[70] constitute ours, because OUR environment has also elements of contemplation, of aesthetics, of memories, of historical consciousness and many other elements which belong to our cultural creativity and therefore create a quite different environment. Now this has an immediately important religious consequence: the environmental theories are all wrong for the reason that they presuppose a stable environment and are not aware of the fact that environment is always a matter of correlation, namely a correlation between he-who-has-the-environment, and the environment. We can certainly say that the environment influences us, and in this sense is cause for many things happening to us and done by us. On the other hand, the other side is equally strong, that every spontaneous and free human being (animals as well as man) creates their environ- ment by the very character of this correlation between themselves and the environment. Now this is a fundamental insight which we must use also as a criterion to criticize the environmental theories. Secondly, man, beyond this, is able to have objects as mere objects, not as objects of action but as objects of contemplation, etc.--i.e., for instance the aesthetic relationship: this is already clear if you compare the expressive sounds of animals with the designative character of human language. Men also have expressive sounds, and perhaps primitive men have more of expressive sounds than of designative concepts. But in one moment of the development, very slowly perhaps, but some time it happens that man is able to grasp universals^a with his language^b, that he has NOT ONLY the expressive but also the designative language--designating objects qua objects. It is very interesting that such differences always reappear on the soil of mankind itself. For instance, we can compare the Greek attitude towards reality with the modern. In Greece, the objectivation of the world reached its top. The Greek philosophers, and already the Greek language^c, was able to produce a system of concepts with which it was possible to grasp reality as contemplated, as a totality of calculable or intuitive objects. This is the Greek attitude, and the greatness of the Greeks. On this basis, they were able to produce science^d and philosophy^e, and history^f. When we come to the modern time, the situation seems to be different. And you can observe that in the Renaissance^g period. Take a man like Leonardo Da Vinci^h: