Skip to main content

Full text of "Scrimshaw : [yearbook]"

See other formats










Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

Boston Library Consortium Member Libraries 










xADAMS, DICKINSON W., Instructor in History 
9965) BA 1955 Harvard College; AHEARN, 
MARIE L., Association Professor of English (1965) 
AB 1953 Regis College; EdM 1958 Tufts 
University; AM 1961 Boston College; PhD Brown 
University; ALPERT, f Associate 
Professor in Business Administration (1962) AB 
1954 Dartmouth College; MBA 1955 Amos Tick 
School of Business Administration, Dartmouth 
College; ARGY' DIMITRI, Professor of Mechanical 
Engineering (1967) Chairman, Department of 
Mechanical Engineering Dip., National Institute of 
Technology, Athens, Greece 1946, Dr.-lng, Aachen 
Institute of Techonology, Aachen, Germany; 
Aruri, Naseer H., Associate Professor of Political 
Science (1965) Chairman of Political sience 
Department, BA, 1959 American International 
College, MA 1961 OhD 1967 University of 
Massachusetts; ATWATER, NATHANIEL B., 
Assistant Professor of Enlgish (1969) AB 1959, 
MA 1964 Brown University, PhD 1968 University 
of Exeter, England; BAILEY' ANGUS, Special 
Director of Dramatics (1966) AB 1939 Brown 
University; BAKER, DWIGHT L., Associate 
Professor of Chemistry (1965) AB 1933 Amherst; 
MA 1934, PhD 1940 Columbia University; 
BARBER, PHILIP E' III, Instructor in History 
(1967) BA 1959 Rice University. BD 1963 Yale 
University Divinity School; BARRY' ROBERT E., 
Assistant Professor of Design (1969) BFA 1953 
MAT; 1967 Rhode Island School of Design; 
BAR-YAM, ZVI, Commonwealth Professor of 
Physics (1964) BS 1958 MS, 1959, PhD, 1963 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
BARYLSKI. JOHN R., Associate Professor of 
Mechanical Engineering (1964) BSME 1955 New 
Bedford Instutue of Technology (SMU); MEd., 
1960 Bridgewater State College Registered 
Professional Engineer; BECK' CLIFFORD N., 
Assistant Professor of Textiles (1950) BS New 
Bedford Institute of Technology SMU); BENTO' 
ROBERT, Assistant Professor of Physics (1961 ) BS 
1956 Providence College, MS 1959 University of 
Maryland; BESSETTE' RUSSELL R., Assistant 
Professor of Chenistry (1968), BS 1962 University 
of Rhode Island; MS 1965 PhD 1967 University of 
Massachusetts; BIGGELAAR' HANS VAN DEN, 
Professor of Electrical Engineering (1963) BS 
1948, MS 1950 and EE 1951 University of Delft, 
Delft Holland, PhD 1970 Worcester Polytechnic 
Institute, Registered Professional Engineer; 
BOOTH, RROBERT C, Assistant Professor of Art 
(1956) Diploma 1931 Rhode Island School of 
dsign; Diploma 1932 New York School of Fine 
and Applied Arts, Paris, France; BRIDGMAN, 
HOWARD A., Associate Dean, College of Arts and 
Sciences (1969) Associate Professor of Economics 
(1966) AB 1933 Amherst College, AM 1941 Ph 
D1953 Harvard University; BUTLER, MARTIN J. 
Instructor in History, (1963) BA 1965 Providence 
College, MA 1957 Boston College, CAMPBELL, 
ALLEN L., Assistant Professor of Electrical 
Engineering (1962) BS, 1951 Northeastern 
University; MS 1966 University of Rhode Island 
Registered Professional Engineer; CARON, PAUL 
R., Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering 
(1970) BS 1957 Bradford Durfee College of 
Technology (SMU) MS 1960 PhD 1963 Brown 
University; CASEY, m BETH ABRAMSON, 
Instructor of Psychology (1969) BA 1965 
University of Michigan, MA 1967 Brown 
University; CASS, WALTER J., Professor of 
English (1948) AB 1943 Northeastern University 
MA 1947 EdD 1967 Brown University; CHANDY] 
A. JOHN, Associate Professor of Mathematics! 
(1965) BS 1954 Kerala University, India. MA 1962 
PhD 1965 Boston University; CHEN, CHI-HAU, 
Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering 
(1968) BS 1959 National Taiwan University, 
Taipei, Taiwan, MS 1962 University of Tennessee^ 
PhD 1965 Purdue University; CLEFFl] 
AMERICUS J., Instructor of English (1966) BA 
1953 MA 1953 University of Missouri; 
CLOUTIER, EDWARD J., Associate Professor of 
Textiles (1947); CORBERT, JACQUELINE 
BAZINET, Special Instructor in Music; Voice; 
CORBERT, j Assostant Professor of music. 

Diploma 1949 Paris National Conservatory France, 
B' 1957 M.Mus, Ed, 1958 Boston University; 
CONNEL, JOHN H., Assistant Professor of Physics 
(1969) BS 1960 Massachusetts Instutue of 
Technology, PhD 1967 University of Washington; 
CONNOLLY, HARRY W., Assistant Professor 

(1966) Athletic Director, Director of Physical 
Education and Intramurals, BS Boston College; 
CONRAD, WALTER E., Professor of Chemistry 
(1959) BS 1944 MS 1945 Wayne State University, 
PhD 1951 University of Kansas; CORMIER, 
EDWARD A., Associate Professor of bsiness 
Administration (1958) BS 1948 Providence 
College; EdM 1955 Boston University; Certified 
Public Accountant; CORY, LESTER W., Instructor 
in Electrical Engineering (1963) BS 1963 Bradford 
Durfee College of Technology (SMU) MS 1960 
University of Massachusetts; COUNSELL, ALDEN 
W., Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering 
(1953) BSME 1949 Northeastern University; 
Registered Professional Engineer; CREAMER, 
DAVID J., Assistant Professor of Mechanical 
Engineering (1964) BS 1958 Bradford Durfee 
College of Technology (SMU) MS 1960 University 
of Massachusetts; CROWLEY, MICHAEL, 
Associate Professor of Mathematics (1968) BS 
1947 Boston College, MA 1949 Boston College; 
c HERBERT P., Associate Professor of 

Art (1966) BFA, 1951 Washington University, MA 
1952 Indiana University; DARDEN, GENEVIEVE, 
Instructo of English (1967) BS 1938 MS 1967 
Boston University; DEPAGTER, JAMES K., 
Professor of Physics (1965) BS 1051 University of 
Arkansas, PhD 1958 Wasington University; DIAS, 
EARL J., Professor of Enlgish and Coordinator of 
Freshman English (1958) AB 1937 Bates College. 
MA 1938 Boston University; DIPIPPO, RONALD, 
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering 
9967) BS 1962 MS 1964 PhD 1966 Brown 
University; DOWD, JOHN P., Assistant Professor 
of Physics, (1967) SB 1959 PhD 1966 
Massachusetts Institue of Technology DOWNEY, 
CATHERINE M., Associate pofessor of Education 

(1967) BS 1956 MEd 1958 Boston College EdD 
1962 Boston University; DUMONT, LILY, Special 
Instructor in Music - Piano; SUPRE, EDMUND J., 
Associate Professor of Textile Chemistry (1942) 
BS 1948 North Carolina State College MEd Boston 
College; EATON, HELEN Assistant Professor in 
Charge of Archives and Government Documents 
Despositor (1953) SB 1925 Certificate 1927 
Simmons College; EDGAR, ROBERT KENT, 
Instructor in Biology, (1968) BA 1965 University 
of Virginia MS 1968 Rutgers University; 
e WILLOUGHBY R., Instructor in Art, 

(1967) BFA 1965 Chouinard Art Institue MFA 
1967 Rhode Island School of Design; ESPOSITO, 
FRANCES D. F., Assistant Professor of Economics 
(1967) BA 1961 St. Francis College, MA 1962 
Fordham University, PhD 1967 Boston College; 
FAIN, GILBERT, Associate Professor of Electrical 
Engineering (1968) BSEE 1958 MSEE 1961 PhD 
1967 University of Rhode Isalnd; FELDER, 
JOAN, Assistant Professor in Biology (1962) AB 
1956 Barnard College, MEd 1956 Bridgewater 
State College, MA 1967 New York University; 
FEBAUX, LOUIS E.F., Associate Professor of 
CHemistry (1949) BS 1937 Tufts College; 
FINOCCHI, FERDINAND P., Assistant Professor 
of Chemistry (1949) BS 1937 Tufts College; 
History (1968) BA 1962 Kent State University, 
MA 1965 University of Wisconsin; FITZGERALD, 
JOHN J., Associate Professor of Philosophy (1966) 
Ba 1949 University of Natre Dame Ma 1953 St. 
Louis University; Ph 962 Tulane University; 
DREIER, JEROME, Associate Professor of 
Mathematics (1965) BS 1939 City College of New 
York, PhD 1958 New York University; 
GALKWSKI, Eugene F., Linrarian in Charge of 
Public Services (1965) SB 1949 Holy Cross MLS 
1966 University of Rhode Island; GIBLIN, JAMES 
L., Commonwealth Professor of Textile 
Technology (1938) Purchasing Agenct MS 
(honorary) 1954 Bradford Durfee College of 
Technology; GINGRAS, NORMAND A., Choral 
Director (1967) BM 1949 Boston University; 

GOLEN, FRANK Jr., Assistant Professor of 
Business Administration (1959) BS 1950 Boston 
University, EdM 1958 Bridgewater State College, 
CAGS 1962 Boston University; GONSALVES, 
LENINE M., Professor of Electrical Engineering 
(1953) Chairman, Department of Electrical 
Engineering, BS 1952 United States Naval 
Academy, MSEE 1960 Northeastern University, 
Registered Professional Engineer; GORCZCA, 
FRYDERYK E., Assistant Professor of Mechanical 
Engineering (1958) BS 1958 New Bedford Institire 
of Technology (SMU) Ms 1962 Northeastern 
University, Registered Professional Engineer; 
GRAN, TRACY R., Instructor in Sociology (1968) 
BA 1961 University of Minnesota MA 1965 
University of Massachusetts; GREEN, HERMAN J. 
Associate Professor of Modern Languages (1967) 
BA 1927 City College of NEw York; PhD 1940 
Columbia University;GREEN, SELMA A., 
Assistant Profesor of English (1967) BA 1927 
Hunter College MA 1929 Columbia University; 
GRIFF, MASON, Professor of Sociology (1965) 
Department Chairman , Sociology, BA 1951 
Tulane University, MA 1952 Stanford University. 
PhD 1958 University of Chicago; HABITCH, 
LOUISE A., Instructor in English (1966 963 
University of Narth Coston College, LLB 1953 
Boston College Law School; HAIMSON, BARRY 
R., Instructor in Psychology (1967) BA 1963 
Brandeis University AM 1965 Boston UNiversity; 
HANSBERRY, JOHN W., Assistant Professor of 
Mechanical Engineering (1948) BSEE 1940 Brown 
University, Registered Professional Engineer; 
HARDY, BERTRAM B., Associate Professor of 
Electrical Engineering (1948) BSEE 1940 Brown 
University, Registered Professional Engineer; 
Modern Languages (1966) BA 1964 MA 1967 West 
Virginia University; HESS, ROSEMARY T., 
Instructor in Biology (1960) 1960 Salve Regina 
College; HIGGINS, THOMAS J., Instructor in 
Business Administration (1963) BS 1062 Boston 
College MBA 1963 Boston University; HOENIG, 
NILTON, M., Associate Professor in Biology 
(1965) BS 1960 East Stroudsburg State College MS 
1960 OhD 1965 Rutgers University; HOFF, 
JAMES G., Associate Professor of Biology (1965) 
BS 1060 East Stroudsburg State College MS 1960 
PdH 1965 Rutgers University; HOLT, WARREN 
M., Associete Professor of Mathemcatics (1951 ) BS 
1949 University of Massachusetts, MEd 1959 
Bridgewater State College; HOOPER, ROBERT J., 
Associate Professor of CHemistry (1967) BS 1953 
Kings College MS 1959 PhD 1962 Notre Dame; 
HYSLOP, GARY A., Assistant Professor of Civil 
Engineering (1965) BS 1963 Bradford Durfee 
College of Technology (SMU) MS 1965 University 
of Rhode ialnd; INGRAHAM, VERNON L., 
Associate Professor of English (1965) Chairman, 
Department of English BA 1949 Unicersity of New 
Hampshire MA 1951 Amherst PhD 1965 
University of Pennsylvania; JACOBS, GEORGE 
Assistant Professor in Business Administration 
(1964) AB 1955 Harvard University LLB 1958 
Harvard Law School University; JOHN, 
ANTHONY J., Professor of Mathematics (1954) 
BS 1950 MA 1957 Boston College MS 1960 
Northeastern University; JONES, FRANK N., 
Chief Librarian (1966) AB 1930 AM 1941 Harvard 
BS in LS 1941 Columbia; KALIKOW' 
THEODORA K., Instructor in Philosophy (1968) 
BA 1962 Wellseley College; KAPUT, JAMES J., 
Assistant Professor of Mathematics (1968) BS 

1964 Worcester Polytachnic Institute MA 1966 
Clark University; KEITH, ROBERT G., Assistant 
Professor in History (1969) BA 1962 Amherst 
College Ma 1965 Harvard University PhD Harvard 
uiversity; KERN, w Professor of 
Physics (1964) BSc 1948 University 
Frankfort/Main MSc 1951 University 
Frankfort;Main PhD 1958 Universitat Boon; 
KHANNA, SAT DEV, Associate Professor of Civil 
Engineering (1969) MA in Mathematics 1949 BSc 
in Civil Engineering 1952 MSc in Civil Engineering 

1965 University of Punjab India 1968 PhD in Civil 
Engineering University of Connecticut; 
LAFLAMME, ALPHEE N., Instructor in Business 


Administration (1962) BS 1952 Providence College 
MEd 1957 Bridgewater State College; LANGLEY, 
KENNETH D., Assistant Professor of Textile 
Technology (1968) BS 1064 SMTI MS 1968 
Ubstutute of Technology; LAVAULT, RUDOLPH 
L., Professor of Psychology (1935) EdB 1933 EdM 
1939 Rhode Isalnd College;LEUNG, GEORGE 
YAN-CHOK Assistant Professor in Physics (1967) 
BS 1955 University of lllimois, MS 1957 PhD 1963 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MCCOY 
THOMAS F., Associate Professor of Art (1959) 
BFA 1950 University of Kansas Diploma 1951 
Academie Royale des Veaux Arts, Liege Belgium 
MFA 1952 University of Kansas; MCKEACHERN. 
JANUCE Associate Professor of Nursing (1969) 
Nursing Diploma 1947 Newton-Wellesley Hospital 
BS 1963 MS 1965 BOston University School of 
Nursing; MACAFFE, GEROGETTE, Assistant 
Professor of Art (1965) BA 1962 MA 1968 Rhode 
Isalnd School of Design; MACEDO, CELESTINO 
D., Associate Professor of English (1954) Director 
of Student Affairs AB 1953 Stonehill College; AM 
1955 Boston College; MACEDO, LUIZ GOUVEIA; 
Licenicado em filologia Germanaica, University of 
Coimbra, Portugal; MAGINNES, DAVID R., 
INstructor in History (1967) BA 1954 Yale 
University MA 1959 Columbia University; 
MARSTON. WALTER E. L Associate Professor of 
Chemistry (1928) BS 1956 EdM 1958 Bridgewater 
Assistant Professor of Psychology (1968) BA 1955 
Holy Cross College Ma 1957 PhD 1968 Boston 
College; MATTFlELD, FREDERIC R., Associate 
Professor in Business Administration (1958) BS 
1939 MBA 1949 MEd 1950 Bostn University 
MATTFlELD, MARY S.,Assistant Professor in 
English (1964) BS 1955 Bon University AM 1964 
Brown University; MEAD, THEODORE P 
Professor of Photography (1952) BFA 1947 Pratt 
Institute MA 1950 Professional Diploma 1962 
Columbia University; MELLOR GEORGE E 
Assistant Professor in Art (1968) AB 1954 Oberlin 
C-o'lfge, M(I A 1965 Temple University; 
MIERZEJEWSKI. WALTER E.. Assistant Professor 
of Mathematics (1957) AB 1948 Harvard; MILLS 
CAROLYN A., Instuctor in Art (1967) BFA 1963 
Rhode Isalnd School of Design; MORTON, 
f9 B ~, RT W -- Instructor in Electrica Engineering 
(1968) BS 1964 University of Rhode Isalnd MA 
1966 Duke University; MOSS, SANFORD A III 
Assistant Professor in Biology (1967) BS 1961' 
Yale Iniversity PhD 1965 Cornell University; 
MOWERY, DWIGHT F. Jr., Commonwealth 
Professor of Chemistry (1957) AB 1937 Harvard 
College PhD 1940 Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology; MULCARE DONALD J., Assistant 
Professor in Biology (1969) BS 1962 St. Procipus 
College PhD 1968 University of Notre Dame; 
MURPHY, Daniel J., Associate Professor of 
Electrical Engineering (1962) Chairman, 
Department of Electrical Engineering BS 1960 
New Bedford INstitutre of Technology (SMU) MS 
1966 Northeastern University PhD 1969 
Northeastern University; NESBIT, ALEXANDER, 
Professor of Art (1965) Chairman, Department of 
Design 1919-1923 Art Students League of New 
York 192201923 The Copper Union; 
NEUGEBAUER, MARGOT, Assistnat Professor in 
Art (1955) BFA 1952 Rhode Isalnd School of 
Design MFA !(%$ Syracuse Iniversity; NICOLET, 
WILLIAM P., Associate Professor of English 
(1965) BA 1956 Bowdoin University 1965 U1958 
PhD 1964 Brown University; O'BRIEN, FRANCIS 
X., Instructor of Biology (1968) BA 1963 Suffolk 
University MS 1965 University of New Hampshire; 
PALLATRONI, ROBERT A., Assistant Professor 
of Psychology (1968) BA 1954 Dartmouth College 
MEd 1960 State College at Bridgewater AM 1962 
PhD 1969; PANOS, MARGARET A., Instructor in 
English (1962) AB 1954 Stonehill College MAT 
1966 Brown University; PANUNZIO, WESLEY C. 
Assistant Professor of MOdern Languages (1964) 
AB 1942 University of lllimois AM 1954 
University of Chicago PhD 1964 Boston 
University; PARENTE, APUL J., Associate 
Professor of Mathematics (1954) BS 1954 
Bradford Durfee College of Technology (SMU) SM 
1961 Boston University; PATTEK, HAROLD I., 
Assistant Professor of Art (1966) 1948-1952 The 
Cooper Union Srt School BFA 1957 Yale 
University; PENCE, JAMES D., Instructo in 
Modern Languages (1968) BA 1960 Ohio State 
University; POTTER, HAROLD H., Visting 

Professor of Scoiology (1969) BA 1939 Sir George 
Williams University MA 1949 McGill University; 
PRESEL. DONALD S., Assistant Professor in 
Physics (1960) AB 1953 Brown University MEd 
1959 SM 1964 Northeastern University; 
REARDON, JOHN J., Professor of Biology (1965) 
Chairman, Department of Biology BS 1948 MA 
1949 University of Michigan PhD 1959 University 
of Oregon; REGAN, JOHN T., Assistant Professor 
of Textiles (1949) AB 1922 Holy Cross College; 
REHG, NORMAN M. Professor of English (1964) 
BA 1939 Ma 1943 University of Kansas AM 1948 
PhD 1952 Harvard University; REIS, RHICHARD 
H., Associate Professor of English (1965) AB 1052 
St. Lawrence University MA 1957 OhD 1960 
Brown University; REICHARD, CONRAD P., 
Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering 
(1956) Acting Chairman Department of Industrial 
Engineering BS 1950 Rhode Island School of 
Design, registered Professional Engineer; RIFKIN, 
LESTER H., Professor of History (1965) 
Chairman, Deprtment of History BS 1945 AM 
1946 New York University Phd 1959 Brown 
University; RITZ, FREDERICK J., Instructor in 
Textiles (1966) BS 1957 Bradford Dirfee College 
o, Techonology (SMU); ROBERTS, J. LOUIS, 
Assistant Professor of Business Adminstration 
(1958) PhD 1944 Providence College, Am 1948 
Columbia University; RONITAILLE' LOUIS J., 
Assistant Professor of BUsiness Adminsitration 

(1958) BS 1949 Providence College, MED 1954 
Boston University, Registered Public Accountant; 
ROSEN, ALAN R., Instructor in English (1968) 
BA 1960 University of Hartford Ma 1962 
Pennsylvania State University; ROSEMFELD' 
M.C., Associate Professor of History (1966) Ab 
1951 Am 1957 Boston University PhD 1961 
University of London; SANDSTROEM, MRS. 
YVONNE M., Assistant Professor of English 
(1969) BA 1954 Lind University, Sweden AM 
1966 Brown U n iversity ;S ASSE VI LLE, 
NORMADN, Associate Professor of Biology (1956) 
Bs 1949 Providence College EdM 1950 Boston 
UNiversity; SAURO, JOSEPH P., Dean, College of 
Arts and Sciences (1969) BA Associate Professor 
of Physics (1965) Bs 1955 MS 1958 PhD 1965 
Polytechnic Institue of Brooklyn; SCIONTIm 
JOSEPH N. Jr. Assistant Professor of History 
(1965) Ba 1960 Suffolk University MA 1961 Tufts 
Iniversity PhD 1967 Brown University; SHONTIG, 
DAVID H., Associate Professor of Electrical 
Engineering (1967) BS 1955 MS 1958 University 
of New Hampshire ScD 1966 Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology; SILVEIRA, WILLIAM A., 
Associate Professor of Textile (1956 BS 1954 New 
.Bedford INstitute of Technology (SMU) MS 1956 

Institute of Textile Technology;SILVIA, MANUEL 
S., Associate Professor of Business Administration 

(1959) BS 1955 New York University; MEd 1959 
Bridgewater State College LLB 1967 Suffolk 
University; SIMEONE, LOUIS S., Professor of 
Mathematics (1946) BS 1945 Northeastern, 
University AM 1951 Boston University; SMITH, 
CALEB A., Professor of Economics (1966) 
Chairman, Department of Economics SB 1937 
Haverford College MA 1942 PhD 1943 Harvard 
University; STERN, NOEL T., Professor of 
Political Science (1964) Chairman, Department of 
Political Science BA 1934 Swarthmore MA 1940 
OhD 1942 University of Pennsylvania; STEVART, 
ALBERT A., Associate Professor of Mechanical 
Engineering (1964) SB 1932 Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology MA 1952 Boston 
University; STICKLER, JOHN G., Associate 
Professor of Textiles (1 1960 New Bedford institute 
of Technology (SMU);STONE, SAMUEL A 
Commonwealth Professor of Mathematics (1948) 
BS 1936 MS 1937 Universityf New Hampshire PhD 
1953 Boston University; SWAYE, ARTHUR V., 
Assistant Professor of Textiles (1958) BS 1958 MS 
1965 New Bedford Institute of TECHNOLOGY 
Professor in Business Administration (1963) BS 
1963 New Bedford Institute of Technology (SMU) 
MBA 1966 Boston University; TANNENWALD, 
RONALD, Assistnat Professor of Mathematics 
(1968) ScB 1963 City College of New York; 
TEETER, LURA S., Professor of Philosophy 
(1965) Chairman, Department of Philosophy SB 
1928 University of Valifornia AM 1934 OhD 1951 
RadcliffeTHOMAS. GEORGE J., Professor of 
Chemistry (1968) BS 1964 Boston College, PhD 

1967 Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 
THOMMEN, HANS J.U., Professor of Mechanical 
Engineering (1949) Chairman, Engineering 
Technology Programs Bs 1949 Worcester 
Polytechnic Institute MS 1961 Northeastern 
University; TINKHAM, HOWARD C, Professor of 
Mechanical Engineering (1949) Chairman 
Engineering Technology Programs BS 1949 
Worcester Polytachnic Institute, MS 1961 
Northeastern University; TOGNERI, EDWARD P., 
Professor of Art (1957) BFA 1951 Rhode Island 
School of Design; TRIPP, FRANCIS, Professor of 
Textile CHemistry (1941) Chairman, Department 
of Textile Chemistry BS 1930 North Carolina State 
College MS 1938 ChE 1939 University of North 
Carolina BS 1956 New Bedford Institute of 
Techonology (SMU); TRIPP, FRED R., Assistant 
Professor of Textile Chemistry (1957) BS 1930 
Professor of Chemistry (1965) BS 1959 New 
Bedford Institute of Technology (SMU);TYKODL 
RALPH J., Professor of Chemistry (1965) BS 1943 
Northeastern University PhD 1954 Pennsylvania 
State University; VALENTE, ABEL A. Assistant 
Professor of Civil Engineering (1965) Acting 
CHairman, Department of Civil Engineering BS 
1928 University of Vermont MS 1962 University 
of Notre Dame, REGISTERED Professional 
Engineer; VINCI, JOSEPH, Professor of MOdern 
Languages (1966) Chairman, Department of 
MOdern Languages BA 1942 The City College of 
New York MA 1949 Columbia University DML 
1955 Middlebury College; WAGNER, CLAUDE 
W., Associate Professor of CHemistry (1949) BS 
1946 MS 1949 University of Cincinnati; WALDER, 
RICHARD, Assistant Professor of ELETRICAL 
Engineering (1956) BS 1948 University of Rhode 
Isalnd; WALSH, MARY LOUISE, Assistnat 
Porfessor of Modern Languages (1965) Dean of 
Women AB 1937 Regis College MA 1956 Boston 
University Diploma 1954 University of Paris 
(Shorbonne) Certificate 1961 University of 
Assistant Professor of MOdern Languages (1966) 
Ba 1946 Wellesley College MA 1950 Middlebury 
College PhD 1962 Columbia University; 
Professor of Modern Languages (1966) AB 1949 
MA 1950 Middlebury College PhD 1958 Brown 
University; WEEKS, WALTER J., Instructor in 
Modern Languages (1965) AB 1962 Rutgers 
University MA 1964 Brown University; 
WHITAKER, ELLIS H., Associate Professor of 
Biology (1964) BS 1930 Worcester Polytechnic 
Onstitute MS 1936 PhD 1949 Cornell University; 
Professor of English (1966) Ba 1958 Boston 
University Ma 1961 Tufts University Phd 1967 
Harvard University; WILD, WILLIAM C. Jr 
Professor of Business Administration (1950) 
Chairman, Department of Business Administration 
Bs 1946 Bridgewater State College MBA 1960 
Northeatern University EdD 1968 Boston 
University; WILLIAMSm, EUGENE R' Assistant 
Professor of Mechanical Engineering (1946) BS 
ChE 1942 Northeatern University MEd 1955 
Rhode Isalnd College; WILSON, JAMES L., 
Associate Professor of English (1964) BS 1931 
University of Oklahoma MA 1939 Yale University 
PhD 1947 University of NOrth Colina; WINTER, 
FREDERICK, Professor of English (1947) AB 
1930 Clark University Ma 1949 University of New 
Hamphsire; WU, CHANG NING, Associate 
Professor of CHemistry (1963) BA 1956 Hartwick 
College MS 1962 PhS 1964 State University of 
Iowa; WU; YUNG-KUANG, Associate Professor of 
Electrical Engineering (1965) Bs 1056 National 
Taiwan University MS 1960 Kansas State 
University PhD 1965 University of Mlchagan; 
YOKEM, MELVIN B., Instructor of Modern 
Languages (1966) BBA 1960 University of 
Massachusetts MAT 1961 Brown University. 



.■ *-l 




c o 

to a 

<" c ,« 


— 03 



w B — 


03 41 c 

o-o o n 

^S .B 

s° 3 m u 

4) .,S"0 

■•O e-o C 




■i— W lj 

o e.s 

** 5 E 

4)<Er3 03 ! 

C r a -* 

E is 


c 33 
O nj 

12 a 


c4 ^ 

c o nj 

■a c : 

O ..K 

c ^ o 

C O 


5 +» 


ai o o c 
B m « fc 


0) £ B nj— . 
X a £ Oil . 
On -.12 
9"* -x) c 

CjhO h 
ft C" 

' ™ 01 ^ 

i , , •■ 03 

■•" o 5 3 o 

+J ? TO ^ 

ef . ,T° 
•O 03 41 >,,0 
-5 73 M . 4> 

3 rt ft ,a 
03 5'* 

■ > M £ 5 

S «^^ 3 
g'g « c o 

© « *3 • 
t-£ 3 O 

ArHCOl-( «) 

SS^S <" 2£ B« 

O .«nO £ a 

W^ r > r. rt « . 

1b> s^s 

S 3 .-0+5 >?« 3 
ci«-i 3 . a c 

■CO O ?_^ ,<s ' 

3 ££ « * 5=j a 

cS X3 tn a > ft (3 a 

»H « V 

«H _ ft 

■0* >> 

1 <u3 ° 


c s • 

iS o 

0> > 



> si 4) • 

'ih cs 3 a 
:<N ">fl 

ft.O tn nj 

1) c -0 5 


;« o a 

■St) 11 ^j 

a--: c I 
3 b'_^ 

to n33^s 


"3 '^n - 

M SrH £ 

S-B«£ o'a 
3 2 t! . 

*• 2 «« 
, a— 1 ft 

■oJ-J 5 2 
6 |.S "S 

a 01 2 >«t3 

Nj u UTS- 



" M t 



w^^ - ' 

01 w 

£ 01 



* « a 

cs a o 5 
a « o,e — 

c n n! Or 

•a in 

« <S 01 <U 2 30 

£ ftJ3^3 a^rH 

"SS S.S a o 

2 .So 5 

■01 Bra m>>*J 
.— 1 01 > ^30 
. a > </;*>& 

■ O js| bjj ■' 

W a r « o> 
o.B rO 01 » 


n g O . w 
i ™X3 2+3 o , 

, ., r« !« a U 

! , ^ r 41 a o 

fe j> 01 « <«+» 

«J3 . « 
!T3+» UjS 


OB 0) 

'JmS ft U CD 

3 > <N 

33 o o 

+ J Jh "^ 

a M o « 
•M 2 a 

™o n 


So .0 


J 1 " -o 


fl 08 4) g-jj 

a ft <s^ 

..;0) 4) ,2 

S«B >-' 

™.a w oi 

5o3 5> 
xl'e O D O 
4i ax) co 


Ct~r-IPO , 
ON ,0 

£ <« ,B 

o , of-a g 


a ,os 
b a a^3 


1 +3 


,° 333 
?'+3 g£ S 

B S E 
5 ^^ a 




5 o 2 S 

? j-i s o 

...a g o 

.+> a n 

•-: 3J=^3 

!- O w , 
'P ?, ^ 

^.♦^ ft r * 
"a + 5 s: 

n+" 4) 2 


•*-. 4) 





" a 
0) to 
3in . 
41 " 


a 41 


O q 4) 

O-O oj 

S p 


■w Ct3 
+> 41.3h 

^n -1 = ^3 

>h H*j O 3^ 

J3,JD^ 01 (X) </> 


K C 41 
Jlj 4) W 

m 03 3 



OS O _, 


Ctf 0) g 

S .J« a 


a , 
01 +3 -X 


m ^! 003 




B 03 ; 

e+» o •- 


3 S o 

CDJ3 5 O, 
rH D.O 4)' 

O ,2 


■ « „CN O 


a -3b 

•3° S 

S rt 3-tt 

03 o w , 

""..a k 

'H > > 



B 3 2,,' 


■ ' ^ ^ 
'•0 4) at 

£o— <u 

^ >Sfc- 

[> r ri—t Q) 

£:3 " o 
w C:3°0cni 
0) J' ' 

<**^ , * ' 


'*+-* oi 3 

iO j> .3 2' 

3 <* ., 

y u oj 
'3 o c 

jh'O - 
to oj.^ 

<J > <u 

e &** 

3 oj -»j 

'3 c .2 

C n 



00 jS 




-SO 'H 

o O o J> 

rt oj oj is 
U.O Sj3 » 


a u 

.-rH C 

3 u 

3 o 

TO ,.« 

- O o 

« O 

=1 O 
8 ** " 


° .,° 

w "> 
<4H ^fi ' 
■a— oj° 

OJ O > 

.O.C M 

,.5 2"S c.c 
45^-a'e Co 
^ c £ 5 

o ™ 


a; >* 

n — ata 

u o c c » 
- -u a> M 

>>.,.« >a 
oj-w «rg g 

S* si J>J5 
OS > 

> s 
-2 ° 

— . : fi 
« £«> 


• 3-tf 
"S ™« a 
,~o a 


w tJ 

C O 

•a t« 


V o 

>; s .23o c 

c :ft>- 

m 3 

H C w C 
> > aj 

S ° ** 

c o U.- r . 

■r > n n 

+? ■* a> a) 

O ^j j ^^ 

^ C n 3* 

TO ^J- UMnfj ^ 


O <Dji 

00 rJ'O' o 5jfi 2 c 5« 
si to -r -I >,— . n n -, k 

a 45 o 

u «i 

O O £ 

22«-dJSft-5 3^-S'n 

oot- rj-u i; 

iflrH .5 « O 

ft-3 ' e -u X! 
3-3 > 

o 3 ca" a 5 

C s in « 3 

n ™ ii • 

o a u- "S ° 

3-g « Oco 

n 5— 1 r "- 1 

O u 
& 't» "" 

to ^j rtcD ■■ 

o?T3 .TOCO'S 
-ofi« *o 

X1J3 t^Jfi V Vi 

: to 


3 ->.« 


,3 O m 

2 * •' 


o"«S u E 

■- (H>pH 9-4 TO 

nl g « o^ 

"3 >>SS r 
3 to COS 

O o - 3 !h 



3 >. 

Hm rH > 

O "- 1 4) 

■°4> OMM o Ss ,3 

* 58-S-B8 8 

5"^ ^3j.2 


"> o-oS^-o^^S -go 




2 if. 3 S 

.3 *0)3^-. 


,ts 3 d'P - .r* - > 

™ « « (fl ^i^ 


3 C^^J <u - ^)2~ 

O 3 rt O r< C C ^ 0,M 

5d^ 3 
*■< ."3 5 

TO«S s 

5 »3.-0 

'S.3 « 
*5 2 " .-O 
« H '« 

TO^ K 

2o >.o a 

■ TO..J 0) 

o aj«x3 


g' rt 

1 <U 



o— 1 

_c 0) ' 



«" -"3 


„ r 2 >. 0) 5 
as e '^ 

^ c >" 3 
2"° c 3 

'2"° c « 

co 05 
& 0) 


3 u <u 
0> v. ,'C-r3 


,Sm : 

<L TO — jj 


B TSf to g 
to— > <u ° 
- E-0 5 

TJ w'! 


> «G - ' <U £ 

™ ^ ri O 3 

aoTT ,rj3 oj ? k 

3 1 " S« 3 .Jfii 

^3 .-OrH.3 

r u 3 *^> OO cfl - 

S 3 c « O 
■° -'iS a( '2 -"" 

KT3 > a 3 r 
^ oj J to a> u) 1 

n oj O E 10 "^ 3 

ai oj) w m hj: 5 

0) Cj'i 1 3^ oj 
"OjO o)IN OJ co'O 

■ to y 
OJ j-i-3 

r O OJ 

« 00 — 

3 OJ u 

-a o 

oj i*T3 

■a o k 

m" B 
to OJ (9 

3-° £ 



I 2 





£ CD C - " U ™ 


00 en 

,C* &<£ 

co j « • * 

^h . , H _r», r- 'd 3 e CD 


c/> O ' 

a a! e ti ' • 
S.5 r.-°raii CJ "3 co 

.3*5 °033-»ii> 
■d ftf'O'O'O u Cd C 

,53! cd _ "> cd _ 


d- .as 


0) till 


n.2 0)" , CO CO g-g 
p^d ^^'O-O^ 

-° <u S -.dcS 1 " 
-:. 5; "° o o *a - 

*%esZA.. .2 

wo o* ., „, co 
. -.IT --n rZim 

g Sm'O o e 5; S--i5 


•d e :-d w ' rt~ „ 

e 5'S'S S <d^ t? 

o WJ-t^ <y --J «^- 
Pis 3! r n 

o cfl co '"5,°rt H 

Ng *3 - -a 




h 5 C^T3 

c C w 

C S 


^ r 

o a 
■d : 


■ 0)" 

-a a 

o wOoo-S-S 
^— «n is 

P 03M '4) 

ft) ^*i 4> 

r u oggg 
+j _j, « M rt 




3 c 3 „e 

' T3 . r O " 

.2 2 3 OS'S > 

,gj3^"3 <u 

0)^' t 4-< Oil 

g m 5 2 Jo 

e S -a & J 

gB S >> 

fc'so , a 

8*2 83 ° 
a o oj32 

.r 2 

• 'T3 e i> -w 

cfl W ^k 

8d S >>S 


<S * g"* . , • - 

no old — 

».00o CJ3^2 

•■■fll r • r . r • <• , , 


(It Efl <i* ^ 

cu cfl cS ' 




cfl -a 

■p^ iC "d 1* 

oo eg r o "-S 
^"■a-diTcN .« 

■a cd »-> <-> T j< CD , 

c'S'S C it 

is^"S2> , <* 
a 3 0-S5 oT-=3 
2 5^ 073 c >>?„ 

■" A, 

-5 ' !H M 

5 --"deo-a""""* ^'l' 
x> S.-25|c°^8 

c 3 2E n ^ 
ca cd r ^ >>s b^^ 

■H*H Cfl ,G M-t MH (P <*H M-t 

rem lt- 





^jH ,j- cd C to 

E ,c^« , a |N 
'*-' s ,'a e M 


to d >>e ro S^ 5 

g- , M rt ii« 
.2 .3 --SCO'S 3 
: g2aS5iHo'S 

5 S^ h to 3 jh 

0? B DD * S 

rf -a M s-g8 

GJQ .*- 

1,3 it_o r* 3 S* 3 ^ 

Mh 5« cfl"0 0C6H 

cfl .2 .2 

fe.2 A 


CD g Cfl 

it u fi 


e ° - 

jh cd CO "3 
S H L' C 

.s > n 


w332 3 
n c3 ^-^ 

g - -CD - 
cfl cfl cfl CO 

•a g c a A-a > 
£& «° -o it a 



■a: §.3. 





'Em"" 73 o - > o 
M -e <D'-aT3 d » 


SE.c ^"d^Eo 
»a Kafl o ■ 3^cn 
•a Sip "3 o- "" o«o 

«* 2S M, S « ao'd'd 

jh COO k c M u > > 

OJ3rHi:0 C J- ^ , 

Scfl r^* 4-1 +j e »- H 
p ,2^3 ,Hhh» 

a is 3 ™ii»fi°:sc 

Dm o> co° >>*■< d -0 
3 ■Jg'*£OE'3 o 

XI >, C (8X s c 

w2 "«£ ,°"S o> 

« .~w3 2- £! - 
E-*5 3-Cox£ 

C (8-0 5 , v. u 

oo c £S ■gS'f* 

CO - *■< -E - u O 
ra S Ofj <u*0 °,o | 

-■3S.2?- s 
= T5x!"£ c _f-?s£ 

"asas r --g|as 

oa'p c c o o> 'C 73 ^ 

T-o S r -2c c-o . 

"1 Si co , o*i o « (d o> .; cs 

: ■ — ~ v. OX X X [0 X! 

to .' ; f r ^ rH 
JJ+j-w-w^j 0> m 
jj (0 (0 to to ttlj 

X! S - 

tO'-H W » C 

to p O oi- 15 o 
,01 3 , >■* c 

>>5rt « „ -.2 

I -~Sg'S - 

^i 5 c ' - 5 
. £J * ^x to o 

,.2 -a «o " « 

- « 2 3 « 

■r- to >X toX . 

£ to > -*> 0> ^ •.- 
rrt (8 (8 (8 >, 3 t^ 
X|XXX (8 <j> 
** ■-■% ..XX . 



Hi • 

73 «mh C CO to 

■e _ x 3-^ 
3 ts >> % ' 


o « 


. to 
■O at 

k. 6J0 


u ■- 

CX .. 

■*> 0) 

<u o *J 
01.2 — 

x t, g 
•' td s 


to_e • 

*33 ai 

to ,"0 


♦i+J'O'3 ^i 

!-■£" "IN 

.5 «io^^ 

c C x 


to iT aT E 

r °— 3 

5 a> D 2 

, i! ■* o 

— ' £ * oi w 

™ ° n ^ -^ 

0) c 



r Eh 

Ol rH 



o !- 


ff to 

«» ."" 

0) to •' 

•r c 

to 3J > Jrl 

C (ST3_ ctj 

«i aoi33 > 


j; « o) 


X a) 




x-a 333 

o .*- 
■■+-< r #■ 

o S M « 

* Si 

3 sis 

aj C 
> O 

«J 01 

IN '" 


; or- 

>.c >>_; >. 

to^L, a»tt u «i 
c g 1 ^ , . ,x g 

*5 c a-e c c 2-^ 

^^v rt cd td O 

„ rH M „' S >■ X • ' 


01 O 

'C ■- 




^c 'O r y O). EJ - ^ 
C Ol J, ><•* •'£ 3 t« 

,a-=T3 oi >•£ ,+j 
oc -a-s55«x 

'!7o"0 : •' c SCO 

C ntalfl E j, U' 

O -'*^ 3 -a 

« O . flE c 2<J5 c 

3 S rt-S * gS 
t«^3 r— <* > ii UJ 

«X C- 

,X ,>lNrt"- ."g 

^S^iif-005 § 


x'E3 -'N 

^tfH tO 

X 2'c' 

'*> C oi 

'x ,T3 

• ^ 

O o 0) 

r 11 C 

■** ^i* c 
to to 1 ** 3 


td ^ to 

>- a - 

05 a! 

fll E'H« 

'E <* o 
o -g^ 


■ TO »H oi 

, to etf^T 


>>33 n ,_ 

01 01 > 01 


'.2 " 

| 'S*T 
x ,X 

' 3 - c 


t3-*H 6 

x t; 
2 M & 


*-> TO -^ 

■St- u 


Oi 3 oi Jh 
-2 3° 

Ol oi"™ 5J 
-w X 

oT 3 u ^ 

SoS? ^ 

<".,-" •' 

01 o Ol 
^X M 'S 


■2 «' 
■ -a 00 

C t« > 

■e-s » 


T 3 w O 
•O «">■* 
s- C c« 
,£■0 - 

C M 

°eo >;« 
-,<" a- 53 

o ,oT'x 

Ol > 

Oi * to x 

CO 01 Ol 

to ■■•— < 

•- 01 u 

■flti Ol 

o «' o' 

i oi ;£ 2 

'S -S 


ts rt 
0.3 .- 

o E 
S o <" 


LS -'X 
S tS a>+» 

3 (8 

" r- to 
— » o 

3 --3 




!- (8 

Ol- - 

BKO 01 
ooo t; 3 

ot£i £ (8 

^ .ft 

ft'OX' ., 

_« tu*> oi 

k ir 1 3 x 
e.2.2 o 

En ,S 
(8 3 LT3 

S S 2 
•— — >X 

3 °^ " 

01 2* 1 *-! 

x to 

3 0).' 

(8 > ■" 

X. > to 

.■c •'- 




oi 3 


;«> - c 

to 6JJU. 
-" c^.^. 






SCO to 

3 O 3 j, " 
e oi ix! 33 


oi l"- 

_' oT ?, S r 

2"? '' fl r 

x c _ 3 


(8 X 


(8 Oi' 







to (S 01 


^X u 

00 _' X 

CO 01 

X <d (8 
dJ E X 

e"S ° 
5 O — 
O N 

rH M '-a 

M oi 3 



to si 


fc oi 
(8 C 

x E 

3— >H 

(8 -roi 

■a > 

d ' fl 

B-rt— < 
v oi "3 


X 3 to 


3 of ' 
O 0) O 
— 0.X 
»■«— . 

^2 ..0) 

_c 3 (8 


r .o > 

??-- (8 U ^ 

" OtT" 1 

^oS : 15 

•^X 3 oi 
X toT3 (8 

3*rH .£*> 
C >> n Si Z 

o p, o g 

"-■ 4> co ,d 
th cord ^ ai 

o £ •> cu 

t)J)fl h 

-.&.& CO 

»s o 

— I !/) "1 

CO 3 

+J -O o 
0°~~ 3 

3 co3 2 

C Si «iH 

LT % "3 * w 

*;»« so. 

3" a <«3 

<2 )-,3 ftcur-l 

41 > ON 

,3 ^3 CN 

w 2oo^>" ' 

_ ErH M , bj 
3 - ,4) 

4>M >, <* ' 

■g^g-g S 8 

So ™.S n 

Hht (J £3 

■tJ co 5 d 5 4) 

„' bj q, a « o„o 

• »• ^ TO • •■ 5 

■3 oj a jj o 

. 41 ,-. .£1 CO *"« 

5> £«-. ^ u d ' 
^j.S-O^ 4i CO jj 

u 03<+-< M co CO 

ro x M'^'-rti' : re* 

s^ooo" OH 

o2 > a JU-S d g^ * 

"S^-S * S a rlw'e'a 
,2 H- B - c c +3.2 £ d 

3 ,d o , co" - ..! o 

x >>3 rj 3™f2 
cog 3» fe-w '"3 - 

■a '•!-> j «) o-a oj'd 

3j col£ rj c fi 

d 52 3!X) '"to 05 C 

"J co ;j;„*rf d 



to 0JJ3 d **'" 'r* 


d d « 

« o ^ 

3 °- =, 


_:ro co n 

41 '2t3 

41 >>■• _ 

41 fto > 


,o o 

»C03 U « .J » u g * 
3d m o - - - N i33 SJS 

dS-u^s^sS-Bj^ -£ 

a<a oj'^3 ao.a3 d « o 

S°N ;d 3 d s d 

^ OjBj n>,- tndJ 

. • 'W -.'"ioo 
« « » d d-S^"S-S3 

■S^"™ -jfta aa D, 


o a> <i5 uS <i; >h >»h =<— ' «+_ jh 
d p-a-a-a . ,5 , , a 

ft ft^ ^^u(nC«n<H 

^ 5 * 

bJ-o 'O 

U a) Jh 

3oS 2 

3^ o G 

5 5 w ° 

' e 2 

CN r 


« CO d w d 
— r ccj P o ••• 

jo ft^j: d S 

M l| 2 ftS& 

^T3 «•« CU 

CD 00 
^ d 


r^ v *- ^ w 

- sf.8SS* 

■« B «5^S^iS 

V 0) 


4) O 

d n 




* *H 4) 

en 'd S; 

> w co-g 
S 4) 4)3 


CO -»J 

s! i-Tj+j '"■Jul 

0g5»m ccj« 



C> .5233 
O n j- 1-1 

C04H d ? OrH Bj 

^•o in SI'S 

CO cs g Jj^S 
„H6S r 

'd . r f-i ■« 

r" CO ™>t-i^ 
3 O)"" ,g 

■Po : to e 
d o+» d 
2-S M dJj 
S co o*3 
-g a 2 

M aiO.- a 

OO CUrH3 » 
W OJlCN .2 
Co" H 
. 4> CO 

I S a /B 

3 d O-O 
, co3 t- 

>» 4>rd3 co 

CO H :> 4) 4) 

jh«*h !> u >* 

5 r<JJ—'w' 


ro ,^3 

M *1gftSo 

g CO M >H 

|^ co'S'S'l 

3cOt3bJ O^ 

^ ,"S-b' ? r 
, fi 4> rt3 

*- , £t*i O 

3 , 

•£-d ? « 

cu o 

S.D d Scn.2, 

cu cu 

> d 

h d 

O O 

> CO 


' «ScO 

3 Me 

+3 d 
co '-3 

d S 

cu s -^*^ > 
CU M° .go* 1 ., 

a Mrt„'43 Sjn- 
So d S o bj 

w co r 

: co cui 



d n CO «•- 

£ ftd a a S 

-4> o g 

S d co g cu- 

p * J fl'0'0 

-d-O-gfe 1 " :co 

_r J j" O o s ri *^ o 

aS".. d5 ® 

rS23o4jd- B>,W 

-IS S^-e g^ g 

o o Ji 2*3 d >>co 5 

^ h3 d CO 41 ftft 4) 

CO o 

-f c 








4) d 
— 4) 

cd d it S J" 


to >i, > c 

53 ro 
?.H3*> o 

co'3 cO "> " 

co co a ^ 


CO OlS - 1 . ~ 

-2 « d' o'is 

*J d Q H*3 

03 co d 
•S 10 ft-£ o 


*rt cO co+a 

00 2 -So 

jo 0,3 4> w 


-2 as a* 10 

ft 33 CO ^ , 

d *" ■** : 

'- | ^c3>'-' a"' 

a - s* ° 

CO ,_J 

bJ a' d +3"c3 

1 o a -5 - 

' -°3 


tj.a , ,c 

S a c fi « 

w d co co3 

2S&&3S -- 

U3 O " w 
3 ^3=2 o 
-< cu d'd f - 

' 3 CO "H . 

