It does live:

THE MIND IN BRIEF

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

May 17, 2011


Out of respect for the implications of the length of “When Governments Crumble,” I am producing a summary of the kernel of the argument on the subject of metaphor here.


I begin with emphasis on the necessity of uttering the following sentence, which is, unavoidably, what is called “a mouthful.”

The root of the most prevalent errors of judgment respecting both the essential nature of a competent notion of physical science, and, taking into account the failures of judgment respecting human social processes, which is to be located, fundamentally, in the presumption that the root of human knowledge lies in the principles of sense-perception, rather than in higher order of knowledge, that being the knowledge of the creative powers unique to the actual human mind, a mind which knows that sense-perception is nothing better than a distorted shadow of the reality accessible only to that rarely recognized reality which exists only in the powers of what remains, still today, the rarely recognized existence of the actual human mind.

The chief source of moral, as much as physical failure of the behavior of human beings, still today, most notably, ostensibly literate folk, is inherent in the misguided belief that sense-perception shows us reality. Thus, we are confronted with what is actually the irrationality of what is usually mistaken, even on the higher academic levels, for the practice of reason.

The worst of the blunders and related incompetencies exhibited by presumably well-meaning and cultivated persons, are products of the prevalence of the a-priori form of belief which is systemically contrary to Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. I mean that the discovery that sense-perception constitutes the source of evidence in support of the actually fallacious notion that deduction situated amid relevant sense-perceptual experience, provides us insight into a principled expression of a sensible reality. Whereas, in fact, the existing proof to the contrary, is clearly shown in certain studies premised on assessing the acuality of Kepler’s own, and actually experimentally demonstrated by a systematic re-examination of Kepler’s actual discovery.

Perhaps, the most dramatic, and also most fruitful among the outstanding proofs of Kepler’s argument, is that of Albert Einstein’s insight into the actuality that Kepler’s discovery demonstrates that our universe is “finite, but not bounded.” Indeed, it can be seen by any of a seriously witting, in this instance, that even most of those heard affirming Einstein’s words in this matter, do not actually know what they are “talking about,” ontologically.

Yet, the formality of the knowledge, that Einstein’s somewhat celebrated argument exists, has usually failed to persuade even “the presumably witting,” to see the physically efficient reality toward which Einstein’s words have pointed them. That point is the kernel of the entirety of the argumenet which I have supplied in “When Governments Crumble:” Excatly, where and what is the human mind?

It could be said, that I have already stated this point clearly in that recent publication; yet, I can be certain, in advance, that it is necessary for me to explain what I have explained, not actually because I did not say in clearly enough, but, because readers will usually need to think through again what I have already written. Thus, as all of the wiser pedagogues of relevance have warned, any subject taught must be composed of, essentially, three successive elements, as follows:

“First, say what you are going to say; second, say it; and, third, and (temporarily) last, say what you had said, that finally, in a manner which reminds that what you have told is the exact subject which you had warned them at the beginning.”

Then, having completed that cycle once, say what you had thus said, again, but in another piece; this time, you will have described the meaning of the preceding three-step process, in the same way, except that, now, you are making the seeing of the object as, this time, the object which your mind is are now seeing as an existence which you have existence in a past what you had experienced as, ontologically, in a recent past.

That, for example, is the motive for the practice of the “basement crew,” to have some of them, each in turn, recite as an individual speaking aloud the text which the others’ eyes are reading. To hear and see simultaneously defines an added dimension to the experiencing of the presentation of the subject-matter. Adding a second dimension of seeing of an object of illustration, adds to the dimensionality of the experience, that in the same fashion as the addition of other percursors in forecasting.

For example, it has become the custom, lately, to have the audio-visual presentation of a drama, or, more pointedly, an opera, on stage, or, on the screen, move visibly on stage. Otherwise, the essential image of the drama is ruined, both in fact, and in effect. Tight camera-shots used on such occasions, are deadly in their effect on the mind’s experience.

Call the net result of that process, the indispensable approach and method for conveying a sense of the actual ontology embodied within the process represented by the preceding combination of successive steps.

The point of what might appear to some, initially, as an awkward proceeding in the arts of pedagogy, represents, precisely, the indispensable mission of making the ontological significance of the concept described as, itself, an efficiently ontological sense of, rather than merely a formally literary experience, such as a merely descriptive form of argument in the mode of the likeness of an ordinary classroom experience. Get out of “blab school” into the domain of what is both literally and figuratively the ontologically “real,” for the benefit of the the mind of the hearer and viewer—and the speaker.

The Problem Considered

To actually convey an idea, one must gain proximity to the witnessing of “a live performance” of a drama on an active stage. Merely “reading text,” as if aloud from a script, but without the quality of drama, suffocates what should have been the intended quality on drama which the effective delivery or ideas requires. “Body language,” often even “bawdy” language, is sometimes most helpful, on certain accounts.

The most essential of the principles to be considered on account of the considerations I have presented here up to this time, is the urgency of transforming the image of the speaker of the account-in-progress, to a different body (“so to speak”) that the body which we might assume to be the physical body “on stage.” The actual body must recede into the mists, so that the “spirit,” the soul might appear in that place on stage where the incarnate body of the person had, perhaps mistakenly, seemed to have occupied the personality on stage .

“The play’s the thing to catch the conscience of the king.”

. . .

“To, be,” or, “not to be?” “That, is the question.”

. . .

“ ... my quietus make . . .?” with. . . “a, bare, bodkin!”

Let us “feel the deadly bodkin being slipped into the intended ‘mortal organ,’” that, with an accompanying sense of, “the departure of the soul.” Hamlet stands, thus, for a moment, as merely a homely actor upon a bleakly ordinary stage, that for an awful moment there. Having died, so, once, like Otello, the soulless corpse now resumes the role of Hamlet, as the presence of the spirit playing the the actor’s role, in that domain, which is the imagination, which is the stage.

I have not exaggerated in the least.

What, after all is said, is real? A discovery of a truly efficient incarnation of a great, truthful principle of physical science, for example, is certainly more real today, that the interred corpse of he who discovered that principle earlier.

On this account, it is notable, that thoughtful young adults of their contemporary, present generation, often think, mistakenly, of the values which they have adopted as their own, and imagine that those values will have lost their efficient meaning which their generation which has harbored, once they, in turn have become deceased. Yet, the great scientific discoverers, and creative Classical artists from the past, exist, today, as more real than most among today’s presently living members of our population.

Without such passion for the spirit, there could be no truth.

Aye, lassie... “The play, is”—indeed—“the thing.

To “see the soul” on stage, so, is the principle of truth, as it is not credibly truthful that it appear in any other incarnation. What we consider as the living flesh, is no more real than the the immortality of that which remains as the gift which had been the incarnate habitation of an efficiently creative soul, once the so-called “mortal body” has departed. Such is the principle of human life itself; such is the meaning of the work of men and women which remains immortal, after the human body, is deceased.

What we will have created for future mankind, is, in the end, what we are.

The Irony of It All

Thus, creativity as such, as I have implicitly treated the subject in, both what I have written in “When Governments Crumble,” and in the essence of that piece which I have emphasized here thus far. I have given to you, here, as in the preceding, much longer work, the essence of that greater truth which has been conveyed to serve as truth incarnate. The soul in its reality, is you, for whatever worth the existence of the mortal person for its service to mankind presents, but, especially, the future generations of mankind, a future in whose creation we have participated.

That is the root of our true worth, its worth as living to have lived as the expression of this devotion to creating the future itself.