Final, edited version. 9/9/2011 5:42pm edt

Beyond your current sense-perceptions:

WHAT & WHERE IS YOUR MIND?

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 1, 2011


Mankind, as I have emphasized repeatedly over years, is, essentially, an immortal species, that by its intended design. That is the innate potential of our species. The problem to be faced by humanity now, as during the millions of years of our species’ existence up through the present moment, is the challenge to mankind itself, akin to that challenge which Benjamin Franklin presented to the republic which had just won its freedom through the defeat of the British imperial tyrant: “Can you keep it?” “Can humanity keep what had been its potential immortality as a species up to and beyond the presently onrushing, planetary, breakdown-crisis?


FOREWORD:

Evolution as Man’s Revolutions

It was with a similar dedication and spirit, the U.S. Ambassador to France had forewarned France’s Marquis de Lafayette, at a time when Lafayette’s France was already careening into the brink of what became that great cultural disaster called “The French Revolution.” Lafayette did not heed the warning; I shall hope that my contemporaries will have proven themselves able to have done better in their own time.

So, now, the successful fostering of a new state of mankind’s global and more advanced and distant affairs, has depended upon the timely intervention of a new quality of organization in mankind’s affairs, as when the founding of the original United States of America had represented a qualitative revolution in the affairs of society, not only in North America, nor the leading forms of trans-Atlantic culture, but for the, hopefully, globally radiating impact of the existence and development of the world at large.

Whereas, it is true, that the currently onrushing ruin of the United States has been brought on, chiefly, and most conspicuously, by the corruption represented by such post-Franklin Roosevelt Presidencies as that of Harry S Truman, and by the cases of the assassinations of President John Kennedy and his brother Robert, and by such ruinous later Presidencies as that of Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jr., and most depraved of all thus far, Barack Obama. Thus, a broadly defined, post-Kennedy sequence, became the actual cause of our dismay in recent and current times; what I have lived more than three generations long since that time, has become the expression of a prolonged span of moral decay in what has been lately, in my post-World War II lifetime, the experience of a polluting form of imperialists’ Anglophile depravity.

Nonetheless, mankind has been, if often misguided, the rightfully dominant species of our planet, on which the entirety of this planet has depended for the welfare and moral force of humanity itself, that within the known extent, to the present time, of what must become our species’ influence within the galaxy.

That said up to this point, all that we actually know, presently, of the evolution of living species, is to be properly seen from the viewpoint of mankind’s emergent image of the evolution of mankind and its culture, as that which I shall define here, that which I define with the special meaning of mankind being created not merely as a mortal being, but intended to become an immortal species of mortal human individuals.

That is to say, that despite mankind’s frequent follies, that human knowledge of the continued basis for mankind’s existence, depends upon what has been, and will be acquired by us, as solely from the work of mankind’s attempted practice of unlimited scientific progress. We are, therefore, left, at this present moment of the report, with a certain element of hope, although often a hopefulness mixed with doubt and confusion. Thus, we had been left with an enigmatic thought: how should we, therefore, account for the arrival in a certain time, since when, as it appears to us now, that man had come, presently, to exist according to a prevailing opinion of our scientific thought, only as a recent arrival, a mere few millions years ago?

So, in summary, we are left with a certain scientific predicament in this matter.

Now, we must justly presume that pre-human history (whatever that might signify) is actually laden with a pre-fixed, specific, and permanently revolutionary potential. This will be a mankind which is even becoming, in effect, (hopefully), a higher-quality species than it had been at any given earlier time.

In other words, therefore, we must ask ourselves: “What are, presently, those creative means by which mankind can pre-choose its own future, its eternally changing succession of forward actions, this to such effect, that mankind were to be considered as unique in a quality of being enabled, unlike all other known species, to actually perform, even still today, what seems to be exactly that revolutionary miracle which mankind must become?”

In the meantime, all that we actually know of the human species, is what we are presently enabled to discover as being its potential for the coming-into-being of mankind on this planet in its role as a higher form of social process. That means a higher form of the conditions of existence of mankind as a species, a species which is charged with the potential of becoming something higher in its form and quality now, than it had progressed as during those times of progress of our species’ condition and achievements in the best among earlier times.

Had we been ordinary living creatures, who were not possessed of the creative powers of a human genius, we would have had no direct access to the implications of presently existing mankind’s willful quality of bearing the pregnancy-likeness of an imminent realization of the birth of mankind’s future, and also a higher potential than had existed from the standpoint of its present quality of its existence on this planet.

That would translate, in its effect, into the notion that the creative powers which are a potential of our human wisdom, are best estimated as residing in some location to be named as “somewhere within this galaxy”—or, beyond. Therefore, this is mankind, as we represent mankind as a species distinguished by its exceptional intellectual powers, and as being one thus able to fulfill an ideal quality specific to mankind and his legacy, a mankind accomplishing this by means of which, we are enabled, and also obliged, now, to adopt this aim as, once again, the primary subject of our inquiry here today.

The key to the solution to this riddle, is, as I shall show it in the course of this present report, that, among all species presently known to us, only the human species qualifies, on known records of its species’ behavior, and on the basis of known other evidence, as indicated as representing the special quality of being of a potentially functional quality of the type of an immortal species.1It is not the individual specimen which is biologically immortal; it is the only species which demonstrates, in itself, this species-characteristic potential.

That is to emphasize, that if mankind has been known to have existed on Earth even less than a dozen millions years, we must ask now, as some present evidence suggests: how long had it been since mankind was in the process of becoming a relatively pre-determined sort of existent, progressive type of species, and, as a model distinguished by the demonstrated qualifications of what I present as an immortal species, as in this report?

As I shall emphasize on this account, there are strong premises to presume, that with the coming-into-being of the cognitively matured form of the presently manifest human species (as I have sketched its essential characteristics in the following pages), that mankind would be, once more, mankind in progress, that in some meaningful sense, as had already occurred a long time prior to the time an actual representative of that species was already in existence, in some way, in a period of great progress of our species, once again, and in the best moments of our species’ existence, before.

Reformulate that just stated context for human existence as it will be defined in the following, comparative view of the same subject-matter.

A Vision of, and for Mankind

What we know of the process of the direction of development of human life as it is illustrated by the definition of man as the expression of Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s conception of a Noösphere, is a model for revolutionary progress of the human species within our galaxy, a model which must be projected as a future advance in the human condition comparable to the kind of process of progress which Vernadsky’s work has, implicitly predefined.

In that case, as just referenced immediately above, it might appear that the appropriate image of our universe will prove, once more, to have been the author of a quality of experience, which refreshes our hope for a quality of upward progress of the human species outmatching the best periods of the progress of mankind’s rise, again, to experience the process of a higher quality of a process of generation of the object which we should have regarded as “the universe,” once more; a universe whose rise to a higher form of its existence, would come as in times before. We must seek to contribute in bringing about a new renaissance of our species, that brought about by means of an agency which were inherent in the very existence of that presumably moved, known object which is embodied in the willful character of our species.2The likely problem of the reader at this point in the account, is to be the infamous paradox of Laplace, respecting the notion of time. That is a matter which shall be addressed at more suitable, later point in this present report.

That means, for example, that the presently restated goal just underlined, is one which were posed to us as the fruit of some serious examination of the development of life within the bounds of no less than the development of life-forms of our own galaxy during some known, recent half-billion years, akin to that which have encompassed the relevant categories of the evidence of the evolution of species over the course of that span of developments.

