We change gradually. This is very clear to those that work with dedication and perseverance in order to launch into space the silent sound, to which all the consciences close to reawakening respond. They must be very careful for the pigs , ready to trample on the beauty of all the best thoughts (which is like poison to them) and avoiding the dogs that bite any good sower.
The alternative is to stay still and add ‘our own nothing' to the nothing; or to continue what looks like an endless work (but it is not) and to ‘sprinkle what is ugly with beauty'. Beauty, though, is not yet a steady condition of human nature; it must be drawn from an ideal reality that is not amongst us and doesn't belong to us yet. Beauty and Harmony are impersonal realities on which there can still only be personal views. Therefore the popularizer tries more and more to adapt his own (mental or spiritual) view to the objective characteristics of the Principles of Harmony and Beauty that he would like to testify. He is aware, nevertheless, that he cannot avoid the use of his own ‘language' to transfer to the outside the feeling he perceives for a truth that is only transpersonal and that transcends any individualism.
Despite his need to use a personal ‘language', the popularizer will never express opinions on real concepts; indeed he will try and transmit them as they are despite himself, because he is aware of his own relativity and ‘sentimental' dependence.
The popularizer deals with his own work with the same attitude of the painter.
They both ‘see and feel' a reality that doesn't belong to them, but that they want to share with the others. In order to do so, they have nothing but inner sensitivity and an ability that, although individual, must not cloud the meaning of the vision.
If it is so, the instrument of expression will be perfect. When the expressing ability of the artist and the popularizer will become perfect, what difference will there be between the vision of the idea and its meaning?