It is a singular honor to give the inaugural Reves Memorial Lecture, and I want to thank Dean Reiss for the invitation.

Emery Reves was a remarkable man. Let me put it this way. If any of you are aspiring biographers or movie script writers, the story of Emery and Wendy Reeves is your ticket to fame and fortune. As far as I can tell, it's a story that's never been told to the general public, even though Google gave me over 400 hits on Emery Reves' name.

Reves was born in Hungary in 1904, and grew up in the Europe of World War I and the League of Nations. Emery studied to become a concert pianist, had perfect pitch, and could whistle an entire Beethoven symphony. He earned his doctorate of political economy at the University of Zurich where his two best friends were fellow Hungarians John von Neumann, later to become one of the fathers of the computer, and William Fellner, eventually to be known as one of America's premier economists.

After university, Reves, who was fluent in nine languages, worked in Berlin as a writer, but had to flee—in his tuxedo, no less—just as Nazi Storm Troopers were about to seize him. He went to Paris in 1930 and founded the Cooperation Press Service, the first international media company, which eventually serviced 400 newspapers in 70 countries.

Reves helped Winston Churchill rise from the political ash heap in the 1930s after everyone thought Churchill was finished as a serious politician. All through the 1930s Reves responded to Hitler's bombastic speeches by getting Churchill to write replies, which Reves would publish in the newspapers of Europe the next day. Finally, as the German tanks rolled into Paris, Reves went to London, where Churchill asked him to revamp the British intelligence service.

Churchill then sent Reves to New York to help with the public relations campaign designed to urge America to support Britain. While in New York, Reves met the beautiful fashion model, Wendy Russell, a successful entrepreneur in her own right. After the war, they traveled all over Europe together, eventually buying the Riviera home of Coco Chanel, founder of the Chanel Perfume empire. During the 1950s and '60s, they entertained everyone from Churchill to Greta Garbo to Somerset Maugham to Albert Einstein. Emery became a major publisher, ultimately publishing Churchill's war memoirs. In the midst of this whirlwind life, Emery and Wendy amassed a $40 million art collection, comprised of some 1,400 works of art, which is now housed in the Dallas Museum of Art.

Reves had a remarkable sense of the movement of history. This is the way he put it: "Looking back five thousand years, it can be seen that every decade, every year, every day, has always been a 'transitional period.' Human history is nothing but an endless chain of 'transitions.' Transition is the only permanent thing on this earth."

Reves believed the world needs a new level of universal law. He recognized the different legal jurisdictions that exist within nations. But he said the time has come for all nations to be subject to a higher legal authority, just as a citizen of Williamsburg is subject to the higher legal authority of the state of Virginia as well as the United States. He believed such a universal legal authority is the only way to ensure world peace.

In 1945 Reves published his views in The Anatomy of Peace, a book described by Einstein as "the answer" to the political problems of the world and to the challenges posed by atomic energy. It sold nearly a million copies in America, and was translated into 25 languages in over 30 editions.

In The Anatomy of Peace, Reves made a comment I want to take as the basis of my remarks tonight: The great majority of the living never realizes the fundamental changes taking place during their lifetime.

Today, talk about "change" is commonplace. We all know that genetics, the computer and Internet are reshaping the global landscape.

But do we understand the "fundamental" changes as Reves says? Given our thrashing about trying to define the so-called "post Cold War era," or the "information age" or the "biological era," I'm not so sure.

From any standpoint, it's clear the world is at something of a historical dividing line—the end of the modern era that began in the 1500s; the end of the Industrial Age; the end of America's population and culture being drawn primarily from Europe; the end of the monopoly of the printed word as the dominant mode of communication; the end of the Atlantic-based economic, political and military global hegemony; the end of the colonial period; the end of the nation-state as the outer limits of a people's identity; the end of the masculine, hierarchical epoch; and, as some have suggested, perhaps the end of the Christian eon. We're in what the ancient Greeks called kairos—the "right moment" for a fundamental change in principles and symbols.

Exactly what kind of era is opening up is far from clear. The only obvious fact is that it's going to be global, whatever else it is. Obviously, one epoch doesn't stop one day and a new one start the next. Years of overlap — sometimes even generations or centuries — take place.

So in this sense, we're in an "in-between period" — between two ages, two ways of organizing our affairs; two ways of viewing our relationships to each other as individuals and nations; and two ways of understanding our relationship to earth and the universe. I call this in-between period an "Interregnum," which Webster defines as an "interval, a break in continuity." How long this Interregnum will last is anyone's guess, but I suspect it will be the defining framework of world affairs for at least the next half-century.

Tonight I want to comment on three trends which are part of this Interregnum. Let me start by stating my bias: I am bullish on the future. We've got huge challenges ahead. But I believe in the capacity of the human spirit to surmount any challenge if given the vision, the will and the leadership. With this in mind, let's look at three trends that are affecting all of us.

The First Trend: For the first time in human history, the world is forging an awareness of our existence as a single entity. Thus nations are incorporating the planetary dimensions of life into the fabric of our economics, politics, culture and international relations. The shorthand for this is "Globalization."

We all have some idea of what globalization means. We've all probably read Tom Friedman's book, and discussed the issues focused by the WTO and IMF conferences.

But globalization is far more than just non-Western nations adopting free markets and democratic political systems. In my judgment, globalization is the most ambitious collective experiment ever undertaken by the human race. If it succeeds, a new phase of well being may open up for most of the human race. If it fails, it could retard progress for generations.

At its core, globalization means that Western ideas are gradually seeping into the social and political fabric of the world. And even deeper than that, globalization is about culture, tradition, historic relationships and modes of interaction; it's about existing institutions and why and how they evolved. In short, globalization goes to the psychic foundation of a people.

Look at what's happening. Nations are adopting such ideas as the sanctity of the individual, due process of law, universal education, the equality of women, human rights, private property, legal safeguards governing business and finance, science as the engine of social growth, concepts of civil society, and perhaps most importantly, the ability of people to take charge of their destiny and not simply accept the hand dealt them in life. For millions of people these concepts are new modes of thought. In India, for example, the idea of not accepting the hand dealt in life directly challenges the essence of the Hindu religion.

Sometimes it's hard for us to appreciate the underlying differences between Western ideas and the foundations of other nations. Take some of the basic contrasts between Asia and the West. The West prizes individuality, while the East emphasizes relationships and community. The West sees people dominating nature, while the East sees people as part of nature. In the West there is a division between mind and heart. In the East mind and heart are unified. The West sees a split between mind and body, while for the East, mind and body are simply the harmony and interconnectedness between opposites. The West tends to be extroverted, while the East is inclined to be introverted. The West prizes knowledge, the East seeks wisdom.

Or take Africa. In many parts of Africa, the African is far from the glorification of the rational, materialist, secular attitude that characterizes the Westerner. The African doesn't dream of regarding himself as the master of nature as does the Western scientific attitude. The African sees himself as a part of nature; it never occurs to him that he might dominate nature. It's only the Westerner who devotes his greatest energies to the discovery of natural causes, whereas the African is inclined to rely more on the unknown power of chance.

One could go on and on. But my point is to illustrate the deep psychological trauma nations are experiencing as they confront the effects of globalization. For example, what's happening in the Middle East is not solely the result of hatred between the Arabs and Jews. It's also partially a result of the disorienting effects of what is seen as an American secular steamroller that's crushing established traditions, relationships and ways of doing things.

We must remember it took centuries for Western political, social and economic concepts to evolve. They are the product of a unique Western psychology and experience. We cannot expect nations to graft alien social attitudes onto an indigenous societal structure and psychological outlook over night. So we Americans must be sensitive to the profound human and psychological upheaval people are experiencing as globalization reorients their lives. Above all, we must not become psychologically or emotionally isolated from the rest of the world. And there's a danger of that happening.

The Second Trend: We may have entered an unforeseen stage of technology development, a stage without precedent in the history of science and technology.

At least since Francis Bacon (1561-1628) we have viewed the purpose of science and technology as being the improvement of the human condition. As Bacon put it, the "true and lawful end of the sciences is that human life [his emphasis] be enriched by new discoveries and powers."

And indeed it has. Take America. In 1900, one child in 10 died before age one. Today it's one in 150. During the last century, the real GDP, in constant dollars, increased by $48 trillion. In 1900, all the greatest mathematicians in the world together didn't have the problem-solving resources of today's fourth grader with a $20 pocket calculator. With mapping the human genome, we may soon see cures for some of our most agonizing diseases. On and on the marvels of science and technology go.

But along with these wonders, uncertainties arise. The question today is whether certain technologies exist not to improve the human condition, but for themselves, under their own laws, and for purposes that seem to be to supplant human meaning and significance altogether.

Consider a remark by the co-founder of MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab and one of the world's leading authorities on artificial intelligence: "Suppose that the robot had all of the virtues of people and was smarter and understood things better. Then why would we want to prefer those grubby, old people? I don't see anything wrong with human life being devalued if we have something better."