So, according to the present view of the universe known to us, as to our present acceptance of the notion of mankind and the human experience, life and its non-living aspect are essentially inseparable expressions of the same unified action. They are united as being both cause and result of a unity of interaction, as one which mankind occupies, in some sense, within a crucial, momentary position in the history of our heavenly galaxy.

In this fashion so described, consider the case for the period since a reorientation of the investigations which our “Basement” team’s investigations had encompassed since the mid-Summer of A.D. 2010. Focus attention most emphatically on those matters of investigation of the history of life on Earth which bear most emphatically on what have been approximately a half-billion years of evolution of living species seen by modern science as having existed within our galaxy’s realm over that span of our knowledge of life on Earth. The essential pattern to be considered in this way, is, thus, subsumed, entirely, by a superior, upward-directed advancement in what is, effectively, an inseparable action in “energy-flux density” of characteristic living processes, a history of development of living processes which is centered in the superior principle of the specifically creative processes of the individual human mind.

Thus, the existence of non-living processes, the causes of their existences, and, ostensibly, also their consequences, present us, thus, with a spectacle which has been dominated, this far, by the role of successively higher degrees of such biological and other forms of ordering. This is to be presented in terms of expressions of wide ranges of increases in relative “energy-flux density,” all which developments are centered, as implicitly subordinate to the role and effect of those creative powers unique to the individual human mind.

An Hypothetical Case: Mars

The time either has passed, or should have already passed, within which it should have been presumed that the actor in the site of the function within which he, or she, is effectively acting on behalf of a productive, or comparable mission, represents a mission which not merely could be, but even should be the functional arrangement of our thinking on all relevant matters. This arrangement is a fact which had been already considered in drafting the notion of the intended, manned mission to the Moon. Relatively soon, the continuation of that mission-orientation toward a Moon-landing, became, within the lapse of a few decades, the presentation of the general notion of “an extra-terrestrial” design of economy operating on the platforms provided by both the Solar System and beyond.

We should look back to my design of the half-hour feature, “The Woman on Mars,” which I had designed as a half-hour feature of my 1988 Presidential election-campaign.

Now, even today, the prospect is not simply for habitations on and beyond our Moon, but for the case in which planetary basings in one location, as a controlling capability for manufacture or the equivalent on some “middle ground” basing, within our Solar system or beyond, of the control of the likeness of production controlled from a third point, a human-controlled agency, operate as a common, not human occupied, place in a three-part configuration. The factor of time in operations within the Solar system or within even relatively nearby regions of the galaxy, points in such probable directions.

The same problems appear even within more modest reaches of extra-terrestrial-related operations.

Kill the “Second Law”

In other words, the notion of a force of “universal entropy” (a “Second Law of Thermodynamics”) has always been explicitly an outright lie, a hoax whose effects are contrary to the true fact of evolutionary ordering of living processes generally, that as a fact of the evolution of living processes generally. That evolution will have generated processes which had been directed toward higher concentrations of expressed “energy-flux density,” processes which are expressed as being a subsumed characteristic of the universe which living and quasi-living, non-human processes will have also inhabited.

The implication of this experience, is not, that the system of human existence is “running down” like some ordinary mechanical clock; but, rather, it shall appear to be directly the opposite. The implication is, that the currently rampant, pagan-religious form of the misconceived dogma of “environmentalism,” is a lie; in truth, it is a lie against the very notion of a Creator.3I.e., “pagan-religious” as used here, signifies “oligarchical systemic.” It lies about everything else that can be judged as true of our own known universe, in particular. The precondition for the continued existence of our human species is endlessly upward advances in the relative energy-flux density, per capita, and per unit of territory, and of the preconditions for a successfully continued human existence.

In other words, I am obliged, in my writing of this report, to emphasize that creativity is not something which happens to the universe; creativity is, as I shall emphasize in due course in the production of this report, the characteristic, implicitly inevitable expression of the active expression of the presently known existence of man in our habitation of this universe. There are no static objects; there is an ongoing, anti-entropic process of development of an ongoing existence of our species within the bounds of such a quality of a universe. It is, thus, our immediate obligation to consider here, specifically, that the evidence of evolutionary experience over the course of the relevant span, is the evidence of an expression of the determining quality of an implicitly attributable motive which has engendered that evolutionary experience, upward, leading into the further, endless development of our species.

What I have written in the preceding, introductory paragraphs this far, has been presented here to confront the reader with the experience of a shock. It will come next, even starkly, as an indispensable shock inhering in the essential character of the argument to be made as this report unfolds from these prefatory observations, into the subsequent, opening regular chapter’s present crafting presented in the opening, numbered chapters found below.

Thus, before we return to a needed restatement of the same thesis within which the essential content of this prefatory statement has been situated from its start, take into account the following prefatory mediation, which now runs as follows.

The View from Riemann’s Discovery

On this account, it is most essential, at this point in these prefatory sections of my report, that we must reference the third, concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, “The Application to Space” [Anwendung auf den Raum].4Bernhard Riemann’s Gesammelte Mathematische Werke und Wissenschaftlicher Nachlass, Heinrich Weber, published by B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1902; pp. 273-287.

The “five senses” on which most current opinions continue to dote credulously, as people in most cases still do, are senses which are to be recognized as dominated by the deceptive effects imposed on their believers, effects produced by the presumption of that which is “real.” They are, as I shall emphasize in the coming chapter of this report, to be considered, in one optional view, as being mere shadows, therefore mere shadows mistaken for reality. Or, in the alternative, they must be viewed, as I do, as being, in their least fallible effects, as the mere shadows of an unknown reality even among otherwise competent scientists, generally, today.

On the account of that designated conflict in meanings, it is most essential that I shall have emphasized my reference at this point in the account, as having been my reference to the third, concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation otherwise to be sub-titled in English, as “The Application to Space.”

This consideration includes the needed emphasis, as by Riemann in that location; on this account, we must consider those notions of sense-perception, and the like, which belong to a class of notions which must now appear to us as reposing in some mysterious place essentially beyond the domain of ordinary human sense-perceptions as such. That is to emphasize such cases as, as by Riemann for example, in respect to and from the very large, or, to the very small, examples which are to be located beyond the limits of such merely apparent, successively ordered domains. Indeed, as Riemann emphasizes in the referenced concluding section of that work, he takes physical science into a domain which is located, ontologically, as Riemann emphasizes there, entirely beyond the mere reductionist’s realm of what is merely mathematics.5“The Application to Space.”

That fact considered: why, then, do ostensibly sane and cultivated men and women, believe in the sort of opinion which might be attributed to the often imagined “infallibility” of mere sense-perception? We must demand: “Why are we, so often, so foolish as to believe, as if in acts of blind faith, such as what have been often declared as our ordinary five sense-perceptions?” The worst of such effects, is what some are induced to conceive of the human personality in terms of a naive view of the human individual; that is to say, as being a creature essentially defined, as if axiomatically, as by a wild-eyed fantasy of mere “sense-deception.”6I shall return to that question in later chapters.

For example, in modern civilization, the commonplace expression of the worst cases of simple-minded opinions respecting reliance on the mere existences of sense-perceptions, is typified by British and related forms of Liberalism: the most notable expression of this, is typified by Adam Smith’s actually silly, 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments. That English hoaxster, Adam Smith, is persistently emphatic in his insisting that human beings are systemically incapable in the attempt to distinguish truth from lies; that Smith, like his foolish admirers, situates human beings as being virtual animals, as if being merely the hapless victims of the mere perceptions of pleasure and pain.