= 3^ ,^ 

=. jT+3 Ji 
*v>3 co w 

Ji' C f n > 41* 
41 co o g o 
3 da 

o'S£: t - 

•'2 coWa> 

n co 

co a c 

ftd , 

, 3 
a co a 


S3 cO 

3 ? 


- rwi { 

£ ">a 

cu 3 


00 c 


,- -' ■ - -CM 

o.2 -a 
■* "> o V 


- ' o 

cu 3 >> 4> 


C .. 
CS7373 CO 

O-pajg g >>C 
eo,H ctf J* »h _ » 

O u fli « 

■:*$ oS 

"! 0) H— «' * cs *» 
* C £"J3 .S3 

g"> 2-°S s 

^ >>00 2*0 --C IT 

> « £ 5 "> n 
or- -*^ > 

*2 -, cO c -^ cO 

cOCN -J- j^h-i - 

ueo 3 . ,co ,^3 

4)3>.4>c/)3 C > J3"" 

*> >, - .- "j h 

.0 Ojs 
•£•■073 i; 

.2aa C 

g £73^ Co 5. 

I-S2SJS -o5 

o b 



2 2?o -ofi 

4>00r-l ,>£ 

~ c -3 > 

to _r « C bu 

! - lt ~eXJ-' c e c 

o c Co: 

kj Oo^ c > 

d " a> fl^ 
S^.2 « c- o 

i-' reN 

cu UN 
._, cO 

=5 C O 

S- & 

3 --S 

73 CO 

C c • - 


£ °> 

O Or; « 
(3 c« 

m g c ^ « ,« 

C >> a) u >^3^ 

3 IN 

*- y cd ro ed o 
O cc*""*"' k ^ 


^TsEww-otDio £ £.2t:«-c o£ £ £ c.2, 

■a ts-s 


^ "> " 

O o 

ooo r 

00 , . 


■? J3 

si o 

<x c 

2 >> - 

on— « 

to - £ 
-6 « 

, r£ 

D— > _ 

W i-i " 

V U ' 

^3 N 

-< ,„ (UJ3 o 

^ ,» 9 r -p 

5?^: rc r 
is o w S M 

c .o c ,5 

S a! Eoo <s 

5 > a; n 

E M ig 

•oct)" a ' 




E S 



« a. 

** u u 

O <u , 


<X> T3 -S rt 

-£ w 2 


v CJ X 

c 50h'h 


«73 n 


J3-o' > iS £-T3~. 

« E g«o g 4 


o* a «cC 

•— , ,J3 C 

rS £ 3 E O J 
^ r- o "-^ 

C _■ 4) O+J 

.,5>J3 W cd- 

Si ■" 3 (0 
-h ^^T3 

^ 5 . s ^ 

0) a). 
3 3 

5 O ° 3 

!SX! 2^3 

O to -*>' 

EiNM £ 8*0 

O CT3"0 K 





0) o 

3 - 

m «"S3j 



4) C.Z (S 


A! BJ3j: 


o ni o 

3 0) 


*"0 eo^ 


■»S^ N 



"^ do 




•c „»*»' 



i> S o 



3 w 

£.3 "3 % 
. <ug£ 



w O . ^ .-• *d 

to 3 r 
iO £ C-o 
03 2 3 

-<" — £ 

" 3£ o 

* >•!>• = 



3 «-C <u 
c3 « 3 3 
£ S O 1 


O C m , 

■a" 3j: 

n.> O w 

Oh »3 

T3-x T 

J3<*i ShM 

W"C D 0) O 

_g ts a> a> o 

o ^T3"S £ 

,73 to .3 

>, ,tf 4) c ^ 



C K73 ">*» 5 

4> , c<« E^ 

S- -0 Or- •' 

tO^ (h " 

3"" . ro to 
s :?» c'3 

»(;#• 4) 
r- S «J3_2~, 

o r-c^ to 

IT) 4>rHrHJ3 
cOCN*M)rHT^t , 
> til 

-■ •■ , ■■ ' tfl 

O" 4> 4) (-) 
iH wt~ (0 4>.X 

it - 

CO « 


"C ■H . 


3 4) 

,t0 4) 

E^So3 4)£ 

-73 C "5& 
'C C 3 

-Sli'OjSo ,3 
4) 3 u u C 

to to o O 
,N C73^ M _'b u £ 

10 O 4J ,g" 

_, h— 3 u 

£ S'< 3 ^c 

>-^ M ^aS>2«'0 

S-3 « - 4) 


73 * 

41 H 



o 1 " c 

O to " C ^p 
-""vDOaift ' ,'U 

73 a— o, -g^j r k 

OJOli .to««o 

£ f^ 3 °73 «-i 

OC5 C73 tn^j to 

4) .73 a n 3 O 5 n 

'u 0.00 C 3 3 wS tutN 

--; ' r s r w 
to-"-" to+^'S 

— w fM" to 

,4-^0 4,73 
• +* u »ftJ5 
-«♦» COO C000 

B *ftr-at 

00 10 o'E « >3 
O - ,3 -2 

00 2 w CO r- C 

«_-'C ,«- 

c2 o c - ' 


- C , C O c 

-C O to C« 3 

"S ^Sf2"3 3 

* tO o .- JJ 

■3t3 C 0^0 
u i* s- to 

3 3 r -I* 

3 h«ft C « C 


c £to 

2— en 



'C C 


2t3 h 

O O 3 


^ft'^ 3 to 



4) 41 3 


•' S rH 

« 3^ 

W5 « 1 — I 







E o 

R ;« c/l 







a r»t» 

•g-O Ceo 

vt <$ * 

is -a co 

O 00 rf 
.CiOtH g 

0(0 a 
. n'd S 

.«- £ 

» ,2c 

o> B as 

• CO™ 

5 ° '"5 

a.2 >^3 

tS «a 



r ro « 
nSJ 5 w 

a; >h"b aJ 

.a O'B 

H b 73 a 
C-C « SJ 



.3 O B 

o M <o 

•'H M 


« - 

o a « 
<5 : « o 

■d" , 

2 *% 

£"2 * 

S »+> 

>a -Cv 

"hH O « 0) 

r 1-1 ef <u w & 5 ? +* 

«Hfl o « 1) Ot- s-< 

= ° 3 -C O o 
E • si ■->_ ,;C»S 
oflt .Bjij O 

ft< , as jo £ a ™J a 

c n «** ™5 *.2 

M C < ,+> 'O > 

„r Bfi n j-j as .. 

n "i *_«"! ,c^;l' 
« o-rjiS -a «st3 g 



•r u aj 

& a 
•a fl «H 

i< WH ^ r 

13 C aa 5 ° : * J 

c-lsto jj; w Si c £ 

^5 D 0,(0 inj: M & B 

^ £ % b 5!? « * 

1) 01 a) B OrH <d N 

>> a (oh 1 - 1 ,3 

'C H 05 TO „»rt 

' a> fi g ^ (o 
•*-<•« „J~ (ST) 


M '3 

a o , 

■2 2 fi^Sos 

. «■ TO S-. ,, Z, 

5 w 

0) > 

« e o> ■* 

>h 0->->'S 

Si M "& 

'A r^So 

•2 2 


((J (SCJ5 

N 2 

2 IN 


. , s 

E C ~_b' w 

81 •' . 

oi h : 

(S > w 


a « 




-* oi N On >-w 
> S-d , :<»t~ 

aaa oi^^aM 

'to in oi^ in m3h 


5 i 

I S' c 
■at- .i; 

„- of 3 « £ 



a 5 o o2 

oi^^I^b^c a 

B , _, rt'-'a O 
oi w a>^H 7] n 

'a u r" tr, •"■!; 

;2^ S- -i- 3 a 
w (s-a a>>oi w tS 

01 g 4) (0 g 

^astoc •- 

m i 

" tf) 1) 

^ 3 , 

oo -"js -aS o 

0_I -^ 01 (S 01 

a w "go _£ 
BiS o o c«iin 

Oi 3 (S (S 01 * 

<s«2"fl-S'C-» oi * 

3l 3 §B^ 

M B g 

c-a g 

(S H m 

> oj - 

oa > 

ij 3 2 




■> a 


a o> i 

OI 'T* 

b^ or 

O Bt- 

a-o-o b XiiX 

O 2.S O oi 

|S 8 



r< oi oi ba i> , B 


> 5 (S 

r oi oi 
■d E E 


H • O 

b«*;.s oi-^ w 

•B >fl >,« Wo) 

od^ „'«'* 

J , , oi " cd 

E ° O-B^"^ 

■d^^ a «^5 

, » B "Si) 

oi ^S ' ^ w 
« B rt 5 oi ci oi 

S SJ > £ m.5 5 

« B 



OZ oi 

32 5 S 

C 01 HfQ 

-** fe 

W _, > 

■ £ M a 

01 rt ^ 

a «_ 

J a oi 
1+3 - 




'0-r oi w o dj-^.B 
+» a ?aco a B -•" 

mE<« - ,a^2 

c- B+j-p u g u *^ 

.H|£5£a2g^ ,H 
sa o . o*" ? 2 : 
B'Ea wa .-£a H+ 3 
a£ SrS ^*^ oi 3 « 

i 'Sou 

1 5r! 

« W V)+J4J+3+JMH (0 (OCM 

!■■-£; -.o l;^ - 

3-d <u rt J) E Sj * g o 


*M_I "4-i «" ^^ C/) 


*d g +i +i <j o >a *» £ *5 

<2^oiEoi rBS "oi 

oi+j-daJS ,i> b Bn g 

apsgil a 8 a 

to a £ - .utj g a 

co » Si,a "3 S -i-rs ^ , 

SE»«|gi2 r»^3 

_ .-•fi+ea-eoo S> B-r? 

>,■■•< «g «° ^ , 

I? D M 

•SedS-ax £b 

c.SESawBo .>§ 



H-S B. 


a ' 
-a -°E! 



C'€ ■« 



._ Q (J) 

c c 2 

C .= CO 

cd co 

T) g ~ 

- -:S 

r > 

*-• co 

5 § 

^ i_ ^ 


« . 

S c 

_ °» 

a v> 

T— 3 

co~ » 



L- • * 

,9> c 
> <d 


. « i- (O 

-S o> 

0,-2 E 
-o v o 

00 c £ 

5 .-~ 

• » ♦•* •» 
«; "" <" 

— — oo 

CD > > 


- CO 

<u o .. 
£ c 
nCO <u 
H CO-* 

« c 

3 O 

O en 

O C 


O >- 


c » 

■c S 

o S 

> co 
— -C 


<3" lO 

in . 

co u 

•D 'Z 

.— CO 

— a 



CO = 
cu co 

5 co c 

g 5-o 
.« .^ i_ 

o> co 2 

co c -o 

. c cd 

c ^n 

O 0) > 

t? > ■* 
cn._ a; 

E "" c 
- x = : 

co ai co 4-< 

M- H- W 

co co 

g § 

i-S CD 


■ = = "3" O) -J 
CO z: CN CO S 

- o 

■ a) f- , CD 

- 2 « 

- a E 

to . . 

o c a, 

CD — 


n,~ <° -C 

£ -c 

a % t 







CO g> 


0) • - 





</> > 

-a c o 

« s c 

*■■ r 

■^ >• + - 

(0 w w 


. v> -— 
0J — c 
m ro 3 

l E E p - 

O co co C j- 

c O B> 

O S co 

♦^ CD CD 

-* C >- 


O -CM 

- > - 

£ *" c 

00 C CD 

> o a 

~ O 0) 

> >"co 

cd' "O 

05 o 

- g 


£■ u 

<= o 

CD l_ 

^ n 


in co 

co • 
8 « 


"> CO 


■ CD 

"> E 

2 c 

<D CD 

CD > 
> •- 


™- a 

CD -w 
C » 

O "CD 

in co 
co oo 


c > 


N "-n 
o g 

— ° 

2 3 

S o 
-2 °- 


- -i 

.5 co 
> > 

X . - 

• - cd 

C .Q 


. CD 
C > 

o >- 

4— ■ 

(J CD 

o *■ 

CD o ^ 

' J3 •- 

i_ i- 
- co 
CD jz 

"- c? - 

« CD 

„ CD 




<- a 


CO "' o 

E -9 

c -o" 


Ln co ^3 c *J 


>« «^, 05 .y 

CO CN cm 'i. 

a> r^ cd 

Q. 1 " «-' . E 

» i- v 3 

— CD ■*■ 

Z. <- « ■= 

=--->-_in'5o 1 - n3 

co CO ' 

g.3 § 


OJ co o g co 

a a" s u 


+- CD 

CD » 

-C *J 


in > 

E = 


■ _co 




o T ~ 
a> . 

- 3 


V — 

c CO 

-JS t 

T3 CD 

co "^ 

§ ■: 

"o o 

CD </> 

CD ^ 


O co 

co m 



O co 

o> o 

co . 



.¥ — 

2 6 


^ c 

o r>- 



00 !s 
>* J5 



o a 

co • : 

.h <D 

•: o 


> § 

L. CD 

_ C 

a o 

l_ CD 
CD ^3 

■= g 


_ C 
CO - 



5 CD ■ 

C c 

O I 1 




c u c <D 
CD CO 3 r^ 


c c 

in CD CD 

<2 C co 

5 co o) 

c — t 

CO ~ r- 

i g a 

C yi i_ *" 

••P O T " 
^- ~ c 

M E *~ CO 

cd co -.e 
E°| u . 
2t- roj^ 
in .— 
-•- -o c 
c * fc 


c _■ o 
° £ | 


<- CD 

"co ..!£ a> i2 



CO i- 
u> O 

.- C 


</> c 

. 3 
■n co 

i_ «- 

o : 

-O & 

C g 

E ■§ c 

• - 5 co 

co " 

C ro" 

** ."'cd 
» » " 

i- CD 

P^ E 
t O 

o ^ •- 

» D h 






co c 

CD - 

^: ■- 

*- co co 2 

2. E E-8 

co- co 

<- ir CO 

r- O <fr 
. CD 

-c-° ~ 


CD 73 <J 

3 i- (« 
C3) O 

CO *^ -w 

— T3 c 
•- £ O 

e j; 

*j c r 

c « 

- — — 

« o m 
- 2 <o o— c 

^ O ""^ w 
in CO ^D > CD 


o O CT CD .Q c 

a) c a c — c 



c-o «" 

-CD C 


i_ -•— 


- o 

C E 


^•- o 

O c O 
{/) t: > 

,BJ > 

o rc 

■i5 3 ^ 

§T3 « 

r o ,_■ 

<D CD -£ 


ti" CD 



O C Q) 

c ceo 

C cd 

co "-Lc 

QC cd o 
- -Q-> 

2 => 


J_- CD CD 

cd ^:^ 

co o 


1Z en en 
5E *- c 


5 c-o" 

<J CD »- 
c £ CO 

N — (j 

cd a>.- 


E § 

TO > 

JZ < 

> cu 

X 'at 

.- tu 
*- > 

O) *~ 




2 N 


X X 

O .-. 



0) CM 

F m 






-S ° 




c . 

3 +-' 
TO 00 

■ . CU 

< £ 

c ro 



o ' 


5 oo : 


■- CD 


00 CM ^- CN .- 

" co id ~ 
-co oo 



. CO 



<» £> > CO 

CO X , . 

g S uj CC 



Q . " 
UJ 00 

hO< r 




CO -> 






o .. 
DC uj 

— CU 

OC > 


DC to 


< .J 


tf sz 

TO *■■ 



OC a) - 
. > fe 


° = CC 

0) TO ~ 
> LL TO 



CJOO 00 



Q c 
z _£ 

- i_ 


Z > m 

UJ o ^ 
-o_ o 

+J 3 

TO <--' I - 

Q 00^. 

■ OCT) 

o c r» 

*- oo *-' 

Q 00 



J. Ex 

00 ™ . 

- uj yt 


JO 0) 

' i/> C 

° Is 

v_ CD ' 

5 6 3 

Z -Z 
•"oo ~ 

00 >^ 


> >- o 

cu y jo 
o u. 

C CD cu 
to CO I 

6 -'CD 

LO -M 

i- oo r 

-r- . 

O^ o 


UJ 00 


"D 2 

x> ? o 
DC E co 






' 0) 



X 00 CO LO CM 

00 ' 




^ rS 

00-) < 

OC 00 
-UJ .. 

y § CO 

< oo i: 
oo .. ° 

H - m 
5 § 

i- w- Z 

< m- 
UJ T3 

00 ® 
vi CD 




LO . 
LO ' 



<u — c 0) 

"D 00 > 






00 — 

4f if TO 

■D - ~ 
0) ■ 
CO oo 

CO •"< 
CD < 00 

: o 

2 CO Q 


■- O) • 

0) •- > 

CO DC < 

Z o 

." a) 
^ o 
oo c 

<" !F 


o o 




CM , 


UJ : 

rr'O - 

$ § 

UJ 00 z 
Z ^-oo 


0- LU 

o . 
tu <" 


UJ ~ "O 





< TO 



j: «- 


TO ^ 
= CN 




: to 

CO 00 00 

ji <-; *-' 

a) . 
O) ■ 

o . 

co O 




00 ,_" 



T3 00 




C : 
3 i 



° > "5 

£; ™ s 

T3 CO > 

0) _ 

Z .DC 


: a. 








• TO 


TO g 

< . 

q,oo z 
cnDC uj 


**t - 

*-" t— 0) 

o < > 

uj . 

z s 
z > 

Q) »— 





■a ' 




^ TO 


= I 


a -> 

•E : 

TO •*-■ 

j: oo 



• TO c 

^ 2 

4^ ■ — 

oo — 


o co 

<- LU 


.•' rDC 
^ i= "° _ 

jz Q) 
*^ CO 

I § 





















4-> TO 

Q) LL 

3 ID 
— CO 

to ^ 
O - 


C CT) 
O 00 

c/> t— 




TO *_* 
LL 00 







SOZ o 

aco c 

% J--n r < 


^ CN 

o - 




=* 00 



tu . 

c ** 

53 oo 

00 . 



■=* o 



— tu 



_i _i 

_1 UJ 





O O 

t tu 



■*-' > 

w g 

0) tu 

-1- ' 
H 00Z 


00 > 

.. O o 
.— o 

H 0) 

D O > 

+i . tu 
w 5;Z 

« > 
t: to +j 




< LL ^ 

tu r o 
S2 to . 
oq E 

C . 0) 


oo oo « 

.- .''■ c 

gj -a £ 


O) <fl ^ 

c > c 

•- <£ 



iS TO tD 

§ coy 

C i- 
CD t- 





5 * J 





s .<< 


< >" - 

tu . ^ 


— t3)< 

°- O *J 
- i: oo 

*- 00 *j 

jz *^ > 
oco « 

S-c s 

I. ») o 
LL < OC 




tu 00 
00 „, CD 

QJ «— 

> co 




CM ' " J_V 

oo Z Z 




tu 5 , 






CC . 
< c 

• - CO 


00 -: 

o < 


w ± CC 

5 X < 
< o ^ 







■ - <D 

O £ 

CO tu 

6 o 
i: oo 


tu .- 
^3 tu 

■m > 



3 ,b 


el OC 


TO = 
I- <0 



o <- 



t3) »-- 


^_ LL 

o r- 


s ;j 


DC oo 




o . 

vi i 






f s 


^ .TO 


> (U 4^ 

00 ' 




.oo~ "^ - 

«J _ CO .2 I 




tu , 
tu ' 
*-> I 
oo ■ 


• g 

^ ro 

00 -J 


= 00 


TO w 





tu ^ 
O < 

CD 3 

(a r; 




«^ _ CM 5 
2 = CO *= 

- r N Z 

OCO ro 
m -Soo 

— _i co i- 




'> ! 
tu r 



-J DC! 
UJ — 



2 .. 






?v 5 § 


zz . 





c . 
tu ,J 


O •- 


_1 o 
UJ . 
LU LU cr "D 






a - 

■^ f 

io tU 


i: tu jo 


Z 4) 


".E = 

■M o to 
CO 00 LL 

O O 


ro . 
C o 



E rco 

C -m CD 
to CO <- 
> ^ 

I tu 
. ro r 

co S 

tu CJ 00 

c Z 
> r — 

CO — 1 

co r 


co co 

■a — 

tu "^ 

E co 

O) . 

(U CO 


. to 
CO < 


ro t 




■s r* 

0) CO r 


«- .UJ 


.> .. 

I o2 

o z<i 

°n -* 

7O 0) 

^ co > 

fr, "o 





• r_ro CD 

CO a> *". 
Q . 

f ID 

ooc j 
2^ = co 


0) CO 


CO Z ' 


O CD "° 
2 2 CO 

n "Z 


E -K 




.11! L- — 

O 0) <- 




f) ^ 4-» 


: o. co co : 

r 5 


I s - 








^ o 





ro «- , 
0. t- 1 

T 1) 

. . o 
0. CO 







CO , 






c ' 



■OC^ o 
: — 4- 
: LU ."O 
. -> L v 
I C. tu CQ 
, _!> 
OOC § 

. CO 

*•> • r- 

tn 00 C 
5 O 


TO a) 


00 . 



o E 
+-f — 

u> LU 

CQ I s - 

CO , 
CD ■= 





O •- 


_! z 


.. o 

hi t5 

< tu 


0) ^ 

= o 

> CD 




^ UJ 




oc . 

LU "D 
0- i; 

00 >" ^ Z I- -o 



DC uj 


Cl -„- 





Q ' 

• 1 


: E 



co S 
. m 


o § 

hZ 0) 


■=• 0) 

o S 



r -1 £ o ,j 


co DC 


CO zz 


5 E 


co O 

CO o, CO CM 
T3 c 

c •- si : 




V) LOq 

co .- .x 


. .Q. 



DC DCp- 



tu c 
!? <" 

2 E 
*^ — 
o = 

r. id 


CO ■ 







_, ai 

o : 

>- *j 


*^ tu 
CO > 


<u tu 


a> to 

SZ 1- 
CJ Q. 


.CM "* 

o .- 

05 DC 


c '5 







O S 
u. o 
uj -a 

. .< 

Orj . 

<DC > 




i "ro to , 

LL U- ' 



. 3 

4J to 



a> o 

v> in 

ro JO 
5 o 


4-1 *j CU 

CO CO >- 

o tu o 

LO coco 

CD «- CN 

ro tu LU 
LL C 3 

■a *= 
r o 

tU .J 1- 

^ § ° 

be "^ "° 

O tu 
CD _ CO 
CD . 

.-o > 

< J 

|h . 

— CO ■ 


..LL > 


> o 

"D ^ tu 
3 .2 .u 


c E 

2 3B 

.-jo "" 


tu o 

JQ U. 

tu ro 

> LL 

QC r 

— 00 
<o „\ 

a> ; 

< =■ <■ «J tu 



-r> — 


OC . 
LU ^ 



_J ..-I 



00 E 

cu CO 


ro CO 
CL . 
CD . 



■ -< 



£ CD CN - 
c CO «- z 


E - rO 

1- -0 

-CO ( n 







O ..00° 
U. o 






~. o O *-" 
— 1 O .. tu 

cooz £ 
O uj « 

Ooo" -E 
O^ 5 00 

tu" O — 
■w to U. ^ 


-a .y 

^ CM 

o - 



O m z 00 



< to 

-± cu *-" c 

c 7 CO ro 

O "v 

v/ CU ■*- 

00 00 ODC 

r O 

cu tu 

tu' DC 

* cu 




to c 

3 QC 


- >-co 

_ co Q. LO 
00 CO 
— 00 CN . 

r o «- • 


O tl 

£ .-o 

t3>. t- 

'= o 



< ■- 

UJ - 1 - — 

o ■- - 

— O "D 

oclo 5 

o .^ 

j= "o 

■T 3 OO 


oi > 





> O co 






x o 

CO . 

00 ^ s 


I c J 

.. o 00 

I *-■ 

CL "^ C 

- o *-■ 

Jn *- tu 



OC J ^ 

O ^ CO 

Z s E 


00 CO LU 

ro tu c 
2 tuCO 

ro-g r 
§ o § 
wq: < 

" r t- 

"OK tt 
- 3 

8 a* 

' LU 


00 CO 

1 = 

tO QJ 

JZ cu LL , 
-^ "- LL 
O O _ ' 

0. — ' 

"? I** I 

ton r; 

CO u ' 


< w. 

6 E 

•5 E 

^ 3 






LU ,« 
_ CO 

^ CO 




< £ 


ID ; 


00 r_- 


cm O 


1- >- UJ 

' to m _, 


UJ < 





UJ ■- 
-3 Z 


0- +J" 
. tu 



• c • • — tu ro o co 


■ j- >*- s; 

X »-" ^ trt 







0) cu 

« 00 








d — 

cu LL 

„ ."CD 
§ T> 00 

cu X «- 

Z X 


cu O CQ 

o t- 



< r 
. tu 

CO < 

ro O 

*d- cu 

. ro 



r* 00 co 

cl 00 r : 
■- .-Xx 
~ y - . 


3 O coco 



^ _i^ 


: s~ 

00 *^ 

sz ^ 
? o 


+-«' CD 
c/) ^~ 
O - 

r rcN cn 

— c 
V ro 




^^ -- J -LU 


: UJ 


,* ■=: 

h-r-UJ coQC 



















. « 





TJ T> 





H- 4- 

■0 XI 
























^- m ^ m 


— ■ > 
• - JZ 
>- .!= 
CL co 

tu - 

■a 5 


CM .- 








. c 

■O' C0 



O a, 
Q. w 
co cu 



5 ID 


tu .- 


S O 


S tz' 
< 3 

♦J CQ ' 
CO . 

c xi 



CN X) 

. C 

~-' <o 

DC co 

cu tu 






21L . 

- < 

X) .-co 

c *■■ 
CO 00 ,J 


co a) .- 
^ 1- O 

CO CQ . 

:0 o 

f 5?8 

- *< 



n-iO • 



JO ' 

00 coo 


>° E 

Q. cu rz 

■ - s 

00 , 

-^ o 

uj o 

o^ 3 

O LU ■- 

< CO CQ 

X LU „ 

CQ LU > 

D Doc 

C -O 

b cu 



--, cu 

O ? in 
4— -* v 

CO -n 

5 ^ CD 
-5 CO CN 

x) cu ^r 


-§ < CC 

c r- - 

3 loo 

o v 5 

.< X) 

cu CO M 

c D cq 


00 O -_l< 

ScoO< . 


^ NO 



£ — CD 







O - 


3 LO 

-> O 

_ 00 
<* - 





ro • 




S _1 

< . 


CO 1- 


. o 

^ - 

y 00 




< ro 

a. i_ 


- 4- 

ro X> 

^ CO 

°- ~ C T) 
CO 00 -I q; 

SX> c55 

> m > > 
(0 S l- (0 

JZ g CQ O 

■- °CM 
,t0 X CM CO 

c > 

2 z 

o r 

o ~ 

1- CO 

03 *- 


+j <- 

CO U- 

.- tj- o .- 
XJ 00 .0 
X z 

^ l-r-DC 

-^ X CO LU 
2 <C0 
~ .--X 

3 |_ < < 


c^ 1 ■".. 

o < ro_ 

oo^ 2cL 








00 00 

_! .. 


CO . 


2 c 



-r 5 

lu ;> 
z . 


2 r r >- 

f. ~ 4- 9J 



DC r 2J 

h- = 



™ 1. 

LJ- c3 

. c 
J c 

51^ ro 

^ o «■£ 

•*5 .5 'ro 
O < 0. LL 

xj S — - 

* .1 

g |o 

S.S 1 -* r 
ZX 2°X 

_i - 

uj «- 

T " 

HO = 

Oy » 

uj +J . 

. CU ■ 

r "XJ 

C ^DC 

..CO 0) 

,1 "XJ 

it §!x> 


. c 

♦J" TO 

CO ^ 


XJ o 

~ CD 

O r 
o- 1 





^ CU CU 
CO g-Jf 

*i ,0 co 
.!2 t-o- 

ro 00 co- 


_l O 

< o 
CO « 


+J-— _Q) 
tu ro -rj 



to ..■ 

,- 0) CO x 

> r-LU 


CO CQ .. 


^o . 

uj<| a)^ 

CJ XJ tu 
Z t5 m 

— 1 cu tu ro ^j 


0. +> 


x> jz 

a> *- 

CQ 3 


g W 

CD +-* 

r co co 

.0) 00 
00 § : 

JZ Jz 

c 00 D 

to cm (J 


rD - 

5 < c 


- O £ 




<^ . 

Z -o"lu 

P> ■+- r 
<r xj ^ 

„ <u CO 


S 0) 

$ o 


~ 2 
00 o 

c . 




r c iD/j 

♦^ CU CO 

00 = loUJ 

< . 

± 00 


_LU _ 

00 oo'O ro 




c < 

1 CZ « 

> F tu 


JZ LO CD - ; r z: 

O . -"z 

4-* cu 
CO > 


^ -J. 



O J? 



>CM , 

!Eoo , 


Q to 





-LU O 


z ; 



z s°- 
uj^- ° 


LU CO tu ' 


_cu r~ 
ro o - 
"S lo *-■ 








<tf CQ 


z z 

co *~ 
05 CO 




coZ » 


o _« 

■ . <J u 

O to< 
LU(3 . 

So w 
°S o 

.E 2 


■- -o * 

ro — 

x§ - 





ocz^uji; t^ 

^-LU^LU ^CQ cuOq-uJ 

"Eo ■ 

f2>^z co^-'O t- 

0< TO _ 


-O tu r- 

a)XJ ^ xj 

UJ > O > 

X cu 

c ? -o| 

•-| Z 
°'ro J". 


o _* 
CO o 






J= "* x 

W CM m 

co Sf 




cc > 

- JZ 
UJ 3 


O lif 

< - 


DC co 

^ s." 






CO .. 



X - 
co x 



• co -1 

• r~ uj • 
CO 1 

' .-co 

. C Z - 

n <; 





< CO 

\~^ c 

LU — 

•= XJ 


O C 


JO — 



> > 




I LL 11 

CM r- 1 

§ ;^ 


O^ 1 


o . 


4- <U 

$ i 



. C 1 
' XJ 

■ ro • 

= *J OT oo 


O co 






3 ■ 




<- LL 





E - 

UJ a " 

CD . 




D .. 



d - 


ooc ' 
mo. % 


; xj o s 

c^° 2 

o^; - 

CO XJ • 

y ^co 


cc „ S 

LU g t- 

.. tu O 

oz m 



LU o 

cu cu 


zCr x>" 

r 10 ro 

~ a o 

tU ;, 

o g 

00 : 








> yi<~> tu 

h cO J id 

° J 2 § 

O O < O 00 


cu XJ 

> tu zz. 
rr CQ to 
U- u. 

= g - 

CD « +J 

"2 ~ ■ 

o CO CC - 






g o 1 

3 E o 


cm — r 
cdI _i 

-lo j- 

: cnx 
_- rQ3 
< -X 

CO rn LL 

UJ CQ .. 


h- LL LL 




UJ o 

XJ cu 

o m 

^ g 

CU <u 


>_■_■_■_■ ■ ■ ■_! 

!■■■■•■ ■_• ■■■■■■! 

• • • - -V- '" '-*•■»■ 


[■■■■■■ k 


, r=- 

j .. ■• 






iz^^'"' : ' 






.SB ■ 


■ ■ 

€l 11 


■Va'a ' a ' a ' a ' a'a'aWa'aVa'aVWaVaVaVaVaV, 7T7Z a I I ■ ■ I ■ I ■ ■ I I I I I 

.V.\V.V.%V.V.V.%V.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.'.V. v.% w.w.v.w.v.v.v 

a a a a a a a a a a a ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•■■■i 

■■■■■■ ■ ■ v. v.v v.% w. w.;avav.%va%%%vav.v«v.v.v. b - 

(W.V.V.V.V.V. .j 


:■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ 


■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 
• ■■■■■■■■■■•■a 

■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 

■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 

■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 

■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 

■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 

■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■a 

■ aaaaaaaaaaaaaa 


■ •■aaaaaaaaaaaa 

a a ' 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I i i i 

a a a a a a 

a a 
a i 



a a a a a a a a 

a a 

a a a 

a a a a 

a a a a a 
a a a a a 

a a a a a . 






a_a aaaaaaaaaa 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a a a a aa"-«aaaaaa 

a a a a i 


V.%V.V.V-%ViV.%V.- ■ • ■ 


1 ft% 

* -a 



{ JjjJll 





,.> ^jij^^.^J- 







' A ' 

^ m ^ 


: i 

& lift 

it. , ^ 


\fl Um| BmI 

H i l 

■ 1 

L 1 I 1 


^^F " 

Wendel Nooth,Paul Boiler, Dick Thomson, Bob Dufresne 

Paul Marchessault.Stan Holmes, Keven Beseette,M ike Silva, Coach Don Trahan. 


Mr. Harry W. Connolly 
Director of Athletics 

Mr. Robert Dowd 
N.A.I.A. Coach of the Year 



Wayne Dwyer, James Murdock, Billy Kelly, Howard Bernstein, Paul Ziobro 

Coach Robert Dowd, Steve Gardiner, Glen Niewenhuis, Peter Murry, Peter Kuchinski, Dennis Dussault Steve Cybert Davicd 

David Ozug. 



Mgr. Mark Vitone, Paul Talewsky, Fernando Goulart.John Raposa, Americo Araujo, Manny Gomes.Joaquim Costa, 

Wally Shea, Mgr. Alex Parsons _ , _ .. D , „, , 
Coach Ray Oliver Paul Souza, Peter Haley, Bob Gaudreau.Rifrat Spahi,William Cardoza, Fernando Dasilva,Bob OlarK, 
Edward Condon, Dennis Carmichael,R ick Britto, Paul Eastwood, James Aguiar, Assi. Coach Dave Barclay. 

Jimmy Thomas, Fran Kelly, Daryl Manchester, Bill Edward, Coach John Pachico 
John Crow, Tom Duval, Tom Viana, Lenny Rocha,Paul Chevalier 
Rick Garro,Jim Townley,Phil Mello,M ike Roy, Kevin Phelan 


Coach Eugene Williams, Captain Bob Marion, Coach Ralph Tykodi. 
Steve Bourgeois, Lloyd Haddocks, Leaslie Raisman, Charles Martin, 

Eric Sollee.Paul Levinson, Ronald Perry, David Slack. 



Arne Perry ,ScottChausse, Paul Vigeant,Phil Aucella,Ray Charette.Paul EastwoodCarl Taber,Steve Rezendes, 
John Gushue, Steve Knowles. 

John Evans,Jimmy Thomas, Frank Costa, Jean Desrosiers, Tom Solomine, Mike Nasser, Dick Boucher, Daryl 
Manchester, Bob Gaudreau,Tony Andrade, Coach Bruce Wheeler. 



Roger Canto, Rich Pildis.TOm Wallace, Fran McGuirk,Tom Monahan 
Chris James, George Huchinson. 












Q- CD 







a o 


O" CD 

CD "> 

" T 

CD 3^ 
— CD 





















student senate 

Paul Vasconcellos 
Paul Talewsky 
Joyce Goodman 
Steven Brown 
Robert Clarke 
Robert DiPietro 
Robert Diagle 
Richard Hayes 
Al Mayo 

Theresa Pryslopski 
Jeffrey Shirtleff 
Paul Vigeant 
Joseph Rosa 


Esther Martin 
Cheryl Vasconcellos 
Cynthia Dore 
Edward Johnson 
Kenneth Richards 
Kevin Coyne 
Richard Tavares 
Joan Camara 
Anthony Medeiros 
William Atteridgd 
William Atteridge 
Mark Fachada 
Wendy Stewart 
Victoria Fries 


• •••••< 

• ••■••< 

• • • w ■ • • 

• ••••• I 

• •••••••••••••■••I 

■ ■••■••••••••••••I 


..-.-.-.-.-.-. .-o.V.V.V.V.V.V. 





• ••••••••• ••••'/ 

•v.v.v.v.v. ••••••7 












• ••«•••• 

• •••••• 

• ••••• 

• • • • I 
- • • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • - 

• • • < 

• • • 
• • t 


. /.■ 









v'-J, v 

▼ 7 


. ■ * 




kY^ " 





f ^ 









i t 


W%s 1 


/>' ' 





. , 



"V- A '" * ¥ ^A H 


•*>■« . 




: % 




aM*1 *h 


^0T '■* > 


wpp**». ^.^ 






*^1 f 

; H 

v Wi 






i x 




TT'S A GOOD UVC, /5AJT IT.... SdHH A\)£RA6€rfM ? 
-3oTDiD you E^ER 5ToPT5TH^K 0JHATMAKC5 (VS^cy 
A GOOD UTE FO\YojAMD YoUf{ /LoueD CAjeS ? mcllThe 


T7/05C ARe PRETTY S; <^ <XDRI>S . (xHATTO THEY /y\&)KT\b 
/AE,m AV€RAOE G<J/? 

W£/X,W/W, PO?hWP5 TOMJ SflOu) VoO. OofVA],(X;^/}uTo- 
/VWT€D /AjDUSlfo/^ S/SFEAS tiA% /T}ADE >0U ftcac* WM 
C7*G:^R...A/tfPoLEOA).../iAlD //EAl^y V//I PuTTMeTf/CI^. 
K&ne/O&ZR, FOR />0-tf(3 GtftD/fylD/WtS Oi/A^OH^AJC 
COOLD AWT tf^ve GOTfeAi ONE S>M£IE "7&4MS<ST^ R#}b . 
/XoT To m € AJPOM 1BC /MSUR^Mce, //£/» OH/JMO RET7RE- 
/)0eATT BENEFITS >00 (jETTftROOOtf /OK EMptoyEJ^WJ. 

TriaueK L0o*cai/)r/r7W^T(O/5KGO3M/ Soptofawces 

BoTTWT'5 A)OTAW- ( Tori«. umdo? this SYSW*) oor civiu- 

Far BeyoND twe ujjcdest meom 3 of our p/ist. 

3/.7 TTOr\e:s AS /YMAiy "TCUEUlS/qM SETS ASTHe-RETroF 

THE uookcD PoTTQ(KTtfER. 77% OYWt world's /4uTo- 

£S"% <?F (T5 TOWER (/>IMN /flO^CRS. <?6% OF /T5 AEU- 
COPTERS. ^^ OF /T5 5/vjp(N/llO&lES. ^.9 *% OF77C ^OlUDVS- 


'* *t *. 

*• *• -i- 

jiT^ -* '^ - 



OJHy ' Xxti'ToESiW-Tlls 80tV-/V( TooeWZK 
/5MD iFOOCCCDSe /Vf 0(J(^€y£5lD6€7f/e/^ 


v , # \#»« 


W £ ° 


^ fTX 

r x ,^r ^r 


» t 

\ . \ 

^ a " 


<fe s ^ 

'Oil .-X^" 





'"''''A*i;/;H iu , W/i . liiHll |UUW «S^ _^?5^5J?^ 



Pictures of osTTmouGrt Tfie: sje/Miy fWZ.€T 


^P^H I^M 

e child's world is a world of symbols, shapes ana sizes until mat aismai aay wnen it is taugn, 
put a label on each and every thing it has felt, touched and smelt, and forced to shrink it by 


The child's world is the poet's world where dimensions differ only according to feeling, not 
fact, that place of the forth dimension that eludes all but painters, poets, lunatics and the players 
of musical instruments. And it even eludes those at times. That is why they remain children, 
eternally commited to chasing after it, clinging to the tatters of those clouds of glory with which 
we are all born and which only rationalisation can rip off 

Definitions are dull and delineations even duller. Blake's Tiger would never have burnt bright in 
the forests of an adult's night, but simply have gone out like a light while the adult died of fright. 

But beautiful things are not fearful in the innocent world because there, one has curiosity instead 
of terror and a suppleness of mind that adjusts itself to the wonder of the unexpected as easily as 
the pupil of the eye to the fluctuations of light and dark. 

Here then is a little book that is the right way up. A glimpse of a world wherein there is so much 
time and limitless space that no one has to confine or categorise out of meanness of heart, for fear 
that there won't be enough beauty or enough truth to go around unless you frighten others away. 

- - " .-..., Yehudi Menuhin 



cPO; OliCE OR TtAjtcESHE MD P££P£D //V70 77/E BOOf\ HER S 

5^ttqm m it, *aw wit is^aosE of fiGXA/'Tf/oo&rr/iJjcE; 




iShe oxxxi For V£Mv$ww££flER Fm^VEW sleepy 

CM/N WOOLD BE&OORTty THETRpo&JE: o F(K:77Mfr- U P /?M D 

Pink eyes ^n ccj>se &yto her . 

TfeRE ojAsflOTHitio- so very REymm^BiE /aj that; Npk 
$i£>auc£Thik& its) very /nooi outoftue ^ayione^i^ 

THE m&&T&VTb ITSELF "0H,P£AR( OK t>&)R( I SHMl -3E 
TD E RA3S fTACTOAl 1 Y "Too* /? WrfTc/* O {JTT OF /T5 Wrt 13T"CQAT 
W/T// C^/OSir/, SHE tf/Ul ACROSS THE nE/-P^FTE7? HjMV MS 
CJusT/NT/WETd SEE" iTfbFJXwHA LfittrE RfiB8iTHol£ VKPO^ 

XH MOTHER/K)0/r)EAir^)oO«^ CkSENTAUC-E /WTER, I TtiEl!&{ 
0tfCEGOAJglDQ?»N6-tfOW /N THE WORLD StiEWA5To6£TooTfi&))ti. 





The Yearbook ia Dead 

















J^SV"^" > 




THEM All. 










mm op, 



wry, so you could W( uptbc wif-voz&i or so pages 



CHcyns mw&zsToFWcK toagr&tguy... "ojeil, i t 

USED 10 WORK THAT (A//J Y, X>l£>AI T f f ? 
fl GCXi£&€CWSS W4S /) ClOSEtf KMT^ROUP wtf/Cfl SfWRED 







TD/JTITALD O0iM<^pJ^ y Pt/)y5 ORB^LL G^^IFS 


U/EWIIL PROBAjSLy /^EVER''(?£T-/r---RXrE:7><EK' / 7^I)0/)W)n??'MG- 






coww i period e period cjwwa 



Tb APPEALT6 THE WWERSlfy /5T LflR(tf:,AH$ C/)N(flT BEST) 



UFtfA/E TOKEN ~Tft/S /IPPR0/9O/ /A0 7BE H?Z SCK'/nStoW/4CFrt0uGf/ 

/r/s^ sko^p vi^ rr/s ByAjo/m#A>3 a 3oJ£rf)q/*E0aIe:. 

cof^y ooe H^v/C /9rr£7>lPTEO 7^» -Do is ~W 1WCH S&nz OF 



4 I/WAi6- COAWON/F/ (Ajtf E£E ALL Uf£ IS &R&XMT JA\TS 5ERI0C6 fW, 

HERETWEM / ^. /q S*l<5Ry OF/iN EXPEW/HEMT /AJ " PMy* 


SCON H£R E>E ft// OAJ /? Z77TLE: G&1SS BOX T7MT (MS) 5 G7AJ c- 

0A)f > EH"nse7?iz3i.c.6'«rop6NeD /F/?ajd rwmd//j /7V9 i/eRy 

-S/JV?/! CfiiKE, OM WHICH TflE 00OKDS "EATME'toitRf: 8eWT7FO//y 
(7&9RKED /a* COA?ReAjTS.°*W£//,T'//^r/T; 'S9/P/WXE; */4AlD 

/F /T/XM/rfTS /nET6^0(W MR,G£R, Tc/W l?£*c// 77>C KEYjmD /F 

it/Hakes me ^oivi s/JtoME^,:rc*rt crzePuawer thcoooK; 

33 er/THCK UWV XJY <J£r/AlT"0 THe <S/9RD£AJ,/9a}DXDok}T 

'M//C// l\tfy?0*HfcH 0J/W?'H0&i^HeRHAtoDOHTflLT0p 
Of HER HEAD TO TtO. ZAM c# <XW/ /"ToW GtfpuOMfch AMD 

6NeroV)S<3ortE: 3orp^isco TO F'*DT/MTSH£i?eyn/VAEZ) 
Tftes/VAe srz£, TO^e soiser/ffl/s i s wMTGenewiuy/HfteflS 

(M/ OV £XP£cT/rtG- /VOTH/^6- e^F OoT-oF-1TlC-60^y *R/A65 

~Tbeoot\ /MTHe com/Hp^ uv?y . 

so she setto ihor^np \jo?v s^om Fiwstfep off 

- — ' — ^^^./yf vx^ 

V v \ ^ s ** s w^v 


5Htn Ef| 

There is always Tjere 
When you gel" There . 




Wrt MLFft3&£/oTCf oFFEK'Td vieuonfcfloeeResrtixfflio- abm- 

lBerf)FF1?i(rHlZD CADiCS. 1?£G€hJF STREET ft HOT UHWWk) TO 

/)0eA7T7c2AiCD HA<JH[$ you SG^O/VCY 54X0^3/ £uT/N W€LU Ee£— 

^(//^(^^(XrR/c^X/^/iAi/orwm^ycrG^RKy oAnr/e/K awe* cm- 
floiy flesh . ir/mKes * sTj^MtfeR yt^/^e-. 

BuT 7ft/N< [Wm/Wms F/)AWU3 T3uA) HAS ON<~y tf/|R,- 
P30MEER5/ C/*MN)GW(-5,/4M£> J3CJMPKMS TO 3tf«o W3f]9RS. 
NOT/jT/llL.TnCL Ajai)BeDFbRt> 13 rt (?UE€R MT MD IT 

rny fw*ps wue eesu w/)5 /fcwcAX?OM>77au/is 77/e: 

/^R.e ew^lM 70 FkicHTEH ONCsTHZytfO^ WHY TRCTBaVO 
Alow Q&iAhSV. (TI3A WD OFatLJRje QAoubrt : BofAkiT 

UfcC CAHAAUiA MND,/9CSO / ^C^/V)/4AjD6UA£:.7^e5T^6r5 
£0 AOTRuU LOiTff (1\lL&; APR/Ai TflE" SPRlK&^llAC DOTHEY 
VASIC TH€/V[ MTH PRqSW €G(ft. YCT /M TpifC 0F1JU5, AJO - 

^£RCiM/^jL/yy\a?/c^ mil you f/nd /we buk/oam- 


M AJ€z^)GePR>RD. (Ajtiewcc c^/vie iflery ? Hou)"PcdM7£D 

CP0M1B'3 cyvjc£7 vSU^GGV S<xmft OTA COUNTRY J 




:£™£~~~:„ ■ 1 







\- : •/ :. ' 

K&-.: 9 

■l 1 

y^SL^r' ■ "-# 1 fjf? 


-rn^,- T JLS^^:^!r^^rg; 

■r- _ 




m y&E 


■ ! 




- . 

..r ■■: -.-■..-. .-.-: 




tfMVKMN* . : . ...j^j^gfc^.,,,. _ .. ...,,.. 


t *■"* • v 

OiE mj)A(L,W&tUCneHARFm!£D /WD ©ftftftfeZ) OPHlTHEK 

pfzoflwue&siiw opTwe sea.ow ho?k/)c£Xamxr pEHFom 

fit F&IT UKE. 7MT? 

JA) AJOO BEbR)RD / 'F/)W€R5>-WE:Y S<ty(r/l/£ 0OHALES K)fcmx)~ 

FEoo f&RPwses Wece you mosT^to a£W DeOR??2)75 5E£: 


oil /m etw tfousc, /iajd G/eR,y m/g#t ti€n<<£*sstf 8o/?m tbq^ 

High in air^ we bcautwl and eou/^ful /#^se-o/es7wgTs, 
OMDewBFtf-ojise; PR<?FFeR the: p^cse^-by tbgr, tapcxik>g- 


ra3 ■ ■'■ - . 

■-V- -v: 

■' ! • KB 

om KCO R05CS. SuTRascSOUiy Biayv| /AI (30W?£^aWE7^5 

~roe p^c cflf?OT<w onflow Q/ee£s /s KpemiAL assaj- 

oF77/e/R5, ve ow/uot; v^yc/Aj s/ittfii, MH&izTtfzy Tto./nr 
nwe vocmjc- gvrcs BRe/iTwe: <sucti MxsK, "Wo*, sh/ wr suiccT- 

CRA^lMG- Ail'OH Tfle: OT01W5 /VtoliJCc/) S /MSfcfD OF TH£ RjRJ- 

uil Hesse photo 

Wheel trim rings, and white side wall tires if available, at extra cof I 

Here's your thrifty one for 51 
The New Studebaker Champion! 

\7dp value of the top 4\ 

in the lowest price field! 

The Studehaker Champion is one of the 4 
lowest price largest selling cars ! 






May i extend my heartiest congratulations to the graduates and to 
their parents. In a few hours the young people seated here will be 
receiving their degrees. I know that this is a dream come true, and 
therefore I hope that you will enjoy it and savor it. Be proud of your 
achievements. May your parents always be proud of you and the fact 
that you have received a college education. 

May I, on this occasion, be personal?lt is exactly 30 years ago this 
month that I received my first college degree. As I think back to 30 
years ago, do you know what I would wish to be today?More than 
anything else I would wish to be a college student again. I spent 12 
years in college, at the Seminary and in graduate schools, and I must 
admit that in comparison to your years in college, mine were relatively 
dull and uninteresting. During my years in college, I worried about 
paying tuition and about passing the course. Later, I worried about 
admission to graduate school, about fulfilling the requirements for the 
doctorate, and about writing a doctoral thesis which would be 
accepted, and defending this thesis in oral examination. 

I submit to you that this personal experience of mine was very dull 
and ordinary compared to your years in college. I remember that when 
I was in college, I did not barricade one dean, either in or out of his 
office, I submit to you that this personal experience of mine was very 
dull and ordinary compared to your years in college. I remember that 
when I was in college, I did not barricade one dean, either in or out of 
his office, nor did I go on strike even for one day. I attended classes 
every day and I boycotted no professors. Neither did I march in any 
demonstrations and I wrote for no underground newspapers. As a 
matter of fact, I was never asked if I liked my professor, or whether he 
should be granted tenure. Never was I asked if i liked the curriculum. 

nor did I express myself regarding its "relevance". Never was I asked an 
opinion on the President of the University. As an undergraduate I never 
even met the President of the University which I attended until 
graduation day. 

What fun it must have been to go to college in the years which you 
have spent at this University! During these years you occupied buildings 
and you upset records. Without any pause, you gave advice to the 
faculty, expressed your thoughts about the President, about the deans 
and the Board of Trustees. And then, you asked for amnesty for every 
misdeed which you performed. Who can deny that all of your activities 
during the years spent at this college have been exciting?But frankly, 
all of this has your parents, your faculty, the administration and the 
public perplexed, bewildered, and bedevilled. 

Something important has happened in your generation. I do not 
know whether today's students are right or wrong, but I do know that 
college life is fundamentally different in your time than it was in mine. 

What is it that has made this difference? 

I submit that that difference is that education has changed its role 
from your time to my time. 

Once, not so very long ago, education was looked upon as a device to 
bring peace of mind and peace of soul to people. Education was a 
means of bringing tranquility to life. Those of us who are engaged in 
education day in and day out have found out that this is not true 
education at all. Learning is not a traquilizer, nor an analgesic, nor a 
soother. Education, if it is anything, is an irritant, a gadfly, a spur, a 
dart which can make men unhappy. It is through education that they 
can see the shabbiness, the pomposity, the superficiality, and the evil in 
this world, thank god the end. 




I r^4r^:'^-^.?^ : ;' 




S4Ff Tye4R 

It is no accident that the cries for change, for peace, for an end to 
poverty, for justice, for ethical behavior, come from young men and 
women who are in college and who are being educated. These are the 
intelligent, the informed, the bright and the learned who are shouting 
about creative progress that ought to be launched. America is in the tho 
throes of a revolution, for education is no longer merely a pass to the 
quiet, contemplative, serene existence. Education is now an opening to 
feel all that hurts, an opportunity to hear all that cries out in pain, to 
see all that is unjust, unkind and unfair in our lives and in the life of our 

To be learned means to have acquired a deep sensitivity; to be 
educated means to be irriatated, so that you cannot rest while evil 
abides. Education is no longer a pleasure; it is a displeasure. And I say, 
thank God that it is so! 

Now, let us understand. Every generation is unhappy with the 
generation that has preceded it as well as with the generation that 
follows it. Someowne once said, that the definition of America is "a 
society in which people do things that the father doesn't like and the 
grandfather doesn't understand." 

You, who have been educated, have been unnerving us. We worry 
desperately that in creating a new world, which so badly needs to be 
created, you might, inadvertantly, bring the old world in ashes down 
upon our heads. 

The displeasure which your education has brought you is real. We 
only ask that this displeasure, because of its source is learning and 
knowledge, become creative. Because of your schooling, you have 
learned that the mark of an educated person is that he need not 
conform, that he need not agree, that he has the right to object. But it 
is also the mark of an educated person, that the non-conformity of his 
life, that the non-agreement of his ideas, that the objections that he har 
to what is wrong, - that all these be civilized, for otherwise we stand in 
danger that the cure will be worse than the disease. ' 

Your education has brought you displeasure. You are the first 
generation to have gone to school and to have reached maturity in the 
Nuclear Age. You are the first generation in all of history that has been 
threatened by actual total total annihilation. Youre sensitive to the 
great danger that it is possible that the world will end not with a 
whimper, but might end with a bang. 

Because you have an education, you are bewildered by the modern 
politics. You have been told that in order to achieve more security in 
our land, in order to have more peace, we must have more arms and 
more war. How do you bring peaceTThe answer is by bombing more 
people. We live in peculiar times. Do you realize that almost 80 billion 
dollars a year of our national budget is used for war material which is 
non-productive? Blacks and whites stew in misery in ghettos 
throughout the cities of America, children hinger in Tennessee, teachers 
beg for a living wage, and a baseball player gets twice the salary of a 
Supreme Court Justice! And so you young people, educated, learned, 
sensitive utter a profound cry: What kind of a world is this?We teeter 
on an edge of oblivion, and old fashioned politics and diplomacy in 
Washington, Paris, Peking and Moscow go on just as if nothing 
happened. The old world is no good; and a new world may never come 
into being. 

Education has brought displeasure for yet another reason. You have 
looked about you and you have begun to suspect that the individual 
means less and less in the society in which we live. OUrs is the 
generation which lives by the "number system". Each of us has a 
Social Security Number, all diget dialing on our telephones, a zip code 
is added to our addresses, and the computer cards at the Universities 
spew out the courses and the identity of sludesnts. If this is so, does it 
not mean that nobody cares about me, me as an individual. I am not 

Patience, frugality, hard work, discipline, all these old virtues, 
what sense do they make in the age of the computer?ln the age of 
punched cards? In the age wherewe hear nightly the body count of 
those who have been maimed and killed in a far away land. And so, 
your eoucation has brought you displeasure. Instead of a world where 
you, as an individual counts, you have had to conclude that "let's get 
the most out of this world, while it is still here". 

Once you were convinced that the family was the very basic unit of 
civilization. Marriage was a sacrament, and the family was holy. But 
your education has brought you the awareness, and therefore the 
displeasure, of finding out that our parents have clay feet. My father 
does not know everything, and he is not a paragon of virtue. He can 
become livid with anger when he reads that papers have been stolen 
from the university file, or that students submit academic papers which 
were not written by them. But my father also enjoys it when a 
government ager cy leaks a tidbit to the press. My mother is not 
lily-pure. So, thank mother and father for bearing me, for feeding me, 
for educating me, but why must I respect them?Why must I listen to 
them?As a matter of fact, don't trust anyone over thirty. 

Sex no longer dictates having children, it is only an experience, a 
thrill, - so why not just enjoy it?People are no longer people, they are 
but things or onjects. Get from them what you can, then discard them. 
An education has liberated you, but it has also brought distress, and 

Your education has brought you displeasure, even in the fields of 
knowledge and education themselves. Once an education was meant to 
broaden the mind - the "liberal education". Greek and Latin were to 
give us vistas of civilization and culture which are the foundations of 
our heritage, science was looked upon as a necessarydispleasure of 
thought, literature was to make us contemporary with all the great 
minds of history, and music and art were exalted interpretations of the 
human experience. But today it is hammered upon us from every 
direction, that a good education is one that is relevant and vocational. 
What is an education forPFor abetter job, a better living, more prestige, 
and a Ph.D. is but a passport to academe. But remember, your 
education has also taught you that which is instantly relevant, is also 
instantly obsolete. 

The education explosion has taught you something that brings you 
further displeasure. Because of your education, it is easy for you to 
detect sham, to detect teaches who do not read and do not know. You 
are now displeased that there are schools where intellectualism is 
deprecated, that there are governments that are run by opportunists 
and incompetents. To know all of this, to feel all of this, is one of the 
dspleasures of being learned. 

Education has brought you displeasure even in the field of the "holy 
of holies" - in religion itself! Today, there is a gerater forment going on 
in religion than ever before. There is the strain of making religion 
"relevant". You know now, that religion which is based on mythology, 
that religion which fails to take a count of the new truths that come to 
us from the physical, social and behaviorial sciences is a false religion. 
The old categories of "secular" and "religious" do not means the same 
as they did in previous generations. In the 1970's religion is still clothes 
inobsolete forms: Catholicism has kept the structure of medieval Rome, 
Protestantism is structured according to the 18th century rural 
America, and Judaism reflects 19th century Eastern Europe. Being an 
educated person, you demand competence and authenticity even in 

THe priest, the minister, the rabbi, no longer have any special 
status except by their competence, and such comptence has nothing to 
do with their popularity, with folk-masses or with guitar playing. 
Education brings a perplexity which makes you look at the Curch and 
Synagogue and ask, are they just meseumsPAre they just quaint?Or 
most importantly, do they have meaning for our lives? 

But now that we have spoken of some of the displeasure of being 
educated, what shall we do about it?How shallwe, educated people 
with university degrees, act?Shall we shout, demonstrate, cry in the 
wind, shake the gates of heaven, hurl obscentities from campus to 
campusPAre not all of these simply exercises in futillityPlf education 
brings displeasure, remeber, it also brings sensitivity. As we have learned 
there are ephemeral values and stupidities in this world, we have also 
learned that there are eternal and meaningful values. Your college 
degree tells you that there may be evil in this world, but that it is 
goodness that counts. That men mey lie, but honesty is redemptive. 
That men may kill, but reverence forlife redeems our souls. That we 
may be hypocrites but that our salvation lies in the truth. 

To be educated means to strain one's soul to live by eternal values. 
To be educated means seeing the world in its stark, harsh reality, but it 
also means seeing the owrld in its infinite hopefulnessm A university 
degree must mean ththough we know that human beings can be beasts, 
that they can also be "little lower than the angels". You have leanred 
that the universe is immense and that therefore people are infinitesimal 
specks in the cosmos; but that it is man that looks through the 
telescope and through the microsNo chimpanzee sitting at a typewriter 
ever wrote Hamlet; no monkey, sitting at a keyboard, ever wrote 
Beethoven's 9th Symphony. 

Education also tells us that within the human being there is a mind 
and a heart - a mind and a heart that have within them kindness and 
goodness, hopefulness and reverence, creativity and beauty, sweetness 
and light. 

Your education tells you that each ot us, as achild of God has 
petentialities. The good that is within you, and you must have some 
good for otherwise your education would not bring you displeasure, 
that the good can bring out the good in others. Your helpfulness can 
make other virtuours; your reverence can charm a world; your loyalty 
can make a friend; your sensitivity can make others aware of the finer 
aspects of life. This then, is the meaning of an education: a sharpened 
sensitivity to a world gone mad and a deeper understanding that -its 
sanity depends upon each of us. 

As a relgious person, I tell you that there is another name for all of 
this. This is God functioning within us. God is that tension that we feel 
between that which is and that which ought to be. Our education then, 
is a gift of God, with all its sensitivity, with all its displeasure, but also 
with all its hopefulness. For we say, that in spite of it all, a new day can 
come along, a day in which we will be able to see light in the darkness, 
to see goodness where there is evil, to see peace where there is war, to 
see plenty where there is hunger, to see a future where it seems as if 
there is no present. 

jte " !<3F 

!l ^ lil 




£L 1 


jl^ « - ' ■ W| ^ II ■ 1 T 


Si X t^m 

bbbb -^bb^ 

^ £d 

^^TlM Bl 


■ :'. : 


'' ■ ■ 

' ■ 





RSI ^^»^ ^,L-5^? 

1 BBU 


i.8 li - 4 

A iSfc^w w I 

l"* 5 * "WaiMMme 

^ 1 ^ *5 v ^ 

If then, there are displeasures of an education, there are also 
pleasures of an education. This is God lifting each one of us and making 
us His Children, to d His will on His earth. May God bless each of you 
as you take your degrees. I beg of you, due to your education, due to 
your sensitivity, due to displeasures that it" hasbrought you and the 
hopefulness that is built into an education, build a life, build a world, 
for, who else shall do it, - but you? 



It is obviously impossible to explain in detail how Karel Weissman 
arrived at his 'philosophy of history'.* It was the result of a lifetime of 
work. But I can at least outline the conclusions he reached in his 
Historical Reflections. 

The most remarkable faculty of mankind, says Weissman, is its power 
of self-renewal, or of creation. The simplest example is the kind of 
renewal that occurs when a man sleeps. A tired man is a man already in 
the grip of death and insanity. One of Weissman's most striking theories 
is his identification of insanity with sleep. A sane man is a man who is 
fully awake. As he grows tired, he loses his ability to rise above dreams 
and delusions, and life becomes steadily more chaotic. 

Now Karel Weissman was a psychologist, not a historian. And the 
field in which he made a living was in industrial psychology. In the 
Historical Reflections, h.e writes: 

Now Weissman argues that this faculty of creation or self-renewal is 
abundantly obvious in European man from the Renaissance to the 
eighteenth century. In this period, human history is full of cruelty and 
horror, and yet man can throw it off as easily as a tired child can sleep 
off its fatigue. The English Elizabethan period is usually cited as a 
golden age becuase of its creativity; but anyone who studies it closely is 
horrified by its callousness and brutality. Men are totured and burnt 
alive; Jews have their ears cut off; children are beaten to death or 
allowed to die in incredibly filthy slums. Yet so enormous is man's 
optimism and power of self-renewal that the chaos only stimulates him 
to new efforts. Great age follows great age: the age of Leonardo, the 
age of Rabelais, the age of Chaucer, the age of Shakespeare, the age of 
Newton, the age of Johnson, the age of Mozart . . . Nothing is more 
obvious than that man is a god who will overcome every obstacle. 

And then a strange change comes over the human race. It happens 
towards the end of the eighteenth century. The tremendous, bubbling 
creativity of Mozart is counterbalanced by the nightmare cruelty of De 
Sade. And suddenly, we are in an age of darkness, an age where men of 
genius no longer create like gods. Instead, they struggle as if in the grip 
of an invisible octopus. The century of suicide begins. In fact, modern 
history begins, the age of defeat and neurosis. 

But why did it ail happen so suddenly?The industrial revolution? 
But the industrial revolution did not happen overnight, and neither did 
it affect a large area of Europe. Europe remained a land of woods and 
farms. How, asked Weissman, can we explain the immense difference 
between the genius of the eighteenth century and that of the 
nineteenth, except by surmising that some invisible yet cataclysmic 
change came over the human race in about the year 1800?How can the 
industrial revolution explain the total dissimilarity between Mozart and 
Beethoven - the latter a mere fourteen years Mozart's junior?Why do 
we enter a century in which half the men of genius committed suicide 
or died of tuberculosis?Spengler says that civilizations grow old like 
plants, but this is a sudden leap from youth to old age. An immense 
pessimism descends on the human race, which is reflected in its art, its 
music, its literature. It is not enough to say that man has suddenly 
grown up. What is far more important is that he seems to have lost his 
power of self-renewal. Can we think of a single great man of the 
eighteenth century who committed suicide?And yet their lives were 
just as hard as those of the nineteenth century. The new man has lost 
faith in life, he has lost faith in knowledge. Modern man agrees with 
Faust: that when all is said and done, we can know nothing. 

*A detailed examination will be found in the three volumes of Max 
Viebig's Philosophy of Karel Weissman. Northwestern University, 2015. 

It was in 1990 that I entered the field of industrial psychology as the 
assistant of Professor Ames at Trans-world Cosmetics. I immediately 
discovered a curious and nightmarish situation. I knew, of course, that 
'industrial neurosis' had become a serious matter - so much so that 
special industrial courts had been set up to deal with offenders who 
sabotaged machinery or killed or injured workmates. But only a few 
people were aware of the sheer size of the problem. The murder rate in 
large factories and similar conerns had increased to twice that of the 
rest of the population. In one cigarette factory in America, eight 
foremen and two high executives were killed in the course of a single 
year; in seven of these cases, the murderer committed suicide 
immediately after the attack. 

The industrial Plastics Corporation of Iceland had decided to try the 
experiment of an 'open air' factory, spread over many acres, so that the 
workers had no sense of overcrowding or confinement; energy fields 
were used instead of walls. At first, the experiment was highly 
successful; but within two years, the factory's rate of industrial crime 
and neurosis had risen to equal the national average. 

These figures never reached the national press. Psychologists 
reasoned -- correctly - that to publicize them would make things worse. 
They reasoned that it would be best to treat each case as one would an 
outbreak of fire that must be isolated. 

The more I considered this problem, the more I felt that we had no 
real idea of its cause. My colleagues were frankly defeated by it, as Dr. 
Ames admitted to me during my first week at Trans-world Cosmetics. 
He said that it was difficult to get to the root of the problem, because it 
seemed to have so many roots - the population explosion, 
overcrowding in cities, the individual's feeling of insignificance and 
increasing sense of living in a vacuum, the lack of adventure in modern 
life, collapse of religion . . . and so on. He said he wasn't sure that 
industry wasn't treating the problem in entirely the wrong way. It was 
spending more money on psychiatrists, on improving working 
conditions - in short, in making the workers feel like patients. But since 
our living depended on this mistake, it was hardly up to us to suggest a 

And so I turned to history to find my answers. And the answers, 
when I found them, made me feel like suicide. For, according to history, 
all this was completely inevitable. Civilization was getting top heavy; it 
was bound to fall over. Yet the one thing this conclusion failed to take 
into account was the human power of self-renewal. By the same 
reasoning, Mozart was bound to commit suicide because his life was so 
miserable. But he didn't. 

What was destroying the human power of self-renewal? 

I cannot explain quite how I came to believe that there might be a 
single cause. It was something dawned on me slowly, over many years. 
It was simply that I came to feel increasingly strongly that the figures 
for industrial crime were out of all proportion to the so-called 
'historical causes'. It was as if I were the head of a firm who begins to 
feel instinctively that his accountant is cooking the books, although he 
has no idea how rt is being done. 

And then, one day, I began to suspect the existence of the mind 
vampires. And from then on, everything confirmed my guess. 

It happened first when I was considering the use of mescalin and 
lysergic acid for curing industrial neurosis. Fundamentally, of course, 
the effect of these drugs is no different from that of alcohol or 
tobacco: they have the effect of unwinding us. A man who is 
overworked has got himself into a habit of tension, and he cannot break 
the habit by merely willing. A glass of whisky or a cigarette will reach 
down into his motor levels and release the tension. 

But man has far deeper habits than overwork. Through millions of 
years of evolution, he has developed all kinds of habits for survival. If 
any of these habits get out of control, the result is mental illness. For 
example, man has a habit of being prepared for enemies; but if he 
allows it to dominate his lie, he becomes a paranoiac. 

One of man's deepest habits is keeping alert for dangers and 
difficulties, refusing to allow himself to explore his own mind because 
he daren't take his eyes off the world around him. Another one, with 
the same cuase, 

One of man's deepest habits is keeping alert for dangers and difficulties, 
refusing to allow himself to explore his own mind because he daren't 
take his eyes of the world around him. Another one, with the same 
cause, is his refusal to notice beauty, because he prefers to concentrate 
on practicl problems. These habits are so deeply ingrained that alcohol 
and tobacco cannot reach them. But mescalin can. It can reach down to 
man's most atavistic levels, and release the automatic tensions that 
make him a slave to his own boredom and to the world around him. 

Now I must confess that I was inclined to blame these atavistic habits 
for the problem of the world suicide rate and the industrial crime rate. 
Man has to learn to relax, or he becomes overwrought and dagerous. He 
must learn to contact his own deepest levels in order to re-energize his 
consciousness. So it seemed to me that drugs of the mescalin group 
might provide the answer. 

So far, the use of these drugs had been avoided in industrial 
psychology, for an obvious reason: mescalin relaxes a man to a point 
where work becomes impossible. He wants to do nothing but 
contemplate the beauty of the world and the mysteries of his own 

Luckily, I was not working at the time; it would have been 
impossible. And about a week later, I found myself thinking: Well, 
what are you afraid of?You've come to no harm. I immediately began 
to feel more cheerful. It was only a few days after this that Standard 
Motors and Engineering offered me the post of their chief medical 
officer. I accepted it, and plunged into the work of an enormous and 
complex organization. For a long time it left me no time for brooding 
or devising new experiments. And whenever my thoughts turned back 
to my mescalin experiments, I felt such a powerful revulsion that I 
always found some excuse for putting it off. 

Six months ago, I finally returned to the problem, this time from a 
slightly different angle. My friend Rupert Haddon of Princeton told me 
of his highly successful experiments in rehabilitating sexual criminals 
with the use of L.S.D. In explaining his theories, he used a great deal of 
the terminology of the philosopher Husserl. It immediately became 
obvious to me that phenomenology is only another name for the kind 
of self- observation I had tried to carry out under mescalin?and that 
when Husserl talks about 'uncovering' the structure of consciousness' 
he only means descending into these realms of mental habit of which I 
have spoken. Husserl had realized that while we have ordnance survey 
maps that cover every inch of our earth, we have no atlas of our mental 

Reading Husserl renewed my courage. The idea of trying mescalin 
again terrified me; but phenomenology starts from ordinary 
consciousness. So I again began making notes about the problems of 
man's inner world, and the geography, of consciousness. 

I felt that there was no reason to reach this limit. A tiny quanity.of 
mescalin, admisistered in the right way, might release a man's creative 
forces without plunging him into a stupor. After all, man's ancestors of 
two thousand years ago were almost clour-blind because they were in a 
subconscous habit of ignoring colour. Life was so difficult and 
dangerous that they couldn't afford to notice it. Yet modern man has 
succeeded in losing this old habit of colour-blindness without losing any 
of his drive and vitality. It is all a matter of balance. 

And so I inaugurated a series of experiments with drugs of the 
mescalin group. And my first results were so alarming that my 
engagement with Trans-world Cosmetics was terminated abruptly. Five 
out of my ten subjects committed suicide within days. Another two 
had a total mental collapse that drove them into a madhouse. 

I was baffled. I had experimented with mescalin on myself in my 
university days, but I found the results uninteresting. A mescalin 
holiday is all very pleasant, but it all depends whether you enjoy 
holidays. I do not; I find work too interesting. 

But my results made me decide to try it again. I took half a gram. 
The result was so horrifying that I still perspire when I think about it. 

At first, there were the usual pleasant effects -- areas of light swelling 
gently and revolving. Then an immense sense of peace and calm, a 
glimpse of the Buddhist nirvana, a beautiful and gentle contemplation 
of the universe that was at once detached and Infinitely involved. After 
about an hour of this, I roused myself from it; I was obviously not 
discovering what had caused the suicides. Now I attempted to turn my 
attention inward, to observe the exact state of my perceptions and 
emotions. The result was baffling. It was as if I was trying to look 
through a telescope, and someone was deliberately placing his hand 
over the other end of it. Every attempt at self-observation failed. And 
then with a kind of violent effort, I tried to batter through this wall of 
darkness. And suddenly, I had a distinct feeling of something living and 
alien hurrying out of my sight. I am not, of course, speaking of physical 
sight. This was entirely a 'feeling'. But it had such an imprint of reality 
that for a moment I became almost insane with terror. One can run 
away from an obvious physical menace, but there was no running away 
from this, because it was inside me. 

For nearly a week afterwards, I was in a state of the most abject 
terror, and closer to insanity than I have ever been in my life. For 
although I was now back in the ordinary physical world, I had no 
feeling of safety. I felt that, in returning to everyday consciousness, I 
was like an ostrich burying its head in the sand. It only meant that I 
was unaware of the menace. 

Almost at once, I became aware that certain inner-forces were 
resisting my researches. As soon as I began to brood on these problems, 
I began to experience sick headaches and feelings of nausea. Every 
morning, I woke up with a feeling of profound depression. I have 
always been a student of mathematics in an amateurish way, as well as a 
good chess player. I soon discovered that I felt better the moment I 
turned my attention to mathematics or chess. But the moment I began 
to think about the mind, the same depression would settle on me. 

My own weakness began to infuriate me. I determined that I would 
overcome it at all costs. So I begged two months' leave of absence from 
my employers. I warned my wife that I was going to be very ill. And I 
deliberately turned my mind to these problems of phenomenology. The 
result was exactly as I predicted. For a few days I felt tired and 
depressed. Then I began to experience headaches and nerve pains. Then 
I vomited up everything I ate. I took to my bed, and tried to use my 
mind to probe my own sickness,' using the methods of analysis laid 
down by Husserl. My wife had no idea of what was wrong with me, and 
her anxiety made it twice as bad. It is lucky that we have no children; 
otherwise, I would certainly have been forced to surrender. 

After a fortnight, I was so exhausted that I could barely swallow a 
teaspoonful of milk. I made an immense effort to rally my forces, 
reaching down to my deepest instinctive levels. In that moment, I 
became aware of my enemies. It was like swimming down to the 
bottom of the sea and suddenly noticing that your are surrounded by 
sharks. I could not, of course, 'see' them in the ordinary sense, but I 
could feel their presence as clearly as one can feel toothache. They were 
down there, at a level of my being where my consciousness never 

And as I tried to prevent myself from screaming with terror, the fear 
of a man facing inevitable destruction, I suddenly realized that I had 
beaten them. My own deepest life forces were rallying against them. An 
immense strength, that I had never known I possessed, reared up like a 
giant. It was far stronger than they were, and they had to retreat from 
it. I suddenly became aware of more of them, thousands of them; and 
yet I knew that they could do nothing against me. 

And then the realization came to me with such searing force that I 
felt as if I had been struck by lightning. Everything was clear; I knew 
everything. I knew why it was so important to them that no one should 
suspect their existence. Man possesses more than enough power to 
destroy them all. But so long as he is unaware of them, they can feed 
on him, like fampires, sucking away his energy. 

My wife came into the bedroom and was astouded to find me 
laughing like a madman. For a moment, she thought my mind had 
collapsed. Then she realized that it was the laughter of sanity. 

I told her to go and bring me soup. And within forty-eight hours, I 
was back on my feet again, as healthy as ever -- in fact, healthier than I 
had ever been in my life. At first, I felt such an immense euphoria at 
my discovery that I forgot about those vampires of the mind. Then I 
realized that this in itself was stupid. They had an immese advantage 
over me; they knew my own mind far better than I did. Unless I was 
very careful, they could still destroy me. 

But for the moment, I was safe. When, later in the day, I felt the 
persistent, nagging attacks of depression, I turned again to that deep 
source of inner power, and to my optimism about the human future. 
Immediately the attacks ceased, and I began to roar with laughter again. 
It was many weeks before I could control this laughter mechanism 
whenever I had a skirmish with the parasites. 

What I had discovered was, of course, so fantastic that it could not 
be grasped by the unprepared mind. In fact, it was extraordinary good 
luck that I had not made the discovery six years earlier, when I was 
working for Trans-world. In the meantime, my mind had made slow 
and unconscious preparation for it. In the past few months, I have 
become steadily more convinced that it was not entirely a matter of 
luck. I have a feeling that there are powerful forces working on the side 
of humanity, although I have no idea of their nature. 

(I made a special note of this sentence. It was something I had always 
felt instinctively). 

What it amounts to is this. For more than two centuries now, the 
human mind has been constantly a prey to these energy vampires. In a 
few cases, the vampires have been able completely to take over a human 
mind and use it for their own purposes. For example, I am almost 
certain that De Sade was one of these 'zombis' whose brain was entirely 
in the control of the vampires. The blasphemy and stupidity of his 
work are not, as in many cases, evidence of demonic vitality, and the 
proof of it is that De Sade never matured in any way, although he lived 
to be 74. The sole purpose of his life work is to add to the mental 
confusion of the human race, deliberately to distort and pervert the 
truth about sex. 

As soon as I understood about the mind vampires, the history of the 
past two hundred years became absurdly clear. Until about 1780 
(which is roughly the date when the first full-scale invasion of mind 
vampires landed on earth), most art tended to be life-enhancing, like 
the music of Haydn and Mozart. After the invasion of the mind 
vampires, this sunny optimism became almost impossible to the artist. 
The mind vampires always chose the most intelligent men as their 
instruments, because it is ultimately the intelligent men who have the 
greatest influence on the human race. Very few artists have been 
powerful enough to hurl them off, and such men have gained a new 
strength in doing so - Beethoven is clearly an example; Goethe another. 

And this explains precisely why it is so important for the mind 
vampies to keep their presence unknown, to drain man's lifeblood 
without his being aware of it. A man who defeats the mind vampires 
becomes doubly dangerous to them, for his forces of self-renewal have 
conquered. In such cases, the vampires probably attempt to destroy 
him in another way -- by trying to influence other people against him. 
We should remember that Beethoven's death came about because he 
left his sister's house after a rather curious quarrel, and drove several 
miles in an open cart in the rain. At all events, we notice that it is in the 
nineteenth century that the great artists first begin to complain that 
'the world is against them'; Haydn and Mozart were well understood 
and appreciated by their own time. As soon as the artist dies, this 
neglect disappears - the mind vampires loosen their grip on people's 
minds. They have more important things to attend to. 

In the history of art and literature since 1780, we see the results of 
the battle with the mind vampires. The artists who refused to preach a 
gospel of pessimism and life devaluation were destroyed. The 
life=slanderers often lived to a ripe old age. It is interesting, for 
example, to contrast the fate of the life-slanderer Schopenhauer with 
that of the life-affirmer Nietzsche, or that of the sexual degenerate De 
Sade with that of the sexual mystic Lawrence. 



••- * 

Apart from these obvious facts, I have not succeeded in learning a 
great deal about the mind vampires. I am inclined to suspect that, in 
small numbers, they have always been present on earth. Possibly the 
Christian idea of the devil arises from some obscure intuition of the 
part they had played in human history: how their role is to take over a 
man's mind, and to cause him to become an enemy of life and of the 
human race. But it would be a mistake to blame the vampires for all the 
misfortunes of the human race. Man is an animal who is trying to evolve 
into a god. Many of his problems are an inevitable result of this struggle 

I have a theory, which I will state here for the sake of completeness. 
I suspect that the universe is full of races like our own, struggling to 
evolve. In the early stages of its evolution, any race is mainly concerned 
to conquer its environment, to overcome enemies, to assure itself of 
food. But sooner or later, a point comes where the race has prgressed 
beyond this stage, and can now turn its attention inward, to the 
pleasures of the mind. 'My mind to me a kingdom is', said Sir Edward 
Dyer. And when man realizes that his mind is a kingdom in the most 
literal sense, a great unexplored country, he has crossed the borderline 
that divides the animal from the god. 

I suspect that these mind vampires specialize in finding races who have 
almost reached this point of evolution, who are on the brink of 
achieving a new power, and then feeding on them until they have 
destroyed them. It is not their actual intention to destroy - because 
once they have done this, they are forced to seek another host. Their 
intention is to feed for as long as possible on the tremendous energies 
generated by the evolutionary struggle. Their purpose, therefore, is to 
prevent man from discovering the worlds inside himself, to keep his 
attention directed outwards. I think there can be no possible doubt that 
the wars of the twentieth century are a deliberate contrivance of these 
vampires. Hitler, like De Sade, was almost certainly another of their 
'zombis'. A completely destructive world war would not serve their 
purposes, but continual minor skirmishes are admirable. 

What would man be like if he could destroy these vampires, or drive 
them away?The first result would certainly be a tremendous sense of 
mental relief, a vanishing oppression, a surge of energy and optimism. 
In this first rush of energy, artistic masterpieces would be created by 
the dozen. Mankind would react like children who have been let out of 
school on the last day of term. Then man's energies would turn inward. 
He would take up the legacy of Husserl. (It is obviously significant that 
it was Hitler who was responsible for Husserl's death just as his work 
was on the brink of new achievements). He would sudenly realize that 
he possesses inner- powers that make the hydrogen bomb seem a mere 
candle. Aided, perhaps, by such drugs as mescalin, he would become, 
for the first time, an inhabitant of the world of mind, just as he is at 
present an inhabitant of earth. He would explore the countries of the 
mind as Livingstone and Stanley explored Africa. He would discover 
that he has many 'selves', and that his higher 'selves' are what his 
ancestors would have called gods. 

I have another theory, which is so absurd that I hardly dare to 
mention it. This is that the mind vampires are, without intending it, the 
instruments of some higher force. They may, of course, succeed in 
destroying any race that becomes their host. But if, by any chance, the 
race should become aware of the danger, the result is bound to be the 
exact opposite of what is intended. One of the chief obstacles to human 
evolution is man's boredom and ignorance, his tendency to drift and 
allow tomorrow to take care of itself. In a certain sense, this is perhaps 
a greater danger to evolution - or at least, a hindrance - than the 
vampires themselves. Once a race becomes aware of these vampires, the 
battle is already half won. Once man has a purpose and a belief, he is 
almost invincible. The vampires might serve, therefore, to inoculate 
man against his own indifference and laziness. However, this is no more 
than a casual speculation . . . 

1 f 






■ " 4 »y 


01 v->*- 




The next problem is more important than all this speculation: How is 
it possible to get rid of them?lt is no answer simply to publish 'the 
facts'. The historical facts mean nothing at all; they would be ignored. 
In some way, the human race has to be made aware of its danger. If I 
did what would be so easy -- arranged to be interviewed on television, 
or wrote a series of newspaper articles on the subject -- I might be 
listened to, but I think it more probable that people would simply 
dismiss me as insane. Yes, indeed, this is a tremendous problem. For 
short of persuading everyone to try a dose of mescalin, I can think of 

no way of convincing people. And then, there is no guarantee that 
mescalin would bring about the desired result --otherwise, I might risk 
dumping a large quantity of it in some city's water supply. No, such an 
idea is unthinkable. With the mind vampires massed for attack, sanity is 
too fragile a thing to risk. I now understand why my experiment at 
Trans-world ended so disastrously. The vampires deliberately destroyed 
those people, as a kind of warning to me. The average person lacks the 
mental discipline to resist them. This is why the suicide rate is so high . 


«\* ::: 













I must learn more about these creatures. While my ignorance is so 
complete, they could destroy me. When I know something about them, 
perhaps I shall also know how to make the human race aware of them. 

The part of the statement I have quoted was not, of course, where I 
began; I have selected its central passage. The Historical Reflections 
were actually lengthy reflections on the nature of these mind parasites 
and on their part in human history. The work is in the form of a diary, 
a diary of ideas. Inevitably, it is extremely repetitive. He is a man who 
is trying to hold tight on to some central insight, and who keeps on 
losing it. 

I was struck by the fact that he was able to concentrate for such long 
periods. Under his circumstances, I would certainly have found it 
harder to suppress my nervousness. But I came to believe that this was 
because he felt that he was now relatively safe from them. He had 
beaten them in the first battle, and he had the elation of victory. His- 
main problem, as he said, was to get other people to believe him. 
Apparently, he did not consider this as too urgent. He knew that if he 
published his findings as they stood, he would be regarded as a 
madman. In any case, as a scientist, he had the habit of trying to verify 
his facts and to enlarge them as far as possible before announcing them. 
What puzzled me - and continues to puzzle me -- is that he did not try 
to confide in anybody, not even in his wife. This in itself shows a 
peculiar state of mind. Was he so absolutely certain that he was now in 
no danger that he felt time no longer mattered?Or was this euphoria 
another trick of the parasitesiWhatever happened, he went on working 
at his notes, convinced that he was fighting a winning battle - until the 
day they drove him to suicide. 


God Bless You! 

It is imperative to state at the outset of this talk this evening that the 
remarks which are to follow express only my own opinions, insights, 
and evaluations, for whatever they are worth. And in the marketplace 
of this forum only you can judge what that worth is. But the thoughts 
which I will utter, the recommendations I will make and the golas 
which I will suggest are not intended to represent for you what should 
be your thoughts, nor the recommendations you should make, or the 
golas that you should buy. I make no pretentions that the views which I 
hold will, or should necessarily harmonize with yours, indeed they may 
even offend or possibly anger you. 

However, I speak as one who for the past six years has been intensely 
involved in the human fabric of this University, tried and tested, at 
times, almost beyond endurance, in the crucible of its troubled 
conditions. And no less than any of you, I have a deep and abiding love 
for SMU, a commitment to its future and a desire to see it grow greater 
- grow greater in terms of its educational function and purpose in its 
institutional character and moral force, and in its influence for good 
upon all those whom it seeks to serve, it is my hope that what we say 
will serve as a stimulus to your own thinking?that as we come together 
this weekend in an attempt to discuss and to probe our understandings, 
to analyze the problems which beset our university and to treat her 
needs with tender diligence, we will also experience through this group 
process at least an occasional rendevouz with truth. It matters not 
whether that truth is as profound as a dixcovery of one[s own inner 
resources or as prosaic as the mere clarification of a concept heret 

Equally, it is hoped that out of the haze of all the pomposities that 
will surely be offered here, and the thickets of our verbalizations, we 
will be able also to produce a kind of unrehearsed, real life theatre of 
ideans -- ideans that will have about them the substance, the vitality and 
imagination sufficent to insprire not only us to effort and action, but 
also those to whom we take the message as well. 

To a number of you it may be unclear as to just why you are here, 
and for what purpose this Leadership Conference has been convened. A 
brief background might be in order. Shortly after last July[s decision 
by the Board of Trustees to place Dr. Driscoll on a forced leave of 
absence, I approached Paul Vasconcellos, Student Senate President and 
other student leaders with certain concerns that I held relative to the 
direction in which SMU seemed headed. 

Four long years of rocking from one crises to another, the turmoil 
and confusion created by the firing of faculty, the charges and counter 
charges which filled the air, the strikes and boycotts, rallies and 
marches, the disintegration of human community, all these had taken 
their toll -- an immense one at that -- not only on the energies, but more 

importantly the spirit of this University. And now that the Trustees had 
seen fit to remove the central figure in this pathetic drama, it was 
obvious that the symptoms of anomie which had already set in the 
previous year were even more in evidence. 

A pall settled over the campus. The attitudes of nearly everyone -- 
students, faculty, and administrators had a turned-in, sullen quality 
about it, suspicious and embittered. The once strong walls of mutual 
respect, if not always mutual agreement, and of human friendship so 
necessary to the viability of a community were badly fractured. And we 
could catch a glimpse between the crevices and cracks caused by that 
fracturing something of the darker side of man[s nature - his capacity 
for venemous hatred, contempt and malice. The battles which once 
fired the adrenalin no longer flared. The emotions, which once united 
the oddest collection of compatriots in alliances either for or against 
Driscoll, were spent. The man who was the focus of all these feelings, 
with whom his enemies had almost a symbiotic relationship was taking 
his exit. In his place there was nothing to unite anyone either positively 
or negatively. There was nothing but the emptiness of shattered dreams, 
of broken hopes, of disillusioned young people particularly^/vho saw in 
the tangled web of human failure at SMU the surest confirmation of 
their contention that society itself is rotten, its system corrupt. 

This kind of stream-of-conscious description sounds much like the 
diagnosis of a soon to expire institutional patient. Yes it does! I suspect 
that there are even those amongst us who are pessimistic enough to 
believe that if the patient does survive the prognosis for its full recovery 
is only slightly more encouraging than the diagnosis. One might carry 
the medical analogy still further in describing SMU as akin at this point 
to a very sick drug addict. Fed as we have been with a steady injection 
of chaos, we have been on one constant frenetic, hypertensive high. The 
trip has been a bummer, and now we are on a down, into a giant 
collective withdrawal, the signs of which we have already alluded to. 
But it was precisely this assessment of the situation that prompted 
some of us to urge the convening of a conference of this type -- a 
conference representing all the diverse elements of the SMU family that 
would bring together leaders around related problems which each has 
attempted to deal independently in the past. Bu so doing, we could 
make it possible for students, faculty and administrators to consider 
intensively the ways in which each segment of the University can be 
mutually supportive. 

This problem solving approach, compressed as it is into a short 
period of time is expected to yield implementable plans and solutions 
and a high commitment to these by those who are responsible for their 
development. That is not to say that we should in any way attempt to 
impose these plans and solutions upon the larger SMU community for 
to do so would be to fall into the very hierarchical trap from which we 
have been attempting to extricate ourselves. Our approach is not an 
elitist one, though it may have the hallmarks of such. Rather, it is to be 
expected -- given of course that we leave here two days hence with that 
high degree of commitment - to return to the campus ready to excite 
others to join with us in creating a new vision for our university. 
Whether that will be the case, indeed, whether we will achieve at this 
conference all we hope to accomplish will depend in large measure 
upon our own openness and receptivity. But let it be thoroughly 
understood that as an educational center where the rational and the 
intelligent supposedly prevail, we who are a part of that center can no 
longer afford to continue to live on the negative energies directed at 
events now gone by. We must take a different road in a different 
direction than the one we have been on. Tonight, hopefully we take the 
first step down that new road. 

Having said that, and realizing that our mission here this weekend is 
to try to refocus our sights and redirect our creative skills toward 
finding some of the answers to the overriding question of what should 
be the future of SMU, we must remind ourselves that in that quest we 
cannot ignore the realities of SMU's past. As individuals, we are in a 
very real sense the sum total of our past. The same holds true for 
institutions. The impact of personalities, circumstances, conditions, 
decisions, and actions of the past all have profound repercussions upon 
the course of the future, for institutions as well as for individuals. Thus 
the experience of the past is what enables both people and institutions 
to continue growth, development and increased effectiveness, to go on 
from that knowledge of the past, whatever it is, into a future -- 
whatever will be made of it. But by the same token those very same 
circumstances, conditions, decisions and actions can disable and hobble 
the future when the lessons which they teach are not wisely learned. 
The dustry corridors of time are strewn with the wreckage of human 
individuals, institutions, and nations that failed to appreciate that fact. 

The first Henry Ford was fond of saying "history is bunk." But a 
wiser man than Henry Ford, George Santayana once said that "those 
who spurn the errors of history are doomed to repeat them." In 
keeping with that truth it might be worth our while to spend a bit of 
time reviewing again certain aspects of the historical past of SMU and 
by so doing put into perspective its future. 

However, it might be well to note that within our academic circle, 
there are those who would bery much prefer to forget, and who wish 
that others would forget the past at SMU. To these people history is the 
story of dead things, of issues no longer relevant, persons no longer 
present. "Let us bury the past as befits the dead," say these people, 
"and the hatchets and hurts of our old feuds along with it. What is done 
, is done and can't be undone. So let us offer the peacepipe, make up and 
go arm in arm into the sunrise of a new day." 

There is a second group who recoil at this approach to history, who 
see in such an attitude something that is false, pollyanish and shallow. 
These are the angry ones, whose critics accuse them of possessing 
almost a macabre fascination with the atrocities of the past. These are 
the ones who feel intensely about people, issues and principles. In 
defense of such they quickly join the fray, fight bravely for their cause, 
and do not take lightly their defeats. They nurse their hurts and harbor 
their hates and rarely if ever forgive those who have become the enemy. 

There is still a third group who in mid and heart fall somewhere 
between the extremes of the other two. These are the pragmatists who 
know that sometimes the harsh realities of existence have a way of 
forcing you to come to terms with life not as you want it to be but as it 
is. What is more, they have come to know that feeding one's furies gets 
you nothing in return but a barren soul. Yet the depth and sensitivity 
of these types do not allow them to disregard human values. Like those 
of the second group, these of the third can also feel passsionately about 
people, issues and principles. They too will stand with courage against 
wrong. But they also are more willing to resign themselves to the 
knowledge that to the courageous and the noble does not always go the 
victory; that in this world the triumph of good over evil rests on 
nothing so much as the strength of endurance. 

I suppose if one were to take a look at institutions one would have to 
agree that institutions are actually no better or no worse than the 
humans who create them, who give them purpose for existence, and 
who energize their ianimate character, and who establish within their 
legal and physical boundaries the only viable dimension they could 
possibly possess -- the human one. 

But institutions begin in the mind -- as an idea, sometimes in the 
heart - as a hope. SMU began in just such a fashion. For years it was 
the dream of many in this area to someday see rise within their midst 
not only an institution built in mortar and brick, but also and more 
significantly, in the invisible sinews and muscle of the intellect. That 
institution did rise. It rose majestically and beautifully on the plains of 
Dartmouth. It is the place where you and I spend a good portion of our 
day. But the dream which became a reality was a reality brought into 
being by any number of people, each making his own singluar kind of 
contribution. Some of those people, are here tonight. I think of Walter 
Cass and Dr. Samuel Stone for two who years ago at Bradford Durfee in 
Fall River organized and promoted the idea of a better institution of 
higher learning for the sons and daughters of Southeastern 
Massachusetts. And it was their energy and their intelligence and it was 
their zeal, and it was their vision that helped to bring it to pass. But one 
must also, I suppose cope with the luestion of whether or not it is true 
that an institution is the lengthened shadow of a man. There are those 
who would say that this is no longer true. But if it were true, I think 
one might have to concede that SMU in some respects at least was the 
lengthened shadow of a man named Joseph Leo Driscoll. And it is 
about Joseph Leo Driscoll that I now want to address you. 

Joseph Leo Driscoll, regardless of whether we like to talk about the 
subject or not, has been, in the very realist sense, the central factor at 
SMU, and some would even say the central force, certainly the central 
figure in all of the crumbling saga of these last four to five years. I came 
here to SMU six years ago. I came at a time in my life that was fraught 
with a measure of real personal struggle, of having lost the last of my 
family, of being alone and vunerable. I was on a West coast camping 
trip, a tour of the country, and it was from Yellowstone National Park 
that Joe Driscoll hired me as SMU's first Dean of Men. I thought that 
was a pretty cool thing to do. A man who didn't know me, who had 
never seen me, who only knew me from what my dossier from 
Columbia University told him, and from what my previous employers 
had to say was willing to hire me. I came to SMU! I can remember so 
well asking where on earth Dartmouth, Massachusetts was. I'd lived in 
this great Bay State most of my life. I thought it was out in the western 
part of the state, but when I was told that it was down between the 
cities of Fall River and New Bedford I nearly died. I said, "Oh, that's 
the last place in the world I want to go." But, you know, it wasn't long 
before I fell in love with Dartmouth and Fall River and New Bedford 
and the environs. I fell in love with SMU, and above all I fell in love 
with the students, the faculty and my colleagues in the administration. 
I have never been in any place where I have known finer people than I 
have known as colleagues in this university. I have been on four 
university campuses and I know very few students who can equal the 
basic goodness and deceny of humanity that the students of SMU have. 
That's not said in a_ny way to flatter, it's offered sincerely. 

Joe Driscoll was a man that I quickly harkened to, I liked him He 
was my kind of Irishman, I guess. He had a kind of charm about him 
There was a gutsy quality about him, a bumptious love of life. I 
admired his courage in being able to stand up to the politicians and to 
get what he wanted for SMU. I rather liked his style, not only in 
clothes, but in just his manner. He and I got along fine'in those first 
years together. Then something happened! What I don't know! Maybe 
only the God who I happen to believe exists and whom I hold as 
creator of the universe and of me, maybe He knows. I wouldn't say 
"maybe", I's sure He does. But something went wrong! The Joe 
Driscoll that I knew, the good man, became bad. A situation that was 
-sweet with the promise of high expectations grew sour. And, of course, 
I think that we all know that there was a point at which some of this 
could certainly be traced. It could be traced to the issues of faculty 
challenge, of faculty questioning of the President's authority. I saw a 
man who I thought was given over to really fine human principles 
become a man who could not afford to be found wrong, who found 
change inconvenient and the democratic process threatening. I found a 
man who saw it hard to accept the right of others to doubt his 
judgment, or disagree with»it. He had a need to dominate and control 
other people. His ego became insatiable. 

. La., iciucuiuci me idsi. Lime mat ne ana I naa a long conversation, 
and my relationship with him at that time was a close one, as close as 
one, I suppose, could ever get to Joe Qriscoll. I told him very frankly 
"Joe, you're on a wrong path." "This path that you're taking is going 
to lead not only this university, but it's also going to lead you to sure 
and certain disaster." He said he recognized that great danger, that risk. 
I told him quite frankly that while I did not always harbor the political 
views and opinions, ideas and attitudes of the professors with whom he 
was contesting, - I made no secret of the fact that I was a registered 
Republican in those days and held a pretty conservative position - I 
could not side with him on this issue. At the same time, I told him I 
have a towering respect for the individual freedom of man to think and 
to make judgments as he sees fit without any threat by either subtle or 
overt coercion. Furthermore, I told him that I could not stand with 
him, so long as he chose that course of action. 

