A Wedding Anniversary:

THE SIXTH SENSE

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

December 29, 2010

Birds which migrate, seasonally, as to North, or to South, have been struggling, wittingly, or not, to teach us humans an important lesson. The fact is, that there is a Sixth Sense, in the cosmic, electromagnetic domain per se. Birds use it; but, humans probably appeared on this planet later than birds like that. After all, notably, Helga did warn us to respect, and to protect our neighboring birds, as good Franciscans would do. Those birds do, after all, reduce the infestation of our lives with what Helga has classed, generically, as “bugs.”


Preface:

It was Percy Bysshe Shelley, most notably, who emphasized the importance of what amounts to, in effect, a “Sixth” human sense, as he did in the concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry. Since migratory birds, in particular, usually regulate their seasonal flights according to an approximately north-south, magnetic-field orientation of those flights, we must confess, at the very least, that electromagnetic radiation plays an important role in our universe, the role of what might be named man’s “sixth sense,” a quality of sense which is evaded by citizens’ heretofore popular emphasis on particular forms of communication.

After all, the migratory birds do use cosmic radiation as an important category of communication. Why not we?1In spite of the low-thoughted envy which would undervalue contemporary merit, our own will be a memorable age in intellectual achievements, and we live among such philosophers and poets as surpass beyond comparison any who have appeared since the last national struggle for civil and religious liberty. The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature. The person in whom this power resides, may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve, that power which is seated on the throne of their own soul. It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words. They measure the circumference and sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all penetrating spirit, and they are themselves perhaps the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations; for it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age. Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. [As frequently recalled and recited publicly by me, from memory of my personal copy of the Harvard Classics edition of 1909, since 1934.]

Or, perhaps we do, sometimes, unwittingly?

Admittedly, it has been the counsel during some of the periods of history in some cultures, including some parts of the human population of the United States during some relatively recent times past, to prefer to sleep with their heads (one, preferably, per person) pointing north. It is sufficient, for this moment, that, as a matter of practice, some birds have already taken into account, the broader evidence, that it is cosmic radiation, rather than particularate matter as such, which is the essential basis for the organization of the conditions of life known to us. It is time that more of us pay attention to that fact.

Therefore, let us refer to Shelley’s argument as I referenced it in opening these remarks. He points, in the concluding paragraphs of his A Defence of Poetry, to something which we must presume to be “external” to the so-called “five senses;” it is something which has always had important expressions in mass human behavior, in cosmic radiation’s using a medium which does not coincide with what is customarily associated with “sense perception.” It is, nonetheless, a medium of what is to be properly recognized as a channel of human direct, interpersonal communication-in-fact. Whatever that phenomenon represents, it is, in the last analysis, unique in respect to its contrast to the gist of the manner in which we respond to the notions of the five senses. It does have the specific effects of that type which I have classed in these introductory remarks, as prominent, in effect, in the domain of man’s performing the function of inter-personal human “communication.” The subject of that effect is mentioned by me, here, under the implied heading of “mass effects,” rather than sense-perception in the customary meaning for that latter term.

It is curiously ironical, but not accidental, that that same point concerning such mass effects which was made by Shelley, also turns up as a principle of communication, as being like a sea-borne message carried in a sealed bottle, in Keats’ Ode On a Grecian Urn.

The issue so posed by these, foregoing, remarks of mine, should be readily recognized as touching the theme of my December 15, 2010 “The Global Crisis Now at Hand;”2See EIR Jan. 7, 2011 www.larouchepac.com/node/16929. but, the difference is, that, this time, I continue to examine the fallacy of commonplace belief in “sense certainty” from the standpoint of the human mind, as before, but with an emphasis on that notion of “sense” which is qualitatively beyond what I have stated explicitly in my earlier pieces on the subject of the human mind; I now situate the notion of the human mind in respect to its special role as the starting-point for an urgently needed criticism of the popularly employed misconceptions of the practical meaning of sense-perception as such. The question here is, “How might the human mind, as I had defined it, earlier, be treated, now, in terms of the necessary existence of a manifest ‘sixth dimension’ of human sense-perception, the dimension of human forms of ‘cosmic radiation as such?’”

Said otherwise: Why does human behavior react to certain ranges of cosmic radiation, as if such experience performed a function supplementing that of ordinary sense-perception? Said otherwise: Why do most people today, nonetheless, not yet recognize this action itself as expressing a mode of individual sense-perception? Take my referenced case of the known role of cosmic radiation in “steering” the seasonal flights of migratory birds, as a point of reference.

Shelley vs. Adam Smith

In respect to Shelley’s thesis as such, there could be no competent view of Shelley and his work which did not proceed with a recognition of Shelley’s rejection of the philosophical standpoint of British Eighteenth Century Liberalism, as that distinction is most prominent in the summary concluding paragraph of the published version of his A Defence of Poetry. Take the cases of Adam Smith and the British Foreign Office’s Jeremy Bentham as illustration of the crucial difference of Shelley’s argument from that of the British (or, should we not prefer “brutish”) outlook which is representative prevalent opinion of Victorian imperial Britain still today. To sum up the nature of the difference, Shelley typifies the same philosophical outlook which our own patriots shared with the English opponents of the New Venetian Party’s legacy of the brutish William of Orange, of Jeremy Bentham’s master Lord Shelburne, and, presently, the worst of a bad lot, that of the circles of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell still today.

Literate Britons and Americans, alike, know that the English colonization in North America, as typified by the Plymouth settlement and the Massachusetts Bay Colony while still under the leadership of the Winthrops and the Mathers, typified a faction from within the British Isles and some in the Netherlands, who, like France’s Jean Baptiste Colbert and the authors of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, typified a current within Europe who recognized, as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa had done, that the moral intentions of the best of European civilization could not realize those goals under the continuing reign of the succession of the imperialist Habsburg and Sarpian tyrannies which had asserted their adherence to a Roman imperialist tradition embedded in the imperialist Liberalism of the followers of Paolo Sarpi.

When the Habsburg interest had ruined the efforts of such followers of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s inspiration of Christopher Columbus for Central and South America, it was chiefly the English colonies in North America which carried the noblest intentions within European culture into the creation of and a development of territories on the Western shore of the Atlantic, as the Massachusetts colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, and their follower, Benjamin Franklin, brought forth the noblest passions of European civilization of that time within the North American settlements.

Today, the distinctions between the culture of the American patriotic tradition which I defend, and that of Europe, are essentially the same, in root, as then. We, for example, are based on a credit system, where our cousins in Europe are conditioned to accept a monetarist, rather than a credit system. We are a republic, where our cousins in Europe are still subject to reliance on working from within the intentions of parliamentary systems. Our American experience with the great waves of immigrations from Europe, into the United States has shown us that the European immigrant into the United States, as President Abraham Lincoln foresaw, is, quite naturally, soon, a patriot of the adopted republic.

Sentiments of a related nature existed during the Eighteenth Century and much of the Nineteenth, until the ouster of Bismarck in 1890.

So, despite the effects of the wars of a Napoleon being used as a foolish puppet of London’s and Metternich’s orchestration of the ruinous Napoleonic wars deployed against continental Europe, the legacy of such as Percy Bysshe Shelley reflected the current of cultural intentions shared among circles on both sides of the Atlantic. To understand exceptions such as Shelley, one must look into Germany, where the great mathematician and avowed follower of both Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Sebastian Bach, Abraham Kästner, inspired the collaborators Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn.

The disastrous French revolution, despite figures such as Lafayette and “Author of Victory” Lazare Carnot, was the disaster which must be a center for our attention in looking back to the political role and character of Percy Shelley. It was to that legacy, as expressed in both the United States and England during the interval under the last decades of the life of Benjamin Franklin, to which Shelley’s never actually completed A Defence of Poetry looks back, as historian H. Graham Lowry pinpointed the relationship between Gottfried Leibniz and Jonathan Swift during and following the last years of Leibniz’s life.3H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won, Executive Intelligence Review,1988.

As I have emphasized, frequently, in the past, as also in dealing with the genius of Shelley here, we must point to a certain difficulty commonly experienced by serious thinkers among young American adults today.

The cultural pessimism which has struck down the thinking young adults of the 25-35 and somewhat later generation, is a pronounced tendency to confine their sense of moral reality to a place between the book-ends of birth and expected death. Whereas, those of my generation, those of the young adults of World War II and slightly later experience, traced the meaning of our lives both to the benefits we inherited from forebears, and might hope to be extended to future generations. The emphasis on the notion of ideas as notable historical forces ranging across generations, has been largely lost as a consequence of the effects of the cultural pessimism which struck down many of those of my own World War II generation under President Truman and beyond. Today’s young Americans, among other nationalities, suffer a specific effect of cultural pessimism, which a Percy Shelley, among others did not share. We have thought in terms of a debt to those who gave our own and some future generation a relatively immortal advantage, and, also, a debt to be honored to those who participated in that which we should aim to make possible.


I. SPACE-TIME & MATTER TODAY


The working hypothesis on which the foregoing, just stated difficulty depends, reflects a belief to the effect that some presumed evidence shows that the so-called “traditional” categories of “space, time, and matter” depend upon two presumptions, presumptions which, in fact, depend upon a false, but popular belief.

The first of those presumptions, is the admittedly popular opinion that sense-perceptions show us the actually efficient form of existence, rather tha being, in fact, equivalent to seen shadows of the past and for the future, cast by unseen realities. The second, closely related presumption, which actually depends upon the first, is the mistaken notion of the existence of space as being ontologically distinct from the notion of matter. That a-prioristic presumption corresponds to the notion of “empty space” as being distinct from what is presumed to be an implicitly particle-like quality of “matter.” Once we have considered the notion of perceived particles as being, shall we say, “merely” the expression of singularities within a cosmic field of space-time, some profoundly interesting, and practically productive ideas come into play.

The first, admittedly provisional correction required at that point, is expressed as a reflection of that essential fallacy typified by the argument of Aristotle on which, in turn, are based the intrinsically ontologically fallacious, arbitrary, mathematical presumptions on which the a-priorisms of Euclidean geometry depend. I state that case as follows.

The fallacious, aprioristic presumption systemically inherent in the dogma of both Aristotle and Euclid, is the notion of the implicit existence of “dead space” in a universe for which it is presumed, as by Aristotle and his follower Euclid, that universal creativity has ceased to exist in either what is considered matter, or what is considered space, alike. That set of erroneous presumptions often associated with Aristotle and Euclid, is the implicit premise for the argument against a true principle of creativity, as made in support of the mistaken belief as presumed by Aristotle, and, also Euclid, just as Aristotle’s fraud was denounced, on precisely this account, by Philo (aka “Judaeus”) of Alexandria.

The relevant modern evidence against the exemplary frauds of Aristotle, is that the known existence of matter in the universe, on which we are vastly better informed than the a-prioristic hoaxster Aristotle, is that the development of successively higher forms of life, is ontologically creative in its recognizable expression as an ordered series of successively higher orders of developments. Contrary to Friedrich Nietzsche, God is not dead: the universe is not dead, but, as Philo denounced Aristotle on precisely this account, the universe, and also the human individual, is, inherently, willfully creative by innate nature, as, notably, the first chapter of Genesis leads one toward that conclusion.

Unfortunately, Genesis 1 is highly suspect among many scientists today. That suspicion is, chiefly, based on the specious, but strongly felt presumption, that Genesis 1 is a religious teaching, and therefore not scientific. Admittedly, during the successive Babylonian and Achaemenid captivities, the captors took nasty, syncretic liberties with the original product of Hebrew doctrine, and there are other, similarly consequent problems there. But, from the standpoint of relevant sort of qualified scientist today, Genesis 1 itself does not share in that latter kind of systemic, syncretically induced defect.4Directly contrary to Rudolf Clausius et al., attrition demonstrates that the universe is intrinsically anti-entropic, as is shown, in effect, by the destruction of that which is not creative. See below for more on this.

To restate my point respecting the content of Genesis 1, as distinct from the Mesopotamian pagan source’s Adam and Eve myth, the universe is to be treated as inherently creative throughout the expressions of its existence as a universe.5It should be noted, respecting Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that “God is dead,” that Nietzsche’s argument is essentially that of Aristotle; it is a reflection of the Delphi cult’s presumption that ordinary men and women are members of an inferior species which does not share the presumed elegance of those higher social classes which the Delphic custom identifies as “the immortals.” The Nietzschean concept of “creative destruction,” as represented by the economics dogma of Werner Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter, and their Harvard University and other followers, coincides with the fascist doctrine of Adolf Hitler’s followers. Fascism is to be recognized by its ideas respecting the nature of man, not the mere costume which such as a “Black Shirt” or a “Brown Shirt” wears. The content of the cult of throwbacks to the Roman Empire, which is what fascism represents in political practice, is essentially the belief of the followers of Nietzsche, not the costumes they may choose to wear. The formal introduction of Schumpeter’s doctrine into the office of the Prime Minister of Great Britain was unleashed under Harold Wilson (1964-70, 1974-76), coincident with the launching of the U.S.A.’s war in Indo-China launched once President John F. Kennedy, the opponent of such policies, had been eliminated. Within that process, creativity assumes the expressed form of what is ontologically specific as the higher orders of existence being generated, as in the systemic argument of V.I. Vernadsky. The principle of life within the universe, is an expression of this, that from whatever may be carefully selected as the notion of a relative point of “beginning.”

Take the case of the Solar system as an illustration. Consider some known general facts about this, facts which are of ill repute because their presence is treated as an offense to the sensitive souls of the perennially ignorant.

Our Sun is, and always was, in fact, created as a relatively youthful appendage of our Galaxy. The Solar system is an outgrowth of that Sun, a Sun, which, in turn, generated a higher state of organization within its domain, a higher state such as that which is known as a Solar system. Within that Solar system, the conditions for propagation of life appeared; after a long time, under successively higher orders of complexities, of living processes which made their way upward, toward the appearance of the higher-order species created as mankind. Mankind has, since that point, done much original creating of its own, an accomplishment which is unique to mankind among living species presently known to us, and, hopefully, will be permitted to continue to do so, despite what are, at their best, the wretched deceits of Aristotle, or the like.

Mankind is unique as an expression of a species of existence whose powers of creativity are voluntary, as distinct from the form of actual creativity represented by all other presently known expressions of living species. The point to be emphasized by me here, is that creativity as such, and also voluntary creativity, are to be distinguished from one another as qualitatively distinct categories, as follows.

On the one side, actual creativity is to be treated, contrary to the vulgarity of Aristotle and other reductionists, as a natural characteristic of the universe. The distinction of the human species from known life in general, is that it is voluntary, as specific to humanity, rather than the ostensibly unwitting, but still efficient creativity of the lithosphere and biosphere. The notion of the term “Creator,” is, scientifically, the notion of the necessity of the existence of some principle of action which is equivalent to a voluntary capability as the essential ontological characteristic of the existence of an anti-entropic “universe.” Such a notion as that was employed by Albert Einstein in his praise of the unique perfection specific to Kepler’s expressed, uniquely original discovery of a universal principle of gravitation, a feat accomplished through aid of an implicitly Platonic concept of the practice of “vicarious hypothesis.”

The sketch which I have outlined, thus, in this present chapter thus far, pertains to the necessary existence of the voluntary principle expressed by the existence of the notion of a willful quality of universal creativity when expressed as being associated, specifically, with human individual sense-perception. This notion, nonetheless, encounters certain uncertainties in the mind of the usual reader. It is those uncertainties which I address, with remedies in mind, in stating the premises of this present report.

God and Man

It is necessary that we step aside, if for only a moment, from what has been written here so far, so that we might emphasize a point of crucial importance, a point which has, so to speak, just knocked at our door in response to the point respecting vicarious hypothesis.

It has been the widely taught presumption, that man was generated by the lower forms of life, even as by one of many typical British ideologues to be found among the ranks of Soviet science, that adversary of Academician V.I. Vernadsky known as A.I. Oparin. Although there is no premise for believing that ordering of the appearance of life-forms on Earth, did not proceed from simpler to relatively higher orders of existence of living species, the fact remains that the upward evolution of Earthly life-forms as such, is the reflection of an efficient principle of life per se, as distinct from non-life. The pertinent fact is that the universe itself, insofar as it is known to us presently, is ordered by a universal principle of progress from the relatively more primitive, to higher orders of organization.

That those such as Oparin may argue as they might, is irrelevant in the respect that they, with their crudely, and actually quite arbitrary, a-posteriori presumptions avoid the efficiently conclusive evidence, that the progress to higher forms of life continues to reflect a pre-existing ordering principle of the universe as a whole: i.e., creativity.

On this account, Oparin, as a case in point, was a victim of the same reductionist follies which led to the absurd notion, of the existence of a “second law of thermodynamics,” as by the Nineteenth Century’s Rudolf Clausius et al., in fabricating the notion of what became known as “a Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

That silly, but widely taught academic presumption, relies upon turning science inside out, by failing to recognize that the essential prerequisite for continued existence of a present “level” of physical state, pre-determines that only anti-entropic evolutionary functions can survive as acceptable qualities of ruling states of nature. The evidence misused by Clausius et al. to propose, in effect, a “second law of thermodynamics,” is actually the same notion which Aeschylus identifies as the ban against mankind’s use of “fire” by the son of a concubine Olympia, Zeus. In other words, the arguments of such reductionists as Oparin, depend upon a state of religious adoration of what the ancients of Aeschylus’ time knew as “the oligarchical principle,” a notion which has been commonplace among the Roman Empire and its successors, a succession which is continued as British imperial ideology to the present day, in such expressions as the British monarchy’s fanatical demand for a global practice of genocidal reductions of the human population. The case of the typically British, Marxist ideology of A.I. Oparin, is typical of the axiomatic presumptions on which the pro-genocidal doctrines of the World Wildlife Fund depend.6Lest some misguided soul imagine that there is some fallacy in my argument against Oparin as being a British folly, the fact is, that the British agent, Alexander Helphand (aka “Parvus”). who had been recruited to the British intelligence service by the then representative of the British Fabian Society, Frederick Engels, served as a leading British arms-trader and associate of the British intelligence service’s “Young Turk” scheme. Marx himself gained his career as an agent of Lord Palmerston’s “zoo,” in which Marx served the office of the British Museum under the political direction of Young Europe’s Giuseppe Mazzini. Marx’s function was that among those handling the traffic in correspondence between the British Foreign Office and figures of the Mazzini-led “Young Europe” organization. Whatever the “Marxist” movements did contrary to British pleasure, the British Empire’s intelligence services usually exerted long-range control, as through such Twentieth-century channels as those of Bertrand Russell and Russell’s dupes of the Laxenberg, Austria-based, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Oparin was a typical victim of his control in matters of science by Russell’s circles, including a J.B.S. Haldane whose religious views, as such, differed significantly from the wild-eyed atheism of Russell.

In the history of the Soviet Union, for example, the most typical of the influences underlying successful scientific practice, was that associated with the Academician V.I. Vernadsky who was the principal author of the Soviet nuclear science programs, among numerous other leading accomplishments.

So, in the United States today, science is presently as much a victim of, chiefly British, corruption by rotten influences as ever Soviet science suffered from the hands of Oparin. The chief source of the rot in science, throughout the world at large, still today, and much more so than in President Kennedy’s time, is as we witness in the influence of the pro-fascist, pseudo-science of official “environmentalism” presently.

Why Did Aristotle Lie?

At this point in the report, it is of crucial importance for the reader, that I emphasize the fact, that Aristotle’s was not a mistake born of innocent ignorance; Aristotle was lying.

As Aeschylus shows throughout the course of the surviving, known remains of his dramas, the essential doctrine of that center of the same ancient evil met in the work of Aristotle, is what is expressed by the Delphi cult of Apollo-Dionysus, an evil expressed as the notion of a ruling class designated as “the Gods,” or, alternately, “the immortals,” as contrasted to an under-class designated as “mortals.” In specifically European history, the category of those classed as the “immortals” was best known as being typified by the descendant of the concubine Olympia and her offspring, as distinct from “the Titans,” whereas both latter types were treated as distinct from the assumed class of the “mortals.”

The Mediterranean society’s “immortals” were, categorically, the expression of a maritime culture which reigned in Mediterranean-centered (and, later, trans-Atlantic) European maritime cultures, that so since the relative decline of the other system of alleged “immortals” associated with the riparian and related, imperialist cultures centered in Mesopotamia. The combination of the ruling classes “of immortals” and the likeness of that otherwise named, represented what the extended culture centered on the Mediterranean identified as being, in principle, “the oligarchical model” which reigns as a political force with adopted powers of universal law within not only the specific context of European civilization generally, but elsewhere, still today.

European civilization, since those ancient times, has been dominated by the same “oligarchical model” associated with the Delphic cult of Apollo-Dionysus. The role of politics in the corruption of science remains not merely widespread, but pervasive in the political doctrines of nations of the world, still today.

There is no presently apparent remedy for that kind of political corruption of science and its applications, until we concede the fact that the organization of the universe is ordered as from the Creator on down, thence, to what is presently known to us as mankind, with everything else in the universe as known to us thus far, today, as lower in order of existence, in conscious power of creativity, than mankind today.

To restate the point made immediately above, the nature of the universe must be adduced from the sequence of qualitative changes of existence, as from the sequence of the succession of higher forms of life from relatively lower. This also applies to the chemistry of the products of Solar radiation met in the Sun’s planetary system, as related to the higher states of organization of the planetary system, relative to that of the Sun itself.

Reductionists such as A.I. Oparin, commit the error of attributing products of a principle of life to an extension of a continuation of non-life.

Admittedly, the issues posed by Oparin’s stubborn error constitute what many might regard as a wide-ranging, open-ended subject. Those specific kinds of difficulties dissipate when we take the anti-entropic relationship of life to non-life, and, most emphatically, higher-order action such as the effects of human discoveries and employment of the anti-entropic physical effects of advances in scientific creativity relative to man’s role on Earth.

Admittedly, there have been many and also repeated retreats of mankind from a relatively higher organization of society to a lower. However, all of the well-known instances of such patterns in cultures express a willful intention of a dominant stratum of people in society, to prevent the progress of the conditions of life needed for maintaining the majority. Take the case of the frankly pro-genocidal World Wildlife Fund launched by Britain’s Prince Philip and his accomplice Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, in foisting that fund ever more widely throughout the planet today. The scientific fraud represented by the so-called “environmentalist movement” currently, illustrates the point: the suppression of scientific-technological progress, by means which effect an increasingly homicidal, accelerating increase of the rate of entropy, presents conclusive scientific evidence on this point. Throughout the history of empires, intentional genocide effected through suppression of progress has been the principal means by which the few and powerful effect genocide through suppression of progress by the many.

Thus, the oligarchical model, as it may be traced within European cultures to the conspiracy conducted at the Isle of Capri between Octavian and the priests of Mithra, the conspiracy which established the existence of the Roman empire, from Octavian’s time until the British monarchy today, remains the enemy of civilization against which the cause of mankind is obliged to contend, in political life, and in science, to the present day.

Rome & a Maritime Oligarchical Model

Those processes marked out by the period from the fall of the Achaemenid tyranny, to the presently extended, systemic model of European society, have always been the expression of an imperialist model for a maritime-monetarist oligarchical society of the type which came to be known as the oligarchical maritime type of Roman imperial model. This has been a model continued as the evolution of a continuing history of the Roman imperial model from the future Emperor Augustus Caesar’s contractual agreements, reached on the Isle of Capri, between the Octavian (the later Caesar Augustus) and the priesthood of the Cult of Mithra, to the present-day British form of the reign of that same Roman empire-model into its present British incarnation.

This has been the Aristotelean Model, whether so named, or, as also met in its slightly re-costumed, modern, Sarpian guise.

The creation of the maritime model of the Roman empire, was centered in the maritime tradition of the Delphi maritime-imperialist, monetarist, cult, the cult representing the tradition of that Delphi Apollo-Dionysus legacy against which Plato had taken aim. The Macedonian agent and most notorious poisoner of the time of Philip of Macedon, and Philip’s son and enemy Alexander the Great, was the Aristotle who has remained the model for a high priest of Mediterranean-centered expressions of maritime-centered forms of imperialist oligarchical model to the present, brutishly British day of the devotees of the cult of Aristotle. The modern European (Sarpian, Adam Smith) model of the British expression of Romantic maritime imperialism, is, as the notorious Lord Shelburne would demand, the British extension of that same Roman imperial legacy which reigns over Europe itself (and often beyond) today.

Within the bounds of those and kindred points of historical reference, the British imperial system’s underlying notions of an oligarchical system of universal law, are not only those of the Roman empire, but the broader, more ancient base traced from the core found in the oligarchical tradition of the Delphi Apollo-Dionysus cult.

That misanthropic, oligarchical notion of a body of universal, allegedly “natural” law, is centered in the notion that the existence of kings and kingdoms depends upon that consent to the existence of kingdoms from which the imperial monopoly of the principles and authority of law is derived. The modern oligarchical system, is derived, proximately, from that tradition of European imperial law which is typified by Henry Maine’s attempted rationalization of such a code of imperial oligarchical law, as traced by the ideologue Maine, backwards, from Nineteenth-century British imperialism, through Justinian, into notions typified by the roots of the maritime system of the intrinsically imperialist Delphi cult of monetarism.

The principle of empire, such as that of ancient Rome or the modern British monarchy, is, simply said, that to keep people from advancing in their level of intelligence, the mass of the populations must be prevented from progressing “too rapidly” in their conditions of knowledge and of the practice of life, and must refresh that oligarchical commitment, from time to time, by bringing a period of “a new dark age,” from time to time.

The person who was probably the most evil man of my lifetime’s experience, was Britain’s Bertrand Russell. Take the following, typical passage from Russell’s 1952 The Impact of Science upon Society:

“Bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.... The present urban and industrial centers will have become derelict, and their inhabitants, if still alive, will have reverted to the peasant hardships of their medieval ancestors .... When I first became politically conscious ... the British Empire seemed eternal, the country was aristocratic, rich, and growing richer .... For an old man, with such a background, it is difficult to feel at home in a world of ... American supremacy.”7Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, George Allen & Unwin, London 1952. The citations are taken from a book whose intention and principal elements were the product of my assignment to the author at the time I was preparing a 1980 U.S. Presidential campaign, Carol White. I can report now that her work on that Russell himself was satisfactory to me at that time. For my own views on Russell, see my July 1994 “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” which was later republished, in a Spanish translation by Salvador Lozano, in 1998.

It is recommended that that set of quotations be compared with British policy today, as the prescriptions of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) prescribe such schemes for Hitler-like genocide schemes currently in progress under President Barack Obama today.

The Case of Paolo Sarpi

On this account, the modern British imperial law, is traced, on the surface of things, to what has become a slyly alleged adversary of the Aristotelean precedent, the so-called “liberalism” of Paolo Sarpi. Nonetheless, in reality, as such depraved creatures as Bertrand Russell emphasized, British Sarpian liberalism is actually a conveniently concocted, post-Trent, nominally Protestant cult-version of the same Roman tradition of imperialism, by Sarpi: a traditionally Aristotelean, Roman imperialism. Sarpi’s Ockhamite dogmatism is Aristotle crafted for the intended edification of the stupefied modernists.

For example, that effort which is centered in British imperial authorship today, as in the current, British-led effort to dissolve Europe into a British-run core of an intended “one-world” empire, is simply a reflection of a Roman imperialism from which Europe has never successfully departed within its own territory today. The only part of that British scheme for evil which can not work, is the intended survival of the present British system itself, which would, unless prevented, drag the entire planet, including itself, into the most calamitous dark age of all humanity ever known in history so far today.

Nothing illustrates those referenced implications of the influences of both Aristotle and Sarpi more quickly, than the fact that Karl Marx and Marxism were, like what I have already referenced as being the Fabian Society creature Frederick Engels’ agent and British arms-trafficker Alexander Helphand of “permanent warfare, permanent revolution” notoriety. Engels’ Fabian Society protégé Parvus-Helphand was an outgrowth of the same British imperialism which had been freshly designed and created under head of British intelligence Lord Palmerston, as the same “Young Europe” direction which Palmerston’s own Foreign Office had used to create the slaveholder’s doctrine of the Confederacy’s insurrection inside the United States. The latter was a Confederacy run from London by what was to become known as Theodore Roosevelt’s uncle and mentor James D. Bulloch, who had been the chief Confederate spy working against the United States from a base in England.

Thus, often, as in the case of Theodore Roosevelt’s crucial role in bringing the United States to support the British Empire in World War I, the source of the true victim for a tragedy on the stage of real life, is to be found in the credulity of the audience.

Often the wars suffered by the modern world, have been expressions of a Roman imperial tradition of playing the empire’s subjects against one another, lest those subjects acquire a tendency toward independence from the reign of the empire itself. The infamous “Seven Years War” of 1756-1763, and the Napoleonic wars fought within continental Europe under British and Habsburg supervision, are exemplary cases. So were those wars recently fought as elements of an epidemic, since the ouster of Bismarck until the present moment in Afghanistan and elsewhere, or the even wilder prospect of a clinically insane, Israeli-led attack on Iran now.

The childishly concocted denials of such roles of the British Foreign Office, have been the core of the drama concocted for the edification of the credulous specimens, including native North American ones, of our modern times.8In my December 15, 2010 “The Global Crisis Now at Hand,” I had included the topic of that geopolitical crisis of the British imperial system which had been created by the challenge of the U.S.A. initiative in the pioneering of transcontinental railway systems. That has been the crucial issue of every significant warfare on this planet, since 1890 to the present day. What I have written on that and related subjects is implicitly included on background here; the role of the Nero-like U.S. President Barack Obama as a de facto instrument of the British empire against the U.S.A., is to be considered as implicitly intended here.

“The play’s the thing, to catch the conscience of the king.” Why the king? Simple! For the benefit of that emperor who reigns above the ranks of mere kings. So, the liar Aristotle, even long dead, still practices the imperial art of such deceits as those. I have explained the role of Paolo Sarpi as an heir of Aristotelean practices in such terms.

The Problem with Some Definitions

In my earlier treatments of the subject of sense-perceptions, I had emphasized that sense-perceptions have the quality of shadows cast by reality, rather than being reality themselves. In dealing with cosmic radiation, as distinct from the customary notions whose attributed meaning is literally that of sense-perceptions, matters are turned around. Cosmic radiation is the principle of action which is casting the shadows; what we usually regard as sense-perceptions, are shadows cast by the effects of cosmic radiation. It is not yet the actual meaning of the subject of that communication, but it is the act of communication, rather than the mere form of the shadow of that action.

In the case here, in the matter of the “Sixth Sense,” the human mind is dealing directly with the agency which mere sense-perceptions, such as those of the famous five senses, otherwise reflect as the shadows of the real human identity and its experience.

Consider some of the more readily accessible means of insight into those functions of cosmic radiation which lie within the relatively lower band-widths considered as being (usually) more or less friendly to life generally, and to human exposure more narrowly. Take the case of music, itself an expression of cosmic radiation, as illustration of the subject. Consider two cases of changes for the worse in the broadcast of music, whether as performed within a room, or as broadcast by such means as radio and television broadcasting. What do we know as relevant to what our subject has been in this opening chapter of the report?


II. RID US OF A REDUCTIONIST’S DELUSIONS


Johannes Kepler’s two principal, unique discoveries in respect to the organization of the Solar system, were, first, his discovery of the orbits of Earth and Mars with respect to the Sun (as in his The New Astronomy), and his consequent discovery of the universal principle of gravitation (The Harmonies of the Worlds). Both of these discoveries reflected Filippo Brunelleschi’s discovery and use of the catenary as representing a physical (funicular) curve, in contrast to the incompetent system of Euclid, and corresponding to the discovery of a general principle of physical science by the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who remains the founder of modern physical science.

Preceding the discoveries by Kepler, we have the case of the work of Leonardo da Vinci, who, among other things, showed the relationship between the catenary and tractrix, thus presenting the basis for the fundamental contribution to physical science by Gottfried Leibniz and his collaborator Jean Bernouilli. It was Kepler who had pointed out to those who might follow him, the importance of the discovery of the calculus, which was done, uniquely, by Leibniz, and which had inspired contemporaries of Carl F. Gauss in the treatment of Kepler’s second project, the discovery of elliptical functions.

Those achievements set the stage for a next step upwards, the subject of Abelian functions, as adopted and developed by Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, which was accomplished despite the hoaxster-plagiarist Augustin Cauchy who had fraudulently hidden his possession of that work of Niels Abel, which Cauchy had hidden and maliciously plundered. Riemann’s treatment of Abelian functions is outstanding on this account. It is, thus, the work of Dirichlet and Riemann which is of the most useful relevance in approaches to the following subject.

From the vantage-point of cosmic radiation, there are three types of relevant cases of bad musical practices to be referenced on the account of our subject in this report. The first, is the substitution of digital media for proper instruments, as this substitution engenders an improper confinement within which musical performances are intended to be heard. The second, is those practices of composition of music and speech which are associated, implicitly, with the standards set by the anti-Classical post-1949 Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), including the use of “elevated pitch” as a substitute for the natural tuning at approximately C=256.9Prior to the close of the 1980s, the great majority of all leading Classical singers openly supported the defense of the natural registration shifts defined by C=256, despite the influence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This is still the case among the greatest Classically developed singing voices, and a large portion of Classical musicians generally. Notably, according to expert scientific tests, the greatest of the crafted violins and other instruments of the Classical repertoire, were subject to damage, as in the case of the greatest violins, if stressed by elevated pitches. There were two leading arguments in defense of that Classical standard from Bach through Brahms and beyond. One emphasized the natural register-shifts associated with bel canto singing voices; a second, complementary argument, was that only the physically strongest of trained singing voices could withstand the “wear and tear” done to the singing voices by adaptation to elevated pitches. The bad practices sometimes coincided, tellingly, with the kind of conductor who would direct by aid of stop watches at the podium. The third, is the resort to the extremely loud performance, and chaotic “effects,” as virtually noise, of either of each of the first two referenced types.

Those three types of destructive practices, have the effect of cutting the human mind off from the knowledgeable experience of what is properly defined as creative modes of expressed thinking. That problematic behavior, is typified by the habits associated with the grave error of treating the subject of physical science as a sub-stratum of formal digital mathematics. To define that problem in other words, we must mark the distinction, as in the practice of science, between physical mathematics (the evolving mathematics whose progressive development is derived from, and defined by the discovery of physical principles) and mathematical physics (the mathematics which confines the definition of physical principles to products of mere mathematics).

The natural register shift set in correspondence with the approximately C-256 well-tempered scale, is, itself, an integral part of the real music. Lack of it, when adopted as a policy, rather than as an imperfection of intention, is not pro-creation; it is the moral equivalent of masturbation.

The same principles which are properly demanded as standards for Classical modes of performance of music, also apply to the goals of Classically ironical literacy in the use of the human speaking voice, as in the role of Classical poetry.

The same abuses occurring against decency, in the domain of the speaking voice, assume their most pernicious character when the crafting of a poetic-simulating reading of a text reflects an empty, but apparently canonical form of utterance, without due regard for the specific idea which should be supplying a meaningful sense of content. “Sounding pretty,” is not necessarily elegant in respect to the actual idea-content of the utterance when the prosody lacks correspondence to the expression of a relevant meaningful idea, or, when mere verbiage is used in an attempt to seem being pretty, but without any actually important content in what is expressed, or, is even meaningless jabber uttered as if “prettily.” Sometimes, the simulations of prettiness in speaking, owe more to the spirit involved in the house of prostitution, than any sincere attempt to present meaningful expressions of important Classical ironies.

