previous.gif     next.gif    
CALENDAR     


November 1960 (?)

In article was Da Vinci a fool because he designed a plane that couldn't fly. Was Kant a fool for his plan of Perpetual Peace, Dante?

November 12, 1960

Left NYC for Paris at 7:30. I worked all day at the University, stopped by the apt. just to pack a few more things & met Vicky at Penn Station. She cried when she saw me coming because she had bid good-bye to Jill at Princeton Junction and left her passport and handbag in the car when she boarded the train. For a moment the problem seemed impossible to solve, but I phoned Jill and it developed that she had raced the train to New Brunswick, missed it, but entrusted the purse to a conductor on a local train leaving for NY. So I met him, rewarded him with $3.00 for his kindness and got off in a taxi for the East Side Terminal. Then all went well. The plane was new, crowded with decent-looking Americans en route to a municipal affairs convention in Tel Aviv, and very fast. Helped by a tail wind, we were in Paris in 6 hours. Vicky got sick at one point from the bouncing of the tail in some gusts of wind, and scarcely felt well all day thereafter. At Orly, we and several others of our group who had been aboard were met by Embassy cars and carried to the Hotel Continental.

We bathed. I shaved. We ate a fine but expensive breakfast of stewed fruit, omelette and bacon & eggs, rolls and hot chocolate. Then we slept three hours. At five we reported in to the Marymount School in Neuilly where Vicky was enrolled by a very pretty Mother Garnier and placed in the hands of a diminutive schoolgirl to be shown the premises. I left, bought newspapers, ate at a modest restaurant for $2.50, not bad cuisine, watery soup, an entrecote with fried endives, tart, tomatoes, a little cheese and coffee with a fifth of wine. Walked to the Hotel and slept soundly till 8:30 the next morning. My only meetings with our delegation had been sporadic introductions and brief exchanges of pleasantries. I noted several unexpected members, particularly Julian Heischman, Mrs. Lloyd and Harry Krould, who is now with ICA.

Journal 1960 IV 5

The Stupefying Fact of this age is that Man, master of an arrogant and advanced science faces the same evils that menaced his primitive ancestors -- famine, war, and pestilence. The famine is boxed in the seven billion human frames that are soon to inhabit the Earth. War sends its deadly message to twenty countries every years and awaits a moment to announce the destruction of all peoples at once. The pestilence is a disease of the mind and will that sweeps through mansions and hovels, over rich lands and poor.

The imagination is shocked into silence before the grandness of Man's failure. All the knowledge of five thousand years, all the experience of a million years, all the instincts of natural creatures have barely stirred up eddies of hoe and change on the seas of time. For the starting place is the ending place. Is destruction Man's destiny?

Must the answer be the same as man has always given? Work harder! Install machines! Love God! Obey the laws! Redistribute the wealth! Kill this enemy! ... Hundreds of slogans & systems & institutions to accompany them have come about.

1960 ?

T & C

Very important in the training of social scientists to learn elementary logic and semantics of definitions, usages to reduce losses from jargon, prolixity, etc.

1960

The "law (principle) of geometric value accumulation

I. "The more one has, the more one gets." How does it work in

wealth:

business markets:

physical strength:

endowment of early education.:

So in relation to voting strength, "the more representation on has, the more rep. one is in a

position to get." "The more political access one has, the more access one can get." etc.

* * * * *

II The "law of value agglutination" "the more one has of one thing, the more one gets of other things."

the more money, the more power

the more power, the more money

the more money, the more education

the more education, the more money

* * * * *

Valid for organized groups as well as statistical aggregates of individuals in the case of both principles,

International Relations Folder

November 1960

Class incident --

amicology of Lasswell

objection to utility

explanation of the field of affection-value. What else to call its science -- sexology?

No sexology wd be under well-being

Spoken like the stereotype American girl. Laughter

Well, I suppose from a man's standpoint under power-value. More laughter.

Class dismissed.