Now just absorb that thought for a moment. One of the world's leading scientists ready to "devalue human life" if we can create something he thinks is better. Setting aside the question of who decides what "better" is; in my view, intentionally devaluing human life is an organized form of self-destruction. And it's being promoted as "progress" by some of our most distinguished citizens and institutions.

The editor of Wired magazine says we're in the process of the "wiring of human and artificial minds into one planetary soul." Thus, he believes, we'll be the first species "to create our own successors." The co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says that the overriding flavor of being human ultimately will be "the disappearance of the self altogether, right into the collective organism of the mind."

Some computer scientists talk of artificial life creating its own civilization. Reports come of some scientists reconfiguring machines as psychological objects and reconfiguring people as living machines. We now use computers to psychoanalyze people. It's as if some scientists no longer see "people as human being," but rather "people as machine" and "machine as human being."

Finally, consider a report issued by The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, headed by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. The report addresses a number of conventional security issues, but then it looks at some of the potential consequences of advancing technology. For example, it discusses the significance of genetic engineering altering the human genome, mixing the organic with the inorganic, and changing the very composition of a human being.

It then offers this paragraph: "The implications of such developments should not be underestimated. Our understanding of all human social arrangements is based, ultimately, on an understanding of human nature. If that nature becomes subject to significant alteration through human artifice, then all such arrangements are thrown into doubt." The report concludes by saying, "there is a growing unease that we are upping the ante to the point that a single mistake or a single act of sheer evil could leave a potentially fatal wound."

In sum, we are creating technology that forces us to ask what are humans for once we've created super intelligent robots that can do anything humans can do, only do it a thousand times faster? Do we really want to be able to make genetic-based choices about a baby's intelligence or characteristics? What will it mean to be able to change the genetic structure not just of an individual child, but also of all future generations? In an age when information overwhelms us and power is unlimited, what gives purpose to our capacities and restraint to our power?

An equally difficult question is: What is the moral justification for permitting a miniscule proportion of the world's population, i.e., the scientific-technological visionaries, to determine the fate of earth and its six billion inhabitants when that fate could possibly include extinction? The flip side of this question is this: Despite the widespread talk of spirituality and fundamentalism, has technology, in actual fact, become America's god? These are some of the questions that will be answered one way or the other during your lifetime.

Some people within the scientific-technological community itself are already seeking to answer such questions. Bill Joy, cofounder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, suggests we've reached the point where we must "limit development of technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge." Joy acknowledges the pursuit of knowledge as one of the primary human goals at least since Aristotle. But, he says, "If open access to, and unlimited development of, knowledge henceforth puts us all in clear danger of extinction, then common sense demands that we reexamine even these basic, long-held beliefs."

The Third Trend: We are in the midst of a long-term spiritual and psychological reorientation that is increasingly generating uncertainty and instability.

This trend affects all of us, for we're all part of America's collective psychology, whether we realize it or not. The best measure of America's psychological and spiritual life is not public opinion polls telling us what percentage of the population believes in God. Rather, it's the content and quality of our culture. For culture is to a nation what dreams are to an individual—an indication of what's going on in the inner life.

When we look at the religions of the world, what's happening? Massive fragmentation. In America alone, there are over 1,500 religions, including such contradictions as "Catholic Buddhists."

In my judgment, the world is experiencing a long-term reorientation of the spiritual expressions that came into existence roughly in the 1,000-year period between 800 B.C. and A.D. 700. These are the religions that have given the world its moral base, its psychological stability and its culture. Granted, this refocusing is proceeding at an uneven pace depending on local culture and circumstances.

Certainly in the West, this spiritual impulse has been steadily eroding as the formative dynamic of our culture, especially among the "creative minority." One need only look at the changing relationship between the roles of the priest and the psychologist to see what has been happening. Early in the 20th century, if someone had personal problems he or she went to the priest for advice. Gradually that changed, and people started going to their psychologist. According to psychologist Rollo May, between 1918 and 1981, the population of the U.S. increased 122 percent, but membership in the American Psychological Association grew by more than 14,000 percent. In England, the Anglican Church has apparently declined to the point where the government is considering training civil servants in family counseling in order to fill the gap left by the diminishing number of priests. Even more, in another two years, practicing Muslims will outnumber practicing Anglicans in England.