Science, like great Classical artistic compositions and their performances, is a process of discovering, or, at least, simply uncovering physical principles which wait to be discovered by means of ironies which are beyond the domain of pre-existing physical mathematics, as such achievements are typified by Albert Einstein’s insight into the true, unique quality of genius by Johannes Kepler’s original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. That quality of “out-sidedness,” as the outsidedness of the virtual hypothesis, is a suitable standard for defining true, scientific creativity.

Creativity, so defined, often requires what may seem to many to be the “jarring effect” of intended irony, wherein the meaning of the intended utterance not infrequently lies. Take the case of what might, very briefly, appear to be a jarring dissonance introduced to a place in the composition of what turns out to have been the point at which the beginning of the resolution of a new idea is brought into play so. All true creativity relies on precisely that kind of device. There are no lullabies in Classical composition, except, rarely, when intended to put audiences to sleep, or, perhaps, merely to appear to threaten to put them to sleep, the better to make them leap to attention through the encounter with a startlingly beautiful idea.

That point is illustrated with some excellence in the celebrated London performance of the Schubert Ninth Symphony under the direction of Wilhelm Furtwängler.10Which Bruno Walter failed, utterly, to accomplish in a U.S. performance, during a nearby time. His treatment of the second movement was the worst of it; but, that turned the rest into a disaster.

Having now said so much on that account, now be jolted to attention to the idea which is the intention of this present composition as a whole.

This same distinction is otherwise expressed by the role of metaphor and related ambiguities expressed as departures from what are termed “literal definitions of pre-established meanings.” In fact, all true creativity in scientific and other work, is located, inherently, as outside the bounds of pre-established literal meanings. Hence, the well-deserved jokes on the theme of “a grammarian’s funeral.”11E.g.: “head first.” The standard of what should be viewed as the properly seen as infamous, The New York Times style book, is a case in point.

The simplest illustration of the principle involved in these considerations, is provided by the demonstrable fact, that progress always occurs outside the bounds of presently pre-defined limits of quality of performance. The work on developing research into the deeper and broader implications of the cosmic radiation associated, functionally, with the “sixth sense,” is properly considered as typical of this road to achievement. No great idea was ever imparted by deduction, contrary to the mythical, cocainic character of “Sherlock Holmes;” all meaningful notions are expressed in the singularities of cosmic radiation.

That much said, as a matter of introductions, here so far. Now, situate the work to be done within this report by reviewing what I have presented in earlier reports, as what is presently known about the principles of scientific creativity as such.

Human Creativity Defined

Whereas, we are enabled to measure the effect of actual creativity, there is no mathematical formulation which can define the generation of actual such creativity. For reasons related to a widespread lack of knowledge of what human creativity actually represents, the mere term “creativity” is often adopted to describe effects which have no causal relationship to actual creativity as such.

Creativity is expressed by the knowledge of physical, or comparable principles which are not implicitly accessible within the bounds of previously known experimental evidence. They belong, in their human origins, to the domain of the Classical artistic imagination. The student’s discovery of an already known principle, should be employed as the intended development of the student’s ability to recognize the kinds of mental activity by which the student will, hopefully, come to understand the general nature of such discovery of principles. If that student’s mind is not more or less richly endowed with insight into the principle of original, Classical-artistic imagination, the student were likely to be a failure in treating those aspects of scientific inquiry which correspond to the imagination of such great physical scientists as Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Gottfried Leibniz.

So, the method of discovery appropriate for physical science finds its precedent within the experience of Classical artistic irony, as William Empson, for example, sought to clarify this point in his Seven Types of Ambiguity. Here, science owes something essential to the method of irony in Classical artistic composition. There lies the customary difficulty.

That difficulty among students with graduate qualifications in matters of physical science, including the loss of an earlier inclination toward such qualities of insight, is often a notorious effect of graduate students’ studies, as noted by leading specialist in such matters, Professor Lawrence S. Kubie in the 1962 Spring edition of Daedalus.

The schematic outline of the respective several steps through which we must pass in seeking to clarify this difficulty, may be introduced in the following manner.

On the lowest level of such attempts, we have the attempt to define creativity in terms of sense-perceptual effects. On the level of sense-perception, the immediate difficulty is met in the fact that sense-perceptions are not reality; they are best described, as shadows cast by effects which are, in and of themselves, “unseen” by direct human sense-perception.

What we are able to accomplish in this aspect of the matters immediately at hand here, is that we know that sense-perceptions are expressions of effects prompted by something real, but something not known directly from the attempting to read the sense-perceptions.

We progress significantly, if, and when we shift our attention from sense-perceptual effects, to the space-time of cosmic radiation, the domain of the principle of the functions of physical relativity. There, we encounter something which appears to be much closer to our goal than reliance on sense-perception as such; but, what we have reached in this attempt, is those principles which Bernhard Riemann identified as lying beyond our direct knowledge, those effects which lie within the respective domains of the very large and very small.

We might quiet our growing sense of frustration, by emphasizing that cosmic radiation is, like sense-perception itself, a quality of knowledge lodged within the function of the living human brain; but, that then fails, because the brain as such is a subject of sense-perception. However, there is a suggestion of a policy which is a remedy for that; it is that it is the mind, not the brain, which harbors the effect called “mind,” which is proffered to us as a possible location of a solution.

Up to that point, in that succession of hypothesized stages, we have accomplished something which is undoubtedly useful, but is not an actual solution for the conceptual problem posed, in itself.

Try another approach: can the human mind know itself? Or, better said, does actual creativity know itself, and in what fashion? In other words, does the universe know itself as an object of conception? Is it not the fact, that creativity so situated represents a quality of self-measurement of the existence of the universe?

If that, the measure of creativity by creativity, is permitted as a form of solution, the measurement of action by an appropriate conception of action in itself presents us with the idea of a type of solution.

This, however, requires a universe which is intrinsically anti-entropic, at least, if we approach the subject from the standpoint of our relevant, actual present knowledge.

Now, since we have progressed this far in defining a plausible hypothesis, we are obliged to examine the two obvious hypotheses concerning the notion of an anti-entropic universe: Is the universe actually entropic, or anti-entropic?

Considered as a Social Question

The so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” when considered in the light of what we have just considered until now, instructs us that we must now choose between a self-developing, and a self-destroying universe, the latter the fascist (“dionysian”) universe of Friedrich Nietzsche, Werner Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter and their like. Hence, the Delphic notion of Apollo-Dionysus.

“Is ours an expanding, or an entropic universe?”

The question eliminates itself. A universe based on a principle of self-destruction could not have been the universal definition of a universe in principle; or, it was a universe which had been a creative universe, but whose creativity had died before man had come into existence, as Aristotle had implicitly argued. This was taken up by Philo, but had changed in principle insofar as creation is presumed by him to be a true principle, not a “mechanical” design which might be continued or not. In fact, of course, the evidence is, that the universe is self-expanding. Note, that this goes to the point of the third and concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, the point respecting both the extremely large and extremely small.

To assist the mind’s self-reflections on such subject-matters, consider the relatively very long interval during which life was in a unicellular or comparable state, as contrasted to the relatively short time of the progress from unicellular states to the present, human state. Trace the known aspects of the way the process of successive generations of the state of Earth developed through those successive transformations through which human life on Earth became a permitted state of existence, as now. Human life on Earth became possible because the development of the Earth itself made human life here possible.