In explanation: Lasswell & K. in Power & Society present eight values -- power, respect, rectitude, affection, well-being, enlightenment, skill, wealth. Amicology is the science of affection value. Could it be better entitled sexology if amicology seems so quaint. No, offered a girl, because sexology should be a subscience of well-being.

A Contrasting Theory to Rostow's Stages of Economic Growth

For World Politics of for Psychoanalysis & Psycho-Quarterly.

Soviet communism -- the key to the disenchanted world is dignity, inferiority feelings. Communism prospers in it bec. it is anti-West & yet has the western mechanicalism & technocratic motif that the ex-colonials identify w/ even while they bitterly resent loss of their culture. They hat the West while loving its power machines. By backing Communism they can reconcile the ambivalence & resolve the conflict Thus also we explain the great lief of Communism: its claim to have the best economic & political system -- an absurdity -- it wouldn't have gotten any recruits at all if it were not for the aforesaid situation because as performance it is inferior. The grand irony is the very hostility of Communism & its ideology to any subjectivism & psychology -- this very weakness (fundamental as it is of Marxism) is its strength because it stands like a naked metal shaft, no sentiment attached, no conflicts induced, free of Western values, Western "culture", do-goodness, charity, spirituality.

CHALLENGE OF THE RULE OF THE CHAIR ---- NOTES ON UNESCO MEETING OF NOVEMBER, 1960

The jockey seat is the first chair position of the U.S. delegation. For two days I was floor leader in this very exciting and touch place, where you have to keep your eyes on everything that's going on, and from time to time raise points of order. We had several rather exhilarating skirmishes during the two days. I have an impromptu speech at the beginning of the session the day before yesterday that went off well. I'm enclosing my notes on the speech that were jotted down during the hour or less of speakers who preceded me.

The Cuban came up the next day with a ticklish resolution they expected us to oppose very strongly and attempted to amend the resolution of the director general and also one of Viet Nam on top of that. We were heading for a beautiful mix-up that finally broke when I asked the chair whether the Cuban delegation would accept the suggestion, to wit, that since he felt that their amendment was so well revised and useful and scientific, they might add it on instead of using it as a substitute amendment. They went into a big huddle and came up and accepted the idea and we saved some valuable time. Then yesterday afternoon the Czechoslovak delegation introduced two resolutions and there was great confusion as to how to handle the matter. Our own delegate was in and out, hot and cold, tough and easy, etc., and most of the people seemed to shy away from any mode of strategy that I had devised, but I finally decided to go ahead with it anyway, and just before the gavel came down to begin the conference, I slipped over to the Australian table and told them that we were going to challenge the ruling of the chair, and they hardly had time to say yes, it was a risky thing,

CHALLENGE OF THE RULE OF THE CHAIR --- NOTES ON UNESCO MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1960

Hello, out there. How are you, Jill? Vicky was in yesterday. We talked about the flood of letters from you and your preoccupation with her condition, but she's fine. I think she's learning a lot. Yesterday was Thanksgiving and we spent the whole day at UNESCO. We went out and had lunch with a lady from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, a Ph.D who is on the delegation doing some of the educational projects with particular reference to Africa, and then had some turkey and mince pie last evening at the Kellerman's, the permanent representative at UNESCO. She was driven home in great style in an embassy car that Senator Van Keating of New York let us have. He is here with the delegation for a couple of weeks. A very nice chap; very much like the candidate for Senator from Illinois that you like so much that you used to work for. If I seem to sniffle I have just a bit of a cold because yesterday morning I was coming down with a real one and took a couple of Coricidin which killed it. Vicky not only met Sen. Keating but most of the other members of the delegation, some handsome young men several years too old for her at the moment. Cathy will no doubt gnash her teeth. But then she also sat in on the congress at which I was floor leader to the [ ] of two days in the jockey seat, which is the first chair position of the U.S. delegation. A very exciting and tough place to be because you have to keep your eyes on everything that's going on and raise, from time to time, points of order. We had several rather exhilarating skirmishes during the two days. I gave an impromptu speech at the beginning of the session the day before yesterday that went off well. I'm enclosing my notes on the speech.

