illustrate by a funny example. Here is a book by Simone de Beauvoir and the Marquis de Sade. Of course, on the Marquis de Sade, one really cannot speak in public, but I will do it just the same. Marquis de Sade is the hero of Ma- -- Madame de Beauvoir, or Mademoiselle de Beauvoir--I'm not quite sure--and she has her book, The Marquis de Sade, an essay, by Simone de Beauvoir, translated into English. And this unfortunate translator translated it literally, not thinking that there could be any foxholes, and any dangers in translating literally. And so he made the Marquis de Sade five foot and two inches high -- tall. Now, if that was true, then the Marquis de Sade would have been a dwarf. And all his perversions wouldn't have been very interesting, because such an unhappy creature, you see, running around in society where the ordinary man is five foot six and seven, or more, would explain without much ado his whole fate.

I looked it up, the original, in French, and now the English translation. And I found that to this day, a French foot and a French inch has quite a different meaning from an English. The man was not a dwarf. He was -- according to our reckoning in this, he was exactly 1 meter, 68.5 centimeters large, which is quite an ordinary height, I think, because he was even larger than I. And so, only to -- I mention this, because when I read the book in English, you see, I was

flabbergasted. I wrote to the publisher; I wrote to the author. And finally I went to the dictionary and I found out that the French foot to this day has a different length from the English foot. And that the -- so all the people in America get a wrong picture of the Marquis de Sade. And the funny thing is that the -- the publisher and the author found it of no importance that I tried to correct this, you see. They said it made no difference. I think it makes all the difference in the world in this special case.

What I'm trying to say with this example is that fortunately, measures still can be very personal, national, local; and that we should not so easily dismiss this fact of a native thing, that the -- we pay a very high price for abstraction. It is not good to call water "H2O." Any conservationist will mobilize all your emotions so that you protect the water. And you can't be aroused, really, if he calls the water "H2O." He has to apply your memories of water, just water, in poetry, and in drinking, and in using. And water is not H2O.

And you may -- will never convince me that it is. Of course, I can foresee a hundred years from now people will be burned at stake or sent to lunatic asylums who -- who protest and say, "I won't call water H2O. Because of course technocracy is on the march, and we all be -- we will be condemned to use these -- probably these terms very soon. Then I hope you will prefer to go to the lunatic asylum before you fall for these people.

It is quite serious. If we don't resist this idea that the world around us, our women and our children can be scientifically known, we'll all become instruments of a plan. And we'll never be the authors of anything lasting, or important, or unique. The instrumentalism, pragmatism--call it as you like--that we know how, but don't know what, is the result if you treat your home as just a province on the map of the world, of the world market. You can treat this town of Santa Barbara like -- like it was the jungle of -- of Brazil. And you can say, "Brazil furnishes the coffee, and here we have the abalone. Abalone costs that much; coffee costs that much; therefore we import coffee and we export abalone." That's very nice for the trader. But woe to you if you think that this solves your problem whether to drink coffee or to eat abalone.

The trade, the offer, the cheapness, the possibility of having coffee and abalone doesn't solve our real problem, you see, whether a house can be peaceful in which people drink too much coffee. They'll quarrel. That is, all these economists can say to something, "It is useful." But they can never say, "It is meaningful." And they don't even try. I must say they are quite honest in this respect. They leave us alone.

The house of mankind was discovered by the father of John Quincy

Adams, of this very man who wrote this wise report on measures, in which he said that time cannot be measured by the metrical system.

He went to Holland as an ambassador of the United States, before the Peace of Versailles was concluded in 1783, with the English. It was a dangerous time, as you know. Everything was in abeyance. The Americans didn't yet know that they would inherit the whole continent from the English. But these men, John Adams, and -- John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin over in Europe, were resolved not to give in before the whole continent, at least to the Mississippi, was given over by the English to these 13 colonies, who of course were not then 13 colonies but empire-builders. Because they meant business. They wanted never -- just to -- to be independent of England, but they wanted to decide the fate of this world here, this New World. And as you know, they did.

Well, looking at this tremendous endeavor, this -- en- -- en- -- endeavor in space, they had of course to fathom the question: what house they were to build, what home they were to strive for. And John Adams wrote a letter home, a report--an official report, mind you, which in -- is in his diplomatic papers--and he said, "In Holland, you know, the Stadhouder"--that is the House of Orange, the -- the governor, prince -- "Stadhouder" is the official Dutch word--"considers the country as he -- we would a daughter. His -- the relation of the -- is that of a father to his daughter. And that rules the whole relation of this man who is not the king. He is not elected president. He is hereditary. But he treats his country as a father would treat his daughter. And a father treats his daughter in full freedom."