^ ^ 


Well that was the end! Over the next year for me, as the battle lines 
were drawn and the troubles increased, there was a very real agonizing 
appraisal of what my responsibility should be to a man who was my 
professional superior. And because I'm Irish, I felt that very Celtic 
spirit, the same spirit that forges deep in the Celtic mind and heart — a 
sense of loyalty. I felt that for Joe Driscoll, and it was a hard, hard 
thing for me to have to decide eventually that my loyalty was much to 
be questioned if it was only to an individual. It had to be higher loyalty 
than that. It had to be a principle, to convictions, and more 
importantly it seemed to me to the peotte of a university. So I broke 
with Joe Driscoll! And it is no secret as to how I have felt about Dr. 
Driscoll since. There grew in me over these years a strong, deep feeling 
of actual loathing for this man. I loathed him for the fact that I felt 
that the lust of office had indeed surely killed him, and that the spoils 
of that office had indeed surely bought him, and that the Actonian 
dictum-power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, had 
indeed gotten to its target. So last night as I sant down to try and write 
these thoughts on paper, I ran into a psychological block. I found 
myself in the weirdest of situations. I just simply could not put on 
paper what I wanted to say. I found myself torn apart inside. Because 
that very process of writing, that very process of ventilating brought 
out in me all of this disturbing, deep-seated struggle of these years past. 
He had become my onsession, not a magnificnet one at that, but my 
obsession - nonetheless. And so I bare my soul to you tonight in that 
personal kind of way because for most of you as students and faculty 
and some of you as administrators, Joe Driscoll has also become an 


We have spent our years -- these past four -- in making a man the 
focus point of our obsessions, our hangups, our hatreds, and that has 
not been good. It has not been good for us as individuals. It has not 
been good for us as an institution. And now that he has gone, we have 
nothing to unite us. That is even worse. So tonight I'm suggesting that 
maybe it is time for all of us to search ourselves and to decide that the 
day is over with, the long night also is gone, and that we are starting, as 
I said earlier, down a new road hopefully. Joe Driscoll has left us. I'm 
not saying that any of us who have suffered from this man should ever 
be indiscriminately kind to those who we feel have been knowingly a 
part of the system and of the set-up that Joe Driscoll produced which 
allowed the travesties of justice and fair play that prevailed in our 
institution. But at the same time I see nothing of and real constructive 
force coming out of a continuation of this type of negative feeling. I 
would suggest, therefore, that we look to the future and try as best we 
can to lay to rest that past, and do all within our power to make sure 
that it will never again be repeated at SMU. 

that is essentially what we are here for this weekend. We are here to 
take up some considerations of what our university should be 
dedicating itself to. I've been asked to simply list for you, and that is all 
I'll do, some of the ideas I have come up with -- that as I said earlier 
need not by your goals. But this is what I suggest and they are in the 
order of what I consider to be of importance. They are the priorities I 
think we ought to have. 

It seems to me in refocusing our energies and our creative thinking 
on the great tasks facing the University, both present and future, that 
first and foremost we should raise the question of what is to be our role 
and function as a university in relation to and with the regional 
communities that surround us, and support us, and who we are 
supposed to serve. We should ask ourselves who and what are we to 
serve?l'm not going to go into these in any detail, I'm simply raising 
them as questions and as goals. 

Secondly, I believe that we should concentrate on ways by which we 
can make our university a more humane and a more humanized 
institution. It has not been that and it won't be in the future unless, 
somehow, all of us can come to terms with our own nature and decide 
that we are going to put human values before anything else. Then it 
seems to me, that if there is anthing that the errors of the past teach us; 
if there is anthing that Joseph Leo Driscoll has taught us, it's this -- the 
need for the democratization of the university's governance structure. 
That sounds like a typical, fuzzy-minded, liberal's phrase, 
"democratization of the university", but it isn't. You think about it! 

We need to, we must. 

Then there is the question of curriculum reform, and it seems to me 
that in link with that is also the question of faculty evaluation. It is 
only right that faculty should be evaluated, (as far as I'm concerned I 
think that administrators should be too, and maybe that's something 
that you could add to your list). But I think that the faculty evaluation 
must be one which is as scrupulously fair as we can make it - one that 
will not be used by those in administrative ranks or departmental ranks 
as weapons with which to abuse members of the teaching staff. 

Then, of course, there should be an improvement in intra-university 
communication, ft has got to come soon if we're to function as a 

lastly, the involvement of students. I'm not now talking necessarily 
about democratization of governance, they would be a part of that, 
most surely. But student involvement, as it's represented by agencies of 
student government, student publications and so forth, we've got to 
make these more effective, more able to work, more sensitive to what 
students themselves wish. In that respect, as I've said to Paul 

Vasconcellos on a number of occasions, it seems to me that one of the 
most important projects that lies ahead for students is the question of 
studying a new form of student government, be it unicameral or some 
other type. 

These are what I would suggest as goals for us to consider this 

You know there was frankly very little of the radical student 
revolution which swept over campuses just a few short years ago that I 
could accept. Somehow my pragmatic, conservative instincts were 
offended by the cater wauled inanities and insanities that were put 
forth at that time as some kind of high wisdom. But if I read correctly 
the message of that movement and of that day it was this -- that young 
people want control of their lives. And that is a goal that I, for one, can 
buy. I say, more power to them! They are the first generation to come 
along who probably has insisted that they are point to rule their own 
lives. Would that those of us who preceeded you had that kind of 
courage, guts and determination. However, it also means that for those 
of us in' the university such a determination will face us with the reality 
that students are going to insist and obtain the right to have a hand in 
controlling most phases of university affairs. Note that I did not say a 
controlling hand. I said merely a hand in controlling. I think this is, 
frankly, all that students really want -- to have a shared responsibility in 
that very major endeavor. These are the central issues, it seems to me, 
that we must come to grips with this weekend. 

But in closing, I want to also suggest what might be called an 
extra recommendation, one that bears some merit. As you know, 
the University is in the process of trying to find a new President. It 
seems to me that this is the time that would be appropriate to create 
some kind of a special Study Commission, call it what you will - a 
Study of Educational Policies and Programs. A Commission that would 
be so designed as to incorporate the whole SMU community in helping 
to clarify goals and shape future programs. This study should not be 
conducted by a single committee but it should involve a series of panels 
with the guidance, possibly of outside consultants, who would identify 
and analyze options and opportunities. The purpose of this study 
would be to help a new President as he comes to the helm to formulate' 
firm and sound policy suggestions. I know that we already have at work 
certain task forces -- there is the Mission of the University group, there 
are any number of others. It may be that such groups could be in some 
way incorporated into such a Study Commission. This would be one 
very dramatic way to taking a good hard look at exactly where we've 
come and where we're going. 

The goals which we set for ourselves in life sometimes are not 
reached. Nevertheless it is necessary that we have gols. It is necessary 
that we give to ourselves direction. Tonight in closing I want to share 
these brief lines from John Kennedy who said in one of the earlier 
addresses of his administration these words. 

We will not reach that goal today or tomorrow. Perhaps we will not 
reach it until the end of our life. But seeking it is the greatest adventure 
of our age. We may be impatient at times with the weight of our 
obligations, the complexity of decision, the agony of choice. But for us. 
there is no comfort or serenity in evasion. No solution in abdication 
and no release in irresponsibility. 

Those words apply to us as individuals and collectively as a 


I know that for you, especially those of you who are young, those ot 
you who are our most precious commodity, the most precious single 
force that any institution of learning has -- its students -- tomorrow and 
the creation of the communities of hope and reason, and justice and 
peace are far more important than the conferences of yesterday. 

V- : 

by Ross Gelbspan 



is Meadows. 
ttutiy on the 


'* H<* report and 

having had time to 


% - *. 



' / f ' 


d on con 

i,'/' '/><// /( 

J i 1 < ' / ' S (/( 



enlial rate - that 

vhich a thing 

hole in 

penny on 

ond (/.. 

louhled that Sit 

i th a / "id [><< out houw 

h ould h \ a while von are 

lie inn >e that </ von 

being hroi lories ar< r easing, 

•soin being extracted, pollutai ing 

(■rated - all at the same rate of ii >ur 

pennv The most in ig to understand about 

•ntial growth is that its impa< >lt all at 

It is not a f hat the sum 

really begins to get i hand 

terms of the world model const i by the 

MIT team, this means that al will be 

too la reverse the final stage nonential 

growth which will cause the collapse of natural and 
social life-support systems. Hut the a< ipact will 

not be totally felt until when 

the food Slid* reach, 

and masses of popular to die starvation 

and di 

node I 
'i re (pi 
report sav th 

cr- trends, and 

lite authors of 

lodes appear to be 

expect our broad 


it it all co 

It has 

pi ) ni i hi t ion ( i > 1 1 >s t < 
Japan - haw u< 

,l( MIC f ill lift, lia 

In 1650, tl 
In 19 70 i 

it ion will /)< 

h itself helps h< 

at a higher rate than p ion. 

On a world basis, fat- 

so that industrial output im 

to control one of t 

. j.. 

All t 
>rt. But ij its results hold u 

U'i ide Ul\l nil wluit kind <il ,1 sin l< I 

indct an i'(i tut inriu in stall' and liow 
on e< 
any sich . 
attribution of the woi 

i / ' ■ ' ■ t'tili 1 1 h f 1 - ' ' / s f<fttll/\ lit! 

or of th> 

tii]ii in 



S T P % S H P 



_^^^M IBlfi^'w^ 

jE^/ iSSr = \m m : > 

1ST. IQl 1E\ u\| 

f JMfe 

The equilibrium state goes against a fundamental 
American instinct- the drive for growth. The changes 
that will be required in our mentality are staggering. It 
means we must be willing to give away much of what 
we have. It means the whole world would be living at 
about the same standard ofliving - approximately that 
of middle-class Eurpoeons - if we act quickly. It 
means that people will probably be working only a 
scant portion of the hours they now work. It means a 
tremondous shift of capital from material and 
industrial goods into service areas - education, health, 
the arts, sports, etc.- - which do not yield increasing 
capital dividends. It means to end of the marketplace 
economy, the equalization of wealth throughout the 
world. It means a totally new global consciousness 
which is as remote from the mainstream of American 
thought as Copernicus: conception of the universe 
was the church-dominated mentality of his time. Only 
we have a very few years to make adjustment. 

And 1975 is three years away. 

Can America and the world be brought under 
control? I don't know. The first thing I would suggest 
to anyone who cares is to read 'The Limits to 
Growth," a Potomac Associates Book which will be 
released in a few days. And keep track of your 
emotional reactions. It will help you to imagine what 
this country may be going through in the coming 

Initally, I found myself torn between total apathy 
and hysteria. Instead of writing this story, I wandered 
around the apartment and began playing solitaire for 
the first time in 10 years. But then the shock wears 
off and there is nothing to do but follow through any 
way you can. The urgency is very great. But it is 
tempered by the fear of sounding fanatic. How do 
you react tosomeone screaming at you the world is 
going to end? So in this article - and in follow-up 
stories - 1 will try very hard not to scream. 

I guess for me the ultimate image was of Dr. 
Donella Meadows, wife of the team leader, sitting on a 
platform with the other young scientists (average age 
26) addressing the packed hall. Like her husband, she 
talked with warmth and calm clarity. And whenshe 
stood up we saw she was pregnant. To know what she 
knows - an to be pregangt. It seems the only way to 
do it. 

ii " 11 ~m " -ifc ' 

IIMU||SS|I|S || » 

" s ii, i 

.* cat MM 
. ■!■_ 

i •tea js i ^ l m tlfly 

- :...«„ 

The Right Child 
Dear Sir: 

The subject of Ross Gelbspan's 'Tliis Story Is 
About The End of the World" ( Voice, March 9) has 
been at the back of my mind for a while. I happened 
to proofread Garrett Hardin's 'New Ethics for 
Survival," which deals with the same material, and for 
some time now I have been going around telling 
people a story from Buber's 'Tales of the Hasidin" as 
I remembered it: 

The rabbi stops a busy man and asks him, 'Why do 
you work so hard?" 

'So I can have a son who will grow up and study 
Torah. " (This is a traditional Jewish story and 
therefore male chauvinist.) 

TJie rabbi goes on: "And when the son grows up 
and I ask him, Why do you work so hard?' he will say, 
So I can have a son who will grow up and study 
Torah. ' But when will we find the right child?" 

What has to happen is that enough people stop and 
say, "I am the right child. " 

I have just reread the story and found that it had 
changed in my mind since the last time I read it. In 
the book, the man answers, "To bring up my son to 
study and serve God. " But as I have found myself 
telling the story, the man works in order to have the 
child who will study Torah - that is, become what the 
parent wanted to be. 

Sometimes I tell the story in discussions of 
population growth, a propos a common reason for 
having children: the need for extensions of oneself. I 
also tell it to explain why I live: why I choose to work 
part time and little and spend most of what I earn on 
therapy and sensory awareness classes, and why I 
probably will not have children. My energy is directed 
toward intergrating myself and is not available for 
bringing up a child. I want to become the right child, 
not have it. The people I feel closest to are making 
similar choices, in their own way. I suspect others are, 

It may seem that I am ignoring the broad social 
changes that will soon be necessary. But I feel that my 
life is preparing me for some of them - for example, 
changes in the necessary 'Reappraisal of cultural 
values" will not take place unless enough people 
reappraise their personal values and become the right 
child. Wliat bothers me most is the double time scale. 
The process by which one becomes the right chilse 
takes its own time, but the world has three years. 

Leah Zahler 
West 1 7th Street 

i'6 love to change the world, 
but i don't know what to do, 
so i'm leaving it up to you ! 

Till fcAKJ AFTcH 



If you, reader, will accept the fact that you are being redefined in 
the moment of reading this sentence, and that I am being 
redefined in the moment of writing it, we both will have come 
a hell of a way in escaping the stasis both acts imply. Speaking 
from his own bias, Mao called this principle "perpetual 
revolution." So did Julian Beck of the Living Theatre. So does 
Sid Karp of Philadelphia. 

The point is that - because of the post-McLUhai; realities of 
what Gene Youngblood has called the "global intermedia 
network" (and a few other thigs) - our time is being more and 
more compressed, our experiences are becoming more intense, 
and our general awareness more diffuse. Rock music is an 
example close to me, and problably the easiest to talk about. 

Since the early Sixties, rock has undergone changes that 
took decades to happen to jazz. Chuck Berry's rhythm & blues 
(the most frequently cited) was introduced in England by the 
Beatles and Stones, sprinkled with a little English salt and 
deep-fried in the prole underground clubs of London and 
Liverpool, then reexported to America where it sold and was 
consumed like fish and chips. Once the last bit of r&b had 
been licked up, however, the music didn't atrophy the way it 
had in the hands of its creators. By 1965 and '66 the music 
had developed a social conscience and became aware of its 
own poetic potential. The hipper lyrics of those years reflected 
both factors. By 1967 the Beatles were doing rock opera, by 
the next year white blues bands were reexploring the country 
and folk roots of the whole thing and, in the last two years, 
horns have been added and jazz-rock has become more than an 
ad hype or a critic's pretension. Despite a fallow period in 
1969-70, the future promises synthesis beyond imagination, 
and all of this happened in seven years. (So what if some of 
the experiements were manic junk} 

At this writing, the "movement" has exhausted both the 
cliches of flower and bomb power and is temporarily ($ 
reeling in its tracks, straddling some flattened caps of Berkeley 
acid, some old FSM buttons, a few shards of Weatherman 
shrapnel. (Huey P. Newton, however, is free at last). 

In Los Angeles, the Free Press, once the flagship of the 
underground journalism movement, spends itself defending 
aberrations - the Manson "family," Bernardine Dohrn, Tim 
Leary - and playing paranoia games: "they've got this super 
list with everyone's name and measurements. " 

And there is an undeniable sense of paranoia in the land. 
What's left of the hippie culture has spread to. rural areas in 
California, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Vermont and New 
Hampshire, and is closing itself off - unwilling to allow new 
arrivals. The sanest members of SDS got out after the final 
convention in Chicago, 1969, and before the September "Days 
of Rage." Those left seem to be bug-eyed stereotypes with 
fuses under their trench coats. Hoffman and Rubin, the 
song-and-dance team, are no longer funny (it was reliably 
reported that Rubin was crying in the Chicago courtroom after 
his sentencing at the Conspiracy trial), and Tim Leary is in 
revolutionary drag, having jettisoned his self-proclaimed 
pacifism with his prison uniform after breaking out of the 
California Men's Colony at San Luis Obispo. Leary, if he is to 
be believed, is now carrying a gun and is prepared to use it on 
whatever "short-haired robot" threatens his life and fredom. 
The war hasn't stopped, the racial situation is still black , the 
ecology is still presumably lousy, traditional politics is worse 
than ever, even the music scene is in a lull. 

The time-compression syndorme and its attendant ills have 
added to the paranoia - man's brain is still subject to all kinds 
of flutterings and breakdowns from the darkness of its own 
history - and yet, it is possible that the general acceleration 
may outdistance the paranoia, may trascend temporary lulls 
and sidetrips of all kinds. Drugs have certainly done their 
thing; bizarre politics and other forms of religion seem to have 
destroyed their own credibility; a grudging acceptance of 
"difference" seems to be growing - even hard-core street 
people now acknowledge that Easy Rider might have been fun 
to watch but was a regional indictment at best, and that only 
in a half-assed way. There are other alternatives now. 

There is no sure way to prove this, but it seems to me that 
the best of the youth generation has not "sold out" to either 
capitalism or what I call "purism." There may be no 
Woodstock Nation, but there is no Altamont Nation either. 
Buckminster Fuller may be overly optimistic, and so may 
Charles Reich, but the fact remains that "hip capitalism" does 
not always have to be a pejorative, and there is room for many 
kinds of communally run organizations - business, political, 
artistic. There is hope for new kinds of education, new 
concepts in personal relations, a rapprochement with 
technology -- even new applications of old "political" 
techniques - Saul Alinsky's tactics have never been utilized by 
the young in the sustained manner in which they were 

. ' I 'I 



This is still the best educated generation in American 
history, and there are figures to prove it is the first not to be 
primarily interested in amassing great amounts of wealth as a 
life goal. American business has been foremost in the world for 
decades, while American government, arts and social 
institutions have been consistently inferior. With many kids 
not going into GM and the Rand Corporation anymore --' 
Esquire Magazine recently ran a feature on what the Harvard 
class of 1964 is doing with itself (psychology grad teaching 
yoga? anthropologist living in a commune; med school grad 
acting and writing; city planner farming) — there is hope that 
the Best Minds of this generation may at least balance the 

Taken separately, the best of them project the attitudes of 
the people being written about; taken as a collection, they 
begin to form a pattern for an Age. 

Many newspapers have now disappeard, and most of those 
remaining have altered direction. The Washington (D'C) Free 
Press, Open City (Los Angeles), Old Mole (Bostonn,) Orpheus 
(Phoenix) and many other ultra "underground" publications 
are dead. 

Hard political and freak papers like the Berkeley 
Barb, Berkeley Tribe, Good Times, East Village Other and Rat 
are foundering. (The Barb's circulation is reportedly .down to 
35,000 from a high of 75,000 two years ago.) EVO's financial 
situation, always tenuous, is now grave; Rat, in New York 
City, has been taken over by radical feminists and presently 
reads like an Old Left propaganda sheet; only the vocabulary 
of the rhetoric has changed. The Underground Press Syndicate, 
conceived as a means for the national underground press 
movement to work together, trade stories and (hopefully) pool 
resources to improve distribution and advertising, is 
nonfunctional. Liberation News Service, once the "wire 
service" of the underground, split into two factions shortly 
after it was formed. After the departure of its founders, 
Marshall Bloom and Ray Mungo, the "revolutionary" faction 
of LNS (known as the "New York" LNS) also regressed to 
rhetoric. (Bloom continued to put out his version of LNS from 
a communal farm in Massachusetts for a time; then it gradually 
died. Bloom commited suicide in 1969. Mungo has authoried 
tow fairly successful books about his experiences since then, 
and he was in Scotland when last heard from"). 

The most readily discernible effect on standard newspapers 
and magazines has been in layout and format. Looser and 
more imaginative handling of pictures and illustrations and the 
development of the collage as multi-statment has deformalized 
graphics all over the country. The number of "psychedelic" 
book jackets, album covers, matchbook covers, etc., is 
testament to the impact of the underground at large. Subject 
matter and attitude in stories have likewise been broadened. 
Because underground editors smoked dope and dropped acid, 
their attitudes toward drugs and the laws that made them 
illegal were reflected in their papers; new examinations of 
some of the more arcane beliefs regarding drugs began to 
appear by 1968-69 in The New York Times Magazine, 
Newsweek, Time and even The Wall Street Journal. Ramsey 
Clark, the attorney general of the United States at the time of 
the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, 1968, offered 
the opinion by November 1970 that marijuana smoking should 
be legalized. (Unfortunately, he was no longer attorney 

Why the underground press at first succeeded and later 
failed is largely a human matter, only partly subject to to 
conspiracies and persecution fantasized by too many of its 
members (and readership), or to purely economic factors. As 
Don DeMaio, himself an underground editor, wrote in a report 
on the Underground Press Convention at Ann Arbor, 
Michigan, in July 1969: 

After a few minutes a messenger arrived with the news that 
an establishment reporter from the Detriot Free Press . . . was 
asking permission to cover the conference was later canceled 
when Abbie Hoffman suggested the press be barred until the 
final day when a press conference would be held. (The 
conference was later cancelled). 

Once the daily press had been disposed of, it was the Village 
Voice's turn. The group's attention turned to Voice pop 
columnist Richard Goldstein, who was standing quietly next 
to a pup tent. "We don't want you writing about this thing in 
the Village Voice," one delegate told Goldstein. 

"/ have no intention of writing this up for the Voice or any 
other newspaper," Goldstein said. "But I won't give my 
promise. I don 't think that's necessary. " 

There was some muttering and Goldstein felt as if Ann 
Arbor might not be his thing. He left that night. 

A final bit of paranoia came next when the presence of UPS 
cameras and tape recorders was questioned. The absurdity of 
the inquisition was brought to a climax when UPS head Tom 
Forcade suggested those who didn't want to be in the film 
could position themselves out of camera range. All that was 
left was for John Wilcock, himself a UPS founder, to question: 
'Aren't we overdoing the paranoia business?First, we bar the 
establishment press, and now we say we can't even cover the 
meeting ourselves. " His statement was filmed. 

DeMaio noted that a guard with a shotgun stood watch 
while the conference went on, in case of attack. 

The underground press is dead, like the overground press 
(newspapers, at least) before it, killed in three short years by 
the same stasis that took sixty years to kill its forebears. 

Long live underground television, radio, news writing! 

It seems incredible that hair length and marijuana smoking 
caused the furor they did only three and four years ago; it 
seems equally incredible that campus rioting in 1968 and 1969 
at Berkeley, Columbia, San Francisco State, Harvard and 
hundreds of other schools ended with as lettle bloodshed as 
there was. Michael Rossman, a student organizer, wrote in the 
April 5, 1969, issue of Rolling Stone: "America's 2,700 
colleges form a great youth ghetto with seven million 
inhabitants." In the same issue, Rolling Stone Editor Jann 
Wenner wrote: "These new politics are about to become a part 
of our daily lives, and willingly or not, we are in it." 

By May 1969, the images of police beating unarmed 
students and blacks at campus demonstrations, in urban riots, 
at the Chicago Democratic Donvention had, like the nightly 
war and traffic casualty lists and the weather report, become a 
part of the national consciousness. People had been talking 
about guns and bombs for a long time - had even gotten in a 
little sniping and bombing (Watts, Newark, the Bay Area 

power-line explosions), yet when the news came that National 
Guardsmen at Kent State University in Ohio had shot and 
killed four students and that police had killed two more at 
Jackson State College in Mississippi (the total of twenty-two 
wounded in both incidents seemed somehow incidental, 
instant victims of time-compression), even the paranoids 
who'd been posturing with shotguns were stunned. It had 
finally come down. This was what both sides had been turning 
over for years, running fantasies of blood in the streets, 
revenge for ultimate insult (pig!) and ultimate condescension 
(kid!), the American Dream Meets the Wolfman. Weatherman 
had been knocked on his ass during the "Days of Rage" in 
Chicago, and the Trial of the New Culture had ended in a 
bizarre form of compromise - dismissal for some, "moderate" 
sentences for others, and endless appeals, red tape and finally 
freedom-by-bail. Only Bobby Seale was left in jail. What had 
been settled?Was this all% 

Interestingly, Kent State and Jackson State were "second 
echelon" schools. Movements did not begin on their campuses. 
Mario Savios and Mark Rudds did not spring full-bloom from 
their lecture halls, cafeterias, off-campus bars. Was it that the 
custodians of the old order felt more justified, safer killing the 
children of their own class, or was it that ^revolt among the 
middle-middle and lower-middle young posed an even greater 
danger to the system?Did it presage the first real crack in the 
base of the statue? Were the very student-teachers and 
upwardly mobile blacks joining the intellectually elite Jews 
and born-to-the-mannor WASPS of Harvard and Berkeley, of 
Columbia and Brandeis, the historically justified militants on 
every campus? If this was allowed, who would tend the 
schools, shuffle the papers, sweep up the offal dropping from 
the top and piling up from the bottom? 

At the end of the Deathweek at Kent, the signs looked 
hopeful. The moderate, middle-level kid who attended the 
school was talking about regional organizing, serious 
boycotting, and he was clenching his jaw muscles in the way 
his older brother had when he'd gone off to stop the Yellow 
Peril in Korea nearly twenty years before. One thing about 
Americans - they still maintain the dream that they know how 
to get the job done once they've perceived what it is. Trashing 
swept Telegraph Avenue in the spring of 1970, but at Berkeley 
itself, the best hope for the future seemed to be a 
determination to close down the nation's most symbolic 
campus soon after it was scheduled to reopen in the fall. 
Nixon had cooled his Cambodian heels, but the nation's young 
were now ready to penetrate the layers of deceit enveloping 
the White House with something more serious than their green 

Of course, nothing happened. Many schools allowed their 
students to work for peace and radical candidates during the 
elections of November 1970, and the Republicans did not 
achieve the national sweep they'd been prophesying. But the 
steam built up by the killings dissipated with the first real 

Those who'd hoped for more were left to ponder the future 
weather. Meanwhile, reprisals in the form of grand jury 
indictments against those who'd participated - or were 
supposed to have participated in the spring rebellion - were 
making new headlines in Kent, Ohio, and around the country. 

The core of this country, as Norman Mailer alleges, may 
have gone mad. Hopefully despite too many drugs and a 
weakness for fantasy, the great number of the young have not 
(yet). To explore the possibilities, David Felton and David 
Dalton undertook a massive examination of the Charles 
Manson case. 

Manson was seen as a victim of society. He had hippie 
trappings, charisma and an exotic acid rap. He'd gotten openly 
sympathetic coverage from the Los Angeles Free Press and, 
later support by the Weathermen. Bernardine Dohrn (before 
she disappeared) had begun singing his praises: "Offing those 
rich pigs, far out," she'd said. "The Weathermen dig Charlie 

The possibility that the underground press was going to 
make a culture hero of Manson was alarming. After four 
months, Felton and Dalton had assembled enough material on 
the "family" to write the definitive article. 

Happily, the apotheosis of Charlie Manson never happened. 
Via its ultimate means of expression - buying power - 
America rejected him. The Manson Family Album, recorded 
from tapes of Charlie singing and playing guitar, couldn't find 
sales outlets; "Free Charlie" buttons, appearing in headshops, 
stayed there; aside from the usual sensational stories appearing 
in the usual sensational places, and a disgusting instant film, 
marketed only weeks after the Sharon Tate multiple murders, 
Manson didn't really sell well. Even Rolling Stone's story, 
despite the excellence of its writing and the praise it received 
from editors on every level of publishing, was widely criticized 
by its own young (average age, 22) readers for "glorifying" 
what one letter writer called "an insane little man." 

Hopefully, the reaction means more than simple rejection of 
an unpleasant reality; at best, it may signal the recognition of 
an "age of paranoia" in America, and a first step in its 




tOOi^S (X/t -PlouArtcj out itkc (J)dks5 rain into a. dcfir Cup 
-thtv 5 1 i+her (/oKile ,-ftay pass, */Aty 5/#y> *&oay 60033 -#?e Cji/Vlksi, 
^poob of- sorrouj u&i/ls afjoy ore dnftiriq -fhrouoh /»y ^in w^d 

possesinoj and Gone, ss i rifl wc 

3a\ Guru Dsya. Om 

^pMlqls ol broken //^f ujhi'th danc^ before WL Mc a million eyes 

-ftey call roL on and on across -//)£, univir$L~ 

-fhoitoWs meandsr hta a. tes+lcss u)md inside a letter bo* 

Jhv) -fumble klwdlu as -#)*.y /voa/x Ifadr wo^ ccros* 4h& uni'i/trs^ 

Uo^m^s aonna. doan^t. my \NOr\<\ 

sounds of- \avc\\\\cr starts of- t/£e. arc- rmqinq ihrou<A\ rrwj opLn tars 

$rw/\hna and md\hria mt~ 

limitless undying low i^hid\ shints around rn^ttk^a million Suos 

H" Calls mc on aid on across -f^e. ontitss^ 

3a] &v r u Vtva &m 

/sbf+urvp Qoi\r\(K chounQL my k#W^ 

iltartwfs 76MA Ch^e Any nor/d 

tti Goru Dive ^ l ^^ 


■ '■ 



■ ■ -\:f. 



! i 



The purpose of education is to culture the mind of 
a man so that he can accomplish all his aims in life. 
Education, to justify itself, should enable a man to 
use the full potential of his body, mind and spirit. It 
should also develop in him the ability to make the 
best use of his personality, surroundings and 
circumstances so that he may accomplish the 
maximum in life for himself and for others. There are 
tremendous latent possibilities which are never 
unfolded by young people during their student life, 
the most precious time for laying the foundations of 
their careers. 

When we turn our attention to the great educators 
of the Western World what we find in their works are 
two basic themes. First of all they sought to discover 
the underlying source of knowledge, the absolute 
field of existence. If such a source could be known 
then all the different objects of knowledge, they 
believed, would fall into proper order. Secondly, they 
wished to discover the highest goal of action, the 
summon bonum, as it has been called, and the 
incentive to achieve it so that men might be directed 
toward it and influenced by it. Once habituated to 
the highest good, right action, or virtue would 
become spontaneously lived by men. 

Unfortunately, a strictly intellectual approach was 
taken toward the investigation of the source of 
knowledge and right action. These educators were 
bound by their exclusive reliance on the objective 
intellect which set the tide of western thought from 
its inception down to the present time. 

We see that on the level of the intellect it is 
impossible to achieve a complete understanding of 
life by studying all the different fields of knowledge. 
How much of the world could be physically 
investigated and known through examination of 
phenomena? The universe is so vast and creation so 
unlimited that it is not possible to analyse and dissect 
everything in the entire creation. This is why the 
present system of education fails to quench the thirst 
for knowledge. It excites the thirst but does not have 
the means to satisfy it. Interdisciplinary studies must 
locate a common basis of all knowledge which will 
link together all different braches of learning. It is 
almost always true that as man studies in any field he 
finds a greater field of the unknown lying ahead. 
However, much is known about a subject, more 
advanced study can eventually only reveal to the 
student a far greater range of knowledge which is yet 
unknown and to which he has no access. Present 
systems of education help more to expose the 
ignorance of a subject than to provide knowledge of 
it. This will always remain the case so long as they are 
based only on information. Superficial knowledge of 
various subjects proves only to frustrate students 
rather than enlighten them. 

It is possible to structure a fully developed man 
who will live the benefit of all knowledge, by locating 

the home of all knowledge. The Science of Creative 
Intelligence shows that it is not necessary to master 
every field of knowledee in order to achieve the final 
goal of knowledge. KNOWLEDGE IS STRUCTURED IN 
CONSCIOUSNESS.// the knower brings his awareness to 
the source of the thinking process, to where faint 

impulses of the thoughts start, then he will achieve 
the fruit which our great educators have labored so 
long to find. The Science of Creative Intelligence 
enables one to locate the integrated value of all 
disciplines through the practive of Transcendental 

Transcendental Meditation allows the student to 
open his conscious awareness to the source of all 
knowledge and creation, pure Creative Intelligence. 

Everyone is aware that the finer levels of the 
universe are intrinsically more fundamental and more 
powerful. The atomic level is more powerful and 
fundamental than the chemical level, which in turn is 
more powerful than the outer gross level. Likewise, 
the mind also functions at deeper, more fundamental 
and powerful levels of thought. Underneath the 
subtlest layer of all that exists in the relative field is 
the abstract, absolute field of pure Creative 
Intellignce which is unmanifested and transcendental. 
It is neither matter nor energy, it is the state of pure 
existence. This state of pure existence underlies all 
that exists. Everything is the expression of this field 
of Creative Intelligence which is the essential 
constituent of all relative life. 

Every thought we think is an impulse that comes 
from deep within the mind. Ordinarily, however, this 
impulse is perceived as thought only during the later 
stages of its development. Scientists now confirm that 
the average individual only uses approximately 5-1 0% 
of his brain. In contrast to this usual experience of 
thinking at the surface level of the mind, 
Transcendental Meditation allows the conscious 
attention to be drawn automatically to the deepest 
and most refined level of thinking. When the mind 
transcends the subtlest thinking activity it is 
expanded to a state of pure awareness, its own 
unlimited reservoir of energy and creative intellignce. 

Transcendental Meditation was introduced to this 
generation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and is taught 
by an organization of instructors whom he personally 
qualifies. This technique does not require intense 
concentration or any form of rigorous mental or 
physical control, and it is easily learned in a short 
period of time. The training does not involve 
devotion to any specific beliefs or life style. It 
consists simply of two daily sessions of practice, each 
15-20 minutes. Although Transcendental Meditation 
uses the natural thought process it is not an 
intellectual activity and therefore cannot be 
successfully taught by written explanation. Rather 
the correct personal experience, properly adjusted to 
characteristics of each individual must be transmitted 
by a trained teacher. 

Transcendental Meditation may be defined as a 
technique of releasing stress and bringing deep rest to 
the meditator. We know from our daily experience 
how much better we feel and how much more 
efficient we are when we've had a good night's rest. 
Our tolerance and clarity of mind is noticeably low 
when we're tired and from this we can see how 
important rest is in our lives. Transcendental 
Meditation brings an even deeper rest to the nervous 
system than is experienced in deep sleep. When a 
person sleeps, the body is less active. As a result the m 
body needs less fuel to burn. During sleep the body* 
uses on an average of 2-5% less oxygen than during 
the waking state. A person who just sits with his eyes 
closed does not show an appreciable drop in oxygen 
consumption. But a person sitting with his eyes 
closed who is meditating shows a 15-20% decrease. 
The oxygen concentration remains normal and is 
readily available but because of the restful state of 
the body it needs and uses less. 

Scientific evidence f has found that during the 
period of Transcendental Meditation carbon dioxide 
elimination; cardiac output, heart and respiratory rate 
also significantly decrease. The metabolic rate is 
reduced by an average of 20%o. 

This physiological evidence, together with 
measurements of skin resistance, blood chemistry and 
brain wave patterns, shows that an individual gains a 
profoundly deep state of rest while the mind remains 
awake and able to respond to stimuli. These natural 

effects clearly distinguish Transcendental Meditation 
form all other techniques which invlove effort, 
concentration, control, hypnosis or auto-suggestion. 
Scientists have described the period of 
Transcendental Meditation as a unique state of 
"restful alertness "f indicative of a fourth major state 
of consciousness as natural to man as the other three 
physiologically defined states: wakefulness, dreaming 
and deep sleep. 

Through personal instruction anyone can learn the 
technique and begin to enjoy this contact with the 
source of thought, the inner field of pure Creative 
Intelligence. The benefits that come from the practice 
are automatic and cumulative, enriching all aspects of 

There exists an intimate and inseperable 
connection between the individual and the universe; 
neither is independant. For example, if a stone is 
thrown into a pond, waves are produced that travel 
throughout the pond. Each wave produces some 
effect in every part of the pond. Similarly, the wave 
of individual life, through its activity, produces an 
influence in all parts of the universe. Physics has 
revealed that through everything we do we produce 
vibrations in the atmosphere. Our every thought, 
word and action produces an influence in the 
atmosphere, and the quality of that influence 
depends upon the quality of the vibrations emitted 
by us. Everything in the universe is constantly 
influencing every other thing. This shows how 
dependant and powerful is the life of the individual. 

Individuals who are restless, worried or troubled 
and who have no experience of real inner happiness 
continually produce unfavorable influences in their 
surroundings. When large numbers of people are 
unhappy, tense and unrighteous, the atmosphere of 
the world is saturated with these tense influences. 
When tensions in the atmosp/iere increase beyond a 
certain limit the atmosphere breaks into collective 
calamities. The problem of world peace can be solved 
only by solving the problem of the individual's peace, 
and the problem of the individuals 'peace can only be 
solved by creating in him a state of happiness. We 
cannot have a peaceful world without having peaceful 

individuals. It is now time that those interested in 
world peace should attend to the peace of the 
individual. To try to solve the problem of 
international conflicts while ignoring the problem of 
the individual is a wholly inadequate attempt to 
establish world peace. 

If a crises is created in Berlin the minds of all 
statesmen turn to that city. If something happens in 
Vietnam their whole attention switches to Vietnam. 
If there is fighting in the Himalayas all their attention 
is directed there. Trying to solve these problems 
individually is exactly like trying to make a leaf 
healthy by spraying it with water instead of watering 
the root. By now man should be wise enough to 
know that only by watering the root can the leaf be 

really helped. History records the attempts of the 
statesmen to establish lasting world peace, but 
because all attempts are made on the surface of 
international life and not on the level of the life of 
the individual the problem of world peace continues 
to be a problem for every generation. This can be 
applied to all social problems. Until our attention is 
focused on the level of the individual, the root, rather 
than the level of the problem, poverty, prejudice, 
corruption, ignorance and unhappiness will continue 
to prevail. 

After meditating, an individual naturally engages 
in activity more effectively, being less susceptible to 
stress and strain on the nervous system, which is the 
vehicle for experiencing in daily life. When this 
vehicle has stress, normal functioning is impaired and 
therefore full potential of the individual is not 
enjoyed. With expanded awareness, increased clarity 
of perception and more profound knowledge of life, 
he acts in a more loving and creatively intelligent 
manner. Transcendental Meditation unfolds the full 
potential of his mind and heart, making life a joy 
both for himself and others. 

Regular practice of Transcendental Meditation 
insures the harmonious and balanced development of 
life. There practical benefits of Transcendental 
Meditation enable one to enjoy living in the sustained 
freedom of increasing achievement and fulfillment. 

f R.K. Wallace, H. Benson, Scientific 
American, Feb. 1972 

/ am frequently disturbed by the apathy of the 
Christian community and the lack of concern 
exhibited by church leaders regarding the influence of 
rock and roll music on teenage values and mores. 
During one of my crusades, on the night on which I 
gave the testimony of my conversion, I observed that 
there seemed to be few teenagers in the church. I 
discovered later that their parents had permitted them 
to attend a performance by the Beachboys ( a 
popular rock and roll group) in town that evening. I 
remember a young lady who insisted on taking issue 
with me on the dangers of rock and roll music after 
hearing me lecture on the subject. Later, I was told 
that she was a deacon's daughter and had recently 
driven 300 miles and paid seven dollars for a ticket to 
hear the Beatles. What a sad waste of money when 
finances are desperately needed to support the efforts 
of Christianity to promulgate the Gospel. Walk into 
most Christian homes with teenagers and you will find 
an ample supply of rock and roll records. Punch the 
buttons on their automobile radios and you can be 
sure to find that at least one is set to rock and roll 

If you want to see a mass orgy in action, drop into 
a teenage rock and roll dance. Record hops are still 
popular in some sections of the country, and often as 
many as 2, 000 teenagers will pay a $1 - $2 admission 
fee to dance. The records are wilder than those you 
generally hear, and the dancing is much more erotic 
than one can imagine. These dances are really the 
modern version of the tribal dances, and dancing is 
body language... 

Of course many of these dances... may 
be a way of wooing and courting, the foreplay to love 
making." Dr. Bernard Saible, a child guidance expert 
of the Washington State division of community 
services, stated in the Seattle Times, 'Normally 
recognizable girls behaved ( at a rock and roll concert) 
as if possessed by some demonic urge, defying in 
emotional ecstasy the restraint with authorities try to 
place on them. " The Enclyclopedia Britannica says, 
'The therapeutic possession dances of Africa have 
spread to the new world... In these dances an African 
deity enters a devotee and produces a frenzied dance 
in the character of a god. " Could any statement by 
plainer. Is the trend from less skillful maneuvering in 
dancing to more rhythmic forms significant of 
demonic influence? 

Early American settlers followed the dancing 
examples set by Europeans The innovations that 
were to come were derived from the Negro, who has 
had a greater creative influence on music and dancing 
than any other ethnic group. The origin of the Negro 
influence is, of course, Africa. These innovation were 
connected with heathen tribal and voodoo rites. The 
native dances to incessant, pulsating, syncopated 
rhythms until he enters a state of hypnotic monotony 
■and loses active control over his conscious mind. The 
throb of the beat from the drums brings his mind to a 
state when the voodoo, which Christian missionaries 
know to be a demon can enter him. This power then 
takes control of the dancer, usually resulting in sexual 
atrocities. Is there a legitimate connection between 
these religious rites and today's modem dances? 

- 1 




V vi u 





Because of our technologically oriented society, 
universal determinism and inductive reasoning are 
very prevalent in the thought processes of people 
today. Our educational system is based upon 
accepting only those facts which can be observed and 
investigated. The twentieth century mind thinks in 
terms of scientific procedure and controlled 
experiments, and therefore has difficulty in accepting 
the existence of spiritual entities on an empirical 
basis. A study of demonology is usually relagated to 
the ranks of superstition; however, a recent resurgence 
of interest in clairvoyance and ESP has given 
credibility to the reality of supernatural factors and 
events in life. Taking this into account, it is my hope 
that the readers of the books will not reject the 
ensuing discussion without serious consideration. 

Any intelligent discussion of the little-understood 
subject of demonology should begin with a definition 
of terms. A demon may be regarded as a spirit being 
not discernable through the five, physical senses. It is 
not necessary to argue for their existence as this is 
universally accepted in all religions. Pagan religions, 
which believe in the re-incarnation of spirits, are based 
on 'mysteries and oracles" from the tower of Babel 
on down to the present. The Bible gives a broad 
outline of this subject, referring to it as "the mystery 
of iniquity. " Lucifer's fall, as set forth in Isaiah, the 
fourteenth chapter, and Jeremiah, the fourth chapter, 
and Exekiel, the twenty-eighth chapter marks the 
origin of evil in this universe. Since his fall, he is 
referred to in Holy Writ as 'Satan, the old Devil, and 
the god of this world. " One writer indicated that as 
many as one-third of the angels og heaven joined 
Lucifer in his initial rebellion. Man is the prey of these 
fallen creatures. They are regimented into legions 
swelling in regions of the deep and assail men for the 
possession of their faculties. Through men they find 
expression for their diabolical purpose of disposing 
him and discrediting God. Those who consort with 
spirits are known as witches, wizards, or warlocks. 
Their occult communication with these fallen 
creatures is established in elaborate rituals. An array 
of pagan gods stand on the ruins of history, shrouded 
in fear and superstilution, still holding strange gravity 
even in this enlightened age. 

Christ came to earth to deal with men 's problems 
on a personal level. He revealed to men that demons 
of blindness, deafness, and spirits of infirmity were 
holding them prisoner. Satan had accomplished this 
by an infusion of his power into the very nature of 
men. The New Testament contains many instances in 
which Christ utilized exorcism. 'Cast out 
devils, "Jesus said to the seventy as He sent them out, 
in Matthew, the tenth chapter, and the Great 
Commission of Mark, the sixteenth chapter, contains 
the same commandment. There are also instances 
(such as in the fifth and ninth chapters of Mark) when 
demons spoke and uttered cries. During the revival at 
Samaria, under Phillip's ministry, it is stated that 
unclean spirits cried with loud voices and came out of 
many. Sacred scripture accounts for many strange 
emotional and physical actions as the tormented souls 
were set free from inner bondage. Once, the victim 
wallowed, foaming at the mouth while another was 
' torn ' and still others seemed to lie in a trance with 
their eyes glazed in a semi- conscious stupor. Either 
Christ was a superstitious liar and the Bible is a 
collection of fables, or we must accept the reality of 
the existence of demons and their capacity of 
possessing men. 

Timothy 4:1 declares, 'The Spirit speaketh 
expressly that in the latter times many shall depart 
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and 
doctrines of demons. " I was aware of the connection 
between demons and dancing even before my 
conversion. I speak from experience as to the effect 
rock and roll rhythms have on the mind. When you 
perform at a dance, the songs do not last two or three 
minutes as they might on a recording. Instead, you 
learn to control your crowd by the music that you 

/ have played one song continuously for as long 
as 15 to 20 minutes. There were times while playing 
rock and roll music, that I became so engrossed and 
my senses deadened, that I was hardly aware of what 
was going on about me. As a minister, I know what it 
is like to feel the function of the Spirit As a former 
rock and roll muscian, I know what it means to feel 
the counterfeit annointing of Satan. I know the 
experience of having had this eveil force come upon 
me and transport me into another world, and I declare 
to you that it is a miracle that it was not necessary to 
use exorcism on me before I could accept Christ as 
my Saviour. It is only God's mercy that kept me from 
becoming possessed of demons during my years as a 
rock and roll muscian. 

There is no difference between the repetitive 
movements of witch doctors and tribal dancers and 
the dances of American teenagers. The same coarse 
bodily motions which lead African dancers into a 
state of uncontrolled frenzy are present in modern 

dances ■ It is only logical, then, that there must also be 
a correlation in the potentiality of demons gaining 
possessive control of a person through the medium of 
the beat. This is not entirely my own theory, but it is 
the message that missionaries have urged me to bring 
to the American public. Many have told me of their 
disgust at being sent to foreign lands to save people 
fro m what is going on in America's teenage dances. I 
have walked Bourbon Street in New Orleans and the 
North Beack section of San Francisco where the 
topless nightclubs originated, and have heard the same 
music in all such places: rock and roll. What other 
soundscould give the incentive for a young lady, nearly 
nude, , to go through the most erotic gestures 
conceivable for hour after hour. I have observed 
teenagers frantically gyrate for hours to primitive 
rhythms, until they nearly dropped from exhaustion. 
Such scenes bear such a singular resenblance to 
heathendom that they cannot be dismissed without 
pondering the social and religious implications 


/ realize that what I shall state in this paragraph is 
theoretical and very controversial, but I am firmly 
convinced of its veracity. The day is approaching 
when one-half of America's population will be under 
25 years of age. Satan knows that if he is to be 
effective in these last days before the imminent return 
of Christ, he must gain control of youth. Rock and 
roll is the agency wJiich Satan is using to 
demon-possess this generation en masse. I have seen 
with my own eyes, teenagers become 
demon-possessed while dancing to rock and roll 
music. It was particularly noticeable with girls. One 
might expect a young lady to maintain some decency 
while dancing, but I have seen teenage girls go through 
contortions that could only be the manifestation of 
demonactivity. It used to strike fear in my heart when 
I would see these things happen as they danced to my 
music. A demon does not have to stay in a person if 
he does not find that one permanently advantageous 
to his purposes; however, as that person gives himself 
over to the rhythms of rock and roll, the demon may 
momentarily enter, do moral and spiritual 
devastation, and then leave again. On Friday and 
Saturday nights across America, the devil is gaining 
demonic control over thousands of teenage lives. It is 
possible that any person who has danced for 
substantial lengths of time to rock and roll music may 
have come under the oppressive, obsessive, or 
possessive influence of demons. Knowing this, 
churches and clergymen need to shed their cloak of 
compromise and firmly denounce rock and roll 
dances. Dancing is no longer an artistic form of 
expression ( if it ever was) but a subtle instrument of 
Satan to morally and spiritually destroy youth. 