The jockey seat is the first chair position of the U.S. delegation. For two days I was floor leader in this very exciting and tough place, where you have to keep your eyes on everything that's going on, and from time to time raise points of order. We had several rather exhilarating skirmishes during the two days. I had an impromptu speech at the beginning of the session the day before yesterday that went off well. I'm enclosing my notes on the speech that were jotted down during the hour or less of speakers who preceded me.

The Cuban delegation came up the next day with a ticklish resolution they expected us to oppose very strongly and attempted to amend the resolution of the director general and also one of Viet Nam on top of that. We were heading for a beautiful mix-up that finally broke when I asked the chair whether the Cuban delegation would accept the suggestion, to wit, that since he felt that their amendment was so well revised and useful and scientific, they might add it on instead of using it as a substitute amendment. They went into a big huddle and came up and accepted the idea and we saved some valuable time. Then yesterday afternoon the Czechoslovak delegation introduced two resolutions and there was great confusion as to how to handle the matter. Our own delegate was in and out, hot and cold, tough and easy, etc., and most of the people seemed to shy away from any mode of strategy that I had devised, but I finally decided to go ahead with it anyway, and just before the gavel came down to begin the conference, I slipped over to the Australian table and told them that we were going to challenge the ruling of the chair, and they hardly had time to say yes, it was a risky thing, in fact, just as I got into my seat -- of course everything is in four languages -- the Czechoslovak delegate raised his hand. The chair began to say "I now recognize the delegate from Czechoslovakia" and I leaped up on a point of order and then began a very intense duel for about three minutes, the motives of which were the following: I had to get the issue clearly before the membership, most of whom were just awakening to something being up and many of whom didn't know points of order. The chair had been doing a good job ... to some people there is always the presumption in favor of the presidential chair when the ruling is questioned, so I had no right to debate the point but could merely ask for a ruling of the chair, and yet I had to get some information. I had to appease the chair because he was friendly on the whole and this would be a direct challenge and rebuff if I weren't careful with it and I had to worry about whether he might debate the matter at length on the floor although he was not supposed to, so, I began by saying that we had a great deal of respect for the way in which he conducted the proceedings, that nothing we were going to question would in any way reflect upon his pre-eminence but that I would like him to explain why he had thought fit to introduce these resolutions from the floor. After asking him first and receiving affirmatively the answer that the two Czech resolutions were to be considered together adopted and called together, he began to feel that maybe something was up and looked a little disturbed and gave an explanation, a kind of defensive explanation saying that he more or less had to do it, that was the way he did things and so on. Meanwhile, I think that people were beginning to see a little of what was going on. Then I said that under those circumstances we'd see that it will be possible for us to challenge the ruling of the chair without debate and you will have to conduct the vote on the points the majority will win on either side. They don't have the 2/3 rule off-setting the ruling of the chair. He then luckily thought for about a minute, explaining that really it wasn't his fault, he wasn't supporting the resolution in any way and that it was perfectly alright for me to challenge the resolution. The sub-director general -- another Frenchman -- leaned over and whispered to the president that probably something like -- "well, it may not be too bad" -- and that may have influenced somewhat the tenor of his remarks although they were very strong. A flood of French came out in a very quick set of exchanges that made the earphones absolutely hopeless, at least on the English end, but fortunately, my French is at a point where I can follow things fairly well and so I said finally, "Well, under those circumstances -- using one of those extremely long sentences that prevent one from being accused of being in a debate without permission to debate -- "Under those circumstances, giving due regard to the fact that a question of disarmament and the political question has been debated before or has been put aside by the general conference of our assembly one before and intruded in a hundred different places and would only disturb our fine conference we've been having we would therefore, Mr. President, put it to a vote on the question of whether your ruling to introduce these results should be allowed." So he said, "We'll now take a vote." He looked over to his parliamentarian and said, "We'll have one speaker on either side for the question and then put it to a vote. I was rather taken aback by that as it was clearly a motion that couldn't be debated. And then it was just then that the Australian shouted "point of order. You can't debate the question," and quoted the passage in the conference rules procedure. The President looked over and said, "Right -- it can't be debated." The Ukrainian shouted and began to deliver a speech -- the chairman repeated "It can't be debated. That's all there is to it," and put it to a vote and after a very tense minute or so, the tellers were counting the hands going up. We finally passed 26 to 12 with a number of abstentions. We finished the business of the conference then in about one-third of the time it would have taken if we had debated this motion and any other way of handling it would have resulted in extensive debate despite the fact of challenging the ruling of the chair in closed debate by law. The reason we won the vote was partly because of the things I just mentioned and partly ----. One thing was that when the matter of race relations came up a big storm brewed in the morning on some really silly points. I'll bet every Asian and African nation and Latin American nation spoke to us on race prejudice because the secretary had said it was going to study Islam and the race question and the race struggle in Latin America. They both naturally pointed out there was much less of that in these places than in others. The Cuban delegate and the chairman were just about ready to close the order of debate when I stuck up my hand and said I wanted a place behind the Cubans in case they started something improper, and then a couple more raised their hands, so we had this round robin of sentiments on the subject of race relations. I simply said that we recognize that we have a great deal to learn from the people of Latin America and Asia in the question of race relations and only our belief that the Secretariat putting in those things was giving us a chance to learn from those countries about the way to conduct race relations, having in mind that we might get something out of them. So that this was apparently put very well and created a lot of good will because I was congratulated by the Spanish and Indian representatives afterwards. In fact, during the course of the two days, I was delighted with the numerous expressions of approval for the way I handled the business, including Sen. Keating, who was present during the most critical maneuver of all -- the challenging of the chair. Well, you can see that after two days like this you might say they weren't very restful because there were a couple of meetings before and after, and I had lunch with Morlion and the Venezuelan group.