Our Human Alternative

What, then, must be adopted, instead of mere sense-perceptions, adopted for the purpose of defining the quality of evidence which points us toward the discoverable principles which define those effects to be properly regarded as an actually efficient principle of physical science, or its like?

The processes which supplement mere sense-perception with rigorous qualities of experimental inquiries, should have revealed to us that what we have been conditioned to regard as even being the fruit of “sense-certainties,” as if being inquiries whose fruits are located in what are merely “shadows cast,” as being shadows cast to such effect as showing that human sense-perceptions are merely additions to the repertoire of sense-perceptions. These are sense-perceptions which are often more reliable as in their form as near-approximations, as mimicking, even mocking reality, more than any actual sense-perceptions as such.

On this account, consider the manner in which Percy Bysshe Shelley composed the closing paragraph of what some still mystified readers have regarded as the mystical character of the closing paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry. All competent creative expressions of Classical artistic composition, are expressed in this way, as are the powers embodied in the expression of the true creative powers of the imagination in physical science, or in great Classical poetry, truly Classical drama, such as that of Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller, both in drama and poetry, and in musical composition and its performance.

Those effects specific to the actually creative powers of mind, when considered as experimental forms of those scientific tests defining a true notion of universalized physical principles, prompt us to recognize the fact, that sense-perception’s function, is a view of what must appear to many as some mere shadows of reality. Therefore, they are known, consequently, only to such scientific practice, and that only by exceptionally well developed individual minds.

The most significant benefit of that thus improved notion of our functional relationship to the experience-able universe, is that which enables the developed scientific mind, or the Classical poetic mind rooted in the function of metaphor, to effect a certain change of one’s mind, through which the sense of personal identity is as if transported from the location of personal identity in the realm of an imaginary “sense-certainty,” transported as a mere shadow of brain-functions, to become a sense of the truly scientific mind’s location of personal human identity within the universe, as to a subject which is yet-to-be located in the content of the presently ongoing report in progress here.

It is, essentially, in the creative powers of the Classical artistic imagination, that the sources of the power of physical science are to be found, as in a realization of what the Classical imagination has engendered.

That is to say, that when we consider the popular opinion, to the effect of regarding metaphor as shadow-land, it is the wrongly presumed certainties of sense-perception which are often actually the domain of fantasy, or, said more kindly, what is usually mistaken for the security of “solid” belief in the phantoms popularly known as “sense-certainty.” It is metaphor, otherwise named the apprehension of efficient reality, which is the “solid” aspect of experience of the moving power of insight typical of Keats and Shelley in the power to move the passions of nations and peoples.

Our location here and now, thus becomes, the mind’s perceiving sense-experience as like a mere array of shadows cast by processes experienced by what have been, and are, expressions of a sense of one’s self as representing an identity located in the universe. It is a universe in which our sense of our efficiently existing identity is “looking at” the display of a totality of “sense experiences” and also “sense-like experiences” enjoyed by the human mind, the which is looking at the particular experience from its location of the universe in which the developed mind finds its true, implicit place of primary residence. It is a place from which we were viewing the universe in which our virtual soul’s own identity is located: located in that sense of identity within that universe within which we should be struggling to locate the residence of that which is virtually our true soul and its place of ultimate, even ultimately permanent residence.

That is to emphasize here, as I shall do this repeatedly in the pages which come here later, that the location of the radiation of a spoken, or equivalent utterance, were not likely to be the location, in imagined mere sense-perception, from which the ostensibly uttered argument is launched into circulation among persons; the idea itself is radiated from a “place” outside mere sense-perception itself, as from a real place in the universe from which the actual idea expressed is echoed as the actually surrounding universe infinitely afar from mere sense-perceptions.7This is an example of what some might identity as “pure LaRouche.” This means that the ideas with which spoken, or written messages are associated, is not the actual form, quality, or content of the idea as known to the real universe, but, is, rather, a virtual shadow of the actually efficient expression of the idea. Human communication as such, as in the ordinary meaning attributed to “communication,” must be judged as we distinguish the utterance of the idea’s communication as a kind of analog of a “Morse Code rendition” of a political address, as transmitted as if from “East Oshkosh,” of an address uttered, viva voce, from St. Petersburg.

To summarize the implication of what I have stressed in this preceding paragraph, consider the following.

Consider Our Modern Predecessors!

In what I shall write in the subsequent potions of this report, following these present prefatory remarks, the distinction of the human being from the beasts of all species and their varieties, is to be located in respect to the essential consideration of those conscious powers of creation which distinguish the human personality from that of those beasts. The human personality which is also creative among people in their respective ways, is not that attributed only to the merely sensory experiences of images within what are the relatively fixed parameters of design of their capabilities. We must seek out, develop, and rely upon the consciousness of those more rarely recognized creative powers which lie as if “outside the reach of” ordinary “sensory” readings, as those relatively “higher” orders of powers of the mind with which the well-ordered human mind is, nonetheless, potentially, specifically endowed.

On the account of these voluntary powers which are unique for reason of their distinction from known creatures other than the human personality, it is only mankind which has been shown to us as being willfully creative in respect to those conscious discoveries of universal principle which supply a quality of implied immortality to those creative personalities which transmit the effect of willful creation into becoming the benefits implicitly awarded to posterity; such is the quality which defines an otherwise mortal personality as an eternally creative being, a virtual immortal, among the ranks of future humanity.

Accordingly, the fact is the following. There are many species, most of which become extinct when the course of their run has been completed. Mankind alone, has access to the role of an implicitly immortal species, as this is expressed through the process of uniquely human, willful creativity, including physical-scientific creativity. Mankind, alone, among all species presently known to us, is thus granted the opportunity to attain the status of what I shall define, at a later point here, as the relatively higher powers of an implicitly immortal species.

The consequent, ultimately relevant scientific evidence, is that which is implicit in the pattern of advances in modern science, as emphasized by the case of such crucial contributions to modern science as those of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia (1440).

We may also encounter such conceptions in an earlier time, through the leading work of such Cusa contemporaries as that extraordinary genius, the discoverer of the principled nature adumbrated by the mere funicular curve (the catenary), Filippo Brunelleschi.

So, science proceeds upward beyond the shadow-land of mere sense-perception, as through the modern discoveries by the great followers of Cusa, through Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Carl Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, and Riemann himself, a process continued into the exemplary cases of Max Planck and his great ally and follower, Albert Einstein, and, thence to the fulsome achievements of Russia’s V.I. Vernadsky, especially as represented by the coincidence of the fundamental accomplishments of Riemann and the Vernadsky who became recognizable as Riemann’s true successor in the domain of physical science as a whole, as all this was clearly defined in Vernadsky’s own work, that since approximately the middle of the 1930s.

It came, in such ways as those, to be the present case, that we are now obliged to recognize the creative (e.g., “noëtic”) powers of the human mind in such terms of modern reference. It is also the mind of the great Classical poet and musician, and of our greatest scientists from such as the array of antecedents of Plato, and of such figures as the Christian Apostle Paul who opened up, most clearly, the vista of the immortality to be distinguished as an ontological view of that transformation to be known as the realization of the immortal human soul.

Those just spoken words, respecting Paul, are no mere fancy. Consider the evidence which I shall develop from this point, forward, through this report of my findings. We shall return to the subject of that Apostle in due course in the following pages.