He wrote this home, and at least I am one of the -- a reader who has been struck by the fact of his prophetic insight. If you look around in what makes this -- country at this moment survive all the chops and changes of the economy, for the worker, it's the motherly care of the Union. For you who are spe- -- and for me, who speaks here, it's the endowment of the foundations. The word "dowry" comes from the daughter's treatment by her father. It's not as a son stands to his father that we are endowed. But the filial quality of a daughter relies on the father's willingness to endow her. And though you do- -- mustn't take this just in money values, of course, it is the true relation of -- any willful, hard-working, intellec- -- rational man that he will have in his -- in his heart and in his actions this interest to endow. A woman who comes after him, not one whom he wants to go to bed with, but who wants -- he wants to have grow, and be beautiful, and exist, and shine in future generations which he is not going to see for himself --.

The word "endowment" needs a better treatment in our -- books of ethics and -- and economy than it is given. It is something quite irrational, fortunately; and only the irrational is valuable. You cannot explain why a father cares to

endow a daughter. It is perfectly unreasonable, because she will waste it; or her husband will waste it. Or in her fourth divorce, she will waste it. He can't help it. He endows her. At every risk, it is certainly not as inte- -- intelligent as -- as paying in a life insurance policy. If you read the ads, I mean, the only thing you can do is put all your money in life insurance. Now, I won't. If I had a daughter--I haven't--I would probably invest it in her, because it is so wonderfully irrational and unsensible. But it's worthwhile. And life insurance is not worthwhile.

Well, this is just the beginning of your--perhaps--permission to me to think in terms of a house of a family of more than one generation, and more than one sex, as a very practical help in life. The figure of the -- endowed daughter may show you that even at this moment, in a -- in a marketplace society, with economic statistics intoxicating us, the real problem of a human being is: is there anything he likes to endow? Because then this anything would be somebody. It would be a human being, absolutely priceless, unstatistically, you see, registered somewhere in his heart and not in his brain. And our heart -- don't think that it is un- -- anti-intellectual. It is very wise. It is much more clever than the brain. The brain can only -- as -- as John Quincy Adams wrote to you in this report of 1819, the brain ends always in figures. It doesn't give way before even you are expressed in so many inches, and fet -- feet, and -- and weight -- pounds, et cetera. That's -- isn't you. That's just what the state of Arkansas just stamps on you when you are born. You know, in Arkansas, every man born there gets a -- a number. And then he is all -- for the rest of his life he is Number 21 in Arkansas. He isn't very much when he is 21 in Arkansas, I assure you. He can't live on this. That's good for the state of Arkansas, but it's not good for the man. He must never consider himself Number 21 in Arkansas. This is clear. This is something so utterly futile. They -- they really number the people in Arkansas. So I won't live there.

It is the surface of things, which you can scratch by numbers. You can never express, name, label, handle, treat, speak to, listen to something that only the -- is only captured in your brain. You can learn physics, but the physicist -- has no means of telling you anything important about what you should do tomorrow, that you should -- jump into the water and save a child from drowning, because that has nothing to do with numbers. It defies numbers, because it's very dangerous. You might drown, yourself. And the physicist would tell you, "Don't jump," you see. But somebody else will tell you, "Jump." And I hope it will be yourself.

And at this very moment, you discover that we have a steering wheel in our midst, the human heart, which is connected with mankind from the beginning to end. I have expressed it in many books as an at- -- in an attempt to bring

the house into your own private property. We all are a fragment or potential of this house. I have called this the "crucial" existence of man, between the past and the future, and between the outer and the inner world. We are -- have a cross of reality inside of you, which is like a compass needle. You know very well how much to give to your parents, and how much to give to your children. You know very well how much to give to the outer world in their drives, and to -- how much to give to the peace at home. Everybody has to decide at every minute. And if he isn't married, he still has somebody who takes care of his room. And he has to treat her not as a -- as a cleaning woman, but as a human being. And in this very moment when he says -- uses this word, "human being," all the question of how much he pays her goes overboard. She just has to recognize that he is a decent fellow. And that comes first. And whether he pays her $1.25 or $1.50 per hour, quite negligible. Second-rate. He'll do what he can.

Therefore, we ourselves are not doomed by having to speak of us -- ourselves as statistical numbers. We have in us this very strange arrangement, that the past and the future are demanding on you and me to be represented at this moment. Thinking, speaking, singing, playing, everything is a decision: how much of the past has to be kept; how much of the future has to be introduced anew, against the hindrance of the past: how much of the outside world, the traffic on the street, has to be respected: we don't want to be run over; and how much of the inner man has to be kept intimately with your own poetry, and your own songs, and your own love?