Yesterday, I was rather bored before this started to happen and was pleasantly (?) shocked by my own reaction to it. Indeed, if it had gone any longer I'm afraid I would have been glued to that jockey seat and they could not have gotten me up. I can see how one could have stayed after everyone had left, like an old actor who comes back and addresses himself to the empty theater in which he played Romeo in the old days.

November 17, 1960 (?)

In his "big" speech this afternoon proposing $1,000,000 of UNESCO funds for tropical Africa, Mr. Robert Thayer, the U.S. Chairman, did not think to say (nor did the several people who worked on the speech) that it was on the American side a small return token of a nation that owed 1/9 of its people to that Continent. (He did say this in a later speech, however.)

Decline in true intellectuals & takeover by "educators" in UNESCO, both in organization and in conference. The attempt to coax the groundhog out has failed (as it must always?

* * * * *

Pilot of short story on race -- film-makers candid shots: interview. Would you sleep with me. No. Pourquoi. Just don't. Ask a Negro what is number on her wrist (concentration camp). He: her telephone number. She tries to explain, but breaks down.

American Delegation at UNESCO has to clear all articles by Americans in Bull. Soc. Sci. Journal. Ralph Beades U of Pa article on race in LA. Then discovered wrong [zeal]. He had already refused & no embarrassment. Never to this point a refusal, however.

* * * * *

Also bad is clearance or appointments to field -- months delay for a simple job.

* * * * *

Rough thoughts on tedious stupidity.

To the Russians: "Put your money where your mouth is!"

To the Ukrainians & Czech delegates: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Shut up & receive some social sciences.

To the Satellites: led around on a leash (cf. [reply] K. speech & joke)

To the Russians: You have, in the symbolic analysis of Sig. Freud, killed your father, Stalin, but you have eaten him; you still have his habits.

Friday November 24, 1960. Quick - Elysee

Horace Henderson was telling me of his experience as USA representative to the World Health Organization Conference. "It gives one an awful feeling to speak for 180,000,000 people". There's the trouble. Why should anyone be taken to speak to 180,000,000 people? The fact that he senses, it indicates a little of the need to sense it, to expand enormously the perception of the self, and Hunk is a type known to me, of the ambitious romantic Southerner, narcissistic, with the world as his projected lover. There should be a world law: every man is prohibited from representing any group of people except in the sense of a legal agent. We cannot prevent it, but a doctrinal expression against it might alert people & introduce more rationality into politics.