Once briefly considered speculations are placed to one side, it is the notion of a self-creative universe which is the proposition which is practically before us. However, even after the prospect of an inherently entropic, hence self-destructive universe is put aside, there is a different question to be considered. Here, the discussion turns our attention to something of known relevance: the issue of Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy. As I have said: this is a social question.

Since no later than the decline of Sumer into, first, a system of what some archeologists have identified as a “feudalistic-like peasantry,” and, later, the state of slavery which spelled Sumer’s doom, the characteristic trend in society has been of the use of some people by some other people as virtually cattle, as virtually herds of cattle-like creatures, to be culled according to the choice of caprices or some special interest of the “farmers,” such as a President Barack Obama, who herd such people considered as a form of cattle, to their slaughter. Such is precisely the policy of the World Wildlife Fund created by Britain’s Prince Philip and the Netherlands’ Prince Bernhard. Sumer failed, but civilization progressed in the end.

Notably, the policy of the World Wildlife Fund did not begin with either Werner Sombart or Joseph Schumpeter. It was already the policy of the fanatical President Theodore Roosevelt, as expressed as the promotion of slavery by Theodore Roosevelt’s uncle and mentor, James D. Bulloch, British agent and spy for the Confederacy. President Theodore Roosevelt then devoted his Presidency to destroying the pre-conditions for development of the planet Earth’s role as a human environment, as the World Wildlife Fund’s Princes Philip and Bernhard did after him. It is nothing other than what was known as “the oligarchical principle” of both the Achaemenid and Babylonian tyrants, and the contracted arrangement between Macedon’s King Philip and the Achaemenid Emperor, and the Babylonian tyranny earlier. All such systems known to history have become systemic failures. So, however, on the contrary, the development of supplies of oxygen by Earth, created the ozone layer on which higher forms of life depend.

There is nothing properly considered mysterious to competent science in identifying the causes for the breakdown-crises of all such systems, such as that of the British empire and its accomplices presently. With our present knowledge of some crucial aspects of relatively earlier periods in which life was expressed chiefly in unicellular forms, there should be no mystery, any longer, of why all social systems based on relatively zero-physical-economic growth of human populations should have converged on an inevitable collapse, as is onrushing, world-wide, at the present time.

As a Physical-Economic Question

The more we learn about our universe, especially from the control over life within the Solar system, or on Earth, the more this domain of Earth represents, for us, a part of the essential shaping by life, or by action by life. Considering only as much of the action of life which pertains to physical-economic functions of societies, there is virtually nothing bearing on the subjects of so-called “raw materials” which is not an effect of the role of life in shaping the essential pre-conditions for the life-cycles of modern economy in this way.

So, most of the so-called mineral resources on whose relative richness and depletion the physical economy of the nations depends, are a reflection of presently finite deposits assembled for our mining activities by life-forms such as ancient bacteria or other minute living creatures from the past. The general result of those limitations, is that the energy-flux density of applied work by economies must rise, per capita and per square kilometer, that even simply to maintain the equivalent of current levels of productivity per capita and per square kilometer. So, presently, without high energy-flux densities such as those achieved through nuclear-fission and thermonuclear fusion, a decent life for the existing levels of population of this planet were not possible. Resorting to relatively lower sources of power, such as windmills and solar collectors, is mass-murderous insanity—indeed a crime against humanity, which is to say, “genocide” against a nation’s own population—for any nation foolish enough to promote such policies.

This factor was made clear in strategic-military terms, over the course of the development of weapons-systems such as those of nuclear fission and fusion, since the U.S. Manhattan Project and similar programs under the guidance of the Russian genius V.I. Vernadsky. The conclusion was reached, that the effects of thermo-nuclear weapons-systems were negative for mankind, whereas the so-called “peaceful uses” of nuclear and thermonuclear power were imperative for the present and future of all humanity.

On this subject, it must be said as being highly relevant to all of humanity today, that the pattern of warfare organized, chiefly, by the British empire, since the ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, has been largely inexcusable, whereas most such warfare has been a product of the strategic policies of the present British Empire’s geopolitical reaction against the threat to British maritime supremacy, a threat constituted in the form of technologies coincident with transcontinental railway systems. So-called World War II against the Hitler forces, had become unavoidable, whereas virtually all other major warfare since the 1890, British-directed ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, such as the U.S.A.’s folly in Indo-China, was absolutely unjustified from any standard but the British empire’s urgent desire to bring about the destruction of the economy of the U.S.A., an enterprise which could only be accomplished as it was done, through the U.S. Indo-China War over the dead body of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

Sometimes, I must say, the leading governments of the world have shown themselves to be very much children on this account.


III. The Principle of Principles


For reasons given above, the notion of a universal principle coincides with the process presented in Genesis 1. That is to emphasize, that the writer of Genesis 1 was a human being, who, having considered the idea of God through the powers of imagination of mortal man, saw man, as if through a process of exhaustion, as the idea of mortal man, man as made in the likeness of a Creator, God. That is, in effect, pretty much the same thing which I had presented here earlier. Man’s experience with man’s own creative powers, showed how the universe works from the vantage-point of man’s own greatest achievements, the discovery of a universal physical principle, or, better said, the ability of man to discover a true principle within the individual’s expandable ability to experience the universe.

I am not preaching religion here, but fact.

Thereafter, it is to be considered that those principles which express creativity, define mankind’s options and achievements as to be recognized as the means for mankind’s achievements in the progress of the less imperfect creation of man. Man, now regarding himself, or herself as a product of the likeness of the God whose existence is scientifically necessary, must therefore desire the most, among all desires, that creative improvement of man himself which brings him, or her closer to the willful form of creative progress of the universe.

Consider the theology of immortality of the idea of the existence of souls in that light.

The human individual’s self-conception is therefore ironical, to the following effect.

Since we now know, at least from what I have written in earlier parts of this present report, that man conceived in the image of sense-certainties is only a shadow of reality, there is a certain prescience of immortality of some kind in the real person whose mind recognizes the mortal image provided by sense-perception as being “conditional” in that specific sense. Consider the Christian Apostolic Epistles in that light, as, for example, Paul in I Corinthians 13. It is a notion and mission of mankind which does not seek a static sort of immortality “in the imagination of the flesh,” but, rather, to experience the immortality of the process of creation, to be a truly creative force in the course of the development of the universe: to become an embodiment of human creativity in and for itself, thus being “in the likeness” of the nature of the Creator of the universe.

We, too, are thus creators in the likeness of the principle which defines the meaning of Creator. It is our mission to serve that end, which is our preferred mission in life: to make the universe better, and to make ourselves better in contributing to that mission. For us, that mission is its own reward: a devotion to creativity per se. That is true happiness.

That is what we might say is the proof of the matter. That much said, now consider the nature of the pleasure of being that kind of person; that is not merely a pleasant experience, but it is a necessary experience, that we might be consumed by the enjoying of the doing of our work—not that of sacrificing ourselves to the rewards of pain and punishment, but of fulfilling an endless mission.

Take the case of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under its original Royal Charter of sovereignty. Poor, sick, seaside Salem aside, there was no true sense of guilt-riddenness among such leaders as the Winthrops and Mathers. True, the New Venetian Party of the Dutch and other followers of Paolo Sarpi, was evil, as Venice had been evil under an earlier regime. James II had been a mess, but William of Orange and his followers were monstrously evil. Yet, there is no evil inherent in mankind, but only those who, like mere beasts, violate the creative principle of mankind.