As the collective spiritual impulse that originally shaped America and Europe fragments, people seek alternatives. Such a search is seen in New Age spirituality; in the rise of cults such as "Heaven's Gate;" in exploration of the paranormal; in extremist movements such as Germany's "skinheads;" in interest in mysticism, occultism, Buddhism and Eastern philosophy; in the rise of fundamentalism, which is taking place in all the world's religions; in the search for ancient wisdom as seen in The Celestine Prophecy; in the emergence of countless new schools of psychology; in the belief that extraterrestrial life has come to save us from ourselves; and last but certainly not least, in terrorism, which, at its core, is a demonic hatred expressed in spiritual terms.

Part of the psychological reorientation taking place is the breakup of our collective inner images of wholeness. For example, we used to talk about "Heaven," which denoted the transcendent realm, eternity, the dwelling place of the gods. Now we just speak of "space," which has no spiritual connotation. It used to be that when we looked up in the sky at nighttime, we saw the moon in heaven. Now, when we stand on the moon, we see the earth in heaven. In a sense, heaven and earth have become one, and so our whole symbolic system has been jumbled. We used to talk of "Mother Earth," which had a vital emotional association. From time immemorial, nature was filled with spirit. Now we just speak of "matter," a lifeless nature bereft of gods. Thus the transcendent meaning is diminished.

What is the function of symbols and symbolic language such as "Heaven" and "Mother Earth"? Their purpose is to link our consciousness to the roots of our being, to connect our consciousness to its base in the unconscious. When that link is devalued or discarded, there is little left to sustain the inner life of the individual. Few people are inwardly fed by any primal source of wholeness. In effect, our symbolic life and language have been displaced by a vocabulary of technology, a vocabulary that's increasingly devoid of transcendent meaning.

Another aspect of the psychological reorientation is the question of what is happening collectively to our unconscious life. By definition, the unconscious life is unknowable, and thus most of us never think about it. In fact, with all the scientific emphasis on investigating consciousness, science appears reluctant to approach the question of the unconscious. Yet the unconscious may be a greater influence on our lives than is consciousness. For the unconscious can produce psychic epidemics that erupt into contemporary events, and even become a collective madness, as was the origin of World War II.

We can see a reflection of what's happening to our unconscious in both art and our spiritual expressions. Take the difference one sees between Rembrandt and Picasso, and I'm not talking about aesthetic preference, but rather the psychic content of their art. Rembrandt painted during a time of psychological integration and wholeness, and thus his art is objective. Picasso painted during an era of psychological fracture and dissociation. Thus his paintings, like most modern art, are subjective. Picasso and modern art give us a sense of what's happening to our common unconscious life, for, as Shakespeare told us, art holds the mirror up to nature, and the unconscious is pure nature.

In a sense, the soul of America—indeed, of the world—is in a giant search for some greater expression of life. Despite the benefits of modernization, technological society offers no underlying meaning to life. Thus the search taking place is both healthy and normal—given the seminal shift to an entirely new epoch that is occurring as we speak.

What we're talking about is at the core of the crisis of meaning that afflicts not only America, but Europe and Asia as well. It's a global crisis of meaning. For example, John Pomfret writes in the International Herald Tribune from Beijing, "Across China people are struggling to redefine notions of success and failure, right and wrong. The quest for something to believe in is one of the unifying characteristics of China today." Wimal Dissanayake of the East/West Center in Hawaii notes that with increased technology and modernization, "the loss of self is an acute problem in Eastern societies." He notes the decline in family and authority, and concludes by saying, "Eastern religion no longer is the binding force in [Asian] society."

The late Joseph Campbell, one of the world's leading authorities on the function of myth and religious symbols, noted that the great spiritual myths of the world have historically fulfilled four functions: (1) To give the individual a sense of awe and wonder before the mystery of being; (2) to offer an awareness of the order of the universe that will maintain that wonder and awe; (3) to relate the individual to society, and to provide and validate a collective moral order; and (4) to regulate the psyche, to coordinate the individual's conscious life with his unconscious life or his instinct system. That's the function of religion.

But science has changed our understanding of the universe; travel and communications technology have enabled us to comprehend all religious systems and mythology in relation to our own and see their similarities; historical research suggests that the world's religious scriptures should be approached symbolically rather than literally; and psychology has given us new insights into the possible transpersonal dimension of the psyche. Thus the great religious myths, which used to operate in a globe where people lacked contemporary scientific understanding and were isolated from each other, are now unable to fulfill their primary functions in the same manner as in an earlier period. We have reached a point of increasing "mythlessness," which is the core of today's crisis of meaning. For all people need a "story" to live by, a story which gives meaning and coherence to their collective association.