Later - Celtic Cafe

Almost impossible to find this place where Larry brought me last night for a drink. it is on the spot where I stayed when I first came to Paris in 1938, Rue Monsieur le Prince. It is absolutely the barest, simplest, and poorest boite de nuit to be found, with one of the most beautiful little bartender-esses, a Dutch girl in huge men's clothing.



November 28, 1960 (?) Monday Paris (?)

Lunch with Zachariah Shuster of AJC at the fantastic Le Mouton de Panurge on the Rue de Choiseul. Talked of the Ecumenical Council, of Pro Deo, of the Institute of Intergroup Cooperation, and generally of Arab-Israeli relations.

I should write a proposal for an Arab-Israel settlement. it is badly needed. Shuster agrees. I should ask:

What should Israeli do? Adjust and help

What should Arabs (Egypt) do? Less adamant

What should I & A do together? Federation

What should US & USSR do? Aid to education & economic development

November 1960.

on the English end, but fortunately my French xxxis at a point where I can follow things fairly well and so I said finally, "Well, under those circumstances" .. using one of those extremely long sentences that prevent one from [being] accursed of being in a debate without permission to debate -- "Under those circumstances, giving due regard to the fact that a question of disarmament & the political question has been debated before or has been put aside by the general conference of our assembly once before and intruded in a hundred different places and would only disturb our fine conference we've been having, we would therefore, Mr. President, put it to a vote on the question of whether your ruling to introduce these resolutions should be allowed. So he said, "Very well. now take ----. So he looked over his parliamentarian & said,, "We'll have one speaker on either side for the question & then put it to a vote. and I was rather taken aback by that, so it was clearly a motion that couldn't be debated. And then it was just then that the Australian shouted "Point of order. You can't debate the question" & quoted the passage in the conference rules procedure. The President looked over & said, "Right. It can't be debated. The Ukrainian shouted & began to deliver a speech. The chairman repeated "It can't be debated. That's all there is to it." & put it to a vote and after a very tense minute or so, the tellers were counting the hands going up. We had finally passed 26 to 12 with a number of abstentions. We finished the business of the conference then in about one-third of the time it would have if we had debated this motion and any other way of handling it would have resulted in extensive debate despite the fact of challenging the ruling of the chair in closed debate by law. Why we won the vote was partly because of the thing I just mentioned but partly - well. One thing was when the matter of race relations came up a big storm brewed in the morning on some really silly points. But every Asian & African nation and Latin American nation spoke vs. race prejudice because the secretary had said it was going to study Islam & the race question & the race struggle in Latin America. They both naturally pointed out there was much less of that in these places than in others. Cuban delegation & the chairman was just about ready to close the order of debate when I stuck up my hand & said I wanted a place back of the Cuban in case they started something improper & then a couple more raised their hands so we had this round robin of sentiments on the subject of race relations. I simply said that we recognize that we have a great deal to learn from the people of Latin America and Asia in the question of race relations and only our belief that the Secretariat putting in these items was giving us a chance to learn from those countries about the way to conduct race relations, having in mind that we might get something out of them. So that this was apparently put very well & created a lot of good will because I was congratulated by the Spanish and Indian reps afterwards.

[Note from Julia: what follows seems like a bad transcription from a tape with many words missing] Yesterday Venezuelan businessmen wanted to do something a lot commoner than all of that but still it's been a long [time] since I could see any activity take part in can be so consuming and exciting very much like a (change in ship?) contest I was rather bored before this started to happen and was presently shocked by my own reaction to it. If indeed if it had gone any longer I'm afraid I would have been glued to that jockey seat and they could not have gotten me up. I can see how one would stay after everyone had left like an old actor who comes back and addresses himself to the empty theater that he played Romeo in the old days. Now extending on 2 pieces of paper I have enclosed along with the --- line were handed to me at this close of the challenge of the rule of the chair the one by Arch Mon is the (he is the State Department) head of section of UNESCO. The other was passed along to me by a page. M. François the chairman saying that you have facilitated the task.