The Fallacies of Sense-Perception

On those opening paragraphs considered thus far, one might now ask: why, then, do ostensibly sane and cultivated men and women, believe in the sort of opinion which might be attributed to the often imagined “infallibility” of mere sense-perception? Why are we, so often, so foolish as to believe, as if in acts of blind faith, ideas such as those popularly associated with our ordinary five sense-perceptions? The worst of such effects, is to conceive of the human personality in terms of that childishly naive view of the human individual, which is to say, as being essentially a creature defined by sense-perception.

How does this work?

In now approaching the close of these present, prefatory remarks, let us now consider, once again, the prominent role of that modern European evil which is called “liberalism,” such as that of the evil Adam Smith.

In modern civilization, the commonplace expression of the worst cases of simple-minded opinions respecting sense-perceptions, is typified by British and related forms of Liberalism; the most notable expression of this evil is typified by Adam Smith’s 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith is emphatic in insisting, as his most notable followers have done in similar ways, that human beings of a “Liberal” disposition are, commonly, systematically incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood; in practice, Smith, or his like, frankly prefers a systemic quality of falsehood. The irrationalist’s fanatical emphasis on “sense-certainty,” lends itself to the effect of the notion, that the human individual is to be considered as being intrinsically incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood; but, is, rather, a hapless victim of what is, ultimately, a combination of merely adopted rules of behavior, and of the mere perceptions of pleasure and pain.

What, then, must be adopted, instead of sense-perceptions, for the purpose of defining the quality of evidence which points us to access to those discoverable, experimental principles of evidence, the which identify those effects which are to be properly treated as the expression of the experimental evidence which should be regarded as an actually efficient principle of physical science, or the like?

Now, as to the matter which is to be considered as the crucial subject of this report: What is to be adduced, decently, from the experience of human sense-perceptions? Take the particular case of common use of the notion of human sense-perceptions. For our example here, examine the ironies among the variously claimed and the actual powers for access to what merely approximates actual knowledge, and the role of those, who have been at their best, poor reflections of reality respecting what we are accustomed to identify as the (actually) highly misleading ideas associated with “the customary human sense-perceptions.”

Until mankind had risen significantly above the level of quality of the knowledge commanded by simians, or, comparably, above the mere “five senses” which constitute the core of ordinary human sense-perception, mankind remains lodged, for the greater part, still today, virtually as much like an animal as also mankind. At such a time, man is a troubled creature. Mankind is situated within his, or her powers to perceive current experience.

If such embarrassing poverty of products of pre-scientific and comparable sophistication of principles are to be considered examples of something actually fit to be considered as knowledge, mankind nevertheless enjoys a kind of potential for still higher qualities of knowledge, knowledge whose acquisition hangs on the role of the Classical-artistic principle of metaphor, as that principle is expressed through constructions typical of Classical notions of artistic composition.

Those available, but rarely developed higher notions of Classical-artistic imagination, which are to be located beyond mediocrity and mere doctrinal formalism, beyond reductionism, are to be reached through experiencing awareness of the higher, Classical forms of the imagination, which we must locate in the notion on which depend the powers associated with man’s actual Classical artistic and related discoveries, upon which the discovery and use of universal principles depend. Those are the powers which depend, in turn, upon the acquisition and maintenance of actually effective scientific progress, and on which the needed modes of advances of the human species’ practice largely depend.

Rather than taking sense-perception literally, as if sense-perceptions were “real,” rather than being merely shadows cast upon our senses as sense-perception per se, we must discover that which has cast such shadows.

Contrary to that warning, as in the case of the wretched liberalism of Adam Smith and its likeness, which is currently expressed in various forms of axiomatic irrationalism in cultural developments, what may be regarded as virtually rational mental behavior, is not secured in any systemic way; it is only constrained, at least this is largely so, as mechanical-like functions are typified by mechanical-like forms of merely induced habits of behavior.

The common use of symbolic representations, such as by the mistaking of words for the relevant, “physical actualities,” is a product of blind faith in mere sense-perception, as of the notorious five bare, nominalist “sense perceptions,” for the notion of universal principles, such as the discovered physical principles of Johannes Kepler, as typified by the unique discovery of a principle of gravitation by no one other than Johannes Kepler, by the work of Bernhard Riemann, and by the forward progress in developments of the powers of ontological insights of the human mind, as by Max Planck and Albert Einstein in their time, and V.I. Vernadsky, at a still higher level, in his.

Never trust the judgment of a presumed expert, even a professional one, if that person’s outlook is premised largely on what have become, increasingly, as, notably, increasingly dominant, downward trends, such as those which have been dominant among us since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt; the latter are typically expressions of faulty, reductionist methods of what may be rated even as “clinically expert judgment,” even among what may otherwise reasonably be presumed to be a high quality of professional judgment.

That kind of problem, posed in those or comparable terms of even “professional expertise,” presently predominates among what are, regrettably, to be rated as “professional” qualifications under such conditions. To repeat: wherever actual higher cognitive functions are corrupted by “literal forms of expertise,” as also among laymen generally, the judgment of the putative expert is to be questioned, as being perennially in doubt. “Liberalism” and other forms of “reductionist skills” are to be regarded with caution, even sometimes with contempt, this because they should become suspect whenever they are defending their putatively “expert habits” which come into play as products of reductionist rationalizations.

I can speak with a demonstrated, relatively extraordinary authority in what I have presented here, thus far in this publication. This is so because it represents something which frequently represents a virtually unique authority in the domain of economic forecasting and related topical zones.

Specifically, on the matter of general forecasting, my own increasing authority, as over the interval 1956-2011, must be recognized, from evidence of practice, as, not only superior, but essentially, exceptionally unique as a standard of relative professional excellence in the results of performance in that field.

On this same account, the current presentation is therefore intended to provide a basis for prompting a more efficient insight into the basis for the unique successes of my methods of forecasting, as manifest in the conditions of virtually terminal economic crisis gripping much of the world at large at this present time. This quality of application of distinctions of professional competence, has been successful in fact, but, nonetheless, rarely accepted, publicly, until recent years’ frequent exposure of the incompetence of what had been considered customary, but also intrinsically incompetent expressions of reductionist deductions in matters of economy.

This, is not limited to my, so far, exceptional competence in the particular professional realm of economics as such, but swarms over the entire range of subjects of related expressions of current social theory; it is a subject belonging to domains of superior professional and related judgments generally, not only within the bounds of the physical science of economics and closely related matters, but in the foundations of the subject-matters assembled for this present report in progress here.

Let us now proceed from there.


I. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE


Thus, respecting what I have said here thus far: my authority respecting the subject-matters which I treat throughout this present report, rests upon my fairly unique record of successes as a forecaster of crises and kindred classes of phenomena in modern economy. This is especially so respecting leading cases from among the trans-Atlantic economies, up through relevant recent times, since 1956-7. The distinctions to be made on that specific account, are to be considered case by case, in one sense, as quantitative, but, taken, in another sense, as a series of relevant, critical events, which are qualitative, thus matching the character of expressions of a physical-scientific principle.

The world, especially the trans-Atlantic world, is at this very moment, gripped by the worst financial crisis in modern history: most probably, this very week—unless something which would be almost beyond belief were to intervene.

Everything which is critical respecting the principled features of my record of performance as a forecaster in modern economy, is to be found in the wake of what threatens to break out this very week of my 89th birthday—the birthday of the most successful forecaster of my own generation. Meanwhile, the errors of what have been my putative, professional rivals, have left nothing of their doctrines standing under the virtually terminal conditions of the great trans-Atlantic breakdown-crisis presently in motion.

The issues thus posed, belong among the qualitative matters of physical science, rather than a merely quantitative one. My present proposal for a general, physical-economic recovery from the presently “crashing,” trans-Atlantic “breakdown crisis,” is the design which defines the specific, science-driven achievements waiting to be gained now on this account.

The Challenge Now Before Us

The greatest specifically contemporary obstacle to progress within the bounds of what is widely accepted as modern academic science, is to be found in the empiricist’s mistaken presumption, that “the five so-called principles of sense-perception” have actually defined a presently accepted opinion respecting man’s presumed power to regulate both man and nature by means of certain intrinsically pathetic “a-priori” presumptions. As I have emphasized in the preceding, prefatory arguments heretofore, such claimed powers belong to the domain of fantasies, at least essentially so.

One should not have been surprised to discover, that the most familiar form of even tragic follies, would turn out, in the end, to have been what had passed widely for the failures of the popular fantasies which inhere in what is called, ironically, “common sense.” Take, for example, what I have just cited as the case of widespread belief in the “popular” so-called “five” common senses, as the most typical, and the most commonly celebrated of those systemic errors of judgment.

To illustrate this point, consider the proofs presented by the original, modern discoverers of the true principle of universal gravitation. For that purpose, take, once again, the cases of, first, the astronomer Johannes Kepler, who was the first and only presently known discoverer of this principle, and, then, add the similarly ironic genius expressed in the related, masterful achievement of that great physicist, Albert Einstein, who, later, adduced from Kepler’s work, the crucial principle of the notion of the universe as “being finite but not bounded.”

The considerations posed by the successive discoveries made by those two, leading modern physical scientists, should now lead in promoting the attention among us, to what may come to be considered as the most crucial of the modern contributions to the advancement of science in the time of those still living today. The following argument identifies the principled nature of the issues involved.8My own discovery in this matter is complemented by a kindred examination of the same issue of modern physics being addressed currently by my colleague Jason Ross. Jason Ross’ approach is referenced to the still debated issues arising in the efforts to reconcile the approach to the notion of Abelian functions by Abel and certain others with that associated with the discoveries of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann. My own approach to the matter is presented, summarily, in this present location.

Take the case of the great fallacy which is lurking in modern physics at this ironic moment, today. This is to be located as a systemic error of presumption which mistakenly treats sense-perceptions (e.g., the “five as such”), as being a primary fact of applied physical science. Kepler’s discovery of gravitation, and Einstein’s hereditarily related views on a finite universe, a view which is not bounded, are combined as being virtually explicit on the point I present here today.

To begin our approach to developing the case which I have just introduced in that fashion, consider some ancient precedents for the same class of problems. Consider, for example, the instance of the sheer fraud of what is called “Euclidean geometry.” That, like all pseudo-scientific frauds of what is termed “a-priori-ism,” depends upon hoaxes such as both “Euclidean geometry” and the silly, but greatly admired notion of “an original five senses.”

The attempts to premise the evidence of physical phenomena on measurements and related implications of the notions of sense-perceptions, especially as associated with deductive methods, pollutes physical science through attempts to mistreat actual physical principles with what are actually the shadows cast as phenomena such as sense-perceptions, that in defiance of the best of the ancient Classical Greeks, and, later, of the scientific method associated with the legacy of such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and including the particular work of Johannes Kepler’s method in the discovery of the principle expressed in respect to the intermeshed notions of a vicarious hypothesis and of the actual discovery of gravitation.9Consider the systemic error of Archimedes’ notion of a quadrature of the circle. The correction of Archimedes on this account, was introduced to modern science by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, a correction which reflects Cusa’s treatments in his De Docta Ignorantia.

Among all of the a-priorist forms of expression of the indicated errors in the use of the notion of sense-perceptions, the most urgent now are those expressed with presently embittered irony in a reductionist’s radically reductionist, simplistic attributions to the word “time.” On this point of a systemic conflict between the notion of experimental physical science and that of formal mathematics, we are confronted with the essentially existential battle between the influence of a reductionist mathematician, such as that of the tribes of the followers of the hoaxster Bertrand Russell, and the actual experimental, leading modern physicists such as Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Dirichlet, and Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.

What I have thus just said, so, here, in this present chapter, thus far, is not only true, relative to any contrary opinion; it is fully correct as to what it claims for itself, but, if it goes no further, remains, presently, as customarily, dangerously incomplete; it is, even, sometimes, brutally misleading, not for anything which is thus said, but for what could be awfully problematic in respect to what remains to be left unsaid.10The failure to denounce the so-called “principles of sense-perception,” is a prime example of such fraudulent oversights. The fraud of Euclidean geometry’s a-priori “principles” is a case in point. The case of the evil Bertrand Russell and his Twentieth-century generations of dupes of such as Russell’s depraved Cambridge school of “systems analysis,” is, as I have already emphasized here, a most relevant, clinical case-in-point.11Cf. The Laxenberg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).

Otherwise, the same ruinous tendency menacing the world, especially the trans-Atlantic world, at the present moment, may be classed, from much earlier times, as the conflict between the “a-priorism” of formal mathematics, as since the wretched a-priorism of a lying Euclid, in contrast to the relative sanity of a truly physical science.

The issue to be put forth here, is of the nature of the essentially functional differences among successive variants from among a series of living species. That is to emphasize, that the evolution of the species within the domain of a relative set of successive, ostensibly rival species, presents us, as now, with what is in some very meaningful way, the deadly opposition among what are to be considered as successive species among a sequence of what represents, functionally, deadly rivals trapped in a common ruin.

Such are the distinctions among oligarchical modes in human societies, as in mutual opposition to a society ordered in a manner coherent with the original U.S. Federal Constitution, or, perhaps better considered as within the opposing, inherent state of conflict defined between marsupials and mammals.

The Brutish Empire

The British Empire of today, is a true expression of the legacy of a “Third” Roman Empire, and also the greatest of the enemies of civilization walking and stalking the planet presently.

That is, for example, exactly the nature of the conflict between a society consistent with the British monarchy (a vicious form of the broader oligarchical pestilence) and the original Federal Constitution of the United States.

However, this conflict has an alternate implication: it portends a society reaching a state comparable to the fatal decadence of British imperialist’s control over the British imperialist system of “Governance” which has recently gobbled-up the Western and Central European continent. This “gobbling-up” process, presents us with a system rooted in the same oligarchical principle which has continued to dominate the ruling, oligarchist systems of Europe over the span of a ruling imperialism in Europe from the fall of the Persian empire, through to the present smell of the onrushing doom of the British empire today.

This British imperialist legacy copied, most notably, from the ancient Roman Empire, has become standard for the ruling system of Europe since that time to the time of the disintegration of the European imperialist reign of the British empire, a system which has reigned in and over Europe, since the first establishment of the Roman Empire in the inherently depraved, social systemic features of “governance.” This empire is presently, inherently doomed to being more or less totally destroyed by the mere virtue of the fact that it is such an inherently imperialist system of “governance.”

That is precisely the augur of the doom which would, very soon, bring on a great genocide of mankind, if the present British power over the economies and political systems of the trans-Atlantic region, were not eliminated from the world stage during the immediate period now just ahead.

True, there have been great values included among the advances in European cultures, but, excepting, chiefly, the case of our United States, the achievements of European cultures have been usually contained within the shackles of the still-unbroken legacy of a Roman imperial reign, an imperium which has been customarily a ruling power over the nations of Europe and beyond, since the Roman empire was first established among the sexually and otherwise notorious goats of the Isle of Capri.

All of the great accomplishments of a superior United States over those imported European afflictions suffered by that which has been our United States, have been menaced, and often set back, as if tragically, by failures brought upon the world by an imperialist tyranny associated with the cause of civilization by forces which have been organized by the continued tradition of the presently extended Roman empire, that through the now currently tragic reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

To refer to that kind of systemic conflict which I have just summarized, now brings to our attention the sign of what is presently threatened, as the onrushing, near-extinction of no less than the overwhelming majority of the trans-Atlantic peoples, as a present threat which might be, beyond that, perhaps even a prelude to the early extinction of the human and other species. This were the immediately threatened situation, unless certain changes which I had prescribed, as in July-August 2007, were installed in the United States, immediately, now.

That case should serve as an illustration of the same principle of threatened relative, or even inevitable mass-extinction which the present conflict between the British oligarchical and American Constitutional systems were sufficient to threaten, or even bring on very rapidly, at this present moment in time.

That much said on that particular account, turn now to consider the specific, scientific underpinnings of such a state of conflict.

The Scientific Principle

All the leading aspects of physical science presently relevant to the foregoing matters, should be situated in a view of an alternative, prospective continuity of physical-economic progress. This should be referenced to the succession summarily represented by the successive achievements associated with the contributions of Bernhard Riemann and Russian Academician V.I. Vernadsky, achievements through the progress of physical science, to what is the proper reality of human life.

That just stated here, is not the “final word;” it is the anteroom to a higher-ranking, more profound consideration. That higher consideration, is the fact that neither the physical domain, nor the notion of time, are respectively independent “factors.” Scrap the silly category of “space.” The implication is, that putative domains of neither physics nor physical time, are truly independent factors; only the living process of physical-time, exists. The implication is, as I have repeated with increasing emphasis, that, in this universe, the essential form of existence and its existences, could be nothing different than that view from the parapet of physical time.

The fact is, that, when the relevant facts are taken properly into account, and the type properly identified as the “creative principle” is expressed approximately as the creative powers of the human mind, those creative powers are to be recognized as the reflection of a single principle of creativity; that arrangement only typifies the reigning universal, immortal principle which rules mankind’s world.

At such physical times, we should view the subsumed domains of the life of plants and animals, and of, also, what is attributed as being the non-living domains, as under the higher, subsuming reign of the domain of the highest of the notions of living processes, a reign reflected in the notion of the actual mind of a representative of the human species. I speak, thus, of the domain of that principle of mind as such, which is associated with the conception of a truthful image of the reign of the principle of the human mind, the mind which suggests the awesome reality of a Creator.

That much said here, thus far, we are confronted, as I have just stated this point earlier, with the indication that the act of creating does not exist independently of the Creator. The latter two, are but one and the same.

Some Considerations

Discuss this point a bit. Consider some “handy illustrations” presented here and now, so that I might illustrate some relevant aspects of what might be identified as “ironies of sense-perception,” or, were it better said: self-deception.

Take the case of the names employed to indicate the media within whose bounds human action is presumed to act upon what is believed to be the universe. Consider, for example, the fictitious, and silly, terms employed in defining the medium of human action upon the universe as expressions of a concert of “space, time, and, matter.” In the first case, “space” as such does not actually exist as it is customarily assumed to exist today. That is to emphasize, that “space” is filled up “as if to the gills” with the medium of universal cosmic radiation; the notion of “discrete matter in space,” is a dubious sort of notion.

That is not to deny, even in the least degree, the “efficiency” of the physical processes which the scientist and other relevant parties are required to consider. The source of the relevant ironies of what had been recently current conventions, is the fallacious presumptions bearing on the designs employed for customary or comparable habits. The root of such difficulties is located in a misconception of what we are generally accustomed to identify as “time as such.”

Admittedly, for many, these statements by me are shockingly novel conceptions, albeit fundamentally valid preferences. This signifies that we are obliged to venture to swim into what many would regard as “strange waters.” They are, none the less, the domain of realities. Continue this process as follows. Weave the subject of “time” into this, in the following manner.

Come and play with me on the following blend of subject-matters, some to tease the mind, and some to indicate the location of proofs: but, all to a common end.

What Is Time?

If you wish, you may view what I am about to say now as “speculative;” then, for that case, consider the snare which traps you once you were tempted to play with what might appear to be merely a harmless bit of what seemed to have been “speculative” play. It is now appropriate to sense yourself as captured by the lure of physical time.

Let “time” be the measure of physical action. Now, attempt to measure existence in time; how might you escape that embrace which united the two? Whence did that “time” come into existence, except by that which measures it? “Space-time” can not be the union of something which might be compared to a union of two variable magnitudes; try to disentangle the union of the two without losing the existence of both! Time, which is inherently to be measured as action in, and of physical processes, and time, whether relatively forward, or otherwise, measures—e.g., “measures”—physical processes. That might appear to be a silly thing to say; but, it is precisely the honest silliness of the appearance which attracts, and, perhaps, entraps our imagination; “imagination” regulates the way in which we must act.

Months back, I presented the idea of a notion of apparent reversal of the direction in physical time, that as implicitly an intended refutation of the notorious folly of Pierre S. Laplace respecting the concept of simple-minded time. There has been a study of the implications of such a view of the function of what is fairly measurable as a notion of a case of a reversed physical time by a notable associate since that time. Only the applications of explicitly physical cases, are convenient for elementary studies of this case; but, the lure of the matter becomes, as Alice said, “curiouser and curiouser.”


II. HOW THE MODERN PRINCIPLES WERE DISCOVERED


The most significant example met in the early phases of modern physical science, is that echo of the method which was introduced by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (A.D. 1401-1464), and as later found in the discovery of the physical principle of Solar Astronomy which is expressed in the type of case implicitly posed in the present Foreword’s preceding remarks on the subject-matters of ontology.12Perhaps the most notable precedent for Nicholas of Cusa’s seminal De Docta Ignorantia, was implicit in Filippo Brunelleschi’s contribution to the cupola of the Cathedral of Florence. There, Brunelleschi introduced the physical principle of the catenary (e.g., funicular) curve as a physical principle of physical construction. The further development of the notion of this curve was echoed by the extended notion of the combined catenary and tractrix by Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, and as implied in aspects of the work of Johannes Kepler. Note the relevance of a certain error, which was exposed by Cusa, as Archimedes’s erroneous effort to define the generation of the circular curve according to a merely formal geometry (such as Euclid’s). Otherwise, Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia is the most crucial founding work for a modern physical science.

So, consider the human species. The human reading of its specific sensorium differs from that of the apes, by virtue of the consciously willful, conscious (or, pre-conscious) character of principle specific to the human quality of the higher cognitive powers associated with those higher principles of creativity specific to the human individual.

That latter, just-stated distinction, is the crucial distinction of the human species and cultures specific to the human species.

The following species of dialogue flows from the implications of that fact.

Now, make reference to Johannes Kepler’s treatment of the principle of an harmonic system of Solar planetary orbits. Kepler employed the ironies of the system of planetary Solar orbits to define a general principle of Solar gravitation, rather than the silly notions common to the dupes of a man who never actually discovered anything, Sir Isaac Newton.

Let us try out a different approach:

Let us situate the human species and its origins within the changes within the bounds of the Solar System during approximately a half-billions years of existence of either the human species and/or its forerunners. Let us, for what should be obvious reasons, examine this matter within a larger span of lapsed time within our local galaxy. Consider the fact that the existence of the human species, is defined by the existence of life-forms which have been the origins of those species of which the human species is an included original development of its own being, all considered within the existence of the relevant galaxy.