Author Unknown 

Please allow me to introduce myself 
I'm a man of wealth and taste 
I've been around for long, long years 
stolen many a man 's soul and faith 

I was around when Jesus Christ 
had his moment of doubt and faith 
I made damn sure that Pilate 
washed his hands and sealed his fate 

I stuck around St. Petersburg 
when I saw it was time for a change 
I killed the tzar and his ministers 
Anastasia screamed in vain 

I rode a tank held a general's rank 

when the blizkrieg raged and the bodies stank 

and I lay traps for troubadors 

who get killed before they reach Bombay 

Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name 

But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game 

Just as every cop is criminal 
and all the sinners Saints 
as heads is tails just call me Lucifer 
'cause I'm in need of some restraint 

So if you meet me have some courtesy 
have some sympathy and taste 
use all your well learned politesse 
or I'll lay your soul to waste 

I watched with glee while your kings and queens 
fought for ten decades for the gods they made 
I shouted out, "Who killed the Kennedy's?" 
when after all it was you and me 

So please allow me to introduce myself 
I am a man of wealth and taste 
and I lay traps for troubadors 
who get killed before they reach Bombay- 
Pleased to meet you , hope you guess my name 
but what's puzzling you is the nature of my game. 

the Rolling Stones 

fref^Htmmfamiiii >••'••••"»"•"*< "1^.1 imummmm 


Southeastern Massachusetts University is a cultural 
phenomenom. Physically it looks like a cast-off set 
that Stanley Kubrick forgot to use in 2001. Morally 
the people who function in it seem like 
snaggle-toothed extras from A Clockwork Orange. It 
is an institution that operates merrily in a blind 
vacuum. The Troubles' of 1969, 19 70 and 1971 in 
retrospect were not the result of any great solidarity 
with impassioned strikers on other campuses. Instead 
they were a series of banal chess games played by 
inept players. 

In 1969 students, faculty and administrators 
discovered each other. Students are always fascinated 
by sex of course. They have three great topics of 
concern and conversation: a) who is sleeping with 
who at the moment, b) dope and c) if there s no dope 
available, liquor. Faculty and administrators are 
basically in love with the same things but they tend 
to substitute money for dope. (Witness the recent 
noble AFT scramble for free state goodies). 

SMU s 'revolutions ' happened because early in 
1969 administrators found out that certain young 

faculty members had more than the expected 
faculty-student relationships going with their prettier 
students. This information had been freely known by 
everyone else on campus for months but it takes 
longer for stuff to reach middle aged ears. Mornings 
in the cafe there was almost a ratings system going: 1 
point if you slept with a student, 5 points if you were 
living with a faculty member preferably some one in 
sociology and a big 10 if you were making it with a 

If Joseph Leo Driscoll had not tried so hard to 
avert an open scandal, he would probably have saved 
himself. By mixing politics with moral intrigue he 
ended up wrecking himself. 

The original group of straying faculty were 
extremely bright people. They were unhappy with 
their jobs. They were young and stupidly naive about 
acad.emic proceedure. Stuck in a provincial university 
they could be terribly articulate about politics and 
poverty. Attracted to the idea of marching bravely to 
the barricades they naturally used students to get 
them there. 

At SMU these faculty had a group of insecure, 
lower-middle class students to play with. It was a 
perfect chance to indulge in Messiah fantasies. " You 
poor, inadequate, intellectual cast-offs are in need of 
help. Come and we will lead you. Together we will 
build a free world. " It worked beautifully. By the 
time Driscoll took his first action against the faculty, 
there were students ready to go down in flames. 

The SMU strikes were not a noble series of 
children 's crusades against a new Irish Hitler. They 
were instead a badly written farce that became more 
and more convoluted as months stretched out. 
Human beings were damaged. There were groups of 
students at SMU who hadn 't been near a classroom 

since they enrooled. Several students weren 't able to 
graduate in four years and needed a fifth year to 

Now SMU has supposedly grown up. Back to 
business as usual. This stability has lasted about a 
year and a half. A new passion has crept into SMU. 
Students, faculty and administrators have again found 
something to love - politics. SMU has caught up with 
the issues that excited other campuses in the sixties. 
People now rush around the hall with gleams of lust 
in their eyes. POWER something to be sought and 
grabbed at. Anyone who isn't bored to death is 
playing an angle. From sex to power, SMU takes off. 

By Peggi Medeiros 

HtaTi - li/~ i O 










■ :■ :i; 


,»- 1 IB 


fern. ^$S 

1 ~-^^_*__^^^^p( ^^■^a 1 


■ 1 -]{ { u 


. „,„. i_ 



THEY ARE PlAYlWrfl GAME ."ftO ftp£VLA/th&r AT/Jof 
pLMW^G/VTlEr.TF JSffcCO TflEfl\T*iE£~mEY fiRE,T 
SM/I SReeK1f/C:J?Ut£3 /WD~!~H£Y uill( punish mc. 
X/riOST PLAYlfiEIR GAME, OFaJoT 5€Tf /MG- J SEH 7HC G^vne 


H/sToRy 15 the ajkthtawre, 



vfliuw- WE^Tty /ajtd Pt/Ke:, owe fouowg- 

/)£/>!OSr/)tPH/)BeTiCALDe5fOAI 15 "WC RUSHETS 

OFpHysics THey'DE^CRHiC so/yieu)HER€ BETcoEXAi 
the: EyE 5 of the: filial cucrk Atit> the: 


cj/*y w<p<>N/>i-t> 

« r 




ORNoMsEMSE. 0?/\ TH/MG- 

TH/1T F/UE. Ui ITH ^g^l/lT/, W/*LK GROUND 
4/WKELOVE „ h )fs 

R£#D. REAP. RE^D. READ. W VoyouDOTmT? 
/A) THE 1X)G- H005E1 TOR. LOOKING- AT/* 1 5 WIFE '5 
f?EtfP. K£»A g£AD. ££*D. OJHY DO /OU DO TH/)T ? 



kespecttwd FAcii o^c /T 

Z. UtiVEKSlMD THAT 1H15 J3 A/oTS) 

MucMA vwocRficyfoA coRPofflfo/* 

SPEECtf : o;//e£c 1&I0 WORDS MIL ^RUC fDJ^ 


5 7BG?C /)££ REU6**G //GPE TMTARC 

pPEuy azii //jro "We f/ibkc /r 

tOtiDsjmciiiAT&idfm. wemd 
^be-feiichoks ofwjw. RinfiaKom 

MAGES mZ>ZEl7l&l(/9filD WRK TlWTtiERF. 
>f. 60C M//2£^ /Af Z/WD /0USES C®P3 gtff 

my //[cVokrtUp 



/ X^XxXv.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;., 


LflmED 5 

^\\\\\\\>N\\V^ \V •;. 






The conflict between generations is intense within 
thetechno-culture because controls are invisible and 
all-encompassing. The crisis in the universities comes into 
perspective when we perceive the crucial role of higher 
education in imprinting the American way on the younger 
generation. Universities operate by rational discussion. So far 
so good, since classrooms are places where books are 
interpreted and ideas discussed. Students realize that their 
future prospects depend upon their achievements in the 
academic system. They know that the standards for 
achievement, content of programs and judgments of 
competence are set by the faculties. Students also find that 
their protests over the quality of their education and the 
careerist preoccupation of their professors go unheard, as the 
Cox Report on the Columbia University confrontation made 
clear. In brief, coercive power over the lives and hopes of 
students is now vested in institutions of higher education. 
These institutions are managed by yrustees, administrators and 
faculties. They exercise invisible control over the life chances 
of the young. When their control is challenged by student 
sit-ins and demonstrations, educational authorities protest that 
they have no power. They rule by rational discussion. 

This picture of the campus conflict is, of course, rather 
one-sided, since it is drawn to illumine the centrality of the 
problem of control in our techno-cutlute. Whatever questions 
one may raise about the tactics used by students in the 
confrontations, the coercive character" of higher eduation is 
such that this is a head-on power struggle over who is to 
control the future of the new generation. This means that the 
confrontation will sooner or later come to rest in the 
faculty-student relationship, because faculty members hold the 
power of vocational life and death over their students in the 
new socity. 

The real difficulty with the student protest is not its tactics, 
though these have often been barbarous and ineffective. Their 

real difficulty is that they are caught in the vicious circle of 
coercion which surrounds a technological order. In struggling 
for a voice in the university power structure, students are 
caught in the same vicious circle which now traps faculty and 
administration. The problem of the university is not who 
controls it but what education means. Education, now, reflects 
the techno-culture. Getting a voice in the educational system 
means nothing unless the real significance of education is 
clearly understood. The question is not who has power in the 
university, but what the university is doing. This is the 
question that neither faculty nor administrators have been able 
to discuss - rationally or otherwise. They do not wish to be 
bothered, and unhappily this is true of many students as well. 
It may seem strange, but faculty and students have turned 
each confrontation into a power struggle, avoiding the real 
issue of what it means to educate and be educated. 

Higher education today faces crisis of soul and truth. For 
the most part, the conflict between the controlling culture and 
the search for soul is blunted and obscured in the campus 
revolt. The crisis of soul is the heart of the university question 
and cannot be resolved in a struggle for power. 

The struggle on the campuses defines the crisis as a power 
struggle, and there is no doubt that a more equitable 
distribution of power is desirable. Sympathies with campus 
protest arise in the student body, however, from frustration 
over the irrelevance of much academic work to problems of 
human existence. Students sense that they are not being 
educated. This is the underlying issue in the campus revolt. 
When preoccupation with control gives way to serious 
reflection on what it means to be a whole person and what, it 
anything, education has to do with becoming human and 
shaping a good socity, then faculties and students may 
transcend the impasse in which techno-education has trapped 
them. They may begin to discuss authentic education together 
and find a new pedagogy. 

We are proposing, then, that the techno-culture cherishes 
innovation on its own terms. It accepts feedback but not 
authentic dialogue. By its nature such a society casts a 
network of controls over existence, programming the minds 
and futures of its youth. Consequently, the innovations which 
it encourages only reinforce the system. Innovations in 
thought, politics and fundamental issues are taboo and will be 
suppressed with violence when they appear. So the vaunted 
innovation of the techno-culture occurs only within the 
narrow confines of its own programs. Challenges to the 
educational venture itself will simply not be tolerated. They 
bring into question the ground on which the techno-culture 
rests? that is, they question the premise that the system 
possesses the truth and loyalty to the system is equivalent to 
pursuit of truth. 

Here, howeever, the crisis of soul discloses its tragic 
character. Protests within the techno-culture lack ground from 
which to challenge the system. We have already seen this tragic 
impasse in the campus revolt which devolves into a power 
struggle between faculty and students over control of a process 
that really obstructs instead of furthering education. The 
problem is not who controls but the single and sovereign 
priciple of control itself. If control is the meaning of human 
existence and the ultimate criterion of truth — understanding, 
prediction and control -- then techno-man holds all the cards. 
This is the radical question in the probing, searching, exploring 
and exploding struggle of the new generation. It is the 
question which is gnawing at the vitals of the whole American 
system. And this is the question which baffles the established 
generation as it tries to understand the crisis that grips the 
young. The older generation is so committed to control as the 
meaning of existence, including its own invisible control over 
the coming generation, that it cannot comprehend the 
groaning, painful search by the new generation to find a 
humanity beyond control and productivity. Its only resource 
for responding to the revolt of youth is its inner malaise, 
which creates a certain sympathy. Of course, the deeper reality 
here is that a life devoted to controlling reality comes up hard 
against the uncontrollable inoneself, in others and in the 

The struggle against control by the new generation sheds 
light on the prblem of drugs in American society. Drugs, and 
by this we mean primarily the hallucinogens which are 
appealing to middle-and -upper-class youth, create anxiety in 
the older generation. To be sure, there are "bad trips" and 
some realistic fears can be harbored against such drugs, 
particularly in their long-term effects. However, drugs reveal a 
distance between the older and newer generation which 
underlines the peculiar, new kind of struggle for soul that 
engages American society in this period. LSD and other 
hallucinogens are ways of releasing control over oneself, 
submitting to powers beyond one's calculations and previous 
training. These drugs break the controls so carefully contrived 
by parents and social institutions. They break the invisible 
hold of the society. Hence, these drugs run directly counter to 
the whole meaning of existence on which the older generation 
has built its world. They represent the breaking up of the rule 
of will, calculation and control which is the latterday version 
of the Protestant ethic. The very idea of such drugs is not only 
abhorrent to the older generation, it is actually beyond its 
comprehension. These drugs explode the techno-culture. 

We have been arguing that the crisis of soul arises from the 
impoverished psyche of techno-man. We have stressed the 
opening up of a life of feeling and community over against 
objective rationality and depersonalized existence. If existence 
is open to feeling, depth, awe and mystery -- the incalculable 
as well as calculable - then control cannot be the single and 
sovereign principle of existence. There must be depths and 
inner reaches of experience and truth which extend beyond 
the contollable. Truth is far more encompassing than 
measurable effects. And techno-man is a partial, very limited 
perspective on a rich, encompassing world. The new generation 
seizes upon hallucinogenic drugs as a way of exploring this 
encompassing reality - as a way of shedding the controls of 
techno-man. Mind-expanding and mind-exploding experiences 
break the invisible contols. In a world constituted by and for 
control, drugs appear- as countercultural - the rejection of 
control. Where alcohol sedates the controlling will, drugs open 
the will to the uncontrollable. Drugs symbolize and mediate 
the new generation's struggle for soul as a radical break with 
the calculable world of techno-man. 

Deliverance from domination by teehno-culture will take 
more than festivals, confrontations and drugs. Mind-expanding 
drugs may give some earnest of such release, but evidence 
indicates that this is an evanescent liberation. Drugs disclose 
both the search for soul and the powerlessness of the new 
generation. After all, the teehno-culture is far more advanced 
and skilled in the administration of drugs than its young 
rebels: indeed, the turn toward drugs reflects dependence upon 
technology. If the battle is to be waged on this front, there is 
no question who will emerge as victor. The established order is 
already maintaining itself through ingestions of alcohol and 
traquillizers. It can easily develop drugs to adjust the rebellious 

The real issue is how one deals with the undergirding reality 
of the techno-society - really coping with its principle of 
control. This means finding a way to transcend the principle of 
control, including control of one's psyche with drugs. 
"Dropping out" and "tripping out" are kinds of 

Violent controntations are also a mode of 
transcendence, since they create distance through negation. 
But negation can do little more than open a space for 
challenging the technological drive to make verything a means 
to productivity. That challenge has to draw upon an 
alternative reality which is more promising for humanity that 
the rule of the productive system. The negation is trying to get 
around technology by technical means. The problem is how to 
get through and beyond technology so that it can serve man 
rather than control him. 



Ron, i've been courtin yer wife these 
last few years, & yes, i've come 
for her hand,& yes, thats right, 
you aint nobody 'cept to bum cigarettes 
off of,& i hunt among your papers 
for what she might see in you,& study 
her paintings for what she thinks better 
not to come right out & say,& i got five 
here says she'll take me over you if i 
could just, please, hold her hand, please 
while we down these couple of beers 

Way McDonald 

fl ( i] si : ISS^^^M 

Bpat»i'.f»lii»WW 1 

a ( i] sf :\l f /:\ iM^M 



^Mi^XwHuFriiJ B 

^^^^■^aTimIT^^^H ^| 

se/?>e-s of euG-nr^ Th&r dccu/teb 


frnj) Mi xiea& pffi'fz. ft ykocK pas&,i> ^ft^^- /# w mores #nb r&n miles 

foi7> '0>e / <7/qss6b urt2>&« nntnc/ &t/G<L/0'9ss£r'S / / ^<er> 7~£> wy £4& 

pro see 

looted &*e "*e /doKrhi * r ' * &* UoLOd 

*f%#F^'C OO^S /ty/sj/w/rl 

C/T^tf cbnG77?t J cr'''Gy r ) 

ou#/T}?&> rh#r io#tr&7> on tJS #r firt/e^/e-sn^ 


/^•7 ^^£ 5>^ ^ **^ /<f/^ 

i?i& &*fSZ/7/& y^^- o oj 0/=~ T^ie sr?vsecMr\ 

^re^-n s-y^r /n n u)4<LKe*L 

&Uftn^ Y^SteFc 

/Won'** 4<?ptJll> tHrtci^.;>n£ sr**"**? 

t-f- toi^ tt'OMdfioo'zfr &n m<Q7?y xi&^er/s 

^Tepj ^ 0uc//cnjh P^r$ ^H H&z 



/) %% chew wrm, sax, mounted shotgoai^ anp 


"the^ £ youuxnr let oh, 

mT>7b6€\HERMC^T0CtsUVT\\t\KG0HS ^BIOia) 
tflTTTHOR. AKSE HEATER 3 /WD SEM) IhE/A 8fl<X -ft -jtfr 


/*Lid/W5 WrtEREYou/iRe 

sirmoN/iRy up To ^6 cm its rex 

SE£. D//WAJ/5H/M6- /A) tW&£ OR. 
yOORE GOlhXr- /A5CRG^S€5 £A)0064 
ftO*SESHn"RT 1 BK1A0&S TftEORy 



/KK Around 

60/)^ /VW)o^LD 

' ; .-• * *v 

1 <=0U^T W FRIEWD5 


( /' HM£ /) MCw WRiT/MO Tfl Bl£"J 

C(jfcV/M6~ UP UP UP UP i(^»UMT/V)y FRIEMC3 

tbcv /)re: onetthough /vvwrb/?)e one: 4-One £<aue f 

3D 0/0 £OM OR Owe: £lWWU6- OAiC Tft£ /Hssifctcr whole: 
( i BAMrO) m F//06ER WITH TflC H/WEX)(/*T0J0RK 1?>4>U) N&M 


AFTER Tflis WOui AFTCR Tfl)S /W7VK)Ry OF 7B 1 3 OF AJXO 

6uHo6£: 1iHe: p/\KT$ MumB^ ome Tuio Thkcc Four True 5/X 

SeUEN eiG»T M/MC ££RO /)1W\J6€E> /^you/ty YoO QKe 1HGM 

u/Ay /V|<.Pow*u> 

"YOU CAN'T KNOW what it's like to be alive until you've 
been a thief in a dark room where someone is sleeping. There's 
no way I can tell you - how awake you are, how much you 
can hear - you can hear with your skin - how much you 
know. There's a police car moving over there three blocks 
away. You know it's there. You sense it. You feel it moving . '.' 




<&* —' ^J 

My friend is a successful novelist, a journalist, a critic. As a 
teen-ager, however, he had been a member of a gang of thieves. 
Now he was telling me what all of us keep forgetting to 
acknowledge: that the Civilized condition, while nurturing us, 
robs us of the chance to be all that we could be. Our 
fascination with every rogue, every free-roving adventurer 
from Ulysses through Tom Jones, Jesse James, John Dillinger 
to James Bond reveals an impulse toward lawlessness in us all. 
Civilization's songs, tales and chronicles are filled with rascals. 
Maybe it is more than entertainment. 

Take fairy tales and children's stories. There is a moment in 
Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows (written in the 
early 1900s) when the irrepressible Mr. Toad finds himself in 
the presence of the one thing most forbidden to him, a 

"I wonder," he said to himself presently, "I wonder if this 
sort of car starts easily? 

Next moment, hardly knowing how it came about, he found 
he had hold of the handle and was turning it. As the familiar 
sound broke forth, the old passion seized on Toad and 
completely mastered him, body and soul. As if in a dream he 
found himself, somehow, seated in the driver's seat: as if in a 

dream, he pulled the lever and swung the car round the yard 
and out through the archway; and, as if in a dream, all sense of 
right and wrong, all fear of obvious consequences, seemed 
temporarily suspended. He increased his pace, and as the car 
devoured the street and leapt forth on the high road through 
the open country, he was only consicous that he was Toad 
once more, Toad at his best and highest, Toad the terror, the 
traffic-queller, the Lord of the lone trail, before whom all 
must give way or be smitten into nothingness and everlasting 
night. He chanted as he flew, and the car responded with 
sonorous drone; the miles were eaten up under him as he sped 
he knew not whither, fulfilling his instincts, living his hour, 
reckless of what might come to him. 

For his action, Mr. Toad suffers the full wright of the law. 
He is tried, convicted, sentenced, loaded with chains and 
dragged "shrieking, praying, protesting" to "the remotest 
dungeon of the best-guarded keep of the stoutest castle in all 
the length and breadth of Merry England." 

Toad's high moment, and his punishment as well, speak to 
us from Civilization's forbidden lectern, as does Milton's 
Satan, gloriously unrepentent, the penultimate crosser of 
boundaries, doomsday enemy of The System: 

. . . Farewell happy fields 

Where joy forever dwells: Hail horrors, hail 

Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell 

Receive thy new possessor: one who brings 

A mind not to be changed by place or time. 

The mind is its own place, and in itself 

Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. 

What matter where, if I be still the same, 

And what I should be, all but less than he 

Whom thunder hath made greaterTHere at least 

We shall be free . . . 

It is not all Milton's doing that his Satan makes our blood 
run fast, or that his God is a pompous, flat, insufferable bore. 
We should not wonder that the man in the black hat often 
engages our support, that the lost cause seems the best cause, 
that bystanders cheered Britain's Great Train Robbers as they 
came to court, that a vision of Persian orgy dwells in every 
Shriner's heart. Do not assume that all of this reflects some 
incurable perversity in mankind or that it tells us anything 
about the "nature" of man, but instead that it may inform us 
on the subject of education. For I should like to propose that 
it is precisely those people who, for whatever reason, have 
operated outside Civilization's strictures who have carried the 
torch of learning to us across the centuries. 

These people are varied. They are the rogue. The common 
criminal is not among them. Most criminals, after their initial 
break with pattern, fall into repetitive, stereotyped behavior 
that apes society itself. Criminologists look for the "MO" 
(modus operandi) by which the criminal gives himself away. 
The true rogue has no obvious MO' Whether fictional or 
historical, he is the man of many devices, constantly exploring, 
probing the environment - learning. 

That this master learner to whom we give our secret 
admiration is so frequently associated with crime and vilence 
may simply indicate that, under the conditions of our 
Civilization, it is oftern difficult to go on learning for very long 
without breaking the law. "There's no crime on Bimini," a 
visting reporter remarked, "because nothing's illegal." Bimini 
may not be an oasis of learning, but neither is Merry England. 
The point is not that the furture-trending educator should 
encourage violence or disruption, but that he recognize the 
many new means, now clear on the horizon, for making , 
lifelong learning legal, for making it possible, in the poet 
Herrick's words, for men to be "nobly wild, not mad." 

Rogues come in numerous varieties. For our purposes, we 
may take four, blending fact and fiction, as our tutors: (1) the 
ordinary rogue or rascal, the adventurer, the picaro; (2) the 
radical technologist; (3) the mystic; (4) the artist. 

The first of these need detain us only a moment. His 
tradition is secure, his fascination universal. "The conditions 
of civilized living do much to sap our lives of adventure and 
risk," J' Bronowski writes in his book The Face of Violence. 
"We take our revenge by equating spirit with lawlessness and 
adventure with the criminal." But we seek extraordinary 
criminals as our teachers: Jean Laffite, the pirate; or, better 
still, Sir Francis Drake and all those sea captains who pirated 
under the legitimizing colors of patriotism; Robin Hood, who 
somehow has come to represent a one-man United Fund Drive; 
Black Bart, who posted doggerel verse on the stagecoaches he 

War, conquest and politics may be viewed as means of 
sanctioning roguery. In these endeavors, men are sometimes 
freed to burst through the restraining barriers of Civilized 
living and become free-roving hunters again, going "beyond 
themselves," performing feats of endurance, skill and 
clairvoyance they had no reason to anticipate. Stable socities 
have simply been unable, thus far, to provide the 
opportunities, the reinforcing contingencies that would make 
possible going beyond ourselves in the happier and far less 
limiting fields of brotherhood, love, cp,,imopm. doscpvery. 

What has perhaps not been noted is that rogues throughout 
history generally have been closely linked with the latest 
technology of their times. Just as Ulysses was a master mariner 
in the early age of seafaring, the highwaymen, ]cony catchers 
and vagrants of Europe were men of the open road at a time 
when the confining dominance of household and guild were 
waning. And the master rogue of our day, James Bond (with 
all his imitators), is nothing if not technological. Indeed, the 
new global spy is purely an instrument of technology. He 
violates the old boundaries of time, place, consicience and 
propability. He strikes directly at our old, secure faith in the 
impossible. His mission is distant and detached from the 
personal lives of the main actors in the drama. His boss is not 
the stern, hated, feared, loved "Old Man" of earlier conflicts 
but, like himself, a cool technician. Sex is an icy pleasure that 
is best when taken by force or deception from an enemy. 

And, above all, technology is supreme. In the Bond movies, 
our laughter at the mechanical, electronic and chemical 
outrages is a laughter of recognition, not riducule. Bond is the 
foremost free-roving hunter in the new global jungle of 
interlocking technology. By his double-0 code designation, he 
is identified as one licensed to kill. Thus law sanctions the 
outlaw, But what this rogue may be teaching us - in the 
absurd triumph of impersonality (and possibly its end) - is 
that the final victim is actually society as we know it, 
Civilization itself. 

The radical technologist, second among our rogues, figures 
in some of Civilization's most persistent myths. These myths -- 
cautionary tales on a grand scale -- show the bringer of or 
seeker after new technologies succeeding for a while, then 
suffering his dire desserts. Prometheus is the archetype, and 
fire may be said to represent all the new technologies. The 
fire-bringer's suffering serves warning on all who would tamper 
with the basic technological framework of any society and 
emphasizes an essential truth: Any radical change in the 
technology within an established order will surely bring that 
order down. 

Indeed, those who would conserve and perpetuate any 
social entity are quite correct in fearing new knowledge and 
op'psoing all innovators who step across the lines that 
circumscribe Civilized man's every move. Establishment 
warnings against new technology come down to us across the 
ages. "Blest pair," wrote Milton of Adam and Eve; "and O yet 
happiest if ye seek/ No happier state, and know to know no 
more." Daedalus warned Icarus to fly neither too high nor too 
low. The Tower of Babel, according to archeological 
deductions, was simply a temple in the form of a ziggurat and 
was not meant by the Babylonians to threaten God but to 
worship him. But to the Israelites (who wrote the story) the 
tower was a athreat. The Babylonians stood at a high stage of 
technology for their time and were building in an impressive 
manner. Such a technology might have destroyed Hebraic 
society; better not understand it. 

During the medieval period, fear of all novelty reached a 
high state and was relected even in the language. The Arabic 
word bid'a means "novelty," but it also means "heresy." The 
Spanish word novedad carries similar undertones. 

The Renaissance view of just who the devil was came clear 
in the legend of Faust: the devil, it turned out, was none other 
than the master technologist himself, the very same one who 
had led Adam and Eve out of their happy ignorance. To follow 
his forbidden knowledge as Faust did was to lose one's soul. 
This warning came at a time when new technology was 
shattering all the usual forms of existence throughout Europe. 
In the legend, the threatening technology was presented as 
old-fashioned medieval magic. Nothing surprising about this; as 
McLuhan has repeatedly pointed out, the content of each new 
environment is invariably the old environment itself; man 
drives into the future with his eyes fixed firmly on the 
rearview mirror. 

Christopher Marlowe in 1588 presented the Faust story in 
dramatic form, and his Doctor Faustus became immensely 
popular. Traveling troupes brought it even to small villages all 
across Europe. In several versions, including puppet plays, the 
traditional Faust story retained its popularity well into the 
nineteenth century, long after Goethe's literary treatment. 

The question here is whether people flocked to see the 
Faust plays to be warned about the dangers of following 
devilish knowledge or simply out of fascination with a 
marvelous rogue. For Faust steps restlessly across Civilization's 
most rigid barriers, inspired, it seems, by nothing more than a 
spirit of curiosity. "Possessed of omnipotent magic," Richard 
G. Moulton has written, "Faustus does not use his power for 
profound speculations, or schemes of self-aggrandizement; he 
flits like a bee from flower to flower of casual suggestion; he is 
ready to go to hell for the sake of a new sensation." He is, in 
short, a learner. 

A nineteen-year-old girl named Mary Wollstonecraft wrote 
the archetypal modern tale of the rogue-technologist just after 
being married to the poet Shelley. She called her work 
Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. Frankenstein was 
published in London in 1818 and quickly became a best seller. 
The first dramatic version was staged in London in 1823. A 
handbill advertising the play read: "The striking moral 
exhibited in this story is the fatal consequence of that 
presumption which attempts to penetrate, beyond prescribed 
depths, into the mysteries of nature." Frankenstein, the 
creator, is still with us, suffering, time and again, the fatal 
consequence of his presumption. Invariably, he is unhappy 
beyond human endurance and generally shares violent death 
with the monster he has created. Various stage adaptations 
have had the monster being caught in an avalanche, hit by a 
thunderbolt, falling into Mount Aetna, drowned in an Arctic 
storm and leaping from a high crag. The cinema has added 
death in a burning mill, in an explosion and in a cauldron of 
boiling sulfur. Sic semper technologists. 

What concerns us here is not the literary quality of 
Frankenstein and the endless progeny of mad scientists who 
peer at us through their thick galsses from behind all that 
intricate tubing in comic books and horror movies, but the 
universal bewitchery they hold for us. These rogues have 
something powerful to teach: radical change in technology will 
change human life in a way Marx could not have dreamed. 

This process of change itself moves from what is known to 
what is unknown. Fearing that, we fear the technologist. And 
with reason: the H-bomb is the ultimate Faustain tool. 

But joyful and intelligent engagement, not paralyzing fear 
or stubborn resistance, may be amenable - not just the bomb, 
which can serve as an oversimplification, but the whole 
pervasive network of new technology. In the early 1800s, the 
Luddites roamed the English countryside, destroying the 
textile machinery they feared would create an economic 
disaster. But the disaster did not occur; the riots ended. 
Recently, a history professor at the University of California 
informed me that technology would not change the human 
condition because, in his words, "there are enough people like 
me who will go out and smash the computers before that can 

Professors vs. computers? It could happen, though the 
professors will probably find their worst fears, like the 
Luddites', are groundless. It is useless to pretend, however, 
that the established order will survive unaltered. Revolution by 
technology is far more effective than by ideology or violence. 
In violent political revolutions, only the hangmen change; the 
gallows remain the same. Technological revolution, on the 
other hand, razes the entire structure. The cautonary tales are 
generally in vain, since technology has a way of creeping in 
unseen. When the revolution at last becomes visible, the 
guardians of things-as-they-are may react with confusion and 
panic. These guardians include entrenched politicians, 
traditionalists of all stripes and a surprisingly large segment of 
the academic and intellectual community. The latter is known 
to be liberal, openminded and innovative, but not beyond 
prescribed depths. Much academic and intellectual energy, in 
fact, goes toward building and mending the perceptual fences 
within which establised specialists feel their disciplines must 
operate. It is precisely these fences the rogue-technologist 
would le A third rogue, the mystic, can be the most 
dangerous of all, since he is a technologist of the inner being. 
His works do not always upset traditions. Revelation has been 
buttressed with hierarchy as rigid as any known to Civilization. 
Mystical practices have helped, as in India, to perpetuate 
structured societies. But beware. At any moment, the mystical 
impulse can bring the structure down. For mysticism admits 
no boundaries whatever, not even the minimal interface 
between self and other. Logic, knowledge, proportion all may 
fall. The Upanishads hold that Enlightenment lies beyond the 
Golden Orb, that is, the very best of conventional wisdom. 


»-"«*» -4M j. m. 

For us of the West, there is no better example of the mystic 
as rogue than Jesus. He followed his vision all the way, though 
the changes he preached would have unglued the entire 
reinforcement structure of Civilization, replacing law with 
love. He formulated perhaps the most revolutionary 
educational prescription ever known: "Except ye be 
converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter 
into the kingdom of heaven." Any respectable citizen would 
have to be far removed, in time and place, from Calvary to 
think Jesus anything other than a rogue. It may be an 
indictment of our time that we no longer consider Him so. 

The artist, last of the rogues considered here, teaches us 
more explicitly than the rest. Unlike the rascal, the radical 
technologist and the mustic, he often has enjoyed his own 
society's sanction for his roguery. Like Agent 007, he is 
licensed to kill. Make no mistake about it, the great artist must 
destroy the forms and perceptions of his time. He must seek 
order that confounds order. He must journey beyond the 
conscience of his race. 

The more highly specialized and repressed a society 
becomes, the more it needs Art as a separate category, a place 
that is safe for wholeness, for feelings, for learning. Primitive 
man did not see Art apart from life. He seems to have been 
indifferent toward his cave paintings or sculpture once it was 
completed; we find the same cave wall painted over again and 

The important thing was not the finished work itself, 
but the act of making it. Fven as late as the Renaissance, 
artists could be thought of in somewhat the same terms as 
craftsmen. And Bach revealed his views on the permanence of 
his work by sometimes using manuscripts to wrap his lunch. 

As fragmentation and categorization continued apace, 
however, the artist found himself pushed off ot one side into 
his own special niche, where he often was granted a tentative 
amnesty for his "eccentricities." The most repressed and rigid 
socities (say Victorian England), societies that permitted their 
male members no outward display of emotion, allowed their 
artists to exhibit Bohemian ways, to be effusive or melancholy 
or even tearful. And then these societies used the completed 
works of art as safety valves for their own bottled-up feelings. 
They tried to imprison them in heavy, stolid buildings they 
called "art museums," or in other museums they called 
"symphony halls" and "opera houses." But the artist is a 
rogue and eventually can be neither imprisioned nor classified. 
Alsways a jump ahead of the technologist, the artist in recent 
times has been attempting to cross all of Civilization's 
boundaries. Today, in the Happenings and total-environment 
events of the young, we may watch the ultimate barrier - that 
between artist and audience - being torn down, brick by brick. 
It may turn out that the contemporary artist is engaged in the 
business of ending Art, therby helping us create an 
environment in which each individual life may be lived as a 
work of art. 

In the meantime, the rogue-artist provides us one of the best 
learning programs to be found in the whole crumbling 
schoolhouse of Civilization. He demonstrates the interplay 
between discipline and freedom, contending with the 
limitations of his materials, yet never failing to find (if he is a 
true artist) that the materials are less limiting than was 
previously thought. He reveals for us, in his way of working, 
what the Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo called the soul's distrust 
of all absolutes. He is compelled toward the particular, the 
place, the moment. "Art does not generalize and classify," 
writes Suzanne Langer; "art sets forth the individuality of 
forms which discourse, being essentially general, has to 
suppress. The sense of life is always new. infinitely complex, 
therefore infinitely variable in its possible expressions." 

The artist revives in us the senses and feelings and aspects of 
being that Western Civilization, in its pell- mell pursuit of the 
purely verbal-symbolic-conceptual, has caused many of us 
quite to neglect in the educational endeavor. He shows us how 
to explore the sensory universe. He maps for us the many 
roads to delight. 

To play, to dally, to caper - these are the true modes of 
creation. History shouts the lesson; we refuse to hear. We 
forget that, in Eric Hoffer's words, man's most unflagging and 
spectacular efforts were made not in search of necessities but 
of superfluities . . . The utilitarian device, even when it is an 
essential ingredient of our daily life, is most likely to have its 
ancestry in the nonutilitarian. The sepulchre, temple and 
palace preceded the utilitarian house; ornament preceded 
clothing; work, particularly teamwork, derives from play. We 
are told that the bow was a musical instrument before it 
became a weapon, and some authorities believe that the subtle 
craft of fishing originated in a period when game was abundant 
- that it was the product not so much of grim necessity as of 
curiosity, speculation, and playfulness. We know that poetry 
preceded prose, and it may be that sining came before talking . 
. . On the whole it seems to be true that the creative periods in 
history were byoyant and even frivolous . . . One suspects that 
much of the praise of seriousness comes from people who have 
a vital need for a facade of weight and dignity. La 
Rochefoucauld said of solemnity that it is a"a mystery of the 
body invented. to conceal the defects of the mind. " 

- ■ • • 

The artist, like all rogues, mocks solemnity. And he shows 
us how to be nobly wild, not mad. Psychologist Frank Barron 
of the University of California and his colleagues have 
conducted intensive studies of highly creative people who have 
achieved recognition in their fields - writing, painting, 
sculpturing, music, architecture. It is particularly interesting to 
note that, on the most widely used personality test (the 
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), the successful 
creators rank up with institutionalized schizophrenics on the 
Schizophrenia Scale. However, on an Ego Strength Scale, the 
creative people rate high, the schizophrenics, low. 

We may interpret these findings as testifying to the 
usefulness of controlled madness. The unusual perveptions, 
heightened sensory vigilance and unexpected visions of the 
madman perhaps exist to some extent in every genius who 
would move the boundaires of his time. The "successful" 
creators differ from the institutionalized unfortunates in that 
they can give their visions form - and also in that they have 
learned the disguises and dissimulations required by the 
world-as-it-is. Some of the remaining shamanistic societies (the 
Bantu of south Africa, the Tanala of Madagascar and the 
Mojave of the southwest U.S., for example) have found ways 
to reap social worth from extreme "schizophrenia." And 

indeed, a growing number of present-day psychologists and 
psychiatrists are beginning to feel that it is quite possible for 
us to create a world safer for man's errant impulses, a world 
that would yield us more color, richness and ecstasy without 
repressions, violence and war. 

The rogue, nobly wild, teaches us the first elementary lesson 
about a life in which one does not have to break law or custom 
in order to come fully awake; a life in which new technology - 
whether outside or inside the human organism - is not feared 
and reisted, but deflected toward humane uses; a life in which 
every established order takes as its first task the business of 
making itself obsolete; a life in which society's main function 
is to evolve into ever-evolving new societies. 

Such a lesson may seem radical. But it may turn out to be a 
simple drill in current events. The shackles of the past are 
loosening. And the world is crowded, as always, with rogues. 
Actually, there are now hundreds of millions of them. They 
are rascals, radical technologists, mystics and artists. They are 
original, openminded, clear of vision, adaptable, sensitive, 
enthusiastic, joyful and graceful. They are anything but 
fragmented, and their chief pleasure in life is learning. It is 
with what happens to those rogues, our children, in the years 
to come that the following chapters are concerned. 



IN HIS SHORT LIFETIME, Alvin had met less than 
one-thousan th of the inhabitants of Diaspar. He was not 
surprised, therefore, that the man confronting him was a 
stranger. What did surprise him was to meet anyone at all here 
in this deserted tower, so near the frontier of the unknown. 

He turned his back on the mirror world and faced the 
intruder. Before he could speak, the other had addressed him. 

"You are Alvin, I believe. When I discovered that someone 
was coming here, I should have guessed it was you." 

The remark was obviously not intended to give offense; it 
was a simple statement of fact, and Alvin accepted it as such. 
He was not surprised to be recognized; whether he liked it or 
not, the fact of his uniqueness, and its unrevealed 
potentialities, had made him known to everyone in the city. 

"I am Khedron," continued the stranger, as if that 
explained everything. "They call me the Jester." 

Alvin looked blank, and Khedron shrugged his shoulders in 
mock resignation. 

"Ah, such is fame! Still, you are young and there have been 
no jests in your lifetime. Your ignorance is excused." 

There was something refreshingly unusual about Khedron. 
Alvin searched his mind for the meaning of the strange word 
"Jester"; it evoked the faintest of memories, but he could not 
identify it. There were many such titles in the complex social 
structure of the city, and it took a lifetime to learn them all. 

"Do you often come here? Alvin asked, a little jealously. 
He had grown to regard the Tower of Loranne as his personal 
property and felt slightly annoyed that its marvels were known 
to anyone else. But had Khedron, he wondered, ever looked 
out across the desert or seen the stars sinking down into the 

"NO," said Khedron, almost as if answering his unspoken 
thoughts "I have never been here before. But it is my pleasure 
to learn of unusual happenings in the city, and it is a very long 
time since anyone went to the Tower of Loranne." 

Alvin wondered fleetingly how Khedron knew of his earlier 
visits, but quickly dismissed the matter from his mind. Diaspar 
was full of eyes and ears and other more subtle sense organs 
which kept the city aware of all that was happening within it. 
Anyone who was sufficiently interested could no doubt find a 
way of tapping these channels. 

"Even if it is unusual for anyone to come here," said Alvin, 
still fencing verbally, "why should you be interested? 

"Because in Diaspar," replied Khedron, "the unusual is my 
perogative, I had marked you down a long time ago; I knew 
we should meet some day. After my fashion, I too am unique. 
Oh, not in the way that you are; this is not my first life. I have 
walked a thousand times out of the Hall of Creation. But 
somewhere back at the beginning I was chosen to be Jester, 
and there is only one Jester at a time in Diaspar. Most people 
think that is one too many." 


TKere was an irony about Khedron's speech that left Alvin 
still floundering. It was not the best of manners to ask direct 
personal questions, but after all Khedron ahd raised the 

"I'm sorry about my ignorance," said Alvin. "But what is a 
Jester, and what does he do? 

"You ask 'what,' " replied Khedron, "so I'll start by telling 
you 'why'. It's a long story, but I think you will be 

"I am interested in everything," said Alvin, truthfully 

"Very well. The men - if they were men, which I sometimes 
doubt - who designed Diaspar had to solve an incredibly 
complex problem. Diaspar is not merely a machine, you know 
- it is a living organism, and an immortal one. We are so 
accustomed to our socity that we can't appreciate how strange 
it would have seemed to our first ancestors. Here we have a 
tiny, closed world which never changes except in its minor 
details, and yet which is perfectly stable, age after age. It has 
prabably lasted longer than the rest of human history - yet in 
that history there were, so it is believed, countless thousands 
of separate cultures and civilizations which endured for a little 
while and then perished. How did Diaspar achieve its 
extraordinary stability? 

Alvin was surprised that anyone should ask so elementary a 
-question, and his hopes of learning something new began to 

"Through the Memory Banks, of course," he replied. 
"Diaspar is always composed of the same people, though their 
actual groupings change as their bodies are created or 

Khedron shook his head. 

"That is only a very small part of the answer. With exactly 
the same people, you could build many different patterns of 
society. I can't prove that, and I've no direct evidence of it, 
but I believe it's true. The designers of the city did not merely 
fix its population; they fixed the laws governing its behavior. 
We're scarcely aware that those laws exist, but we obey them. 

Diaspar is a frozen culture, which cannot change outside of 
narrow limits. The Memory Banks store many other things 
outside the patterns of our bodies and personalitis. They store 
the image of the city itself, holding its every atom rigid against 
all the changes that time can bring. Look at this pavement - it 
was laid down millions of years ago, and countless feet have 
walked upon it. Can you see any sign of wear?Unprotected 
matter, however adamant, would have been ground to dust 
ages ago. But as long as there is power to operate the Memory 
Banks, and as long as the matrices they contain can still 
control the patterns of the city, the physical structure of 
Diaspar will never change." 

"But there have been some changes," protested Alvin. 
"Many buildings have been torn down since the city was built, 
and new ones e erected." 

"Of course - but only by discharging the information stored 
in the Memory Banks and then setting up new patterns. In any 
case, I was merely mentioning that as an example of the way 
the city preserves itself physically. The point I want to make is 
that in the same way there are machines in Diaspar that 
preserve our social structure. They watch for any changes, and 
correct them before they become too great. How do they do 
it? I don't know - perhaps by selecting those who emerge 
from the Hall of Creation. Perhaps by tampering with our 
personality patterns; we may think we have free will, but can 
we be certain of that? 

"In any event, the probelm was solved. Diaspar has survived 
and come safely down the ages, like a great ship carrying as its 
cargo all that is left of the human race. It is a tremendous 
achievement in social engineering, though whether it is worth 
doing is quite another matter. 

"Stability, however, is not enough. It leads too easily to 
stagnation, and thence to decadence. The designers of the city 
took elaborate steps to avoid this, though these deserted 
buildings suggest that they did not entirely succeed. I, 
Khedron the Jester, am part of that plan. A very small part, 
perhaps. I like to think otherwise, but I can never be sure." 

"And just what is that part? asked Alvin, still very much in 
the dark, and becoming a little exasperated. 

"Let us say that I introduce calculated amounts of disorder 
into the city. To explain my operations would be to destroy 
their effectiveness. Judge me by my deeds?though they are 
few, rather than my words, though. they are many." 

Alvin had never before met anyone quite like Khedron. The 
Jester was a real personality - a character who stood head and 
shoulders above the general level of uniformity which was 
typical of Diaspar. Though there seemed no hope of 
discovering precisely what his duties were and how he carried 
them out, that was of minor importance. All that mattered, 
Alvin sensed, was that here was someone to whom he could 
talk - when there was a gap in the monologue - and who 
might give him answers to many of the problems that had 
puzzled him for so 1 long. 

They went back together down through the corridors of the 
Tower of Loranne, and emerged beside the deserted moving 
way. Not until they were once more in the streets did it occur 
to Alvin that Khedron had never asked him what he had been 
doing out here at the edge of the unknonwn. He suspected 
that Khedron knew, and was interested but not surprised. 

Something told him that it would be very difficult to surprise 

They exchanged index numbers, so that they could call each 
other whenever they wished. Alvin was anxious to see more of 
the Jester, though he fancied that his company might prove 
exhausting if it was too prolonged. Before they met agina, 
however, he wanted to find what his friends, and particularly 
Jeserac, could tell him about Khedron. 

"Until our next meeting," said Khedron, and promptly 
vanished. Alvin was somewhat annoyed. If you met anyone 
when you were merely projecting yourself, and were not 
present in the flesh, it was good manners to make that clear 
from the beginning. It could sometimes put the party who was 
ignorant of the facts at a considerable disadvantage. Probably 
Khedron had been quietly at home all the time - wherever his 
home might be. The number that he had given Alvin would 
insure that any messages would reach him, but did not reveal 
where he lived. That at least was according to normal custom. 
You might be free enough with index numbers, but your 
actual address was something you disclosed only to your 
intimate friends. 

As he made his way back into the city, Alvin pondered over 
all that Khedron had told him about Diaspar and its social 
organization. It was strange that he had met no one else who 
had ever seemed dissatisfied with their mode of life. Diaspar 
and its inhabitants had been designed as part of one master 
plan; they formed a perfect symbiosis. Throughout their long 
lives, the people of the city were never bored. Though their 
world might be a tiny one by the standard of earlier ages, its 
compexity was overwhelming, its wealth of wonder and 
treasure beyond calculation. Here Man had gathered all the 
fruits of his genius, everything that had been saved from the 
ruin of the past. All the cities that had ever been, so it was 
said, had given something to Diaspar; before the coming of the 
Invaders, its name had been known on all the worlds that Man 
had lost. Into the building of Diaspar had gone all the skill, all 
the artistry of the Empire. When. the great days were coming 
to an end, men of genius had remolded the city and given it 

the machines that made it immortal. Whatever might be 
forgotten, Diaspar would live and bear the descendants of Man 
sately down the stream of time. 

had achieved nothing except survival, and were content with 
that. There were a million things to occupy their lives between 
the hour when they came, almost full-grown, from the Hall of 
Creation and the hour when, their bodies scarcely older, they 
returned to the Memory Banks of the city. In a world where 
all men and women possess an intelligence that would once 
have been the mark of genius, there can be no danger of 
boredom. The delights of conversation and argument, the 
intricate formalities of social intercourse - these alone were 
enough to occypy a goodly portion of a lifetime. Beyond 
fiose were the great formal debates, when the whole city 
would listen entranced while its keenest minds met in combat 
or strove to scale those moutain peaks of philosophy which are 
never conquered yet whose challenge never palls. 

No man or woman was without some absorbing intellectual 
interest. Eriston, for example, spent much of his time in 
prolonged soliloquies with the Central Computer 
whichvirtually ran the city, yet which had leisure for scores of 
simultaneous discussions with anyone who cared to match his 
wits against it. For three hundred years, Eriston had been 
trying to construct logical paradoxes which the machine could 
not resolve. He did not expect to make serious progress before 
he had used up several lifetimes. 

Etania's interests were of a more esthetic nature. She 
designed and constructed, with the aid of the matter 
organizers, three-dimensional interlacing patterns of such 
beautiful complexity that they were really extremely advanced 
problems in topology. Her work could be seen all over Diaspar, 
and some of her patterns had been incorporated in the floors 
of the great halls of choreography, where they were used as 
the basis for evolving new ballet creations and dance motifs. 

Such occupations might have seemed arid to those who did 
not possess the intellect to appreciate their subtleties. Yet 
there was no one in Diaspar who could not understand 
something of what Eriston and Etania were trying to do and 
did not have some equally consuming interest of his own. 

Athletics and various sports, including many only rendered 
possible by the control of gravity, made pleasant the first few 
centuries of youth. For adventure and the exercise of the 
imagination, the sagas provided all that anyone could desire. 
They were the inevitable end product of that striving for 
realism which began when men started to reproduce moving 
images and to record sounds, and then to use these techniques 
to enact scenes from real or imaginary life. In the sagas, the 
illusion was perfect because all the sense impressions involved 

were fed directly into the mind and any conflicting sensations 
were diverted. The entranced spectator was cut off from 
reality as long as the adventure lasted; it was as if he lived a 
dream yet believed he was awake. 