Let me quickly summarize what we've been discussing. (1) Globalization—possibly the most ambitious collective human experiment in history; (2) a new stage of technology operating in its own right, under its own laws and for its own purposes; and (3) a long-term psychological and spiritual reorientation. These are only three of the trends shaping our future. And it's because of the magnitude and significance of such trends that I suggest the next three decades will be the most decisive thirty-year period in human history.

How do we respond to such a challenge? We're already responding in the most sweeping redefinition of life America has ever known. We're redefining and restructuring all our institutions. Corporations are redefining their mission, structure and modus operandi. In education, we’re trying countless new experiments from vouchers to charter schools to home schooling. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is helping lift the burden off the back of our legal system. Civic and charitable organizations are assuming functions formerly undertaken by local governments. Some local functions, such as firefighting and neighborhood security are being privatized. More people are involved in efforts to help the elderly and those in poverty. In fact, it’s estimated that well over fifty percent of all adult Americans donate a portion of their time to non-profit social efforts.

Against the background of the three trends I mentioned, perhaps this is a modest start, but at least it's a start. Clearly, there's another level of effort to move to. As Bill Joy suggests, such efforts must include an examination of the potential downsides of certain technologies, and deciding whether we should continue research and development of technologies that could, in Joy's words, bring the world to the edge of extinction. Obviously, such an examination must be done in a global context if it's to be valid.

But another question is, how are you and I to live in a world experiencing such upheaval? What gives meaning to our daily efforts in a world that's changing faster than individuals and institutions can assimilate?

I believe the starting place is Understanding; simply to understand, as Emery Reves put it, the fundamental changes taking place. And I suggest that the Reves Center for International Studies is the perfect place to begin to gain such understanding. This is where you can learn to see the world as a "whole" — to see the interplay of national interests, culture, history, economics, technology, demographics — and our relationship to earth and the natural world. This is where you can build life-long friendships with people from other nations and ethnic backgrounds; friendships that will form part of the fabric of a new era.

Most importantly, the Reves Center is where you can gain an understanding of people and what makes us tick. For the individual is the carrier of civilization — not technology, not government, but people like you and me. If we're to understand why history has unfolded as it has, and what is behind the changes taking place today, we need to understand people and why we do what we do.

An understanding of people. Where does it start? We've all heard Socrates' phrase "Know thyself" so often that we dismiss it as just another Athenian sound bite. But how well do we know ourselves? Do we really know the opposites of good and evil that dwell within each of us? Do we know how we project our own inferior qualities onto other people and nations, thus creating division in the world? Do we know what our reactions to other people and nations signify about ourselves? Do we know what we love and what we hate, and what that tells us about ourselves? Do we know how to turn our weaknesses into strengths? Or how to find wholeness and completeness in life? That's what "Know thyself" is all about.

Equally important is the question of security. Great change creates new challenges and opportunities. It also generates insecurity, and both change and insecurity will increase in the coming years. So what provides security in a time of upheaval? A fat 401(K)? An ever-rising Dow? The family, friends? The social structure? Military might? All these obviously provide a certain measure of security. But all these can change very quickly. Even disappear. What then?

Let me suggest one source of security that I have found helpful. It is this: knowing who I am, why I am here, and what the meaning of my life is. If I know that, then I am connected to the deepest roots of my being, to the depths of my soul. That is a source of security that every person has to find for him or herself. There's no formula, only an inner journey that each of us can make. And that journey is important for this reason. We are all part of the same larger reality, of some common psychological fabric. And the way I live my life, the choices I make, either enhance or degrade that common fabric. The journey we make not only deepens our own inner life, but it also affects the collective soul of America.

Issues like these we've been talking about are important for many reasons, but I'll mention just one, and with this I'll close. An integrated world can only be built by integrated personalities. There's an impulse in the soul of humanity toward a unity, toward a worldwide consciousness. But it can only be made a reality by people who have bridged the divisions within themselves. Nelson Mandela is the example of this, an integrated personality who was able to rise above parochial divisions and create a new climate of peace for his nation.

Somehow I think Mandela and Emery Reves would have been kindred spirits had they ever met. Both had a world perspective, and both understood the unfolding of a new era of history.

So I guess the test for us is, each in our own unique way, in our own sphere of activity however limited we may feel it to be, to be the Mandelas for the future, the Sister Teresas for a new era, the John and Jane Does who make a difference. And above all, to reach for that future with all the zest, determination and joy of living that so characterized Emery and Wendy Reves.

Thank you.