Gentlemen, the house of mankind cannot be shut down because of economy. The economy is -- of the marketplace is not the real economy. The real economy is you and me. You give here an hour. It makes only sense if you have time enough to make any use of what I'm selling you. Perhaps 50 years from now. My best students have been those who have woken up to what I have taught -- told them, 20 years after they have left college. That's early. Abolish all the examinations in this college. Terrible. Because they think that you can know the next day. You know nothing of a good teacher's teachings the next day. Absolutely nothing. Quite the contrary. It will itch you, and you buck against it, and you will say, "This cannot be true." And all of a sudden, a few years later, it comes to you: of course it was true. And that's the moment in which teaching bears fruit. So don't destroy your beautiful University of California by the shallow idea that an exam proves anything. It neither proves anything for the teacher nor for the student. They have to be, I admit, but they only have to be for the trustees.

Between teacher and student, they mean nothing. I don't say that they have been aboli- -- to be abolished. I -- I used to give them all the no- -- they could take all the notes to the exam. So it wasn't so very terrible to write, the

exam. Because it is not a question in learning by rote, learning by heart, and knowing something. Why shouldn't they take their notes? And I assure you. The poor students, of course, made a mess of things, because they had all the notes, and hadn't understood them.

Why do I say this, gentlemen? Because the long-range problem is the serious problem of the future of mankind. If you say that these things have to be solved within one year, or two years, or three years, or five years, we must perish. And the nuclear bomb will be thrown. Because in such a -- desperate straits, when you think the decision has to be made today or tomorrow, our foreign policy must run amok. I assure you, for any person who still has something he loves, there's always plenty of time.

And this is then the upshot of what I have tried to say: there is plenty of time. And you know what the expression of this plentifulness is? That you can begin to speak to the people who seem to stand in your way. There's a new language on foot. And that's perhaps quite comforting. Here, this is your own paper, which made an -- a real effort towards peace by having a headline: "Ho Chi Minh Responds to {Pauling's} Negotiation Plea." It's the first time in years that I read this national hero's name in a paper. I'm not for Ho Chi Minh. But I know that he's a national hero in Vietnam, and that we have to talk to him. And not of "Viet Cong," which is bestial. Nobody dares to mention a person. You -- only want to have "two battalions of Viet Cong." And these -- these statistics on "hundred people shot of -- Viet Cong" and so, make my -- my blood boil in disgust. Is this still an American, civilized newspaper, in which you read every day how many half-men are killed, or murdered or probably wounded? I've never heard of such a thing. In no war of -- of decency is there any such reporting of figures, because man has a name. He is spoken to. And if you -- you -- you do not speak of hundred Viet Cong.

I -- I think you would feel the same if -- if your boy was -- or your brother was shot there and it was one of 23 Ame- -- half-Americans maimed in battle. But this is progress. If you call a man "Ho Chi Minh," with his real name, he may be your enemy--we all have enemies--but in this country, the press seems to believe that when we shoot at a man, we can't make peace with him, the better the man, the more it's worthwhile to -- to go to war with him --. Is General Lee not the better man because we have to speak of him as Lee, with great honor. Didn't he shoot? And didn't Grant shoot? But because there was this honorable man, Lee, that's why there could be still a United States at the end. But -- if you only had spoken of these -- these -- the Ku Klux Klan, you cannot make peace. It's very simple.

Everything that is "Ku Klux Klan" is physics, is just things. And the same

with "Viet Cong." Anything that's called "Ho Chi Minh," may be your enemy, but he may tomorrow become your friend. You may make peace with him. Because the wonderful thing of the house of mankind is that peace reigns within.

I had a letter from Sargent Shriver, the head of the Peace Corps, and that -- let me close on this -- on this note. And I had sent him a book which was called Service on the Planet. And he said in his letter very briefly, without any emphasis--perhaps even unknowingly--he said, "Oh, very nice. P- -- Service towards the Planet." Towards. I recommend this word to your wherever you want to survive the stock exchange and its crises, and all the pretense that comes from these -- from these -- importance of the -- of the commercial lines, texts. Then think of the word "towards." The word "toward" -- there is also --. Some of my friends for the last 20 years have founded a movement, Towards Peace. It's not pretentious as Peace Society or Peace Organization. We cannot make peace. A home is not by the will of its inmates peaceful. It's a gift of the gods if a husband, and a wife, and the children, and the grandparents can establish peace in a home. It's not their doing. Remember, a home is a place where the central point is empty, where God's spirit, the Holy Spirit, cannot be placed inside any one of its members.

Therefore, Mr. Shriver, as head of this gigantic Peace Corps, fel- -- feels that he cannot say, "I make peace." Peace cannot be made like buttons. But we can keep open towards peace. The whole future of mankind depends on our power, despite all our economic interests and crises--which everybody has, of course--to know that these are very instrumental things, subordinate to our goals. And our goals are not of our own free will. They are of our obedience towards peace. I think the word "towards" makes all the difference between a house and a marketplace.

Thank you.