In a world of order and stability, which in its broad outlines 
had not changed for a billion years, it was perhaps not 
surprising to find an absorbing interest in games of chance. 
Humanity had always been fascinated by the mystery of the 
falling dice, the turn of a card, the spin of the pointer. At its 
lowest level, this interest was based on mere cupidity - and 
that was an emotion that could have no place in a world where 
everyone possessed all that they could reasonably need. Even 
when this motive was ruled out, however, the purely 
intellectual fascination of chance remained to seduce the most 
sophisticated minds. Machines that behaved in a purely 
random way - events whose outcome could never be predited, 
no matter how much information one had - from these 
philosopher and gambler could drive equal enjoyment. 

And there still remained, for all men to share, the linked 
worlds of love and art. Linked, because love without art is 
merely the laking of desire, and art cannot be enjoyed unless it 
is approached with love. 

Men had sought beauty in many forms - in sequences of 
sound, in lines upon paper, in surfaces of stone, in the. 
movements of the human body, in colors ranged through 
space. All these media still survived in Diaspar, and down the 
ages others had been added to them. No one was yet certain if 
all the possibilities of art had been discovered ; or if it had any 
meaning outside the mind of man. 

And the same was true of love. 



How to tell it! . . . the current fantasy ... I never heard any 
of the Pranksters use the word religious to describe the mental 
atmosphere they shared after the bus trip and the strange days 
in Big Sur. In fact, they avoided putting it into words. And yet 

They got on the bus and headed back to La Honda in the 
old Big Sur summertime, all frozen sunshine up here, and no 
one had to say it: they were all deep into some weird shit now, 
as they would just as soon call it by way of taking the curse . . 
. off the Unspoken Thing. Things were getting very psychics, 
It was like when Sandy drove 191 miles in South Dakota and 
then he had looked up at the map on the ceiling of the bus and 
precisely those 191 miles were marked in red . . . Sandy : : : : 
: back in Brain Scan country the White Smocks would never in 
a million years comprehend where he had actually been . . . 
which was where they all were now, also known as Edge City . 
. . Back in Kesey's log house in La Honda, all sitting around in 
the evening in the main room, it's getting cool outside, and 
Page Browing: / think I'll close the window - and in that very 
moment another Prankster gets -up and closes it for him and 
smi-i-i-les and says nothing . . . The Unspoken Thing - and 
these things keep happening over and over. They take a trip up 

into the High Sierras and Cassady pulls the bus off the main 
road and starts driving up a little mountain road - see where 
she goes. The road is so old and deserted the pavement is half 
broken up and they keep climbing and twisting up into 
nowhere, but the air is nice, and up at the top of the grade the 
bus begins bucking and gulping and won't pull any more. It 
just stops. It turns out they're out of gas, which is a nice 
situation because its nightfall and they're stranded totally hell 
west of nowhere with not a gas station within thirty, maybe 
fifty miles. Nothing to do but stroke themselves out on the 
bus and go to sleep . . . hmmmmmm . . . scorpions with boots 
on red TWA Royal Ambassado slumber slippers on his big 
Stinger Howard Hughes in a sleeping bag on the floor in a 
marble penthouse in the desert 


All wake up to a considerable fetching and hauling and 
grinding up the grade below them and over the crest comes a 

CHEVRON gasoline tanker, a huge monster of a tanker. 
Which just stops like they all met somewhere before and gives 
them a tankful of gas and without a word heads on into the 
Sierras toward absolutely 


1 have been asked to write something for the 
graduating class yearbook. There are many things that 
might be written, but a point that has troubled me of 
late is the campaign to create fear in people of their 
fellow men. I am disturbed by the success of this 
campaign. My children listen to the slogan "Never 
pick up a stranger " and I wonder at the long-range 
impact it might have upon them. If we can be driven 
into a corner where we cower in fear, then the 
possibility for men of ill will to capitalize on that fear 
and legislate more effectively the movements of free 
men becomes increasingly a reality. I would ask you 
to recognize that this world was never without danger 
to the individual, but I would further point out that 
freedom of the spirit feeds on good will and does not 
partake of meanness. Trust one another. Do not let 
the fearful of this world set the path you take. Fear 
only the outrage that results from denying the 
presence of the god within you. Walk in the light and 
the darkness. Bless the beasts and the children. 
Therein lies peace. 
Vernon Ingraham 


- mm 

ETabbs - Cosmic control, eh Hassler' 
And Kesey - Where does it zoH don't „ / 
been there We'rr »»,&» / ■ t,nnk man has ever 

discover that he's running the shJw . '. ". CM "' ' "'"' vo " 

Ke«v P< ? ? rUleS ' //V "" labe " ! this . tie < iter-™. 
Kesey took great pains not to make his rot 

••no 8 n-„a S v, g y :,or,'' He « •I^^SirV' , 

■asts." "See ^yo^ ears S & ^0^?% 

ZMSttSf^ V h S'Cxi'^ dld ' £ ■*£ 

^r,ne„t - r b *e-S dS : "VJSSS H£ Se' 

had his own thing he was worWng out, but it all fit into "he 
group thing, which was - "the Unspoken Thing,, said Page 
Browning, and that was as far as anyone wanted to go with 

at Knf £ thCre W ? n ° the ° logy to *■ no Philosophy 
ai least not in the sense of an ism There «,,.<, „« i c' 

ESS 5«& w* SSS 

Wan to f2i • }** experience - that was the word' and it 

.oroastrianism Hinduism, none of them beaan with , 
.'hilosophical framework or even a main idea S ",7k. 

e W a'ned an ",h V e erWhelming "". ""-*5T whai S5S wfen 
called the experience of the holy," and Max Weber 

E£T?£?£J*\~ the r Se ," f beinga ""seiche 
what ihey ^k n „ e g 'ab^T^n S^dtf iffSSS 
I just took their weighty German word for it Jesus Mani' 

L o a ftr\?s a c!r a cTe a o B f U fo'!| ,a ~ * "5f ^ °»« ttaKffii 

iiui oner nis circle ot followers a better state hereafter nr *n 

improved social order or any reward other fhan certain 
psychological state in the here and now » as Weber nut it ^ 
suppose what I never really comprehended vZthllhe was 
talking about an actual mental experience according t« 
scriptures and legend, it happened in a flash MofimeS 

w in t 8 hat n he m :as S ?*, " ^ r6ally » "iXdS 

they aU mLTThSSS* ' a " a ° tUal mental ex Perience 

iney an went through,an ecstasy, n short In most cases 

according to scriptures and legend, it happened T flash 
MetTand %£» -d meditating on a mountainside net 
S nd - /7c5/2/ "- ecstas y' vast revelation and the beginning 

Zoroaster hauling haoma water along the road and; 
flash! - he runs into the flaming form of the Archangel Vohu 
Mano, messenger of Ahura Mazda, and the beginning of 
Zoroastrianism. Saul of Tarsas walking along the road to 
Damascus and — flash! - he hears the voice of the Lord and 
becomes a Christian. Plus God knows how many lesser figures 
in the 2,000 years since then, Christian Rosenkreuz and his 
"God-illuminated" brotherhood of Rosicrucians, Emanuel 
Swedenborg whose mind suddenly "opened" in 1743, Meister 
Eckhart and his disciples Suso and Tauler, and in the 
twentieth- century Sadhu Sundar Singh - with - flash! - a 
vision at the age of 16 and many times thereafter; ". . . often 
when I come out of ecstasy I think the whole world must be 
blind not to see what I see, everything is so near and clear . . . 
there is no language which will express the things which I see 
and hear in the spiritual world . . ." 

What they all saw in ... a flash was the solution to 
the basic predicament of being human, the personal /, Me, 
trapped, mortal and helpless, in a vast impersonal It, the world 
around me. Suddenly! - All-in-one! - flowing together, / into 
It, and into Me, and in that flow I perceive a power, so near 
and so clear, that the whole world is blind to. All the modern 
religions, and the occult mysteries, for that matter, talk about 
an Other World - whether Brahma's or the flying saucers' - 
that the rational work-a-day world is blind to. The - so-called! 
friends - rational world. If only they, Mom&Dad&Buddy&Sis, 
dear-but-square ones, could but know the kairos, the supreme 
moment . . . The historic visions have been explained in many 
ways, as the result of epilepsy, self hypnosis, changes in 
metabolism due to fasting, or actual intervention by gods - or 
Zoroastrianism began in a grand bath of haoma water, 
which was the same as the Hindu soma, and was 
unquestionably The experience! 

And following the experience - after I got to know the 
Pranksters, I went back and read Joachim Wach's paradigm of 
the way religions are founded, written in 1944, and it was 
almost like a piece of occult precognition for me if I played it 
off against what I knew about the Pranksters:: 

Following a profound new experience, providing a new 
illumination of the world, the founder, a highly charismatic 
person, begins enlisting disciples. These followers become an 
informally but closely knit association, bound together by the 
new experience, whose nature the founder has revealed and 
interpreted. The association might be called a circle, indicating 
that it is oriented toward a central figure with whom each of 
the followers is in intimate contact. The followers may be 
regarded as the founder's companions, bound to him by 
personal devotion, friendship and loyalty. A growing sense of 
solidarity both binds the members together and differentiates 
them from any other form of social organizaiton. Membership 
in the circle requires a complete break with the ordinary 

pursuits of life and a radical change in social relationships. Ties 
of family and kinship and loyalties of various kinds were at 
least temporarily relaxed or severed. The hardships, suffering 
and persecution that loomed for those who cast their lot with 
the group were counterbalanced by their high hopes and firm 
expectations . . . 

and so on. And of the founder himself: he has "visions, 
dreams, trances, frequent ecstasies" . . . "unusual sensitiveness 
and an intense emotional life" . . . "is ready to interpret 
manifestations of the divine" . . . "there is something 
elemental about (him), an uncompromising attitude and an 
archaic manner and language" . . . "He appears as a renewer of 
lost contracts with the hidden powers of life" . . . "does not 
usually come from the aristocracy, the learned or refined; 
frequently he emerges from simpler folk and remains true to 
his origin even in a changed environment" . . . "speaks 
cryptically, with words, signs, gestures, luminates and 
interprets the past and anticipates the future in terms of the 
kairos (the supreme moment)" - 

The kairos! - the experience! -in one of two ways, 
according to Max Weber: as an "ethical" prophet, like Jesus or 
Moses, who outlines rules of conduct for his followers and 
describes God as a super-person who passes judgment on how 
they live up to the rules. Or as an "exemplary" prophet, like 
Buddha: for him, God is impersonal, a force, an energy, a 
unifying flow, an All-in-one. The exemplary prophet does not 
present rules of conduct. He presents his own life as an 
example for his followers ... 

In all these religious circles, the groups became tighter and 
tighter by developing their own symbols, terminaology, life 
styles, and, gradually, simple cultic practices, rites, often 
involving music and art, all of which grew out of the new 
experience and seemed weird or incomprehensible to those 
who have never had it. At that point they would also . . . 
"develop a strong urge to extend the message to all people." 

. . . alT people . . . Within the religious circle, status was 
always a simple matter. The world was simply and sheerly 
divided into "the aware," those who had had the experience of 
being vessels of the divine, and a great mass of "the unaware," 
"the unmusical," "the unattuned." Or: you're either on the 
bus or off the bus. Consciously, the Aware were never 
snobbish toward the Unaward, but in fact most of that great 
jellyfish blob of straight souls looked like hopeless cases - and 
the music of your flute from up top the bus just brought them 
up tighter. But these groups treated anyone who showed 
possibilities, who was a potential brother, with generous 
solicitude ... 

The Pranksters never talked about synchronicity by name, 
but they were more and more attuned to the principle. 
Obviously, according to this principle, man does not have free 
will. There is no use in his indulging in a lifelong competition 
to change the structure of the little environment he sems to be 
trapped in. But one c could see the larger pattern and move 
with it - Go with the flow! - and accept it and rise above 
one's immediate envioronment and even alter it by accepting 
the larger pattern and grooving with it - Put your good where 
it will do the most! 

Gradually the Prankster attitude began to involve the main 
things religious mystics have always felt, things common to 
Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and for that matter 
Theosophists and even flying-saucer cultists. Namely, the 
experiencing of an Other World, a higher level of reality. And a 
perception of the cosmic unity of this higher level. And a 
feeling of timelessness, the feeling that what we know as time 
is only the result of a naive faith in causality - the notion that 
A in the past caused B in the present, which will cause C in the 
future, when actually A, B, and C are all part of a pattern that 
can be truly understood only by opening the doors of 
perception and experiencing it . . . in this moment . . . this 
supreme moment • • ■ this kairos - 

A person has all sorts of lags built into him, Kesey is saying. 
One, the most basic, is the sensory lag, the lag between the 
time your senses receive something and you are able to react. 
One-thirtieth of a second is the time it takes, if you're the 
most alert person alive, and most people are a lot slower than 
that. Now, Cassady is right up against that l/30th of a second 
barrier. He is going as fast as a human can go, but even he can't 
overcome it. He is a living example of how close you can 
come, but it can't be done. You can't go any faster than that. 
You can't through sheer speed overcome the lag. We are all of 
us doomed to spend our lives watching a movie of our lives - 
we are always acting on what has just finished happening. It 
happened at least l/30th of a second ago. We think we're in 
the present, but we aren't. The present we know is only a 
movie of the past, and we will really never be able to control 
the presnt through ordinary means. That lag has to be 
overcome some other way, through some kind of total 
breakthrough. And there are all sorts of other lags, besides, 
that go along with it. There are historical and social lags, where 
people are living by what their ancestors or somebody else 
perceived, and they may be twenty-five or fifty years or 
centuries behind, and nobody can be creative without 
overcoming all those lags first of all. A person can overcome 
that much through intellect or theory or study of history and 
so forth and get pretty much into the presnt that way, but he's 
still going to be up against one of the worst lags of all, the 
psychological. Your emotions remain behind because of 
training, education, the way you were brought up, "blocks, 
hangups and stuff like that, and as a result your mind wants to 
go one way but your emotions don't - 

"Yeah, we're really synched up tonight." 

- and, of course, everyone in this tent looks at Kesey and 
wonders. What is his movie?Well, you might call it Randle 
McMurphy, for a start. McMurphy, goading, coaxing, leading 
everybody on to give themselves a little bigger movie, a little 
action, moving the plot from out of deadass snug harbor. 
There's a hell of a scene going for you, bub, out here in Edge 
City. But don't even stop there - 

- and all those things are keeping us out of the present, 
Kesey is saying, out of our own world, our own reality, and 
until we can get into our own world, we can't control it. If 
you ever make that breakthrough, you'll know it. It.ll be like 
you had a player piano, and it is playing a mile a minute, with 
all the keys sinking in front of you in fantastic chords, and 
you never heard of the song before, but you are so far into the 
thing, your hands start going along with it exactly. When you 
make that breakthrough, then you'll start controlling the 
piano - 

- and extend the message to all people - 



The Last Generation 

"MY WORK HERE is nearly ended," said Karellen's voice 
from a million radios. "At last, after a hundred years, I can tell 
you what it was. 

"There are many things we have had to hide from you as we 
hid ourselves for half our stay on Earth. Some of you, I know, 
thought that concealment unnecessary. You are accustomed to 
our presence: you can no longer imagine how your ancestors 
would have reacted to us. But at least you can understand the 
purpose of our concealment, and know that we had a reason 
for what we did. 

"The supreme secret we kept from you was our purpose in 
coming to earth - that purpose about which you have 
speculated so endlessly. We could not tell you until now, for 
the secret was not ours to reveal. 

"A century ago we came to your world and saved you from 
self-destruction. I do not believe that anyone would deny that 
fact - but what that self-destruction was, you never guessed. 

"Because we banned nuclear weapons and all the other 
deadly toys you were accumulating in your armories, the 
danger of physical annihilation was removed. You thought 
that was the only danger. We wanted you to believe that, but 
it was never true. The greatest danger that confronted you was 
of a different character altogether - and it did not concern 
your race alone. 

"Many worlds have come to the crossroads of nuclear 
power, have avoided disaster, have gone on to build peaceful 
and happy civilizations - and have then been utterly destroyed 
by forces of which they knew nothing. In the twentieth 
century, you first began to tamper seriously with those forces. 
That was why it became necessary to act. 

"All through that century, the human race was drawing 
slowly nearer to the abyss - never even suspecting its 
existence. Across that abyss, there is only one bridge. Few 
races, unaided, have ever found it. Some have turned back 
while there was still time, avoiding both the danger and the 
achievement. Their worlds have become Elysian islands of 
effortless content, playing no further part in the story of the 
universe. That would never have been your fate - or your 
fortune. Your race was to vital for that. It would have plunged 
into ruin and taken others with it, for you would never have 
found the bridge. 

"I am afraid that almost all I have to say now must be by 
means of such analogies. You have no words, no conceptions, 
form many of the things I wish to tell you - and our own 
knowledge of them is also sadly imperfect. 

"To understand, you must go back into the past and recover 
much that your ancestors would have found familiar, but 
which you have forgotten - which, in fact, we deliberately 
halped you to forget. For all our sojourn here has been based 
on a vast decption, a concealment of truths which you were 
not ready to face. 

"In the centuries before our coming, your scientists 
uncovered the secrets of the physical world and led you from 
the energy of steam to the energy of the atom. You had put 
supersitition behind you: Science was the only real religion of 
mankind. It was the gift of the western minority to the 
remainder of mankind, and it had destroyed all other faiths. 
Those that still existed when we came were already dying. 
Science, it was felt, could explain everything: there were no 
forces which did not come within its cope, no events for which 
it could not ultimately account. 

"In the centuries before our coming, your scientists 
uncovered the secrets of the physical world and led you from 
the energy of steam to the energy of the atom. You had put 
superstition behind you: Science was the only real religion of 
mankind. It was the gift of the western minority to the 
remainder of mankind, and it had destroyed all other faiths. 
Those that still existed when we came were already dying. 
Science, it was felt, could explain everything: there were no 
forces which did not come within its scope, no events for 
which it could not ultimately account. The origin of the 
universe might be forever unknown, but all that had happened 
since obeyed the laws of physics. 

"Yet your mystics, though they were lost in their own 
delusions, had seen part of the truth. There are powers of the 
mind, and powers beyond the mind, which your science could 
never have brought within its framework without shattering it 
entirely. All down the ages there have been countless reports 
of strange phenomena -- poltergeists, telepathy, precognition -- 
which you had named but never explained. At first science 
ignored them, even denied their existence, despite the 
testimony of five thousand years. But they exist, and, if it is to 
be complete, any theory of the universe must account for 

"During the first half of the twentieth century, a few of 
your scientists began to investigate these matters. They did not 
know it, but they were tampering with the lock of Pandora's 
box. The forces they might have unleashed transcended any 
perils that the atom could have brought. For the physicists 
could only have ruined the earth: the paraphysicists could 
have spread havoc to the stars. 

"That could not be allowed. I cannot explain the full nature 
of the threat you represented. It would not have 
been a threat to us, and therefore we do not comprehend it. 
Let us say that you might have become a telepathic cancer, a 
malignant mentality which in its inevitable disolution would 
have poisoned other and greater minds. 

"And so we came - we were sent - to Earth. We interrupted 
your development on every cultural level, but in particular we 
checked all serious work on paranormal phenomena. I am well 
aware of the fact that We have also inhibited, by the contrast 
between our civilizations, all other forms of creative 
achievement as well. But that was a secondary effect, and it is 
of no importance. 

"Now I must tell you something which you may find very 
surprising, perhaps almost incredible. All these potentialities, 
all these latent powers — we do not possess them, nor do we 
understand them. Our intellects are far more powerful than 
yours, but there is something in your minds that has always 
eluded us. Ever since we came to Earth we have been stydying 
you; we have learned a great deal, and will learn more, yet I 
doubt if we shall discover all the truth. 

"Our races have much in common - that is why we were 
chosen for this task. But in other respects, we represent the 
ends of two different evolutions. Our minds have reached the 
end of their development. So, in their present form, have 
yours. Yet you can make the jump to the next stage, and 
therein lies the difference between us. Our potentialities are 
exhausted, but yours are still untapped. They are linked, in 
ways we do not understand, with the powers I have mentioned 
— the powers that are now awakening on your wold. 

"We held the clock back, we made you mark time while 
those powers developed, until they could come flooding out 
into the channels that were being prepared for them. What we 
did to improve your planet, to raise your standards of living, 
to bring justice and peace - those things we should have done 
in any event, once we were forced to intervene in your affairs. 
But all that vast transformation diverted you form the truth, 
and therefore helped to serve our purpose. 

"We are your guardians — no more. Often you must have 
wondered what position my race held in the hierarchy of the 
universe. As we are above you, so there is something above us, 
using us for its own pruposes. We have never discovered what 
it is, though we have been its tool for ages and dare not 
disobey it. Again and again we have received our orders, have 
gone to some world in the early flower of its civilization, and 
have guided it along the road that we can never follow -- the 
road that you are traveling now. 

"Again and again we had studied the process we have been 
sent to foster, hoping thai we might learn to escape from our 
own limitations. But we have glimpsed only the vague outlines 
of the truth. You called us tje Overlords, not knowing the 
irony of that title. Let us say that above us is the Overmind, 
using us as the potter uses his wheel. 

"And your race is the clay that is being shaped on that 

"We believe - it is only a theory — ihat the Overmind is 
trying to grow, to extend its powers and its awareness of the 
universe. By now it must be the sum of many races, and long 
ago it left the tyranny of matter behind. It is conscious of 
intelligence, everywhere. When it knew that you were almost 
ready, it sent us here to do its bidding, to prepare you for the 
transformation that is now at hand. 

"'All the earlier changes your race has known took countless 
ages. But this is a transformation of the mind, not of the body. 
By the standards of evolution, it will be cataclysmic - 
instantaneous. It has already begun. You must face the fact 
that yours is the last generation of Homo spaiens. 

"As to the nature of that change, we can tell you very little. 
We do not know how it is produced - what trigger impulse the 
Overmind employs when it judges that the time is ripe. All we 
have discovered is that it starts with a single individual - 
always a child - and then spreads explosively, like the 
formation of crystals round the first nucleus in a saturated 
solution. Adults will not be affected, for their minds are 
already set in an unalterable mould. 

"In a few years, it will all be over, and the human race will 
have divided in twain. There is no way back, and no future for 
the world you know. All the hopes and dreams of your race 
are ended now. You have gien birth to your successors, and it 
is your tragedy that you will never understand them - will 
never even be able to communicate with their minds. Indeed, 
they will not possess minds as you know them. They will be a 
single entity, as you yourselves are the sums of your myriad 
cells. You will not think them human, and you will be right. 

"I have told you these things so that you will know what 
faces you. In a few hours, the crisis will be upon us. My task 
and my duty is to protect those I have been sent here to guard. 
Despite their wakening powers, they could be destroyed by 
the multitudes around them - yes, even by their parents, when 
they realized the truth. I must take them away and isolate 
them, for their protection, and for yours. Tomorrow my ships 
will begin the evacuation. I shall not blame you if you try to 
interfere, but it will be useless. Greater powers than mine are 
wakening now; I am only one of their instruments. 

"And then - what am I to do with you, the survivors, when 
your purpose has been fulfilled? It would be simplest, ( and 
perhaps most merciful, to destroy you - as you yourselves 
would destroy a mortally wounded pet you loved. But this I 
cannot do. Your future will be your own to choose in the 
years that are left to you. It is my hope that humanity will go 
to its rest in peace, knowing that it has not lived in vain. 

"For what you will have brought into the world may be 
utterly alien, it may share none of your desires or hopes, it 
may look upon your greatest achievements as childish toys - 
yet it is something wonderful, and you will have created it. 

"When our race is forgotten, part of yours will still exist. Do 
not, therefore, condemn us for what we were compelled to do. 
And remember this - we shall always envy you." 


jht fhandolin trjan and k/s secret 

calUna uU-rix- people 
*nc| -tf/ey camcJio h irn 

hesa'/d i iOanna. liaar~ 
alipeds okiL 
Kt said i Loann*. kear 
all 4haTs rwa< 

tte>/ lanoW a+ kim 
wH-k Ki* mandolin 

l+k kh -Funny fin'n 

Ktsaid I toann^ Hear 


all -fta-ft t/oe~ 

+kc Children of-//»cfowo 
-^»cn ca*n€-^ f^m 
MLoicAllu calkd 

all +Haft # />/^7L 

k. Said i u>a.nn fc A^aj^ 

"rf^y SMikd cch her) 
fhtirti/Ci hkt At's 


he Stud I OutL/yn^ htcLr- 

ait +hoct\ nice 

Ho/ Stud. d'uroOUCLnno^liCAr 



-fhty Stud d 'yr 
< /i/ce. 

rnirT<t*TiT i.i*t miiimji 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ r 


a a a a a a 

i a a a • ■ ■ 
a a a a a a- 
i a a a a a 

a a a a a ■■ 


• a • a • a 

■ a a a a a . 

a a a a a a 


a a a a a a. 

■ ■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ 

■ ■ ■ 
a a - 

■ ■ 

a a a a a: 
■ a ■ a a 
a a a a a 

■ ■ ■ ■ •■: 
■ a a a a 
a a a a a 

a ■■■■■■ I 

.a ■■■■■■ 
a ■■■■■■ i 

.'.a a a a ■ a a 
i a a a a a a i 

.-J ■■■■■• i 


.1 a a a a a a i 


I a a a a a a i 

: ■ ■■■■■■ 
t a a a a a a i 

: a a a a a a a 

« a a a a a a i 

.1 a a a a a a i 
.- a a f> a a a a 
■~i ■ a a a a a i 

i m a a a a a i 

I a a a a a a i 
:• a ■■■■■■ 
-.1 a a a a a a i 

i a a a a a a i 
•: a a a a a a a 
-i e a a a a a I 




WASHINGTON: Who said, "I for one, would 
be very liberal with reagard to amnesty"?George 
McGovern, rightiWrong. Richard Nixon. 

And who said, "I have never favored 
legalization of marijuana"?Richard Nixon?No. 
George McGovern. 

And who rejects the quota system in 
employment as detrimental to American 
society? Why, George McGovern and Richard 
Nixon. Who supports Israel 10,000 per cent? 
Nixon and McGovern. Who urges a guaranteed 
minimum income for impoverished citizens? 
McGovern and Nixon. Who stands for more 
arms control with the Russians?And closer ties 
to China?And revenue sharing with the states 
and cities?And selective wage and price controls? 
Nixon, yes. And McGovern. 

So who is it that evokes the memory of 
Barry Goldwater by insiting that this time the 
country has a choice, for a change, instead of 
an echo?George McGovern in his way -- and in 
his polls -- but even more fervently, Richard 
Nixon, who sees before us "the clearest choice 
in this century." True or false? 


Before exploring this thesis, a last look at the 
instructions of history: it is also true that in 
every fourth year every major candidate for 
President perceives a fateful, centurial choice, 
and that his premonition is usually false. Our 
last "clear choice," in 1968, lay between two 
men who disagreed heatedly about which of 
them should be permitted to end the war in 
Vietnam, gradually. Four years earlier, the 
essential choice -- as it turned out -- lay between 
two men who disagreed vehemently over which 
of them could better conduct that war, 
masively. In 1960, the choice clearly lay 
between a candidate who knew there was no 
missile gap and a candidate who did not know 
there was no missile gap. 

Always it is the century and, of course, the 
country that are proclaimed to hang in the 
balance. But since Presidential candidates feel 
dutybound to say a great deal that they do not 
really mean, while they also genuinely intend a 
great deal that they can never accomplish, the 
real alternatives that they offer, and represent, 
are not usually discernible with the naked eye. 

Though they tend to save the confession for 
their memoirs, our Presidential candidates 
generally agree with each other much more 
than theydisagree on the practical questions of 
the day. They require disagreements to fuel 
their campaigns, but these are rarely 
fundamental differences of values or 
perception. Traditionally, our candidates are 
cast in a common ideological mold. By the 
large, they are tinkerers rather than overhaulers. 

And they are driven by the size and diversity 
of the American electorate to build their 
temporary majorities from competing but 
equally diverse coalitions. A John Lindsay or a 
John Connally may change parties -- without 
changing his spots -- to escape, some tactical 
predicament on the path toward the White 
House, but he does not thereby escape the 
compelling drag of these fungible coalitions. To 
aspire to the Presidency means to submit to a 
central, currently fashionable range of 

Thus the choice that we are usually offered is 
never very clear. Well, hardly ever. But this 
year, we find ourselves saying every leap year, is 
different. There is something about a voter that 
yearns for a sense of choice, if only to justify 
the emotional energy he is quadrennially asked 
to expend. Some of us feel the urge again this 
year, and though the candidates have been 
singularly unhelpful in debating their 
differences, the differences exist and they are 
vast. If we cannot always detect them in the 
rhetoric of the rival stars, we should at least 
perceive them in the constellations in which the 
stars move, for they are the differences between 
George Meany and Leonard Woodcock, 
between John Connally and John Galbraith, 
between Julie Eisenhower and Jane Fonda, Ed 
Brooke and Julian Bond, Cardinal Cooke and 
William Sloane Coffin, Bob Hope and Mort 

And they are differences that conform, no 
matter how imperfectly, to an unmistakable 
national argument between those who defend 
and those who deplore the works and values of 
a generation. Weariness with foreign and 
military exertion and disillusionment vVith the 
quality of American life, even in relative 

prosperity, have dissolved the political loyalties 
of decades. More clearly than Republicans or 
Democrats, liberals or conservatives, we have 
divided into factions of "change" and " 
no-change" (as Louis Harris has designated 
them in his polls), and the overrriding concern 
of these factions is with political and social 
values rather than programs. The forces of 
change -- led by the educated and the affluent 
young and the poor or their spokesmen - 
ascribe social injustice and deterioration to an 
inherent unfair distribution of power. The rest 
of the citizenry, though not without their 
grievences and frustrations regard the American 
system as basically sound and capable of 
self-improvement, and tend to fear the remedies 
of the rebels more than any ailment. 

These rival constitutencies are easily 
recognized in the streets and shopping centers 
of the country. A suburban housewife in 
Dayton, Ohio, for instance, identifies herself as 
a liberal and a Democrat - indeed, a party 
precinct captian - but she is tempted to join 
her husband in a Nixon vote because "we've 
worked too hard for our standard of living, and 
what little extra we now have is in stocks and 
we think we can preserve it all better with 
Nixon." A leader of the Building Trades Union 
in Toledo, a Humphrey delegate to the 
Democratic National Convention, says he may 
vote for Nixon because "what's important to us 
is not who's in there but how they do their 
business." He has fared better with a 
Republican mayor in Toledo than with some 
Democrats, he points out. He recalls the 
satisfactory days of Governor Rhodes, a 
Republican , who greeted the state's labor 
leaders so comfortingly the norning after his 
election by saying, "Well, boys, you lost - now, 
what do you want?" Time and again in New 
York City you can hear or feel otherwise 
traditional Democrats taxing the McGovern 
candidacy with the sins of Mayor Lindsay, with 
the threat that was Forest Hills or with the 
bitterness that ensued form the school strike. It 
is not hard in Pittsburgh to find voters who 
voted against Nixon in 1968 giving him credit 
for the fact that "things are calmer" now. 

Conversely, a young Berkeley student frets 
that McGovern's embrace of traditional 
Democrats like Mayor Daley will mean losing 
the chance to drive the ward heelers from city 
hall. A young Pittsburg matron celebrates the 
defection form the Democrats of some big 
labor "bosses" as "probably a more significant 
offshoot of the McGovern campaign than the 
fight for the White House -- a chance to change 
the unions, too." A tableful of blacks in an 
Atlanta bar predicts nothing less than " 
fascism" and the end of the Negro's social 
progress if Mr. Nixon gains the chance to 
appoint any more Supreme Court Justices. 

Scratch a McGovern fan and you uncover a 
longing for social change. Interview a Nixon 
voter and the emphasis is decidedly on slowing 
down, marking time - reforming, perhaps, but 
only in procedures. 

Government a whole new agenda of social and 
economic obligations. Just as Herbert Hoover 
was arguing 40 years ago that "you cannot 
extend the mastery of government over the 
daily life of a people without somewhere 
making it master of people's souls and 
thought," so Richard Nixon is arguing this year 
that the Democrats seek social progress through 
"the politics of paternalism, where master 
planners in Washington make decisions for 

Franklin Roosevelt's reply in 1932 was that 
drastic overhaul was as American as boom and 
bust, that "my policy is as radical as American 
liberty, as radical as the Constitution of the 
United States." George McGovern's similar 
reply is that "we will call America home to the 
founding ideals that nourished us in the 

professes international ideals, but he has 
renounced the pursuit of them abroad. 
Overseas, he sees only American "in terests," 
and foremost among them a "structure of 
peace" that depends upon negotiation from a 
posture of military and economic strength. 

And Senator McGovern, contrary to the 
claims of his adversaries, is no blind ostrich. 
Indeed, at least rhetorically, he seeks to revive a 
diplomacy of moral values, implying the 
investment of American energy and influence in 
value judgments about the worth of other 
governments. He would not bleed for "corrupt 
dictators" in Indochina or spend for military 
juntas in Greece. Instead, he wouldpromotethe 
American vision aborad and thereby attempt to 
influence the conduct of other nations, both in 
their domestic and international affairs. But he 
insists that there can be no effective American 

There is little doubt that the conservative 
impulse is now predominant, as the polls 
suggest, although there remains a sizable middle 
constituency that would welcome change 
addressed at particular grievances, if it appeared 
attainable without social or economic upheaval. 

"I don't want four more years of what we've 
had," says a middle-aged stenographer in Los 
Angeles. "But don't you think all those kids 
will control George McGovern? 

And the votes of millions are still 
determined, of course, by the strands of 
heredity or the traditions of loyalty. But in the 
early weeks of this campaign, when the voters 
first looked in on the rival conventions and 
looked over the nominees, they responded 
overwhelmingly to the Nixon image because 
their instinctive choice was colored by the 
threat of change or the reassurance of stability, 
and not just analytically, President Nixon tried 
to draw the distinction in his very first overtly 
partisan remarks of the year: 

"The issues," he said, "that divide the 
opposite side and this Administration are so 
wide -- in fact, the clearest choice in this 
century -- that we must campaign on issues. 
There is an honest difference of opinion on 
foreign policy, an honest difference of opinion 
on domestic policy and an honest of opinion on 
most major defense issues." 

Unfortunately, this lofty summons produced 
nothing of the kind. Mr. Nixon soon abandoned 
the instinct to portray the differences as 
honest, or even honorable, and he has been 
suitably repaid by Mr. McGovern. For the most 
part, they have been satisfied to portray each 
other as warmonger and appeaser , as corrupt 
or capricious. But Mr. Nixon was right the first 
time. Beneath the invective, and quite apart 
from attributes of style, flair, personality and 
competence, there lurkes a choice, quite 
possibly "the clearest choice in this century," 
for it appears to combine in a single vote the 
rare and dramatic choices posed by the 
elections of 1932 and 1900. 

Not since 1932 has a Presidential election 
promised -- or pretended -- to stand as a test of 
the nation's desire to assign to the Federal 

The argument in botn instances was whether 
the Federal Government should merely manage 
- and reflect -- the existing patterns of political 
and economic power of whether it should 
actively intervene in the social process to alter 
those patterns. 

And not since 1900 has a Presidential 
election promised to render a basic judgement 
on the quality of American foreign policy, to 
decide whether our conduct in the world has 
amounted to an ugly imperialism or a benign 
and necessary internationalism. 

At the turn of the century it was William 
Jennings Bryan who deplored the acquisitions 
of distant territory and bases as a "militarism" 
that would surely lead to "conquest abroad and 
intimidation and oppression at home." And it 
was left to William McKinley to reply that " no 
blow has been struck except for liberty and 
humanity." Much the same theme hangs over us 
this year. "To our friends and allies in Europe, 
Asia, the Mideast and Latin America," says 
Richard Nixon, "I say the United States will 
continue its great bipartisan tradition -- to stand 
by our friends and never to desert them . . . 
There is no such thing as a retreat to peace." To 
which George McGovern replies: "This is also 
the time to turn away from excessive 
preoccupation overseas to rebuilding our own 
nation . . . The greatest contribution America 
can make to our fellow mortals is to heal our 
own great but deeply troubled land." 

There is more here - at least there ought to 
be more - than arguments about the size of 
Social Security or welfare payments, or about 
the number of troops that we might profitably 
recall from Europe or Asia. Indeed, there 
appears to be a much deeper conflict than the 
kind we conventionally associate with the 
liberal and conservative traditions in which the 
careers and candidacies of McGovern and Nixon 
took shape. 

Richard Nixon, at least in his Presidential 
incarnation, is no simple hawk. In his 
diplomatic and military policies he has shown 
himself to be neither missionary nor crusader. 
He no longer chants anti-Communist litany 
about captive nations or godless atheism. He 

influence, either physical or psychological, until 
we have regained our own health and 
renounced the excesses of a generation of cold 

The differences of perspective at home are at 
least as great. By the testimony of those who 
have watched him closely in the White House, it 
is clear that Mr. Nixon has been unable or 
unwilling to devote himself to a plan for the 
evolution of the American domestic order. In a 
lifetime of preparation for the management of 
international power, he learned the art of 
designing what he calls foreign-policy "game 
plans," meaning concepts, and he has always 
been seduced by the joy and ease of 
Presidential initiative and action in the 
execution of those concepts. 

But even after four years in office, there is 
no Nixon "game plan" for internal social and 
economic development. There are only 
programs to satisfy this or that political 
imperative, and there is a great deal of 
posturing to satisfy voter grievances and 
prejudices. The void results in part from Mr. 
Nixon's destaste for the mundane concerns of 
corporate and legislative politicians, in part 
from his recognition that the opportunities for 
bold initiative are much more difficult to 
fashion in domestic affairs. Above all, however, 
the President has never acknowledged a need to 
nudge the nation toward any genuine 
redistribution of psychic or economic power. 
He has always seen himself as the fulfillment of 
the American Dream, the little man who 
thought big, worked hard and made it. He 
believes in that dream, as he testifies on every 
grand occasion, and he refuses to believe that 
diligence and striving will not equally serve 
others or suffice for national salvation. 

To locate George McGovern's profile on 
these questions, we need only flip over the 
Nixon coin. Though as yet undefined by power, 
he too, appears bored by the details of 
craftsmanship in domestic or diplomatic 
propositions. But he was reared to regard 
politics as the forum for an almost religious 
concern for the fate of his fellow citizens and 
their communities. 

He does not believe that the 
American system, if left to its own devices, will 
even roughly realize the American dreams of 
fair play and equal opportunity. He perceives 
the Presidency as the highest pulpit from which 
to urge change, even wrenching institutional 
change, and a more just dispersal of social 
rewards and obligations. 

He lacks a coherent foreign policy, not 
because he is indifferent to the world but 
because he finds no pleasure in the power 
games of diplomacy and because he perceives 
no security threat great enough to justify 
preoccupation with them. Above all, he deems 
foreign policy to be a secondary matter at this 
juncture, because he thinks the United States 
cannot provide much constructive leadership 
abroad until it has repaired the psychic and 
economic damage of Vietnam, sorted out the 
lessons of misadventure and miscalculation in 
Indochina and demonstrated a .revival of its 
democratic and communal instincts at home. 

These quite basic differences of approach do 
not alone define the Nixon years nor properly 
predict the works of a McGovern 
Administration. Mr. Nixon's supporters rightly 
question the extent to which even a powerful 
President could overhaul American institutions 
at a time when the great majority of citizens 
seem content with their value system and 
committed to the satisfaction of material 
appetites. Conversely, Mr. McGovern's 
supporters wonder whether preoccupation with 
foreign affairs and even elegance in their 
management have much bearing on the 
prospects for peace at a time when the major 

powers appear equally determined to recoil 
from confrontation and to look to their own 
recovery and development. 

Yet there persist that central choice about 
how we wish to distinguish ourselves in this 
decade, how we husband and invest our 
resources, how we define being "No. 1" among 
nations and where we find genuine "national 
security." The choice is only implicit in the 
vague and dull positions and programs churned 
out for the candidates in every election. But it 
appears vividly in the conflicting views we have 
heard from Nixon and McGovern on Vietnam, 
on the size of the defense budget, on 
unemployment and on taxation. 

Obviously either man would wish to wind up 
the Vietnam agony in 30 days, or 90, after 
Inauguration, and there is a fair chance that 
either might succeed. Mr. Nixon would be 
reinforced by re-election in his refusal to end 
aid to the Saigon Government, but he would 
also prefer a settlement to relieve his second 
term of the anguish of endless bombing and 
controversy. If all else failed, he would 
probably equip the South Vietnamese to 
displace all Americans and count on Soviet and 
Chinese influence to win release of all prisoners 
in return for the final American disengagement 
from combat -- just as Mr. McGovern expects to 
obtain their release for a much faster and more 
total withdrawal in three months. 

Only by understanding the fundamental 
choice they offer, however, can we appreciate 
the difference between McGovern's 
determination to walk away from the venture 
and to disown the impluses that prompted our 

intervention, and Nixon's desire to disguise our 
essential failure there and to salvage from our 
sacrifice some pretense of achievement and 
respect for tenacity. 

Similarly, both men would wish to liberate 
additional resources from our greedy defense 
budgets and invest them in projects of social 
value. Only if we grasp their basic sense of 
priorities, however, can we understand why 
McGovern would cut deeply enough to uprrot 
the habits and dependencies of decades, even if 
this were to jar the economy and jolt some of 
our foreign clients, while Nixon refuses to risk 
dislocation at home and fears the calculations 
that foreign friends and adversaries would make 
from our sharp reductions. 

Plainly, neither man feels comforable with 
the unemployment of so many citizens. But 
McGovern appears moved above all by the 
human waste and social cost of joblessness, and 
would oblige Government to create jobs for all, 
no matter how much this might further burden 
our budgets and bureaucracies or distort the 
economic mechanisms of the market. Nixon 
percieves a larger threat in inflation and he 
tolerates unemployment as the price of 
arresting it. Moreover, he deems the clamor for 
guaranteed jobs and wages as basically 
subversive of the whole scheme of incentives to 
which he attributes the nation's achievements 
and prosperity. 

And obviously neither man believes in unfair 
taxation as such. Nixon is attuned to the 
traditional American ethic that that 
Government taxes best which taxes least, that 
industries of profit are far more efficent and 
economical providers of goods and services than 

state-managed enterprises, that capital is the 
engine of the American system and must be 
generously rewarded to keep the wheels 
turning. McGovern sees unfair tax rules as only 
the most conspicuous example of our system's 
unfair distribution of resources, rewards and 
punishments. Though he recognizes the utility 
of stimulus by profit, he also believe that the 
profit system breeds to much greed and 
ruthlessness -- iniquity and inequity - that 
political leaders are obliged to intervene at 
every turn on the side of the cheated and the 
neglected. Where Nixon would risk human 
damage to protect the economic machine, 
McGovern would risk even mechanical 
breakdowns to protect the undefended. 

As campaigns go, this is no modest set of 
choices. These differences alon would explain 
why at the start of the contest President Nixon 
was overwhelmingly perceived as reassuring and 
more or less certain to gratify the established 
social and economic interests, whereas Senator 
McGovern was so widely perceived as 
unconventional and perhaps even dangerous. 

And, of course, by your friends shall you be 
known in politics. It was soon apparent that 
almost anyone with anything to lose was 
kneeling in the Nixon pews, while the young 
and the blacks and the malcontents and the 
discontented who have staked out claims 
against the majority piled into McGovern's 
revivalist tent. It would be entertaining, but not 
particularly instructive, to speculate on the 
extent to which each of the candidates was 
propelled toward his current 
Weltanschauung by the available constituencies. 
Mr. Nixon realized from the start of his 

Administration that he would be permitted to 
play upon the world stage only in the cause of 
peace and detente [ and no longer "victory." 
Mr. McGovern adapted his natural and ethical 
protestantism to the more strident political 
protest movement that took shape in the 
crowds outside his party's 1968 convention - 
especially the crowds of McCarthy and 
Kennedy supporters who felt disowned and 
who became at that moment the only 
unclaimed constituency for the 1972 
Presidential race. 

There is no difference between Nixon and 
McGovern in their ardor for the Presidency. 
Neither man would find much solace in merely 
being right. Neither is comfortable with crowds 
and both exhibit a degree of aloofness that 
obstructs emotional appeal. Nixon is the more 
effective aggressor, clawing at his opponent's 
weaknesses and flattering the instincts of 
whatever group he happens to be addressing. 
McGovern is more comfortable with a lecture 
on his positive values and aspirations, and 
insists on summoning audiences toward a moral 
goal. Invariably, both men recieve greater 
applause before they speak than afterward, and 
their flat performances tend to obscure the 
sharp differences that circumstance and the 
prevailing moods of the country have imposed 
on their candidacies. In different psychological 
and political environments, they would still 
have aspired to the Presidency, and they might 
then have projected the much more 
conventional symbolisms of liberal Democracy 
and conservative Republicanism. 

But politicians cannot choose their moments 
of opportunity any more than electorates can 

choose the ideal bearers of their concerns. You 
need badger the voters for only a few days on 
sidewalks around the country to discover that 
neither of this year's nominees is particularly 
well-liked or trusted. Much of Mr. Nixon's 
lopsided lead in mid-campaign came to him 
grudgingly, out of dismay with the luckless Mr. 
McGovern or fear of his capacity as well as 

"It's the lesser of two evils, isn't it? you hear 
the voters say, from one end of the country to 
the other, normally in defense of a reluctant 
lean toward Mr. Nixon. 

"They're both in with worong crowds," says 
a Pittsburgh steel worker. "But Nixon's not so 
far out." 

"For a while I was quite taken by McGovern, 
even though I'm a Republican," says a shopper 
in Dayton. "But I've become disenchanted by 
him too. He's become political - caught up in 
the system." 

Nonetheless, the sense of giant-sized choice 
hangs over the election. A substantial Nixon 
victory, no matter how misleading it may be in 
the view of professional analysts, will impress 
the country and the politicians as an 
affirmation of our present priorities and 
distributions of power and interests. A 
McGovern victory, no matter how narrow or 
accidentally fashioned, would be taken as a sign 
of yearning for rather fundamental changes in 
the way we run our socity. Whether either man 
could actually fulfill these contradictory 
expectations of conservation or innovation is an 
altogether different question - which no one 
should attempt to answer as long as he refuses 
to reveal his own choice for Nov. 7. 


by Chuang-tzu. 

There was once a society of frogs that lived at the bottom of a deep, dark well, from 
which nothing whatsoever could be seen of the world outside. They were ruled over by a 
great Boss Frog, a fearful bully who claimed, on rather dubious grounds, to own the well 
and all that creeped or srawled therein. The Boss Frog never did a lick of work to feed or 
keep himself, but lived off the labors of the several bottom-dog frogs with whom he shared 
the well. They, wretched creatures! spent all the hours of their lightless days and a good 
many more of their lightless nights drudging about in the damp and slime to find the tiny 
grubs and mites on which the Boss Frog fattened. 

Now occasionally an eccentric skylark would flutter down into the Well (for God only 
knows what reason) and would sing to the frogs of all the marvelous things it had seen in 
its journeyings in the great world outside: of the sun and the moon and the stars, of the 
sky-climbing mountains and fruitful valleys and the vast stormey seas, and of what it was 
like to adventure the boundless space above them. 

Whenever the skylark came visiting, the Boss Frog would instruct the bottom-dog frogs 
to attend closely to all the bird had to tell. "For he is telling you, "the Boss Frog would 
explain, "of the happy land whither all good frogs go for their reward when they finish this 
life of trials. "Secretly, however, the Boss Frog (who was half deaf anyway and never very 
sure of what the lark was saying) thought this strange bird was quite mad. 

Perhaps the bottom-dog frogs had once been deceived by what the Boss Frog told them. 
But with time then had grown cynical about such fairy tales as skylarks had to tell, and had 
reached the conclusion also that the lark was more than a little mad. Moreover, they had 
been convinced by certain free-thinking frogs among them (though who can say where these 
free-thinkers come from) that this bird was being used by the Boss Frog to comfort and 
distract them with tales of pie in the sky which you get when you die. "And that s a lie! * 
the bottom-dog frogs bitterly croaked. 

But there were among the bottom-dog frogs a philosopher frog who had invented a new 
and quite interesting idea about the skylark. "What the lark says is not exactly a lie, "the 
philosopher frog suggested. "Nor is it madness. What the lark is really telling us about in its 
own queer way is the beautiful place we might make of this unhappy well of ours if only we 
set our minds to it. When he lark sings of sun and moon, it means the wonderful new forms 
of illumination we might introduce to dispel the darkness we live in. When it sings of the 
wide and windy skies, it means the healthful ventilation we should be enjoying instead of 
the dank and fetid airs we have grown accustomed to. When it sings of growing giddy with 
itz dizzy swooping through the heavens, it means the delights of the liberated senses we 
should all know if we were not forced to waste our lives at such oppressive drudgery. Most 
important, when it sings of soaring wild and unfettered among the stars, it means the 
freedom we shall all have when the onus of the Boss Frog is removed from our backs 
forever. So you see: the bird is not to be scorned. Rather it should be appreciated and 
praised for bestowing on us an inspiration that emancipates us from despair. 

Thanks to the philosopher frog, the bottom-dog frogs came to have a new and 
affectionate view of the skylark. In fact, when the revolution finally came (for revolutions 
always do come), the bottom-dog frogs even inscribed the image of the skylark on their 
banners and marched to the barricades doing the best they could in their croaking way to 
imitate the bird's lyrical tunes. Following the Boss Frog's overthrow, the once dark, dank 
well was magnificently illuminated and ventilated and made a much more comfortable place 
to live. In addition, the frogs experienced a new and gratifying leisure with many attendant 
delights of the senses— even as the philosopher frog had foretold. 

But still the eccentric skylark would come visitng with tales of the sun and the moon and 
the stars, of mountains and valleys and seas, and of grand winged adventures it had known. 

"Perhaps, ' 'conjectured the philosopher frog, "this bird is mad , after all. Surely we have 
no further need of these cryptic songs. And in any case, it is very tiresome to have to listen 
to fantasies when the fantasies have lost their social relevance. " 

So one day the frogs contrived to capture the lark. And upon so doing, they stuffed it 
and put in in their newly build civic (admission-free) museum . . . in a place of honor. 

Political Science 

No one likes us - I don 't know why 
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try 
but all around even our old friends put us down 
Lets drop the Big One and see what happens 

We give them money - but are they grateful 
No, they're spiteful and they 're hateful 
They don i respect us- so lets surprise them - 
We 11 drop the big one and pulverise them 

Asia s too crowded and Europe s too old 
Africa s far too hot and Canada s too cold 
And South America stole our name 
Lets drop the Big One 
They '11 be no one left to blame 

We 11 save Australia 

Don 't wanna hurt no Kangaroo 

We'll build an all American Amusement Park there 

They got surf in ' too 

Boom goes London and boom Paree 
More room for you and more room for me 
And every city the whole world round 
Will just be another American town 
Oh, how peaceful it will be 
We'll set everybody free 
You '11 wear a Japanese kimono 
And they 11 be Italian shoes for me 

They all hate us anyhow 
so lets drop the Big One 
Lets drop the Big One now 

Check List of What You Need in Your Refuge Room 

Tools and Equipment: Jacknife, pick, 
shovel, Boy Scout type of hand ax, crow- 
bar, hammer, saw, pliers, adjustable steel 
lally columns (to support first-floor joists), 
wrenches, extra door bolts, hinges, pad- 
locks, wallboard (for covering broken 
windows), extension cords, lamp sockets, 

Medical Kit: Salves for burns, gauze 
bandage, compresses, adhesive tape, 
splints, chlorine tablets (for purifying 
water), mechanic's soap (for washing off 
possible radioactive dust). 

Fire-Fighting Equipment: Hand ex- 
tinguishers, stirrup pump, empty buck- 
ets, buckets of sand, buckets of water, 
garden hose (with coupling for attaching 
it to indoor faucets ) . 

Lights: Battery-powered lights, kerosene 
lamps, candles, drop light. 

Miscellaneous: Battery radio (car radio 
will also work), wind-up clock, maps of 
city and county, books, writing materials, 
eye goggles (for smoke or radioactive 
dust), old newspapers. 


Food: Canned food (choose fruits and 
vegetables packed with liquid ) , bouillon, 
dried milk, powdered cocoa and coffee, 
raisins, chocolate, dried fruit. 

Clothing: Underwear, socks, old coats, 
coveralls, overshoes, rubbers, boots, old 
gloves, rain coats, waterproof fabric, 
sweaters, jackets, bandannas (for radia- 
tion or smoke masks ) . 

Furniture: Heavy tables, bunks, 
benches, wheeled cart (for basic evacua- 
tion kit), packing boxes, trash cans with 
lids, duckboards (for damp floor). 

Valuables: Extra pair of glasses, lockbox 
(for valuable papers), monev (in small 

Cooking Equipment: Skillet, teakettle, 
covered pot, can opener, brazier, char- 
coal, bricks and grate (for improvised 
fireplace), fireplace fittings (so you can 
cook in regular house fireplace), jellied- 
alcohol stove, extra cans of jellied alcohol, 
outdoor grills, clean five-gallon cans, 
waterproofed matches (in tin box or 
dipped in wax), kitchen soap, scouring 
powder, steel wool, basic chinaware. 





> \ 






l— l.,* 

m Jit 

^X« t ^ 


H H 

i'-lrB' * *T2_ J 

■k . rOaS 

Hjr^^ ^ 

"- — - 1 









J — "t2a|ii 

















-1 _ 


' i"", mi 

I* £ «l 

3 Ol 





■ I 






v f 



Pi t 





(St£ i 



ft, AT 



,i li; 




; * s 



i i 

■ ; : 1 














' . 













.,- »3 







When a child at school fails to make a grade, he is 
handicapped in his further schooling until he regains 
the ground so lost. The same holds true in the 
evolutionary development of races. Those who fail at 
any stage to go forward into the next one at the 
cyclicly appointed time, fall out of line with the 
cosmic forces to which they are linked and suffer 
limitations and disabilities with which they would not 
otherwise have to control. 

In Lemuria a portion of the race failed to go 
forward. The same was true in the later Atlantean 
Epoch. Negroes are the survivals of a backward strain 
of the Lemurians; Mongolians and American Indians 
are Atlanteans who Jailed to go forward with the 
vanguard which became the Aryan Race. As 
previously stated, Indian and Mongolians are branches 
of the Atlantean Race. 

While people who have thus fallen a step or two 
behind in their racial progression have the 
opportunity of regaining their lost position, the lot of 
the laggard is always hard and painful. Out of this 
situation arises the chief ingredients of their heavy 
and sorrowful karma. For example, Indians possessed 
the American continents, with their immeasurable 
natural resources and opportunities for development, 
bit they lacked the human resources with which to 
turn these to most profitable account. Consequently, 
they lost their lands under the law of "use or lose. 

Karma endgendered by the white man in his 
relations to the red man is far more serious than the 
average person realizes. It springs from the 
commission of physical violence, moral wrongs and 
spiritual depredation. Though the Indian lost his 
continent because he was not putting it to its highest 
use, this loss did not give others either a legal or moral 
right to rob him of all his land, to deprive him of the 
opportunity to live a life in accordance with his own 
cultural pattern, or to systematically erase from his 
consciousness religious beliefs and philosophical 
concepts that were part of his racial heritage. Nor did 
the Indian 's lack of European culture and Christian 
doctrine justify white men in destroying the faith of a 
people who looked to them for enlightened guidance. 
Instead of looking upon whites as emissaries from the 
Great White Spirit, as they did at first, they became 
disillusioned on finding them cruel, aggressive, greedy, 
destructive on findinng and quite devoid of that 
reverential sense native to a race which lives in a 
natural state close to the earth and sky and all that 
dwells herein. 

We have robbed the Indian of his native philosophy 
and spiritual concepts but failed to provide him with 
an adequate grasp of the true values in our Aryan 
culture and Christian civilization. This was largely 
because of our wrong approach and lack of 

understanding of the aborigine 's mentality. We sought 
to impose upon him a creedal Christianity he could 
hardly accept except in its cruder and more material 
aspects, while partially destroying his simple, natural 
faith in the livingness of nature, and his unquestioning 
faith in an all-providing Supreme Spirit. Such wrongs 
breed antagonism and reprisals. Observe how karmic 
law brings home to us in many ways, some of which 
are altogether unsuspected by the average person, the 
fruits of our sowing. 

Here is one way in which the karmic law reacts 
unfavorably upon us. Because of the unfavorable 
conditions under which most Indians now live, the 
advanced egos among the race seek incarnation 
elsewhere. Opportunities for their advancement are 
far greater in Canada and in every one of the twenty 
American republics to the south. Nor is it only the 
most developed members of the race that so migrate 
and reincarnate. Large numbers of the less advanced 
seek out lands where they can find greater freedom. 
Mexico, only a fraction the size of our country, has 
among its inhabitants 400, 000 pure-blood Indians and 
nearly half its population has an admixture of Indian 

Indians are not lacking a common knowledge about 
wrongs their race has suffered at American hands; 
many of them carry for us, their destroyers a 
subconscious soul-rembrance which works as a force 
inimical to our best interests. Their unfriendly feeling 
has even risen to the point of physical retaliation 
under any pretext whatsoever - as itt the case of 
repeated trouble on the Mexican border with 
infractions elements, at times so serious as to actually 
threaten armed conflict be tween the two countries. 

One of the major causes of the downfall of Spain 's 
once proud and powerful empire was that nation 's 
crime against the Indians while colonizing the new 
world. Her ruthless destruction of the Inca civilization 
itt Peru under Pizarro and of Aztec culture under 
Cortez set into motion forces which, in their 
repercussions, undermined her strength and reduced 
her to the status of a second class power. Spanish 
Conquistadors were guilty of shameless betrayal, 
cottsciettceless treachery, brutal depredations and 
enslavement. They pillaged and burned vast 
collections of historical and cultural treaures. 
Altogether this chapter of New World conquest 
constitutes one of history 's darkest records. Higher 
type egos cease to incarnate into a nation which 
commits crimes of such scope. Retrogression sets in as 
less developed types gravitate to areas thus forsaken. 
Then follows the nation 's decline, because the people 
of a nation determine its character, stamina and 

Only along such lines will we be able to rehabilitate 
the Indians and launch them on a new path of 
development and self-realization and at the same time, 
loosen these karmic bonds that partially cripple us, 

the conscience of America is awakening to the 
need for all this. An increasing number of societies 
hare been organized to promote better relations 
between red men and the white people. Among the 
most important results accomploshed by these 
societies is protection in the field of legislation 
providing the public with useful information about 
our red-skinned brothers; creating an interest in and 
sympathy for their welfare. 

They must also be creditied with having done much 
to promote the onservance of American Indian Day. 
First advocated by the Indians themselves, this day of 
remembrance has been observed for a number of years 
of various Indian and non-Indian organizations which 
aim to restore to the original possessors of this 
continent certain rights, privileges and dignities of 
which they have been unjustly deprived. The day has 
had official recognition and will probably be adopted 
nationally be congressional action in the near future. 
Illinois and Washington have taken legislative action 
to place the date on their State Calenders. Governors 
of other States have on various occasions issued 
proclamations calling upon their people to observe the 
day with due regard for its purpose.. The date chosen 
as Indian Day is of itself significant. It falls under the 
sign of Libra, the scales of balance. Clearly it is a date 
cosmically determined, for primarily within the 
vibratory field of this sign must the Indian problem be 
worked out in harmony with Gods even-handed 
justice. Moreover, Libra, being the governor of 

partnerships, points to true union of the two races 
that now stand divided under a guardian-ward 
relationship. It is of great importance that the Indian 
question be brought to the fore. For too long it has 
been treated with general indifference. The prevailing 
attitude has been that, as a "vanishing race", it has 
been conveniently ' disposed of on reservations 
presumable suited to its needs and station, and that 
there is no occasion for giving the matter any further 
concern. To agitate on its behalf for this or that is 
very often regarded as unwarranted on the part of 
sentimentalists who have nothing very important to 
do and feel they should be busy doing something for 

It is this general indifference that must be 
overcome by calling the public's attention to the vital 
issue involved. So long as we keep the Indian 
completely segregated and subject him to present 
disabilities as an American citizen, we are violating the 
principle of brotherhood that is not making for us 
friends in Asia and Africa, that goes counter to our 
democratic ideals, and that militates against our 
exercising the kind of world leadership to which we 
have been called. 

The hour has come when no part of the human 
family can be shut away from any toher part. Such 
barriers as those that now separate the red man from 
the white are due for removal. We can do this 
intelligently, helpfully and peacefully. We can do it 
now. In our relation with the Indians no serious 
obstacle stands in the way. We need but realize what 
the times are demanding of us -and act accordingly. 
Right relations is the key to a unified humanity and a 
tranquilized world. 


The repercussions of the early Spanish invaders are 
still rumbling in the land of the Mayans, Incas and 
Aztecs. Rebellions and revolutions of various kinds 
are frequent occurrences. A recent newspaper item 
with a Mexican dateline says the Yaqui Indians are 
not willing to forget their persecutions by the Spanish 
conquerors or Mexican agents. While they no longer 
"sweep out their mountain stronghold to burn trains, 
butcher passengers and ranchers, and ravage the 
countryside, neighboring communities remain in 
constant fear of another Yaqui outbreak." Two 
cavalry posts are still maintained to protect adjoining 
white communities from possible attact and until 
recently all trains passing through this part of the 
country carried soldiers for protection. To the 
aggressor passes the burden of fear. 

The Yaquis continue to call a Mexican "yori " or 
enemy, and they are reported as generally "disliking 
laws, soldiers, government agents and Americans." 
This is not just a carryover from seventeenth and 
eighteenth century wrongs suffered at the hands of 
predatory invaders. As late as 1903 thousands of 
Yaquis were massacred by the Mexicans and 
trainloads were shipped into Yucatan to work like 

Another manifestation of this deep subconscious 
memory of fraud, deception and trachery, of which 
they were so often victims in centuries past, is the 
distrust with which republics to the south view their 
more powerful neighbor to the north. This memory is 
undoubtedly a factor contributing to difficulties we 
encounter in our economic and diplomatic dealing 
Central and South American countries. 

Reactions of pain and sorrow also come to us from 
the astral plane. This aspect of the subject has been 
vividly depicted by Judge Hatch in a communication 
purported to come from him by the hand of Elsa 
Barker, as recorded in LAST LETTERS FROM THE 
LIVING DEAD MAN. After describing a gathering of 
earthbound Indians in a wooded area somewhere in 
New England, and recognizing that what he had come 
upon was the enactment of a ritual, he said, "I was 
sad, for I had not understood before how real was the 
danger to my country in these times of crisis from the 
karma the old settlers had made. Of course they 
believed they were doing right in ridding themselves 
and their adopted land from the simple but complex 
natives, whose civilizationwas older than the 
civilization of Europe, and who had loved this land as 
only those can love a land who have known the 
freedom of its spaces. " And speaking of the Chief 
in charge of forest ritual, he observed that he saw 
"that whatever harm he mistakenly sought to 
accomplish, in his soul was the consciousness of 
justice, that fundamental balance between right and 
wrong, that proposition of law which, when native in 
the mind, gives it dignity and nasty sorcery, but a 
kind of priest of retribution, a tribal demi-god who 
might perhaps some day be made constructive and not 
destructive an instrument of the great Genius of 
America, the Weaver of Destiny who has our land in 

A reading of this chapter from which we have 
quoted will make it quite apparent that there is a 
direct connection between the accumulated crimes 
committed by our people against the red man over a 
period of centuries and "the potential army of 
6,000,000 criminal " which J. Edgar Hoover of the 
FBI reported as seriously threatening life and 
property in every part of our land. 

"There would be little crime in America now, ' 
writes Ernest Thompson Seaton, authority on Indian 
culture, "if the laws of the red man were operating 
instead of the laws of the white man. "Nor would the 
politically subversive forces in our midst be as strong 
as they are were it not for the support they get from 
the inimical Indian forces to do the very thing 
emnittered discarnate beings most desire to see 

The effect of such karma on our national life is 
subtle, serious and far-reaching. It is a hindrance to 
freedom because it is literally true that while a single 
captive remains on earth, no one is completely free. 
So long as minorities are not free, a measure of 
bondage extends to all. India did not recover her 
political independence and national freedom until she 

emancipated her untouchables; and we in America 
will never realize complete freedom and tranquility 
until full justice is- done to our segregated population, 
both Indian and Negro. America's battle for the 
Four Freedoms begins at home. We cannot pursue 
them successfully abroad until we sincerely apply 
then at home. The liquidation of our debt of destiny 
to the Indians calls for energetic and enlightened 
action in many directions. They need to be taught the 
duties and responsibilities of citizenship as we teach 
them to the foreign-born. Their educational facilities 
require enlargement. Instruction should be placed 
more and more into the hands of Indains themselves. 
So, too, the administration of their own affais. 
Cultural values belonging to ancient civilization must 
be preserved and cultivated. Their arts and crafts must 
be taught and again practiced. History books should 
be rewritten. Americans must know the red man as he 
really is. His status must be that of a partner rather 
than a ward; that of a political, economic and cultural 
asset instead of a problem-child liability. The ethical 
and spiritual content of Indian beliefs needs to be 
widely taught and incorporated into our Christian 






THE PATH of sublimation, which mankind has religiously followed 
at least since the foundation of the first cities, is no way out of the 
human neurosis, but, on the contrary, leads to its aggravation. 
Psychoanalytical theory and the bitter facts of contemporary history 
suggest that mankind is reaching the end of this road. Psychoanalytical 
theory declares that the end of the road is the dominion of 
death-in-life. History has brought mankind to that pinnacle on which 
the total obliteration of mankind is at last a practical possibility. At this 
moment of history the friends of the life instinct must warn that the 
victory of death is by no means impossible; the malignant death instinct 
can unleash those hydrogen bombs. For if we discard our fond illusion 
that the human race has a privileged or providential status in the life of 
the universe, it seems plain that the malignant death instinct is a built-in 
guaranteee that the human experiement, if it fails to attain its possible 
perfection, will cancel itself out, as the dinosaur experiment canceled 
itself out. But jeremiads are useless unless we can point to a better way. 
Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of 
represssion - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the 

We have already done what we could to extract from psychoanalytical 
theory a model of what the resurrected body would be like. The life 
instinct, or sexual instinct, demands activity of a kind that, in contrast 
to our current mode of activity, can only be called play. The life 
instinct also demands a union with others and with the world around us 
based not on anxiety _ and aggression but on narcissism and erotic 

In the last analysis Christian theology must either accept death as 
part of life or abandon the body. For two thousand years Christianity 
has kep alive the mystical hope of an ultimate vicoty of Life over 
Death, during a phase of human history when Life was at war with 
Death and hope could only be mystical. But if we are approaching the 
last days. Christian thology might ask itself whether it is only the 
religion of fallen humanity, or whether it might be asleep when the 
bridegroom comes. Certain it is that if Christianity wishes to help 
mankind toward that erasure of the races of original sin which 
Baudelaire said was the true definition of progress, there are priceless 
insights in its tradition - insights which have to be transformed into a 
system of practical therapy, something like psychoanalysis, before they 
are useful or even meaningful. 

The specialty of Christian eschatology lies precisely in its rejection of 
the Platonic hostility to the human body and to "matter," its refusal to 
identify the Platonic path of sublimation with the ultimate salvation, 
and its affirmation that eternal life can only be life in a body. Christian 
asceticism can carry punishment of the fallen body to heights 
inconceivable to Plato; but Christian hope is for the redemption of that 
fallen body. Hence the affirmation of Tertullian: "Resurget igitur caro, 
et quidem omnis, et quidem ipsa, et quidem integra -- The body will rise 
again, all of the body, the identical body, the entire body." The 
medieval Catholic synthesis between Christianity and Greek 
philosophy, with its notion of an immortal soul, compromised and 
confused the issue; only Protestantism carries the full burden of the 
peculiar Christian faith. 



,,.-r: :■'.■'■ .■■■■■"■.-. uuiner s DruBK wiui Trie uoctniie 01 suDiirnaxion 

(good works ) is decisive; but the theologian of the resurrected body is 
the cobbler of God itz, Jacob Boehme . . . 

.'•■; Whatever the Christian chruches do with him, Boehme's position in 
the Western tradition of mystic hope of better things is central and 
assured. Backward he is linked, through Paracelsus and alchemy, to the 
tradition of Christian gnosticism and Jewish cabalism; forward he is 
linked, through his influence on the romatics Blake, Novaiis, and Hegel, 
with Freud. We have argued that psychoanalysis has not 
psychoanalyzed itself until it places itself inside the history of Western 
thought -- inside the general neurosis of mankind. So seen, 
psychoanalysis is the heir to a mystical tradition which it must affirm . . 

Boehme, like Freud, understands death not as a mere nothing but as 
a positive force either in dialectical conflict with life (in fallen man), or 
dialectically unified with life (in God's perfection). Thus, says Benz, 
"Our life remains a struggle between life and death, and as long as this 
conflict lasts, anxiety last also." In Boehme's concept of life, the 
concept of play, or love-play, is as central as it is in Freud's; and his 
concept of the spiritual or paradisical body of Adam before the Fall 
recognizes the potent demand in our unconscious both for an 
androgynous mode of being and for a narcissistic mode of 
self-expression, as well as the corruption in our current use of the oral, 
anal, and genital functions. It is true that Boehme does not yet accept 
the brutal death of the individual physical body, and therefore makes 
his paradisical body ambiguously immaterial, without oral, anal, and 
genital organs; and yet he clings obstinately to the body and to bodily 
pleasure, and therefore says that Adam was "magically" able to eat and 
enjoy the "essence" of things, and "magically" able to reproduce and 
to have sexual pleasure in the act of reproduction. Boehme is caught in 
these dilemmas because of his insight into the corruption of the human 
body, his insight that all life is life in the body, and, on the other hand, 
his inability to accept a body which dies. No Protestant theologian has 
gone further; or rather, later Protestantism has preferred to repress the 
problem and to repress Boehme . . . 

Psychoanalysis accepts the death of the body; but psychoanalysis has 
something to learn from body mysticism, occidental and oriental, over 
and above the wealth of psychoanalytical insights contained in it. For 
these mystics take seriously, and traditional psychoanalysis does not, 
the possibility of human perfectibility and the hope of finding a way 
out of the human neurosis into that simple health that animals enjoy, 
but not man. 

As Protestantism degenerated from Luther and Boehme, it 
abandoned its religious function of criticizing the existing order and 
keeping alive the mystical hope of better things; in psychoanalytical 
terminology, it lost contact with the unconscious and with the 
immortal repressed desires of the unconscious. The torch passed to the 
poets and philosophers of the romantic movement. The heirs of 
Boehme are Blake, Novaiis, Hegel, and, as Professor R. D. Gray has 
recently shown, Goethe. (See his Goethe The Alchemist.) These are the 
poets whom Freud credited with being the real discoverers of the 

Not only toward the mystics but also toward the poets 
psychoanalysis must quit its pretension of supramundane superiority. 
Instead ofexposingthe neuroses of the poets, the psychoanalysts might 
learn from them, and abandon the naive idea that there is an immense 
gap, in mental health and intellectual objectivity, between themselves 
and the rest of the world. In the world's opinion, in the eyes of 
common sense, Novaiis is crazy, and Ferenczi also: the world will find 
it easier to believe that we are all mad than to believe that the 
psychoanalysts are not. And further, it does not seem to be the case 
that the psychoanalytical mode of reaching the unconscious has 
superannuated the poetic, or artistic, mode of attaining the same 



8**r*^B|j^**---a ■•» s -"* 


' "*jjT i 

• '** 


p * 


»~ -1gr- 

objective. Anyone conversant both with modern literature and with 
psychoanalysis knows that modern literature is full of psychoanalytical 
insights not yet grasped, or not so clearly grasped, by "scientific" 
psychoanalysis. And anyone who loves art knows that psychoanalysis 
has no monopoly on the power to heal. What the times call for is an 
end to the war between psychoanalyis and art - a war kept alive by the 
sterile "debunking" approach of psychoanalysis to art -- and the 
beginning of cooperation between the two in the work of therapy and 
in the task of making the unconscious conscious. A little more Eros and 
less strife. 

Modern poetry, like psychoanalysis and Protestant theology, faces 
the problem of the resurrection of the body. Art and poetry have 
always been altering our ways of sensing and feeling - that is to say, 
altering the human body. And Whitehead rightly discerns as the essence 
of the "Romantic Reaction" a revulsion against abstraction (in 
psychoanalytical terms, sublimation) in favor of the concrete sensual 
organism, the human body. "Engergy is the only life, and is from the 
Body . . . Energy is Eternal Delight," says Blake . . . 

The "magical" body which the poet seeks is the "subtle" or 
"spiritual" or "translucent" body of occidental mysticism, and the 
'diamond" body of oriental mysticism, and, in psychoanalysis, the 
polymorphously perverse body of childhood Thus, for example, 
psychoanalysis declares the fundamentally bisexual character of human 
nature; Boehme insists on the androgynous character of human 
perfection; Taoist mysticism invokes feminine passivity to counteract 
masculine aggressivity; and Rilke's poetic quest is a quest for a 
hermaphroditic body. There is an urgent need for elucidation of the 
interrelations between thses disparate modes of articulating the desires 
of the unconscious. Jung is aware of these interrelations, and orthodox 
psychoanalysts have not been aware of them. But no elucidation results 
from incorporation of the data into the Jungian system, not so much 
because of the intellectual disorder in the system, but rather because of 
the fundamental orientation of Jung, which is flight from the problem 
of the body, flight from the concept of repression, and a return to the 
path of sublimation. Freudianism must face the issue, and Freud 
himself said: "Certain practices of the mystics may succeed in upsetting 
the normal relations between the different regions of the mind, so that, 
for example, the perceptual system becomes able to grasp relations in 
the deeper layers of the ego and in the id which would outherwise be 
inaccessible to it." 

Joseph ISIeedham's interest in what we have called body mysticism, 
an interest which underlies his epoch-making work Science and 
Civilization in China, reminds us that the resurrrction of the body has 
been placed on the agenda no only by psychoanalysis, mysticism, and 
poetry, but also by the philosophical criticism of modern science. 
Whitehead's criticism of modern science. Whitehead's criticism of 
scientific abstraction is, in psychoanalytical terms, a criticism of 
sublimation. His protest against "The Fallacy of Mispalced 
Concreteness" is a protest on behalf of the living body as a whole: "But 
the living organ of expereince is the living body as a whole"; and his 
protest "on behalf of value" insists that the real structure of the human 
body, of human cognition, and of the events congnized is both 
sensuous and erotic, "self-enjoyment." Whitehead himself recognized 
the affinity between himself and the romantic poets; and Needham of 
course recognizes the affinity between the philosophy of organism and 
mysticism. Actually Needham may be exaggerating the uniqueness of 
Taoism. The whole Western alchemical tradition, which urgently needs 
re-examination, is surely "Whiteheadian" in spirit, and Goethe, the last 
of the alchemists, in his "Essay on the Metamorphosis of Plants" 
produced the last, or the first, Whiteheadian scientific treatise. Goethe, 
says a modern biologist, "reached out to the reconciliation of the 
antithesis between the senses and the intellect, an antithesis with which 
traditional science does not attempt to cope." 

T-r **•* 

«»» -s- r~-a»»a 

Perhaps there are even deeper issues raised by the confrontation 
between psychoanalysis and the philosophy of organism. Whitehead 
and Needham are protesting against the inhuman attitude of modern 
science; in psychoanalytical terms, they are calling for a science based 
on an erotic sense of reality, rather than an aggressive dominating 
attitude toward reality. From this point of view alchemy (and Goethe's 
essay on plants) might be said to be the last effort of Western man to 
produce a science based on an erotic sense of reality. And conversely, 
modern science, as criticized by Whitehead, is one aspect of a total 
cultural situation which may be described as the dominion of 
death-in-life. The mentality which was able to reduce nature to "a dull 
affair, soundless, scentless, colourless; merely the hurrying of material 
endlessly, meaninglessly" -- Whitehead's description -- is lethal. It is an 
awe-inspiring attack on the life of the universe; in more technical 
psychoanalytical terms, its anal-sadistic intent is plan. And further, the 
only historian of science who uses psychoanalysis, Gaston Bachelard, 
concludes that it is of the essence of the scientific spirit to be 
mercilessly ascetic, to eliminate human enjoyment from our relation to 
nature, to eliminate the human senses, and finally to eliminate the 
human brain: 

It does indeed seem that with the twentieth century there begins a 
kind of scientific thought in opposition to the senses, and that it is 
necessary to construct a theory of objectivity 

in opposition to the object ... It follows that the entire use of the 
brain is being called into question. From now on the brain is strictly no 
longer adequate as an instrument for scientific thought; that is to say, 
the brain is the obstacle to scientific thought. It is an obstacle in the 
sense that it is the coordinating center for human movements and 
appetities. It is necessary to think in opposition to the brain. 

The resurrection of the body is a social project facing mankind as a 
whole, and it will become a practical political problem when the 
statemen of the world are called upon to deliver happiness instead of 
power, when political economy becomes a science of use-values instead 
of a science of accumulation. In the face of this tremendous human 
problem, contemporary social theory, both captalist and socialist, has 
nothing to say. Contemporary social theory (again we must honor 
Veblen as an exception) has been completely taken in by the inhuman 
abstractions of the path of sublimation, and has no contact with 
concrete human beings, with their concrete bodies, their concrete 
though repressed desires, and their concrete neuroses. 

To find social theorists who are thinking about the real problem or 
our age, we have to go back to the Marx of 1844, or even to the 
philosophers influencing ;Marx in 1844, Fourier and Feuerbach. From 
Fourier's psychological analysis of the antithesis of work and pleasure 
IVlarx obtained the concept of play, and used it, in a halfhearted way to 
be sure, in some of his early Utopian speculations. From Feuerbach 
IVlarx learned the necessity of moving from Hegelian abstractions to the 
concrete senses and the concrete human body. Marx's 
"philosophic-economic manuscripts" of 1844 contain remarkable 
formulations calling for the resurrection of human nature, the 
appropriation of the human body, the transformation of the human 
senses, and the realization of a state of self-enjoyment. Thus, for 
example, "Man appropriates himself as an all-sided being in an all-sided 
way, hence as total man. (This appropriation lies in) every one of his 
human relationships to the world -- seeing, hearing, smell, taste, feeling, 
thought, perception, experience, wishing, activity, loving, in short, all 
organs of his individuality." The human physical senses must be 
emancipated from the sense of possession, and then the humanity of 

Thus moder science confrims Ferenczi's aphorism: "Pure intelligence 
is thus a product of dying, or at least of becoming mentally insensitive, 
and is therefore in principle madness." 

What Whitehead and Needham are combating is not an error but a 
disease in consciousness. In more technical psychoanalytical terms, the 
issue is not the conscious structure of science, but the unconscious 
premises of science; the trouble is in the unconscious strata of the 
scientific ego, in the scientific character-structure. Whitehead called the 
modern scientific point of view, in spite of its world-conquering 
success, "quite unbelievable." Psychoanalysis adds the crucial point: it 
is insane. Hence there is unlikely to be any smooth transition from the 
"mechanistic" point of view to the "organismic" point of view. It is 
unlikely that problems generated in the mechanistic system will lead to 
organismic solutions. The two points of view represent different 
instinctual orientations, different fusions of life and death. It is even 
doubtful that the adoption of an organismic point of view under 
present conditions would be a gain; it might be a relapse into naive 
animism . . . Psychoanalytical therapy involves a solution to the 
problem of repression; what is needed is not an organismic ideology, 
but to change the human body so that it can become for the first time 
an organism -- the resurrection of the body. An organism whose own 
sexual life is as disordered as man's is in no position to construct 
objective theories about the Yin and the Yang and the sex life of the 

the senses and the human enjoyment of the senses will be achieved for 
the first time. Here is the point of contact between Marx and Freud: I 
do not see how the profundities and obscurities of the 
"philosophic-economic manuscripts" can be elucidated except with the 
aid of psychoanalysis . . . 

Psychoanalytical thinking has a double realtion to the dialectical 
imagination. It is, on the one hand (actually or potentially), a mode of 
dialectical consciousness ; on the other hand, it contains, or ought to 
contain, a theory about the nature of the dialectical imagination. I say 
"actually or potentially" because psychoanalysis, either as a body of 
doctrine or an experience of the analysand, is no total revelation of the 
unconscious repressed. The struggle of consciousness to circumvent the 
limitations of formal logic, of language, and of "common sense" is 
under conditions of general repression never ending . . . "Dialectical" 
are those psychoanalysts who continue this struggle, for the rest, 
psychoanalytical terminology can be a prison house of Byzantine 
scholasticism in which "word-consciousness" is substituting for 
consciousness of the unconscious. 

And even if we take Freud as the model of psychoanalytical 
consciousness, we have argued that at such crucial points as the relation 
between the two insticts and the relation between humanity and 
animality, Freud is trapped because he is not sufficiently "dialectical." 
Nevertheless, the basic structure of Freud's thought is committed to 
dialiectcs, because it is committed to the vision of mental life as 
basically an arena of conflict; and his finest insights (for example, that 
when the patient denies something, he affirms it) are incurably 


t ■ J % .. ;■ 

"dialectical." Hence the attempt to make psychoanalysis out to be 
"scientific" (in the positivist sense) is not only vain but destructive. 
Empirical verification the positivist test of science, can apply only to 
that which is fully inconsciousness; but psychoanalysis is a mode of 
contacting the unconscious under conditions of general repression, 
when the unconscious remains in some sense repressed. To put the 
matter another way, the "poetry" in Freud's thought cannot be purged 
away, or rather such an expurgation is exactly what is accomplished in 
"scientific" textbooks of psychology; but Freud's writings remain 
unexpurgatable . . . 

The key to the nature of dialectical tnmking may lie in 
psychoanalysis, more specifically in Freud's psychoanalysis of negation. 
There is first the theorem that "there is nothing in the id which can be 
compared to negation," and that the law of contradiction does not hold 
in the id. Similarly, the dreamdoes not seem to recognize the word 
"no." Instead of the law of contradiction we find a unity of opposites: 
"Dreams show a special tendency to reduce two opposites to a unity"; 
"Any thing in a dream may mean its opposite." We must therefore 
entertain the hypothesis that there is an important connection between 
being "dialectical" and dreaming, just as there is between dreaming and 
poetry or mysticism. Furthermore, in his essay "The Antithetical Sense 
of Primal Words" Freud compares the linguistic phenomenon of a 
hidden (in the etymological root) identity between words with 
antithetical meanings; he reveals the significant fact that it was the 
linguisticphenomenon that gave him the clue to the dream phenomenon, 
and not vice versa. It is plain that both psychoanalysis and the study of 
language (philosophical and philological) need a marriage or at least a 

And, on the other hand, Freud's essay "On Negation" may throw 
light on the nature of the "dialectical" dissatisfaction with formal logic. 
Negation is the primal act of repression; but it at the same time 
liberates the mind to think about the repressed under the gerneral 
condition that it is denied and thus remains essentially repressed. With 
Spinoza's formula omnis determinatio est negatio in mind, examie the 
following formulations of Freud: "A negative judgement is the 
intellectual substitute for repression: the 'No' in which it is expressed is 
the hall-mark of repression ... By the help of the symbol of negation, 
the thinking process frees itself from the limitations of repression and 
enriches itself with the subject-matter without which it could not work 

But: "Negation only assists in undoing one of the 
consequences of repression -- the fact that the subject-matter of the 
image in question is unable to enter consciousnes. The result is a kind 
of intellectual acceptance of what is repressed, though in all essentials 
the repression persists." 

We may therefore entertain the hypothesis that formal logic and the 
law of contradiction are the rules whereby the mind submits to operate 
under general conditions of repression. As with the concept of time, 
Kant's categories of rationality would then turn out to be the categories 
of repression. And conversely, "dialectical" would be the struggle of 
the mind to circumvent repression and make the unconscious 
conscious. But by the same token, it would be the struggle of the mind 
to overcome the split and conflict within itself. It could then be 
identified with that "synthesizing" tendency in the ego of which Freud 
came finally to place his hope for therapy. As an attempt to unify and 
to cure, the "dialectical" consciousness would be a manifestation of 
Eros. And, as consciousness trying to throw off fetters of negation, the 
"dialectical" consciousness would be a step toward the Dionysian ego 
which does not negate any more. 

What the great world needs, of course, is a little more Eros and less 
strife;but the intellectual world needs it just as much. A little more Eros 
would make conscious the unconscious harmony between "dialectical" 
dreamers of all kinds -- psychoanalysts, political idealists, mystics, 
poets, philosophers - and abate the sterile and ignorant polemics. Since 
the ignorance seems to be mostly a matter of self-ignornace, a little 
more psychoanalytical consciousness on all sides (including the 
psychoanalysts) might help -- a little more self-knowledge humility, 
humanity, and Eros. We may therefore conclude with the concluding 
words of Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents: 

Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to 
such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate 
one another to the last man. They know this - hence arises a great part 
of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension. A 
And now it may be expected that the other of the two "heavenly 
forces," eternal Eros, will put forth his strength so as to maintain 
himself alongside of his equally immortal adversary. 

And perhaps our children will live to live a full life, and so see what 
Freud could not see - in the old adversary, a friend. 

NORMAN O' BROWN' The Ressurection of the Body 

Why MocIern Man Faces 


ObsERVArioNs & DeliqhTS 

Haven O'More 


One particular "why" cannot be assigned to modern man's dilemma. His situation is too complex. There are no easy 
solutions at hand but man, of all creatures in the universe, has inherent flexibility of will: he can move up or down, 
destroy himself or free himself. 

Man is not fixed; he can change. 

More than any time before recorded, it behooves us, we must, examine our position and learn.. .By the bitterness and 
fear we experience we know we have strayed. "So bitter is it, that scarcely more is death." Let us search this "wild, 
and rough, and stubborn wood" to gain some idea, if we can, where we are. None but ourselves can say where we are 

Most critcally for himself, modern man thinks his humanity stops with man. He has a whole movement of which he 
boasts-humanism. It limits man to man. It posits human reason as its highest god, and considers its goal and final 
end to be reason applied to man's scientific and social problems (entirely concocted by misusing reason). Humanists 
are activists; they reject "the utility of what is not." The Tao Te Ching gives us a proper perspective on humanism: 
"The Sages (the liberated men, the self-overcome Ones) are not human: they treat the people like sacrificial straw 
dogs. ..When the Tao declines , there is 'humanity and justice.' " 

The modern mentality has never understood that man limited to man, and man limited to human reason is at best 
the most miserable, diseased, lonely creature in the universe. Man is part of a universal hierarchy or he is nothing; by 
himself he has no real existence. 

Humanism and its derivatives-the sterility of modern organized religion, scientism, and violent political activity, to 
mention only three of many- are no new movements. Man has always flared out, vaunted himself up, and told 
himself, "I stand supreme in the universe. Look around. What do you see more glorious than man? I, man, I'm It!" 
Earlier, William Blake spoke of his mentality, 

"Denying in private: mocking God & Eternal Life: & in Public Collusion, calling themselves Deists, Worshipping the 
Maternal Humanity, calling it Nature and Natural Religion." 

Just as he cuts himself off from all that is universal modern man denies what stands above reason and supports it - 
Intellect. All that links man with Being proceeds from Intellect, the universal and supra-individual faculty which 
Aristotle says "finds its fulfillment in being aware of the Intelligible" and is identical with knowledge its intelligible 
object. Modern man has gone so far as to imagine reason exactly synonymous with Intellect: he has mindlessly 
thinks and writes "reason" and "Intellect" meaning for the one the other; he, within this limitation (when he is 
feeling especially inflated), even calls himself an "intellectual." Translation: one stuck and struggling in the web of 
reason alone. "Now reason differs from Intellect as multitude from unity," writes Aquinas. "It is therefore evident 
that the rational consideration finds its termination in the intellectual by way of resolution, inasmuch as from many 
things the reason gathers the one and simple truth. And again, inteperception (direct seeing itself without any reason 
or sense interference whatsoever) is the principle of the rational by way of composition and discovery, inasmuch as 
Intellect grasps many things in one. Therefore that perception which is the terminus of all human ra ft'ocination is 
above all the /rctellectual"(Our emphasis.) Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics remarks that Plato 
used to say that the 'Ideas (the really real things) are known by Intellect , but that matter is 'credible only to bastard 
reasoning.' " 

Imagine for yourself: how long does a fish live out of water? So long, comparatively speaking, as man cut off from 
intellect, the river of his life which carries him to his final resting place and unity inthe Universal Sea. 

Consider the beginning to avoid the conflict 
sure to rage without fore thought. For from 
the first seed planted the earth pours in strict 
accordance with heaven's laws her plenty. Not martydom 
to a cause but willingly. She knows that power 
descends on one who holds firm, otherwise 
all would end before the drama unfolds. A flower 
knows the same to judge by its practice; our eyes 
peer ahead to see the final growth as a vine 
climbing up the wall finds holds and thus stays 
in place fulfilling its nature in the pure sunshine 
that provides its energy. Only man misses, plays 
with his fate in the active forces around him 
neither looking for nor seeing the eternal paradigm. 

Modern man's major crisis, himself, is rooted in ignoring his past. He thinks he examines his past. What today has 
more general interest than that study going by the name of history? Books on history abound; in large bookstores the 
history sections are perhaps the best stocked. This is a sign of our times. For "history properly is a knowledge 
obtained without proof", a surveying and gathering of certain thematically similar phenomena-either by direct 
observation (as earlier in astronomy, for example) or through research entirely based on written sources, laboratory 
techniques, and discovered objects (as in modern studies on ancient history). Aristotle points out that "If nothing 
which pertains to history is omitted of what is truly present with things, we shall be furnished with the means about 
every thing of which there is demonstration (proof), of discovering and demonstrating this; and we shall be able to 
make that apparent, which is naturally incapable of being demonstrated." We forget the levels of knowledge involved 
in such a statement when we "assume" historical demonstration; knowing nothing about the true nature of proof 
the modern mentality demands proof where none of the type it demands is possible or admissible and elsewhere, as 
in its reading of history generally, accepts as "proved" an order possessing only informative qualities at best. 

Keenly aware of the foolishness too great concern with history and historical thinking leads men to, Paul Valery tells 
the amusing story of Messrs. NO and TI, both worthy "intellectuals." They had many books but prized none except 
their own works with one exception- Thesaurus of the Works and Treatises on Wisdom whose Titles alone have come 
down to us. Naturally, it was a "small volume." Valery "quotes" several titles from it; three of them particularly 
illuminate the subject of history. 

"A complete List of useless expressions and the true method of employing them to the exclusion of all others." 

"History as viewed from Heaven, with each event accompained by a host of others that could just as well have taken 

"The Metamorphosis of Nothingness." 

In concluding Valery writes that "Messrs. NO and TI ofter lamented the loss of all these precious books. And they 
decided to write in concert a great work, on the understanding that one of them was to think and say nothing and 
the other was to write, and think nothing." 

Later, more about nothing, but not all in this sense. 

Each man carries his own past within himself-from the beginning. Man's real history (if it can be called that) is at 
each moment his present. Neither understanding his past or his present he feels about his future. Nothing at all is 
wrong with being amused and entertained by historical studies; but modern man doesn't stop here, for he thinks to 
gain what he calls "self-identity." Pursuing his past he thinks to find his present. He fails to realize that he seldom if 
ever gets at the real "facts" of history. He gets the historians' shaping of these facts. "Reasons and opinions 
concerning acts, are not history. Acts themselves alone are history. ..Tell me the Acts, O historian, and leave me to 
reason on them as I please; away with your reasoning and your rubbish. All that is not action is not worth reading. 
Tell me the What; I do not want you to tell me the Why and the How; I can find that out myself, as well as you can, 
and I will not be fooled by you into opinions, that you please to impose, to disbelieve what you think improbable or 
impossible. His opinions, who does not see spiritual agency, is not worth any man's reading; he who rejects a fact 
because it is mis improbable, must reject all History and retain doubts only." Blake wrote these words early in the 
19th century; they apply even more to our time with its gross proliferations. 

His wrong perspective on history incites modern man to ceaselessing negative political activity and intense forms of 
nationalism. Fooled by his past he misjudges his present. He thinks harsh training breaks the horses. It does. 
Afterwards the horses aren't fit to ride. 

The modern world began much earlier than the dates usually assigned to it by historians embracing the Italian 
Renaissance. There is not exact agreement as to when it began, but there is a record. "Thought is Act," says Blake. 
"Christs Acts were Nothing to Caesars if this is not so." This record, thought, is within ourselves. More correctly, we 
are in Thought. Those of us who have the wit and discipline can test it. Search for the teacher, if there is not wit; 
without will though, even the teacher can't help. 

What's really the problem with history? This: as it exists it falsifies the present. One is hardpressed today to find a 
modern man who thinks he is doing anything important or else otherwise, who isn't walking a historical and 
therefore false tightrope. "History will justify it," we hear on all sides. "Only history can bring it into focus." This 
stupidity has gone so far now that every U.S. President leaving office must have a library , make another data 
accumulation... for "historians," of course. 

One sees this beginning in the "serious" modern way with Francis Bacon. (Bacon's contemporary and psychical 
brother, the supreme apostle of rationalsim Rene Descartes, reinforced Bacon's work; his mind and body dualism, 
the corollary of Bacon's experimentalism, perpetuates the errors of modern science for its ideas extend into every 
phase of the modern world and appear most strongly inpractice where they are deined most vehemently in theory. 
To name only the two most rationalistitc areas: physics and education. "Rationalism," writes Rene Guenon, "in all 
its forms is essentially defined by a belief in the supremacy of reason, proclaimed as a real 'dogma', and implying the 
denial of everything that is of a supra-individual order, notably of pure intellectual intuition, and this carries with it 
logically the exclusion of all true metaphysical knowledge...") The same Bacon fried (or tried to ) Aristotle and 
Traditional doctrines and from his own overcooked and denatured works still feeds the modern mentality. No 
wonder it is ailing. Bacon, an Englishman, has the shopkeeper's mentality; he would tabulate, list, experiment. In his 
Novum Organum he urged compiling a "Catalogue of Particular Histories'extending through one hundred and thirty 
titles-hardly a scratch on the modern surface. Why? So we can draw "from grave and credible history and 
trust-worthy reports." Why? So the understanding can "be expanded and opened till it can take in the image of the 
world as it is in fact," shaped by this "kind of second Scripture"- history. Why? So the human reace can "recover its 
right over nature." Why? Only Bacon and apparently the modern nentality know the answer to'this last question; but 
if any thinking person during the last third of the 20th century believes that man must dominate Nature, he is truly 
blind to man's destructive excesses-toward both himself and the world. Man will never dominatenatureherself , for 
Nature is on an order in the universal scale superior to anything ordinary men (the only ones who would be stupid 
enough to try to dominate her) can imagine. Of the works of Nature within our ken man is the most glorious: he has 
an intelligence illuminatedby Intellect and thus the potential to become more than man. In this sense nature gains 
with man, or there is no nature. And this too takes on the color of a "historical" problem-an inverse one 

Bacon would be proud of what he helped to begin; and would wonder how we are faring with his words that " to 
much method produces iterations and prolixity as well as none at all." But we know. ..Poor Bacon, modern man that 
he was, was naive enough to think that a natural and experimental history would support "a true and active" 
philosophy. "Primary History," or the "Mother History" he calls his version. A sick mother bears unhealthy 

Although he has read little of it, and understood less, Bacon considered the philosophy of Aristotle to be 
"contentious and thorny." Bacon could not understand that Aristotle deals with the vertical-knowledge, that which 
has being and is perceived by Intellect in conjunction with reason-and not mere date and information so important 
to the scientific and business mentality, entirely a horizontal accumulation trapping us in a bottomless quagmire. 
Thrash and see for yourself. 

Without going too much further into the matter let Bacon's own words pinpoint an important aspect of one of the 
chief modern problems: "they who shall hereafter take it upon them to write natural history should. out and 
gather together such store and variety of things as may suffice for the formation of true axioms." 

Interesting, very interesting, as if "true axioms" can be formed from random collections of data. Man intrinsically 
possesses all that is axiomatic or he could not exist as man. Bringing the axiom to light is a kind of true wisdom ; "if 
we were without this wisdom, all things would, from the outset, have no existence in themselves, says Hui-neng, the 
Sixth Patriarch. Aristotle's work shows the axiom to be principle to any kind of learning. He defines the axiom as 
that which one "who intends to learn anything must necessarily possess." This could be all rubbish like so much of 
modern writing were it not possible to test it; methods exist whereby one can find out these things, and more, for 
oneself One does not have to depend on Aristotle or any written source however venerable. The test is in the eating 
and the digestion! And Bacon thought "the end rules the method." Will modern man completely destroy himself 
before he realizes the reverse is true when it is founded on correct principles derived from Intellect not mere 
information apewed from "bastard reasoning." 

Man always experiences difficulty at the beginning 
of any endeavor: is not his birth one of pain 
and sorrow endlessly complicated by his running 
from the fact? Will man never consolidate? Rain 
beats his house down, the clouds shift and change 
ever forming new images reflected in water. 
Flowers grow from the damp earth, birds range 
through the sky in full freedom. Here a potter 
turns his wheel spinning the clay into the form 
he seeks in the practice of his art; all confusion 
follows the hesitating hand. Order in the storm, 
shaping the clouds; lightning, fire and consolidation. 

