[489] to something of ultimate concern, expressed in symbols. And HERE the criterion of truth is the real ultimacy, expressed in the . . ? . . symbol, against the idolatrous ^aultimacy. These are the three levels of truth. THEY ALL are taught at the university, and they all are objects of research^b at the university. The first is perhaps the largest, the basis of all the others. The second is present in all human relations, in understanding of texts, of personalities, in everything where participation is needed. And the third is expressed in symbols and would lead to the question of a place where these symbols are the object of EXISTENTIAL criticism. Of course, these three levels are inter-

dependent, they interpenetrate in every moment, but they shouldn't interfere. If you interfere, in the name of the third level, with the first, then you have the interference of religion in science. If you interfere with the first into the third, then you have interference of science in the meaning of religious symbols; then the eternal conflicts or, as Kant^c called it, the fight of the disciplines, goes on in the university. And the same is true if you try to conquer the second completely in the power of the first and exclude understanding as an element, for instance of medicine, of sociology, of politics, and of course of all humanities. Then you ruin all THESE relations.

Now the relationship of these three dimensions of truth is a continuous living problem in every university^d. Out of this the question of the meaning of the theological faculty^e arises. I told you that the theological faculty was the queen up to the 18th century; then the philosophical faculty, especially its natural-scientific side, became the queen. Now the question is, as the Social