The most typical frauds employed as pretenses for actual scientific inquiries are typified by the so-called “Axioms” of Euclidean geometry. In fact, Euclid’s principles are derived, essentially, from an arbitrary belief in the notions of sense-certainties, such as the case of an adopted five categories of mere sense-perceptions. This and kindred systems of so-called “geometry,” had been challenged as being the result of the attempt to elevate specific categories of human sense-perceptions to the rank of a closed set of all-encompassing, “self-evidently universal” principles of the universe.

Actually at Puberty

My first confrontation with what is usually called “Geometry” occurred to me in the dawn of my puberty, during visits to the site of the mooring-in-retirement of the U.S. Constitution. My father often spent a family Sunday afternoon or similar occasion, either at Boston’s Franklin Park Zoo, or the Navy Yard where that U.S. Constitution was berthed. Repeated visits to the latter site prompted me to wander into other sites of that Navy Yard, where I found myself fascinated by modern designs for the support within high-rising steel structures. The particular benefit of the latter visits inured me permanently against the silly idea of what was taught as the secondary school classroom’s “Plane Geometry”—and its sequels.

In the first session of the class, I “foolishly” volunteered the suggestion that certain structures were made relatively the “stronger,” by aid of “holes” within the supporting beams of high-rise structures, such as those which I had studied with zealous fascination during repeated visits to that Navy Yard. After the ridicule which I received as a result of my suggestion in that first session of that class, I have never believed in any mathematics which was consistent with what I came to know with perfect certainty, as the wittingly fraudulent dogmas of Euclidean geometry.

In later years, I had lost much of the awe for not only “Euclidean Geometry,” or its likeness, but had added my contempt for Cartesian geometry, and for anything with characteristics of a similar import. The refinement of that class of aversions led into my “going over” rather passionately into cross-checking of English translations of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation and my clumsy, chemical engineering student’s exposure to the original German text, now wandering into what was to become an extraordinarily successful practice as a leading economic forecaster of the post-World War II generation, up through the leading position in that role which I have occupied since my uniquely successful forecast of the exact form expressed as the late-February-early-March 1957 U.S. recession.

The most notable of that latter series of those successive forecasts, since that of the 1966-1971 recessional process, have been a serious factor in the economic crises, more and more notably, up into the Summer 2007 forecast of the great, trans-Atlantic depression which sent the trans-Atlantic world into the virtually hopeless general depression which threatens to bring down the world’s physical economy during the weeks immediately ahead.

This forecasting record was thus rooted, as a conception, in the rejection of “Euclidean Geometry” during my adolescent years. This is to say, to the same effect, as my peers’ grave effort in swallowing the hoax of a more or less rabid devotion to the mis-education which most of them had swallowed, in the expectation of the receipt of kindly grades and kindred honors, and of the pleasures experienced among some admiring parents during those folks’ adolescent and university educations. Those who had submitted had gained in sundry ways; it was the nation, our own and others’, which paid the price as a consequence of what were fairly dubbed “successful failures,” which have crippled many misguided, apparent “successes.”

Actually, a Euclidean, or kindred scheme of such a doctrinal geometry, was never actually a universal system of belief within the scope of our actual knowledge. The superior quality of navigational systems reaching, or approaching a global mapping system, shared quite different systems, as in the work of the Pythagoreans, and others of kindred disposition. The Euclidean and kindred systems have been actually products or likenesses of ancient social-political systems associated with culturally degenerative expressions of social systems consistent with expressions of those named, specifically, as oligarchist types of social-political systems convergent upon the imperialist systems of the degenerative phase of Sumer, of ancient Babylon, of the Achaemenid empire, and among the categories of Mediterranean-centered imperialisms of such as the original ancient Roman imperial system, and its reincarnations as Byzantium, the feudal form of the Venetian imperial, feudalist monetarist system, and the new Venetian party of the followers of Paolo Sarpi’s cult. The latter is the cult represented by the presently reigning, globalist form of the dismal failure of the British empire of Elizabeth II still today: e.g., the cult of Adam Smith et al.

The only significant system which is not dominated by the legacy of the Romanist empires, still today, was that launched intentionally by the original system of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, the colony which escaped, to become our U.S.A., from the imperialist rule by the New Venetian Party known as the British imperial system which dominates the trans-Atlantic and closely related regions now.

In fact, since the formation of the original U.S. Federal Constitution, as under the economic principles associated with the designs of a national credit-system-based economy, explicitly Hamiltonian principles have been embedded in the crafting and founding of that original Constitution.13Any government of the United States is obliged to fulfill the intention expressed by the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution. This includes the intention of establishing and maintenance of a credit system, rather than utilizing the option of a typically European model of a mere monetarist system. Those who conformed in opposition to the likes of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, were honored by the devotees of British Liberalism; it was our nation which has suffered the consequent ruin, as since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and since the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy.

The constitutional obligation which the foolish or corrupted admirers of Adam Smith had rejected, was nonetheless established as a tradition by the anti-“Tory” opponents of Adam Smith who rallied for the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s Seventeenth-century leadership., most notably under the role of the Pinetree Shilling established under the Winthrops and Mathers, a role which had been continued until that government was crushed through the rape of Massachusetts by the New Venetian Party’s Paolo Sarpi follower, William of Orange.14As a result of the disintegration of the authority of the Habsburg-led Council of Trent, the original Venetian interest was divided into the Habsburg-associated faction which became known as “the Catholic party,” in its opposition to the New Venetian Party of Paolo Sarpi. This division led into a revived wave of religious warfare. The decline of France’s Louis XIV, and the rise of the Anglo-Dutch party associated with the followers of Paolo Sarpi, most emphatically since the “Seven Years War,” led into the 1763 Treaty of Paris, through which the Protestant Party of William of Orange and the establishment of the newly minted British Kingdom created the conditions associated with the rise to power of Lord Shelburne in post-1763 developments leading into his 1782 accession to the Ministry. Shelburne’s organization separated oppositional elements through respective British treaties among the United States, France, and Spain, and by creating the British Foreign Office. The Office has served as the actual ruler of the British Empire over most of the world, as over virtual British puppets, including numerous terms of the U.S. Presidency, as under George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jr., and British Royal puppet Barack Obama, since that time, to the present date.

Look back to the entry, at a later time, of the traitors Aaron Burr and such sometime Burr lackeys in the U.S. Presidency as Andrew Jackson and his one-time financial patron and successor in the U.S. Presidency, Wall Street’s Martin van Buren, the latter the putative author of the Panic of 1837. From that time, until the U.S. republic’s victory over the British empire and its slaveholder lackeys, a victory by President Abraham Lincoln’s United States, the U.S.A. had been largely isolated and weakened by the rapacious British empire and its lackeys. Under Lincoln and President Ulysses Grant, that U.S.A. had surged to emerge as leading physical-economic power in the world at large. However, the assassination of President Lincoln by British channels, was a killing brought about through treasonous (chiefly Wall Street) scoundrels operating as lackeys of British imperial monetarist agencies. Under such circumstances, despite the struggle of our patriots against a treasonous pack of British financier lackeys in our midst, as under President Back Obama today, the wicked tools of London had delivered their dirty service to the British imperial cause.

Under an Oligarchical System

All relatively well-known and dominant models of modern economy, are broadly divided among two principal kinds of systems and their respective allies, and also British lackeys. The one is the essentially predatory model, such as the British oligarchical model today, and the other, the republican model of Benjamin Franklin, President George Washington, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and such others as Presidents John Quincy Adams, the assassinated Abraham Lincoln, the assassinated President William McKinley, President Franklin Roosevelt, and the assassinated President John F. Kennedy and his brother, all typical as figures hated by the British imperial monarchy, all the latter associated with the legacy of such as the Pythagoreans. That said, now, consider the folly of adopting the notion of the role of money as a political reality, rather than as a system of political credit uttered in assistance of fostering growth in support of a physical-economic reality.