UNESCO General conference (1961 ?) [should be 1960]

Le Président pense que vous avez facilité sa tâche.

/Signed/ L. François.

(Note slipped to A de G from the rostrum (chairman, "Président") of UNESCO general Conference after A de G had moved to overrule him and the 2/3 vote needed was passed.)

UNESCO General Conference (1961?) [should be 1960]

You lead that one into place in a beautiful fashion.

/signed/ Art

Thanks

November 1960 (?)

Challenging the Ruling of the Chairman

A complete psych-social-technical acct of the proceedings beginning with return from lunch & Venez. commission. I am a little early but I am delayed at the cloakroom. Practically the whole American delegation is on the floor. Thayer avoids me slightly. He believes K. may know the answer. I know better. Simsarian says fight it all the way. Dix is there, Burkhardt. They go up & down the aisle. Then I decide then & there finally to challenge the ruling. I quickly walk to the Australians who are fortunately on hand. Like bringing a ship into dock.

I end my speech, saying "Submit that the ruling of the chair be overruled by the members of this Assembly." I recall chief adviser, in panic, leans over & says "who agreed that you should do this?" In terrible tones. "Everyone". I said, a direct lie. Not a lie though perhaps. Everyone is confused, therefore everyone agrees. He says. That isn't so, but I ignore him. We must go on.

November 1960?

Lean Rouck's story of what Guido Orlando, the Hollywood agent, advised:

A film competition on the subject of how Arab-Israel relations will end. Since everybody will be seeking a happy ending, there will be a real solution to the problem proposed, something everybody else is frustrated to provide. Financing the film will of course be easy.

1960 (?)

Guanda. Poetry.

Mr. Ugo Guanda Publishing House "La Fenice" series, Parma, Italy.

Journal 1960

Pierre Charron, De la Sagesse 1601, Book 1, Chapter 1

"La vray science et la vray étude de l'homme c'est l'homme". ("The true science and the true study of man is man."

(Not Francis Bacon?)

How do workers work, & play and so on through the social strata? I read with ardor the facts of the macroscopic & the microscopic. The stretching eternities of time & the infinite subdivision of time intrigue me. Still more, I am aware of the moving edge -- that margin of difference by which all things occur, the 1% of a people that give it genius, the hairbreadth escape, the near miss that sends a rocket away from the moon into infinite and eternal travel, the % of the public that knows about an important issue, the 5% Jews who supply half the motive power of the intelligentsia & the professions, the small number of housewives who buy according to the

* * * * *

lunacy of the fat 64-page issue finally were deposited with the printer at 2 PM

* * * * *

I am fascinated by limits and one day must study thoroughly the mathematics & logic of permutations & combinations, including especially their probabilities. I touch the piano keyboard & I wonder as I have a hundred times, "How many melodies can there be>" "How many combinations of sounds are there?" The latter I might readily discover, the former is both mathematical & psychological. But I am interested in networks -- how much of social behavior depends upon probabilistic encounters! How many people do this or that -- commit offenses, vote, buy, write, have mental problems of a type, etc.

1960

ABS Editorial

Recommend Congress pass a law to forbid any non-governmental (maybe govt. too?) group of persons to convey or give funds by gift or testament (or ?? payment for services performed) to any government (domestic? as well as foreign) (UN included?). What about foreign universities.

1960

The Divided Ones

God is going to take men at their word that he does not intervene in their affairs. He wants to know which is better, more moral man. He lets two systems struggle (Mundo and Futuro), each ideal-type of egalitarianism and totalitarianism (but each working on human beings) done by having Mundo policy-makers operate according to a set of rules (God insists upon this) for egality. & Futuro according to set of authoritarian rules but with men reacting to the rules as they are). God interposes barriers and new stimuli (e. g. H bomb) as conditions to their behavior to see morality develop further under new conditions.


previous.gif     next.gif