In the ceaseless urge to break out the ignorant deed 

becomes the chain forged by the enslaving creed. 

Nietzche, fascinating because he got so many things wrong but said them excellently. This reflects one of the 
primary traits of modern man: reaching some right conclusions but for the wrong reasons, or misusing reason and 
attempting to elevate it ot the status of Intellect. Nietzche paralogizes, deduces certain apparently true conclusions 
from false principles. Again, this a matter of degree; the True itself, always an absolute and never a relative in any 
respect, cannot come about in conjunction with an erroneous principle. Good only appears to come from false 
reasoning or, we might add, wrong actions. Nietzche's work is an epitome of modern Western thought: beautifully 
structured to all appearances and based at best on reason while entirely confused and wobbly about its ground, 

People think that just because two thinkers use the same words they mean the same things-an amusing but 
dangerous one-dimensional fantasy. Ignorant of cause, people disregard effects. Confused about sense, people are 
doubly confused about common sense: indivisible, it distinguishes "what it is in which contraries, and things of an 
heterogeneous nature, differ from each other." Nietzsche speaks this confusion. He took his understanding of Greek 
thought second-hand (in spite of or maybe because of the fact that he was a trained philogist like every modern 
who comes at the Greeks from the wrong angle, the Roman or Latin point of view. Nietzsche certainly would be the 
first to claim otherwise. ..Let him, or his would-be defenders. Nietzsche didn't labor fruitlessly. He and his 
not-as-clever 20th century continuators have a real value: they force one to rethink, correctly. 

A law: When the worm bores, other apples prosper. Consider. Another source, because of its Traditional point of 
view and its attention and fidelity to the great Greek commentators who have been to the man almost totally 
ignored, or worse, misrepresented by scholars down to the present day in the Latin- influenced West (the exceptions 
to this could be counted on the fingers of one hand), rectifies and correct the degeneration from Greek thought and 
Tradition itself demoniacally expressed in a majority voice in Neitzche 's work-the Arabic falasifah, most purely 
transmitted by the Eastern school whose outstanding member is the Muslim Sage Ibn Sina. Thinkers using Arabic 
were spared Latin mistranslations and interpretations of Greek-formulated intellectual doctrines, and thus spare us. 
(Perhaps the single strongest exception to this widespread (even the earliest times) Latin impulse would have been 
Boethius had he lived to carry out his plan of literally translating all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin and writing 
commentaries to show their continuity with Tradition and the essential unity of their doctrines. This work has to 
wait thirteen centuries, or until the 19th century, before it was undertaken and completed in a pure traditional spirit 
by one inspired man- Thomas Taylor, whose effort must be measured by the grandeur of his achievement rather 
than by the results of its effect. Boethius's work would undoubtedly have had an immense impact, and all for the 
better to judge only from what he did complete, on the whole course of Western civilization. Each great thinker 
presents a prime example of the single individual's importance- when his life and work is grounded in Intellect. For 
then one is no longer mere individual...) And on this count alone, not to speak of other merits in the magnificent 
Islamic intellectual tradition, reward careful study. 

One further irony on the reading of history. Heidegger, who has written two volumes and more on Nietzsche, and 
who should know what he is talking about on this subject, has made a distinguished career of talking about nothing. 
Pardon, talking about nothing. Heidegger has it that metaphysics (considered as "an interpretation of beings in their 
beingness") had its historical beginning in the West with Plato and Aristotle; he sees that metaphysics became 
nihilistic "with an obscuration of Being itself, an event which is not the work of men but the history and fate 
(Geschick) of Being itself," and lost its meaning culminating in Neitzsche, with him as witness. As if Being itself, 
standing outside and supporting time, would have a history or a fate! "THe nub of the matter is that for Heidegger 
all methphysics is a nihilism." How do we overcome such nihilism? By passing beyond metaphysics "in order to 
meditate the Being-process itself." MeditateNot really. Heidegger says, "We are not to do anything; we have to wait'.' 
Heidegger has proved to the satisfaction of many philosophers, some of whom have also made distinguisehd careers 
fro themselves by convincing others that Heidegger has been talking about nothing have indeed themselves talked 
about nothing, that Aristotle and Traditioanl thinkers also talk about nothing. This could be very amusing and great 
fun for all if it were not serious. 

The conclusion, put simply, is this: too many people who should be able to read Traditional writers and take from 
their work principles which have multiple application in the modern world are hung up. Aristotle, for example, 
wrote to correct theparalogizing tendency in human thought; each century since has seen an accumulation of error 
based on this kind of false thinking. Men have always thought their judgement , discernment, and wisdom 
abundant-and never in greater measure than today . Consider Herakleitos' word: Although it is the Logos which is 
the supra-individual Ground from which all things arise, the many live in such a way as if they had each his own 
self-originated plan of action." (Note that for Herakleitos writing ancient Greek logosmeant Aion, the Eternal, the 
formula of all things; it should not be confused with New Testament Greek, logos of centuries later translated as 
verbum, Word, by Christians. Moreover, ancient Greek logoshas many additional meanings that occur in later writers' 
works. We translate Herakleitos' technical term xunos by "universal" or common" etc. -as meaningless to the 
reader in this context as it would have been to Herakleitos.) Heidegger, Nietzsche, and others of their persuasion 
who are less interesting and important seek to spoil the milk by trying to poising the cow. ..Their disciples urge us to 
drink the milk: become their adversaries and find our answer! 

Aristotle must finally be recognized for what he is; classicists and philogists posing as thinkers have worked him over 
too long. For one thing, Aristotle remains one of the best Zen men ever, and certainly one of the best in the Western 
perspective. Too many men have spent too long explaining what Zen is (and isn't) for more words to be used on this 
here. We are frozen in sensation, w have forgotten, in Aristotle's words, that "life is defined in the case of animals 
by the power of sensation; and in the case of man by the power of sensation and intellection." {Life, get this word.) 
For man this means universal knowledge (noein) as a product of \ntz\\{nous), not more sense data or even 
parapsychological "evidence" confused by modern investigators with a "higher" order. 

Moral: for too long men have been served straw and told it is nourishing. Man must eat, even modern man. He must 
regain his discrimination-learn to know what food nourishes and brings life, and what food takes away from life and 
brings disease and death. (In this connection see our "A Model of Man's Nutritional-Food Structure" & notes in Big 
Rock Candy Mountain: Resources for Our Education Delaconte Press, New yrk, 1972, pp. 166-169. The extension 
dimensions of the MODEL and likewise the two identical internal configurations were intended to conform to the 


2 + Y 2 



where p is over 2-however inexactly represented in this first published version, p 2 expresses the formula of the 
ellipsoid, familiar to all the chicken egg. What something of this means can be approached by reflecting on Plate 33 
in Ajit Mookerjee's Tantra Art: its Philosophy & Physics rvi kmar, New York, 1966. And see the end of section 
10 below...) 

Modern Man no longer distinguishes up from down supposing each to be the same thing. In the age of synthetic food 
everything becomes synthetic , inorganic; and the living breaks down. ..Our time, the ageof Cancer, shall we call it? 
Where can modern man find food, living, organic, healthy food? In Truth. Where is this to be found? Chew on the 
words from Hui-neng, and after digesting them try to ask the same question. Try... 

" If you yourself would gain the true, 
Separate from the false; there the mind is true. 
If the mind itself does not separate from the false, 
There is no True. What place is there for it to be?" 


Assignment. Characterize the modern world in one word. Hard? Try it anyway. Painful,gross, cruel, evil, ugly, beautiful 
polluted. ..Many, many more words could apply. If the list were extended far enough an interesting balance would 
surely develop: even the modern world is not all evil, if at all, however shrill we sometimes become in denouncing 

Confused. This is the word; no other single word fits so well. 

What characteristic of man's nature can we point out as most contributory to the reigning confusion? Did confusion 
begin spasmodically in the past? Does it only rear its ugly head here and there as one observes and reads and 

We read in Genesis of Babel. Mere "myth," of course, as every well-read and intelligent modern man knows. One 
wonders: how many generations were there between the Fall and Babel? Genesis covers this (what must have been 
great?) extent of time in eleven chapters. But really, was there any time as we reckon time?. ..Isn't Babel now if it ever 
was? Look around... (Qabala, meaning that which is received, shows us that Genesis is a rich text of Traditional 
Science-every letter-number of the Hebrew words a coded formula expressing universal and particular energy 
differentiations. Energy intereactions are now (always) and everywhere. History and "myth" as the modern 
mentality interprets it does not apply to these things any more than to relativity equations. Theological diffusions 
have overlaid the purity of Genesis too long. It and other such texts are not to entertain "intellectuals," bequile dull 
adults, and mislead children unfortuante enough to come within the sphere of certain influences. Why are such texts, 
then? To see what is. From this every why is answered; lacking it the question cannot be asked). 

Youth answers the call to life, seeks the mountain 
for a test of strength and endurance. No abyss 
seems to open underfoot; water from the fountain 
of youth springs in the blood: youth hears no hiss- 
the serpant swims in deam, in the short night 
before day kissed with sleep. Sunlight always glows 
with intensity just before sinking in the rock, plight 
of folly mistaking the concrete for such shadowy shows 
flickering on the walls and unrecognized. What manner 
speaks most loudly in these affairs? What now brings 
good fortune, What brings success? What banner 
will youth fly? These questions put it sharp. He sings 

best who spares himself for the long, hot race 
run in sand as well as up the cliff's deadly face. 


Form his reading of history modern man has come to stake his present and future on his false faith and belief in a 
so-called evolutionary process. Many men today are outraged when evolutionary concepts are pointed up for what 
they are-a form of "scientific" religion actually having nothing to do with real science in any manner. Evolutionary 
thinking gives rise to "progress" reasoning: all that is of value unfolding, coming, always later. This thinking 
attempts to reduce the cosmos and the Universal Being in which the cosmos is grounded to the form of a linear 
equation, if one can even speak this kindly of it. 

Modern man thinks the best is yet to come. He looks for miracles. He doesn't have the vision to realize he is the 
miracle; his mere existence, or for that matter, the existence of anything constitutes a wonder except to the blind. 

"How wondrously supernatural! And how miraculous this! I draw water, I carry wood!" 

If man wants perfection let him look without and experience within, or look within and experience without. "The 
Kingdom (Both/and simultaneously. Proklos states it in the formula: "Thus all intellectual forms both subsist 
unitedly in each other and at the same instant distinctly separate.") is within you and it is without you." Everything 
is what man is himself. "One must become identified with Nothingness and mirror the whole, for the truth is one 
and final," says Hseih Ling-yun. 

But Nothingness used as a technical term to approximate a principle of metaphysic should not be confused with 
philosophical nihilism discussed above. Metaphysic (not metaphysics , strictly a philosophical nomen) participates 
in Intellect and when it is expressed derives its authority entirely from such intellectuavision; but metaphysics as 
philosophically understood formulates reasons based on reason to satisfy reason about reason's constructs which in 
turn lead to more reasons, again with the expressed purpose of taking reason out of its cul-de-sac. .(Reason alone 
functions incapably of determining truth about anything: the function of reason is mistake. Now mistake is 
characterized by non-discrimination, total attachment of its object-functioning state. Thus reason always makes an 
"object" of its functioning. The irration, certain aspects of reason denying Intellect, becomes the reasonable for the 
modern mentality and constructs a "logic" which view everything "reasonably." Reason's logic-the dog in pain 
biting at its hind leg. The modern mentality cannot understand that the real function of logic is to properly link 
reason with Intellect and to precisely uncover the laws revealing such a structure so that by strict adherence to these 
laws reason remains reason never overflowing its boundaries and being neither one whit more nor less that what it is. 
Aristotle 's Organon in the Occident and the darsana-s organized through the Samkhya-Nyaya-Sutra in the Orient 
provide a logic to show this with extraordinary fidelity. (See Dant, Paradiso, XXVI. 25-45, and again refer to the 
discussion in section 2 above.) Only a scientific logic, one deriving the principles of its reasoning from Intellect, has 
authenticity; only this harmonizes the sensible, rational, and intellectua in living dynamic relationships perfectly 
according with what-is. Here is both the termination and the beginning of the ancient but at this very instant 
continuing search after ousia- "what being is, is an inquiry what essence is, ti to on, touto esti, tis e ousia") 
Nothingness, Chinese wu, corresponds to Sanskrit asat, sometines understood as Non-being-at handogya Upanishad 
6. 2.1., for example. Commenting on wu Hsieh says, "The state of mirror-like voidness(of Nirvana) is abstruse and 
mysterious(but only to reason, not to 

Intellect which admits of no mystery or doubt) and does not admit of any stages (for its attainment)." The modern 
Chinese thinker Fund Yu-lan adds: "What is called wu represents this highest stage-a state which if it is to be 
achieved at all, can be achieved only in toto, and not in a gradual and piecemeal fashion." Of course only matter and 
its derivatives, material things, are bounded by composition and place and time; a condition or state not so 
limited-more precisely, unlimited- either is participated in entirely or not at all. 

The point is that man has already achieved It; denying It (independent of any technical term we use to point as It) 
constitutes man's problem. All of Traditional Science aims at leading man to realize Nothingness in this sense; and as 
it has been said in another context, if man did not fully possess It he could not search for It. NOr as It a 
"something" that comes into being in any future state of reward as religious literalists, including most modern 
Christians in one way or another, whether fundamental or liberal, maintain in constradistinction to Traditional 
Science which bases itself on the Certainty born of Knowledge, not vague faith or hope (however theologically 
sophisticated) characterized by sentiment. 

The burden of Plato's Meno is to provide the strongest possible demonstration of this, or at the least a pointer to 
It-for those who can see. This virtue, power, knowledge (Greek arete Chinese te) "consists in that kind of 
knowledge and that kind of power, taken together, the potential of both whichis in the human soul [considered as a 
principle, not entity] , as she partakes of a divine Intellect, whose essence is its own object, and whose energy is th< 
contemplation of itself, and the government of the universe." (Traditional Science knows the soul as a principle, not 
entity, and a principle more concrete (as principles always are seen sub specie aeternitatis) than any entity thought 
of as such in the physical world. Physics demonstrates no entity-thing has concretion being in substances 
positive-negative charges, "shadows "in a sense ceaselessly moving. For anything to become manifest in the first 
place a stable, concrete Energy must support it; not ' create" it but bring it into manifestation, 
body-a-somef/zz>?g-forth. "She=Adon Yahhid is unique and has no second and the face of ONE, what are you?" asks 

the Sepher Yetzirah. ,, do you know? What are you worth?" Here is not the place to go further into the nature of 
the "soul," or the apparent conflicts within Traditional doctrine on the subject. Clear understanding traditionally 
presupposes immediately-perceived experience totally independent of sense-data limitations. We have worked it out 
symbolically (for symbols are the calculus of Traditional doctrines ) as it can only be so conveyed in our 
forthcoming book De Testimonio Animae. And on this note a word from Pascal: "The letter kills; everything came 
to pass symbolically. The prophets showed that it must all be spiritual.") 

Asvaghosha sets up and demolishes man's existential pseudo-problem in one stroke: "Because of not truly realizing 
oneness with Suchness (as-It-w-ness), there emerges an unelightened mind and, consequently, its thoughts." 

"Ho!" shouts one who understands this. 

Often miserable now modern man thinks by "evolving" to reach a higher stage. He surveys the solar system and 
congratualtes himself; he stands supreme, he thinks, but then in doubt he uses all means at his disposal to search for 
"intelligent life." Unable to communicate more than superficially with himself and other men he runs terrified from 
his own silence, mistaking his non- intelligibility for non existence and fleeing into the maw of death priding himself 
on his conquest of Life. Again Sophocles \nes echo in our ears, 

"There is much that is strange, but nothing that surpasses man in strangeness." 

Man creates the world; it is not the world that creates man. Correction. Man creates both his world and the world. 
But can we separate the one from the other? They "said to Him: When will the new world come? He said to then 
What you expect has come but you know it not." Man must return to his Beginning; there he will find his End. "Only 
through the divine can one hurry without haste and reach the goal without walking." And, one might add, without 
evolving or reincarnating here. 

First one finds perfection in himself, then he finds it in the world. Only an idiot seeks for perfection in things 
without seeing it in his own self. "Whoever knows the All but fails (to know) himself lacks everything." As for the 
world, "the world is what it is, samsara there is no 'evolution,' there is no beginning and there is no end. By 'going' 
one does not reach the 'end of the World'." The world is no more perfect or less percect than it has ever been or will 
be. "The Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth and men do not see it." Man is, his being is not a becoming 
in time in any fundamental or essential way, and certainly not an "evolvement" from a lower to a higher order of 
life as Darwin and company continuing into the 20th century anxiously try to establish on a "scientific basis. 
Modern man stuffs himself on a sense- concocted, multi-media diet of garbage. When he crys helplessly in the night, 
"Oh, my stomach!"-who listens? 

Aristotle provides some of the supreme intellectual texts (in the Traditional and timeless sense) to refute the tenets 
of evolutionary theory for those who have eyes to see and the ears to hear. He says in his Metaphysics: "Seed 
(sperma) is from other perfect natures which have a prior subsistence. Nor is seed the first thing, but that which is 
perfect; just as some one may say that Man is prior to see, not indeed the man who is generated from seed, but 
another [Man, or the Universal Man according to Traditional Science] from immovable Essence (ousiaa), and which is 
separated from sensible (aistheton) things is evident..." both to reason when it is understood (mediately-perceived) 
and to Intellect when it is seen (immediately-perceived). Modern man will seek in vain for his "beginning" whether 
he examines throughout the history of sensibles or measures and divides however subtly with his instruments, at best 
never more than extensions of his limited and finite senses. 

No intellectual thinker has ever believed, or could believe, in evolution. Proklos express it from this point of view 
with dialectical precision: "If the perpetuity which detains matter is always generated it is never being. Every thing, 
however, which is generated, is either always [perpetually] generated, or at a certain time. Hence, every thing which is 
generated, is never [real] being." 

Further, no really competent worker in biology believes any longer in evolution . Paul Lemoine, editor of Volume V 
of theFncyclopedieFrancaise on living organisms, writes in his summing up: "This exposition shows that theory of 
evolution is impossible. In reality, despite appearances, no one any longer believes in it. Evolution is a sort of dogma 
whose priests no longer believe in it, though they uphold it for the sake of their flock. " 

What are the priests of evolution going to do when the flock catches on? Maybe they can come up with something 
sillier than evolution. Maybe?. ..Who can say what modern man may do (or won't do) divorced as he is from Intellect. 

"Hold on," says the modern mentality. "Evolution, all this bad? Surely you're laying it on too heavy." 

Well then, let's try once more. 

Evolutionary theory denies the uniqueness of existence; it forces an artificial wedge into existence and thus directly 
or indirectly, intentionally or through ignorance (the real root of the matter) brings about further fragmentation in 
the already badly damaged psyche of modern man. By denying that "existence is unique" evolutionists reject 
Universal Being: all that existence contains "is but a manifestation, in multiple modes, of one and the same 
Principle." The ultimate consequences are to consign man to endless rounds of becoming , to "evolution"; from this 
thinking it is only a short step to the nonsense of superstition (modern man has the most "myth" bound and 
superstitious civilization possible) and reincarnationist concepts now swamping us. The kind of false thinking 
stemming from evolutionary theory and its associated aberrations just mentioned, worst of all, inhibits and corrodes 
the natural desire in man for Deliverance-his highest end which is to be gained by Knowledge, and Knowledge only 
and not anything else however much it may parade as some one of its semblances. 

But why does modern man deny his most natural desire, his desire for perfect Freedom? A Traditional text, the 
Visuddhi Magga, in the clearest way possible answers this question. "There are Gods and men who delight in . 
becoming [i.e. in the phenomenological aspect of things] . When they are taught the Law for the cessation of become 
[i.e. that which leads to perfect freedom, and is entirely nonphenomenological on any level whatsoever] , their mind 
does no t respond." Viewed from this persepctive Aristotle's first words in the Metaphysics glow with new meaning: 
"All men naturally desire to know" (Plantes anthropoi tou eidenai oregontai phusei). 

To Know: to directly apprehend First Principles. To achieve perfect Freedom-- that is what Traditionaltexts are 
talking about... 

Ask yourself now: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Science may waste its energies for some centuries yet, if 
such time is permitted, before even approaching an answer. But we Know the answer. ..don't we? 


And from Plato a text without comment. 

Here is "what I scientifically conceive, in the clearest manner about the proposed subjects of discussion. What that is 
which is always being, but is without generation, and what this is which is generated indeed [or consists in becoming 
to be] , but is never [real] being. The former of these, indeed is, comprehended by Intellect in conjunction with reason, 
since it always subsists with invariable sameness. But the latter is perceived by opinion, in conjunction with irrational 
sense, since it is generated and corrupted, and never truly is." 


Waiting provides the spends his life 
in waiting for understanding. He looks for light, 
for guidance among the innumerable puzzles. Strife 
never ends; always another river to cross. This fight 
spent cheaply in eating and drinking, nursing 
the body. O this life's nourishment enough! Fish 
swim in the flowing streams; in the sea swimming 
to what destination? Why must it finally come- 

this uncertainty like falling into a pit? To abstain 
from all action has its valuefbut in what medium?) 
to one who understands. We seek that clear pain 

in fear , but accept it like the uninvited guest 

who arrives at our table as a terrifying new test. 


The single greatest tragedy man has so far committed against man in the 20th century: the rape of Tibet and its 
continuing desecration. Tibet was the last Traditional society, the last theocracy , the last civilized people to resist 
the ruinous influenced of technology and live in peace with itself and its neighbors, linked vertically with the 
multi-dimensional totality of the Universal. All men suffer knowingly and unknowingly from a single unjust act 
against the earth and any of its living things, but how much more do we suffer with these people and because of 
their enormous loss. Now we, the whole world, compound and perpetuate this by ignoring it, and leaving the 
desperate men, women, and children victims of the terror who fled from Tibet forgotten and rotting in an area of 
India even the Indians reject. 

No country would not profit immeasurably in the only way that counts by taking in these people and resettling 
them among its own, and creating conditions as far as this is possible for them to continue their former lives. But 
such an action would be against the Zeitgeist: scientists would have no informational exchanges to make, politicians 
would have no votes to gain, statesmen could point to no technological or peaceful progress , and 
businessmen-included with the former three, the lowest of the four orders of chief priests in the modern 
world-could make no money worthy of the effort of exploiting them, for they have nothing and are not yet, 
thankfully , fodder for the technological mills, in other words, they are "untrained." 

All this should seem very familiar to Americans. For six centuries European man has seen infecting with his diseases 
(individual, religious, social, political) and squeezing the remaining life out of North and South American Indian 
culture. It has been left to archaeologists and anthropologists and workers in associated fields to convince modern 
man that the North and South American Indians even have ( or had) a culture. Unfortunately that is where it 
stopped-we are only convinced in a most superficial way and really do nothing about reversing the centuries-long 
trend. Our overall treatment of Indian culture in the Continental United States and Eskimo culture in Alaska is 
barely, if that, surpassed by Chinese Communists tactics against the Tibetans. We have done, and continue to do our 
worst (or best) to make these wretched peoples even more miserable before we finally extinguish them altogether. 
Perhaps most disastrous for the culture concerned we first turn the people into our our pet apes by encouraging and 
catering to their worst appetites, a practice based on our normal appetites; we then perform the coup de grace on the 
individuals when we "glorify" them by integrating them into our culture, if we may so use this last word here. Once 
more in the business terminology so dear to the sentimental American heart, we "train" them, make them 
economically viable units to further our own aberrant passions for unnecessary material generation and 
comsumption. Since much present attention is focused on the American black man's problems, nothing further need 
be said about it at this point except ot mention it as another long-term example of forces unleashed by modern man 
and aimed at his own vital organs. 

Modern man screams ( or, too ignornat to scream, laughs) and tries to escape from the all too real vision of his own 
death grin staring him in the face; as the Chinese Communists squeeze and destroy the Traditional Tibetan culture 
and we aid and abet them by our indifference and neglect of all these most precious things-the same since timeless 
whether in our own North American and Eskimo cultures, we all draw nearer to the self-extinction we would flee 
from. For what resists extinction more than a life form? Poke at any insect. Go ahead, poke at man. yourself! 


Disregarding and ignoring the knowledge to be gained from Traditional Science about the multiple states of being, 
modern man has false ideas and applies false tests to determine what is or is not truly a science. With the new tool of 
his own creation, modern science, man fools himself ; he avoids a clear examination by Intellect into the most 
fundmental principle of the human psyche-essential knowledge can never be found in phenomenological things. 
Instead, the kind of endless examination and experimentation based on reason or perhaps a lower mentation 
necessary to modern science and considered its ultimate test of veracity, is actually no more than a mere 
rearrangement of data which leads at best to an information explosion. Witness today... 

Modern man says, "How can these fruits of our sciences be disregarded? Look what it has done for us. Look how 
more men live better than ever before. Look how it works!" 

It does work; that it doesn't is not the point, and could not be the substance of argument in an analysis. Whether 
something works or does not work on a most superficial level, or merely one of an indefinite number of levels each 
lower or higher in an universal order, can never be a valid or the final test of any act, intellectual effort, or science. 
Man shares being with the Infinite; Traditional Science stresses this in its laying bare of universal principles which 
show in their sweep and grandeur the total order. The world of the visible, matter, is subordinated to its proper place 
when correctly understood. Not a grain of sand, not a speck of dust, not any microbiological organism, indeed not 
any higher being in the universal structure (and non-structure, also) but does not have its relationship to all others. 

All are; all can be seen; strain and look! 

Traditional Sceince recognizes that "nothing is known essentially except as it exists in consciousness, everything else 
is supposition." It would be no exaggeration to say that this is the supreme principle of Traditional Sceince, and 
modern man has exactly turned it around in a scheme calculated to lead to his self-extinction. Entirely lacking 
discrimination modern man takes an image of the fire for Fire, or vice versa. "Wisdom {sophia) is one thing: to be 
skilled in true judgment, how all things are steered through all." Suppositions are dangerous when dealing with real 
situations-as Don Quixote found out to our amusement, and his discomfort. Opinion is not the same as knowledge 
it seems hardly worthwhile but is, to say. There is really no conflict. Intellect stands as the Principle and Ground of 
any Science, Traditional or modern. But Traditional Sceince is unthinkable without this Principle and Ground 
always central so that any consideration begins and develops and returns to it never losing the thread of its eneryg; 
modern science on the contrary largely functions to obscure rather than make transparent the energy of its source, 
and rather than matters of its speculation becoming more apparent the further this science attempts to penetrate, 
they become more concealed and confused. 

The desideratum for the remainder of the 20th century: an examination by the light of Intellect into the ground out 
of which modern science, and its primary product, modern civilization is growing. 

A corrective must be applied, but an inward, a consciousone. We drown in externals. On all sides indefinite opinion 
passes for knowledge; but Knowledge itself comes from the Intellect and only becomes our when we use it. The trust 
of forces leading to our self- destruction, these incoherent powers and principalities nourished by reason alone 
counsel us to accept supposition (=suppos-ing) for knowledge (=know-ing). We wage war, we battle, "we wrestle not 
against flesh and blood, but..." 


Life turns, reveals itself to all, all experiencing 

it on whatever plane as a battle not pitched 

for a day only but in the bloodstream; roaring, 

it peels the nerves. Each, a multitude of one, pitted 

against his own bone-the army in which perseverance 

means discipline organized for the right action. 

Without it ruin; no course without this balance 

leads to the success we seek. If we saw a fraction 

of the carnage would we continue persistent? 

who could (being in command jover turn the cart 

and spill the corpses in the mud? Pitch the tent, 

let the army retreat within; without we now part. 

From the strange spector surrounding us a cloud 

lifts and shows a clear view.blood, fools, the proud. 


Modern man desperately hunts down happiness but it evades him like quicksilver does a child. 
Where is it, he wonders, or it is all merely talk? Where, indeed? He mounts expeditions to the stars and dreams of going 
beyond; to fint it he develops sophisiticated techniques (he calls them this!) that remind one of the crew hunting for 
the Snark: 

They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care ; 

They pursued it with forks and hope; 
They threatened its life with a railway-share; 

They charmed it with smiles and soap. 

And needless to say modern man stands to find the happiness of his search as the crew did the Snark: 

"He had softly andsuddenly vanished away- 
For the Snark was a Boojum , you see." 

Yes, "a Boojum, you see." 
A man who is really happy has nothing to be happy about; he has nothing to hunt for. 

Happiness related directly to one's state of being, to a proper relationship, to... with hesitation the word is used 
today, to virtue, actually the source in man of that power which controls chance, ordinarily the visible cause of his 
misfortune. "He who has Virtue, controls the tally; he who has no Virtue, controls the levying." Happiness in its 
highest form is another name for the Good, that which all beings most desire. It has no connection with any 
external or material thing. But these things give one the reason to be happy: Happiness increases as one frees himself 
from them. It has been truly said that the richest man has nothing; having nothing he appreciates anything. This 
brings us to the relation between Non-being and Being. Permit the voice that speaks as LaO-tzu to say next to the last 
word. "What they have in common is called the Mystery, the Mystery of Mysteries, the Gate of all Wonders." What 
Mystery, what Gate, what Wonders? Who asks this question or, Who am I? 

Is the final Wonder not. ..Man who asks, "Who?... 


Holding together brings final and complete union, 
the kingdom depends on deep affection between 
the king and the lords: thus the necessary union 
comes. Water lies on the earth, a rich sheen 
spread for the eye. The crane flies down 
to drink on her long journey across the land. 
The sun plays on her great wings in a crown 
of light as she dips into the water turning and 
without plan. She follows her nature from herself 
devoid of conflict. Can we have such simple goals 
goals to hold like a full earthen bowl: to ourself 
true, steady, the ruler always of our temple? 

Now the crane has a last drink before her flight, 
and as we watch climbs away from our sight. 

H/)V£N 0'/f)RF 






r^ v 


* * 

L m 




i ^5 



rp- :^»"** 




JfT«3 Ai&TO^L/NErmER 506TECT AWROBJtCi; A1077/£R /AJNkR, 
/^QR (WJERi A)£/77/£R7E\)SJ0W MOR RE/^MT/Q/O.GREX /SA30T 
RWD/Mr/4P/Wn70/\) 8ET1ME6M C0tfp^^tt<r/>REA3.&R£ry 
I J /4 BERUN (aM /, /JM ( ROM OJRTAfM, ON C/Ttf £# 5 1 DC OF ^H/Oi 
/3 /) DtTFER&ST ftPPWAOi. 

PrtRT/*)D/N:$u£/)TlE5 H/Al^U FRO/n PJRECT PflK7Kim7/OA) 8/ 
C£/fyJN(h (MiTH (MK^T /^CmuST mtQiflMCALUj mb AKTiFlCJMLY 

even oohcaj /iPMRewnv FWTKrp/iTiAkr'F) THCFyu^o^ey is 


But he docs wt rouc/ auovm w/iftEtF to bc-owc /NVOLUSrD. 




•— *■ 

— — 




* f/- 







— varans 

ivoidably, all languages and other sign systems preclude 
metaphysical premises. Roland Barthes repeatedly asserts that 
signs remain open and by necessity unverifiable. So it 
seems that every social institution, from religion to traffic 
regulations, operates as a communication mode with no more 
authority that the rules of speech. What gives such institutions 
their power over our lives is their consistency. Whatever is 
done within a semiotic system is always structurally consistent 
with what has gone before . The pattern of concepts is 
recognizable because it proceeds with reference to its own 
past. It is this repetition abetted by a proscribed order that 
defines man[s connection to and separation from nature. 

Obviously the major semiotic traditions - religion, 
philosophy, art, and architecture - no longer serve to integrate 
society with the natural order. Art is irrevocably divorced 
from present technology, or for that matter from all essential 
intellectual ^activity. The art impulse, as we have seen, is 
virtually a parody of its former self. And doubtless it is the 
domination of patriarchal institutions that accounts for the 
overall rejection of art as an economic luxury and unnecessary 
metaphysical baggage. On the other hand, it is the artist [s and 
art historian [s ability to understand the nature of art that 
prevents them from projecting art into all aspects of life, as an 
apprach to living. Thus the dehumanizing effects of 

technology continue with no adequate answer as to why they 
are so consistently lethal. We refuse to accept the reality that 
technologies preclude the use of myth and ritual just as art 
now does. However, the difference is that scientific tools only 
allow us to Cllltliralize the natural, never the reverse. Very 
conceivably biological survival depends upon naturalization of 
the cultural as well. Yet it is acutely apparent that few if any 
of our social agencies have the capacity to incorporate both 
procedures into their structures. There was a time, even prior 
to the Renaissance, when art and science were compatible. 
One great example of such ecumenical art is described in 
detail by Gerald SXawkins in his book Stonehenge Decoded. In 
this instance the word art is used deliberately to define 
what it is for people who build and experience universalizing 
institutions, and not to denote sites or objects of high 
archeological or museological interest. 

In the 1950 s Hawkins, a professor of astronomy, began to 
explore the Stonehenge site located near Amesbury in 
southern England. For hundreds of years Stonehenge was 
believed to be Druid temple. But Hawkins' investigations 
during the early 1960's and his papers "Stonehenge Decoded" 
(appearing in Nature, October 26, 1963) and "Stonehenge 
Neolithic Computer" (appearing in Nature, June 27, 1964) 
proved rather conclusively that the site is a 3,500-year-old 
astronomical observatory. 

In plan Stonehenge consists of six concentric 
configurations the outer two are circles of holes?the next, 
being the most regular and obvious, is the columns and lintels 
of the sarsen circle?within this is the much smaller bluestone 
circle? and in the center are the five giant trilithons and 
bluestone horseshoes. The two horseshoes line up with a point 
on the horizon where the midsummer sunrise occurs. The 
larger stones weigh from 20 to 50 tons apiece?consequently 
one of the most fascinating aspects of Stonehenge is the 
speculation of how a portion of these monoliths were 
transported three hundred miles ot their final destination. 

Some obvious alignments impelled Hawkins to believe that 
there might be further sun-moon alignments between the 
archways of the sarsen circle and the trilithons. Even with 
many of the original monoliths lost or misplaced in 
reconstruction, the astronomer descovered that there are at 
least twelve significant alignments each for the sun and the 
moon, defined by the minima and maxima declinations of 
these celestial bodies. Subsequently, Hawkins proposed a 
theory that the holes surrounding the sarsen circle, with the 
aid of marking stones, were used as a computer to predict 
years of eclipse or seasons when the moon is visible through 
various apertures of sight. Notably, all of Hawkins, discoveries 
were vastly facilitated by a high-speed digital computer. 

Still and all, this brief description does not begin to impart 

the remarkable intellectual skill involved in the planning of 
this edifice. Maneuvering thrity-ton monoliths, the 
artis-scientists of Stonehenge lined up axes of sight for dozens 
of celestial positions, without the use of modern surveying 
instruments or engineering equipment. The entire project 
spanned four or five hundred years, ending around 1500 B.C. 
Yet what did it meanTThis is Hawkins[ opinion: 

The Stonehenge sun-moon alignments were 
created and elaborated for two, possibly three, 
reasons: they made a calendar, particularly 
useful to tell the time for planting crops; they 
helped to create and maintian priestly power, by 
enabling the priest to call out the multiude to 
see the spectacular risings and settings of the sun 
and moon, most especially the midsummer 
sunrise over the heel stone and midwinter sunset 
through the great trilithon, and possibly they 
served as an intellectual game (Hawkins, p. 117). 

Strangely, the astronomer's references also echo Duchamp's 
subtitle for The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even, 
in which he called the Glass an "Agricultural machine" or 
"Apparatus, instrument for farming "Did Duchamp have some 
inclination of art's prehistoric purposes (its use in farming, 
hunting, and lawmaking), or was he simply a priest with the 
power to end the priesthoodTStonehenge was nevertheless far 
more vital than the Glass Bead Game. Notably this ancient 
English calendar involved the labor of thousands of people 
over several centuries. In mediating cultural and natural 
elements Stonehenge assumes all the prerequisites of a work of 
art. If an artist were to design a monumental work embodying 
the greatest possible union beyween man's postion on Earth 
and the cyclical events of the chief celestial bodies, the bvious 
choice would be some variation of this edifice. 

We have seen that the language of relationships within the 
visual arts has steadily deteriorated to the extent that it exists 
in only the most trasparent terms. Art as we know it is bound 
to disappear shortly. But what actually is dying: a social order 
or a specific set of myths [ More than likely the answer is both 
In her recent book, Natural Symbols, the anthropologist Mary 
Douglas alludes to the fact that the symbols of art are another 
measure of the strength of ritual in a society, although the two 
are by no means congruent. As forms of signification are 
discarded, ritual differentiation between the role of an artist 
and other members of society has gradually faded, as has the 
idea that art contains some particular efficacy, magical or 
otherwise. Moreover, avant-garde art is probably the first 
instance in which artistic expression is programmatically 
destroyed by artists in the name of "visual exploration," 
which is hardly surprising since this term is a surrogate for the 
scientific impulse. In Dr. Douglas' words: 

We are then able to see that alienation from the current 
social values usually takes a set form: a denunciation not only 
of irrelevant rituals, but .of ritualism as such: exaltation of the 
inner experience and denigratioP of its standard expressions'' 
preference for intuitive and instant forms of knowledge, 
rejection of any tendency to allow habit to provide the basis 
of a new symbolic system. In its extreme forms antiritualism 
is an attempt to abolish communication bv means of complex 
symbolic systems. 

It follows that her last sentence also pertains to science. The 
most obvious consequence of demythification is that, once 
begun, it probably will not stop until the entire semiological 
infrastructure of the present society is uprooted. Just as it 
denies history, Structuralism is paradoxically a tool of 
historical change. 

One of the truisms of Structuralism is that myths mirror or 
recapitulate the social structure supporting them. The fact that 
art has its "patrons," "benefactors," and "tastemakers" simply 
informs us that once out of the hands of the artists, art acts as 
a kind of social counter or signal denoting status and financial 
worth. In centuries past art's function was to act as a medium 
for religious or political ideologies. Today the acquisition of 
valuable art is in itself an ideological act. Mythologically, this 
financial quantification of the art impulse is simply an 
extension of the underlying value system, just as works of art 
are considered "priceless" only in the sense that any object, 
once awarded a niche in art history, is irreplaceable to the 
myth. The real purpose of art's costliness is to make us aware 
of the venevolences and merits of those who control art 

Until recently artists operated ambivalently as martyrs and 
eccentrics, symbols in a society absolving itself by occasionally 
buying a transubstantiated peice of the artist. This was true 
even as Albert Aurier wrote in 1890 that "The painter's 
subject is in himself . . . All spectacles, all emotions, all dreams 
resolve themselves for him into combinations of patches; into 
relationships of tones and tints; into lines" (Gimpel, p. 143). 
And since the early nineteenth century the greatest artists have 
made essentially autobiographical art. Such personalism 
reached its logical conclusion when a few artists today simply 
document their own bodily activites. In its final stages, this 
represents the termination of the iconic impulse. Even 
attempts to buy or underwrite Earth Art or Conceptual Art 
only stress the fact that the collector is willing to pay for his 
own demise. But just as inevitably the production of "normal" 
modern art will continue. For how long and under what 
circumstances is still a matter of speculation. 

While- the collector and artist are clan members in danger of 
losing their totemic system, it is difficult to believe that such a 
concept will not be replaced by something much more 
essential to contemporary life. Marshall McLuhan is perhaps 
the first interpreter of communication to understand what 
these changes involve: "It is well to disabuse ourselves of the 
'sense of myth' as unreal or false. It was the fragmented and 
literate intellectualism of the Greeks that destroyed the 
integral mythic vision to which we are now returning ..." 
(McLuhan, p. 185). Most probably the new myths will be 
scientifically oriented, but devoid of the emotional aridity and 
repressiveness which so many people associate with present 
scientific methods. 

We are witnessing the death throes of the classical art 
impulse and more than likely the birth of a totally new 
understanding of the social use of sign systems. STructuralism ' 
itself seems to be a dalectical device for removing mankind 
from the lingering influences of Classicism. Ideal time and 
scientific experimental idealism remain outgrowths of the 
classical frame of reference. They stem from the intuiton that 
location and proportion transcend the illusion of time, thus 
embodying the myth of art as well. In both classical artistic 
and scientific experimentation the strictest control is exacted 
over the ordering of isolated but complementary relationships. 
Reduction, isolation, and manipulation are the foundations of 
the classic inventive structure in art or technology. 

It is now possible to understand the importance of gravitational 
effects upon the mythic structure of art. Classical and 
Newtonian physics held that a body persists in a state of rest 
or constant motion except when affected by other bodies; the 
normal condition of all things being inertia. Classicism 
embodies the Western ideal of constancy. In contrast the art 
historical myth asserts that materially things change, but 
.psychically we remain the same. Yet since the beginning of 
this century, Einsteinian physics has insisted that all bodies are 
constantly being affected by other bodies; their normal 
condition is continuous motion and change. So it is obvious 
that the twentieth centry represents an enormously violent 
rupture between synchronic and diachronic habits of thought. 
As yet there are few if any diachronic traditions not absolutely 
disastrous to the welfare of society as a whole. We live one 
way but think another. But a few thoughtful historians have 
already disavowed most of the illusions of history as measures 
of change. From the vantage point of natural science, the idea 
of informational and technical complexity represents one of 
the only creditable criteria of mutability. However, cultural 
complexity - if we accept the Western standard of technical 
sophistication - may only be obtained by depleting existing 
ecosystems and biosystems. In other words, we seem to 
develop new modes of technology at the expense of 
surrounding environmental systems, including ourselves. Thus 
it remains to be seen if this one criterion of change, 
complexity, is more than another postclassical illusion. 

Art is disappearing because the old separations between 
nature and culture no longer have any classification value. 
Biology tells us that what is cultural is ultimately natural or it 
does not survive. Ecologists insist that what is natural must 
become an integral and valued part of our culture. All 
classification systems require a division of the world. 
Obviously the basic social revolutions currently under way 
present us with an extremely altered set of divisions, implying 
new priorities and patterns of existence. If in Levi-Strauss' 
terms humanization of the natural implies religion, and 
naturalization of the cultural implies magic, this should not 
threaten our sense of rationality nor prevent us from 

understanding that the two processes are an integral and 
natural function of human thought - both previously and for 
the future. Religion and magic are simply pejorative 
expressions for mental processes with exhausted content. 
Quite likely we are already formulating more suitable 
epistomological structures embodying the functions of religion 
and magic. These will be considered eminently logical and 
praiseworthy. // he understands his work, and the fact that it 
no longer demands mystification, the artist can still be a 
tremendously valuable figure in society. 

It appears that we have come full circle. Classicism has 
ceased because the center of artistic gravity is a mythical 
degree zero in space-time. We have reached that point. One 
remembers one of the notes placed by Marcel Duchamp in The 
Green Box: __ . . _ 

REgime of Coincidence 

Ministry of gravity 

Then Duchamp supplies directions for a painting or 
sculpture "Flat container in glass - (holding) all sorts of 
liquids. Colored, pieces of wood, of iron, chemical reactions. 
Shape the container and look through it -." 

"Coincidence" in this instance relates to the ambiguity 
between natural and cultural elements subjected to the most 
random and offhand methods of alteration by the artist. 
"Gravity" of course is the ultimate force controlling ali 
naturalizing effects. Duchamp's liquid-filled construction 
represents the randomization of artistic order - a work of art 
which is neither this nor that, art whose intentionality lies in 
its ambiguity and lack of a second signified. Together the two 
phrases signify the termination of artistic logic, art degree 

Possibly we are witnessing the Global Village in its first 
stages of development. Since art has reached Duchamp's Jura 
Mountains, perhaps we are already on the moon, and looking 
back from that vantage point we see only overall patterns and 
a totality of existence on the Earth that was never before 
available for our perception. Having long been shocked by the 
separateness of things, peoples, cities, countries, and 
continents, these premonitions appear hopeful. 



Southeastern /mz^ UANueRstfY 

T/W1ES T. CoiU^ Or. 

Assistant DiReCTo R 
PETEft Ionoom 


PfluL ROD0L?H 




?RODocTl 0/u //IMAGER 


/WflT UBERTbtier 




64 B SON OOiA47eP\ 

TfleODoRe. Hcumc. 

NOK/WO 0. BRouoM 

Arthur x.cuwr 

(tifii /flcDo/WCD 

3KOCC l/eccHnTTo 

KurT uonmegoT 3X. 






£d<ji3 U)CxJaK 
CAROL G-ooDoo/M 

VAUL l/ASOAyie 1 1 3 

TawnKyoo To/\^yoMecoe:^i(G-f/rHA\JeAl^seD"To AfeArnoM. 

Fe/e/vj reavtum woks a my. tthaz bep^ said THfiT-mmruE oy\"5 

ACf//CUGriCAiTS. >VC HAD BQf\ ^y>t€XUH4T^£55 50CCCS5FOL 7?//»A) 

/wsibTif: /m pEi%jEM(to& mn&ws /as aJWATHewQAV 

"We /AJFeO£CT<»C /VfcUAiTa/N «/)p tJ\&oi\€D Id VP0DX£ Pt PHlLO- 
^oPtitcAL /HOUfcZ, AK& /) /UMvf MOOSE ATTHAT. /)5FCRAJ £X- 

pRc5seDTf<ePHi6D5owy co^va?5/n7^Mtiy/AJ /Ts sz/np^csno^s: 

/VuD tfCSAyS"OK f^^F/MC — GoocDAi'F I3C SC77tR."/lAJD yoU 

Aoo^/ajto H/s eYes,/>Aiz> yoo s£E:77V/N(rS 0)uq)wt ee/>?uoyax*&c 

(AJtfCAi YOU 6€T ^6HT £0U)/OT5 fl" £UeKy;BaDy'<5 HAUlWrA fcftxJty 


AJOTWlAto Se€M5T^ WfeLP /WJCtf. " 

TW/5 PHiLsZAPHY WD WT sADD&i Him^ZTDiV^Gf/rlAKerHi^l 

XT/n^De H/^ tf €^r?rt£^5Ly ooatchfol . 

XT HCLPeO /M 6vf S/AieSS TOO — ToK lTL£T FeftM /tS50"1C 

/^ownTcAo-v -mflrr-THc otter Franco w*-$> f^r (Aje*tce^ aasd 

SortO /IfeS/IoO, peopcr MT// ST7?O/0<5- STtwwc^S FOUWD FeRM'i 

/Hot^ieRco/i5ioeSFoAi/oy. yo/^^oT^. 

UMASS Dartmouth 

3 2922 00509 340 3 

OPao cuRjY)MO$ LeTiWc Pictures od/vic 


Pictures cf us 5Xouo as ooe'RE/KL Otoe. 

~XA/A lOAMDA J^MC .To£V)y OOAS <?0/ASG-75 BET/fly ElRDWAY, BcT 
X OiAS HiTSY W /C€-cR€»4|TfcocK -BEFC3GT CDoU) «4WET/H^ RIRTy. 
T/?M D£#D MOoO . X/9*1 /A/ ME^UEAl . I /M /«dT/mD AT"TB£: /CC-CKE/VH 

Xrjs-VNTHORT/VOOl. JT uyJSN T£U5W /}3 6/© /*$ 7WCST7AW- OF /\ 

3vMB<£:6ee. ta/a feauy happt here/ IT'S SOMUCH RJW.T/VM #/>P 

T& H6ft V6M fbR y€/>R3/?^l> /©9R3/WD /G4K3 . T CoOCX-D HAVC tf/4D 
Ho Go"To HlGti 5ctfooL. F<R3"T, /WD7B6AJ 3&KJTY COUEGGT. X OSOOLD 

/y/Juer/SWDToGcr/yj/^icD/vviD MVE&A&ies ahv £:va?y7?//A><3-. 

€(/£f?y BoOy uP HERE IS flflPpy — TBET/M/I1/J63 A\)£>78e De*0 
~TtU*i(r. THEY'RE ftLLGlAD &RCH^eueR s Z&sr~OiE/V\ HEREZMQBODy 
OF KILLING- 'Som.sXME, DOA>'TtAMDRRy /©OOT/F JOsT Go/*H£?)0/*AM>Z%) 

HI (uHoeven. >6o Co (TTo ^hoocd Ki 35 you F^Eoi^ /~P THE T5oO)/eR3 

OP H€]ZzrJ~UZr CDVElFteSfjIKAPKeLy /WO TRCTflNKS ^aiothcj^KweTs 

AMD DRiUKSEEIS' „ — ,. _ -r.-r,,