Consider as it was said in England in certain earlier times, the beauty of human life resides in the goodness of dedication to such a mission as that of the fabled Irish monks who followed Isidore of Seville, and in the great works of Charlemagne: those who did the good in service of the cause of remedying the condition of what man has yet to become, as by the inspired Winthrops and Mathers of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony, and their followers among the inspired founders of the Constitution of our Federal Republic. Or, earlier, the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who, seeing the evil influence of the Venetian party of his time, projected voyages across great oceans, the inspiration which informed what became the founding of our republic within the Americas.

In European experience, evil is to be defined as the enemy of the good; there is no in-between. I speak of evil as typified by the Delphi cult and by the legacy of that Roman empire which reigns in its most recent incarnation in that trap-door to Hell which is the presently self-doomed British empire.

The good reposes, essentially in the creativity which is expressed by the creativity of the individual human mind. The mission of the individual, the only true happiness, is the realization of the development and fruitfulness of that anti-entropic action which is true, individual creativity of a form cohering with the notion of a Creator.

A Summation

That much said, return to the argument with which this report had begun.

If sense-perception presents us with shadows of experience, rather than the cause of those shadows, we can not be content with the notion that the universe we experience is a domain of mere shadows. Nor can we rightly claim that the appropriate morality of the unseen species which the shadow implies, is located within the qualities imputed to the shadowland which is sense-perception. Hence, the ontological outlook which I have developed here, thus far. We must find our true selves, and our mission in being, in the evidence bearing on the nature of that mind which expresses the reality which the mere shadow-world of sense-perception as such does not.

The Apostle Paul’s most famous chapter from Corinthians haunts us on exactly this account. The contemplation of a better choice of shadow, now made experimentally evident, that of cosmic radiation, haunts us. The unavoidable ontological notion of “mind” therefore haunts us. This brings us to something we should have already known, as the concluding paragraph of Shelley’s unfinished manuscript already haunts the mind of insight. The role of cosmic radiation falls short of our goal, but it has two notable virtues. It takes us, as a crucial experiment, outside the conventional notion of sense-perception, and, brings us, in this way, into the same domain of the creative imagination through which the successive efforts of Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein presented us with a universe which is ontologically finite, but not bounded, and, thus, into a realm of closer proximity to that principle of knowledge which subsumes, rather than merely inhabits, the universe as we, however imperfectly, nonetheless, know it.

Footnotes

1In spite of the low-thoughted envy which would undervalue contemporary merit, our own will be a memorable age in intellectual achievements, and we live among such philosophers and poets as surpass beyond comparison any who have appeared since the last national struggle for civil and religious liberty. The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature. The person in whom this power resides, may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve, that power which is seated on the throne of their own soul. It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words. They measure the circumference and sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all penetrating spirit, and they are themselves perhaps the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations; for it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age. Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. [As frequently recalled and recited publicly by me, from memory of my personal copy of the Harvard Classics edition of 1909, since 1934.]
3H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won, Executive Intelligence Review,1988.
4Directly contrary to Rudolf Clausius et al., attrition demonstrates that the universe is intrinsically anti-entropic, as is shown, in effect, by the destruction of that which is not creative. See below for more on this.
5It should be noted, respecting Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that “God is dead,” that Nietzsche’s argument is essentially that of Aristotle; it is a reflection of the Delphi cult’s presumption that ordinary men and women are members of an inferior species which does not share the presumed elegance of those higher social classes which the Delphic custom identifies as “the immortals.” The Nietzschean concept of “creative destruction,” as represented by the economics dogma of Werner Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter, and their Harvard University and other followers, coincides with the fascist doctrine of Adolf Hitler’s followers. Fascism is to be recognized by its ideas respecting the nature of man, not the mere costume which such as a “Black Shirt” or a “Brown Shirt” wears. The content of the cult of throwbacks to the Roman Empire, which is what fascism represents in political practice, is essentially the belief of the followers of Nietzsche, not the costumes they may choose to wear. The formal introduction of Schumpeter’s doctrine into the office of the Prime Minister of Great Britain was unleashed under Harold Wilson (1964-70, 1974-76), coincident with the launching of the U.S.A.’s war in Indo-China launched once President John F. Kennedy, the opponent of such policies, had been eliminated.
6Lest some misguided soul imagine that there is some fallacy in my argument against Oparin as being a British folly, the fact is, that the British agent, Alexander Helphand (aka “Parvus”). who had been recruited to the British intelligence service by the then representative of the British Fabian Society, Frederick Engels, served as a leading British arms-trader and associate of the British intelligence service’s “Young Turk” scheme. Marx himself gained his career as an agent of Lord Palmerston’s “zoo,” in which Marx served the office of the British Museum under the political direction of Young Europe’s Giuseppe Mazzini. Marx’s function was that among those handling the traffic in correspondence between the British Foreign Office and figures of the Mazzini-led “Young Europe” organization. Whatever the “Marxist” movements did contrary to British pleasure, the British Empire’s intelligence services usually exerted long-range control, as through such Twentieth-century channels as those of Bertrand Russell and Russell’s dupes of the Laxenberg, Austria-based, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Oparin was a typical victim of his control in matters of science by Russell’s circles, including a J.B.S. Haldane whose religious views, as such, differed significantly from the wild-eyed atheism of Russell.
7Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, George Allen & Unwin, London 1952. The citations are taken from a book whose intention and principal elements were the product of my assignment to the author at the time I was preparing a 1980 U.S. Presidential campaign, Carol White. I can report now that her work on that Russell himself was satisfactory to me at that time. For my own views on Russell, see my July 1994 “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” which was later republished, in a Spanish translation by Salvador Lozano, in 1998.
8In my December 15, 2010 “The Global Crisis Now at Hand,” I had included the topic of that geopolitical crisis of the British imperial system which had been created by the challenge of the U.S.A. initiative in the pioneering of transcontinental railway systems. That has been the crucial issue of every significant warfare on this planet, since 1890 to the present day. What I have written on that and related subjects is implicitly included on background here; the role of the Nero-like U.S. President Barack Obama as a de facto instrument of the British empire against the U.S.A., is to be considered as implicitly intended here.
9Prior to the close of the 1980s, the great majority of all leading Classical singers openly supported the defense of the natural registration shifts defined by C=256, despite the influence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This is still the case among the greatest Classically developed singing voices, and a large portion of Classical musicians generally. Notably, according to expert scientific tests, the greatest of the crafted violins and other instruments of the Classical repertoire, were subject to damage, as in the case of the greatest violins, if stressed by elevated pitches. There were two leading arguments in defense of that Classical standard from Bach through Brahms and beyond. One emphasized the natural register-shifts associated with bel canto singing voices; a second, complementary argument, was that only the physically strongest of trained singing voices could withstand the “wear and tear” done to the singing voices by adaptation to elevated pitches. The bad practices sometimes coincided, tellingly, with the kind of conductor who would direct by aid of stop watches at the podium.
10Which Bruno Walter failed, utterly, to accomplish in a U.S. performance, during a nearby time. His treatment of the second movement was the worst of it; but, that turned the rest into a disaster.
11E.g.: “head first.”