That is political-economic reality in science.


III. THE FUTURE OF MANKIND, NOW


It is possible to infer a future, possibly higher state of the human mind when man has willingly left behind the “baby talk” of such practices as contemporary mathematics. That end of the practice of a monetarist’s virtual baby-talk, will come when that termination of childish myths of money per se was done in order to enter a higher state of intellectual life, a higher state in which the folly of present academic habits of reductionism has been abandoned. By that reference, I signify a physical space-time conceived as a domain of cosmic radiation, a domain which is adopted in its recognized use as a revolution in the notion of the function which brings speech closer to a universality of a higher system presently implied in its presently Classical system of harmonics in composition in the schools of Johann Sebastian Bach, and in such among his devoted heirs as those named Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Verdi, and Brahms.

We must no longer abuse ourselves and our neighbors by mistaking the categories of the five primitive sense-experiences, for intelligible “meanings.” Nor shall we tolerate the debasement of humanity by alleged entertainments such as the animal sounds of the alleged “popular” musical entertainments of today. It will be a time when “grunt” means “grunt,” rather than intending to convey something of a human quality of cognitive experience.

That is the future; but, happily, there are already some of more melodious disposition who are actually exploring that domain of a qualitatively higher, future habit of syntax. That is to suggest: “Speak of the future?

“ You, brother, have still, clearly, a long way to go.”

A few hints respecting the product of that future will help to make the general notion of this future a bit clearer, as follows.

This would not be an empty diversion; many today would be able to recognize some practical hints as to what that future development would represent. If we are intent on actually entering the human culture of man’s future, there are some practical steps available, if we were determined to begin to sense what such a projected development would mean. Admittedly, what I shall have written here, points to only a few cases which might be explored. However, for the case immediately at hand, a few indications will have to suffice for the moment.

The first steps to be taken, must, of necessity, be, primarily, negative examples. The most significant of the “baby steps” into the linguistics of future science, are, thus, also, necessarily, of a negative portent: what’s wrong with the way in which you speak—and, more important, think?

Tones Are Everywhere

Crude human speech, and syntax, too, is signified, in crudest expression, by the belief in a so-called “five senses.” Therefore, reduce that set of five senses to the mere names of their respective sets of frequencies. Now, try out singing of those relative tones, with the intent of creating, thus, a chosen five-tone scale.

Now repeat that exercise for about twenty such points on the scale. Now, ask oneself: “What is the number of such notes which seems to correspond to a meaningful assignment of about twenty such notes?” What, assuming that you have chosen a relevant set and number of such notes, is the extendable relationship between that choice of a scale, and the allegedly real objects of action by means of which you have implicitly created a “language” which is chosen by you to represent some actually physical process.

You have now established some form of the real irony of the attempt to make an arrangement of sounds, defined in such a way, which attempts to convey a specific notion of some process corresponding to, for example, some chemical process. In other words, we are thus addressing the subject of symbolic relationships.

For the sake of a highly desirable approach to convergence between the two arrays, of symbol and a real process, we have gained a virtual leap to the obvious choice: of Classical musical composition and its actual performance. We have thus established at least three “parallel” cases (e.g., “channels”) of sounded representation in the abstract, of “music composition as such,” and, of the series corresponding to the physical intention of the formal series. We may have not succeeded in transmitting the object itself; nonetheless, we will have moved the content of the action from the fantasy-place of the present name of the object and its location to an at least closely positioned address in the proximity of the preferred target: in short, the mailman is in the relatively immediate vicinity of a civilized one.

That, however, is only a beginning.

By the time the development of intra-solar traffic has become fairly describable as regular, or nearly regular, production on the site of imports to, and from, nearby planetary locations will have been established to a significant degree. A certain degree of regular traffic among, and between planets will have begun. That traffic will be of products and imports from and between Moon-site (relatively more significant then), but also interplanetary traffic. The traffic will be promoted less by trade (during early times), than scientific and security measures mustered on behalf of security among the bodies of the Solar system, and also security measures taken on behalf of the interior of the Solar system. The accelerated rate of expansion of security measures will be in defense against the new threats which altered “weather climates” within both the Solar system and the changing galactic developments will offer.

The general shift of emphasis on the physical security of Earth, as within the Solar system, and regions of the galaxy, will be motivated by what may be classed as natural security. Threats from “natural sources,” rather than human adversaries, will play an increasing role. The nakedness of man’s lack of means for assessing and meeting the challenge of “natural” threats to mankind from within the Solar system and also the galaxy will be increasingly obvious as being natural threats to the security of mankind. The currently accelerated increase of security threats which must be broadly classified as “natural climatic disasters” is already becoming an accelerating source of grave strategic menaces to Earth-dwelling targets, chiefly what are to be classed as “natural” present and new types of “deadly” weather-conditions on Earth itself.

The general requirement will be accelerating demands for accelerating rates of energy-flux densities in technologies and the related capital-intensities. The urgent role of development of global systems of very high relative energy-flux density, as led by projects such as an extended role and capital intensity of systems such as an extended role of NAWAPA, linked, increasingly, to global development systems tying the continents of the planet to trans-oceanic and continental systems of increasingly higher energy-flux density and rising capital-intensity, will be rapidly extended, and with a rapid increase of the intra-planetary development.

Despite the rapid rates of increase of global-intensity of developments, the effective intensity of developments within and beyond the Solar System will soon begin to accelerate, rather than deter the rates of the mass of development across the widening distances and energy-flux densities required by the development of the planetary system.

Mankind’s density obliges us to change, now, and that increasingly, that in every direction, in every challenge, and in every effect.

These challenges will become more an increase of mankind’s power to exist, than a drain upon what might appear to many, presently, a limited prospect of our future.

Footnotes

1It is not the individual specimen which is biologically immortal; it is the only species which demonstrates, in itself, this species-characteristic potential.
2The likely problem of the reader at this point in the account, is to be the infamous paradox of Laplace, respecting the notion of time. That is a matter which shall be addressed at more suitable, later point in this present report.
3I.e., “pagan-religious” as used here, signifies “oligarchical systemic.”
4Bernhard Riemann’s Gesammelte Mathematische Werke und Wissenschaftlicher Nachlass, Heinrich Weber, published by B.G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1902; pp. 273-287.
5“The Application to Space.”
6I shall return to that question in later chapters.
7This is an example of what some might identity as “pure LaRouche.” This means that the ideas with which spoken, or written messages are associated, is not the actual form, quality, or content of the idea as known to the real universe, but, is, rather, a virtual shadow of the actually efficient expression of the idea. Human communication as such, as in the ordinary meaning attributed to “communication,” must be judged as we distinguish the utterance of the idea’s communication as a kind of analog of a “Morse Code rendition” of a political address, as transmitted as if from “East Oshkosh,” of an address uttered, viva voce, from St. Petersburg.
8My own discovery in this matter is complemented by a kindred examination of the same issue of modern physics being addressed currently by my colleague Jason Ross. Jason Ross’ approach is referenced to the still debated issues arising in the efforts to reconcile the approach to the notion of Abelian functions by Abel and certain others with that associated with the discoveries of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann. My own approach to the matter is presented, summarily, in this present location.
9Consider the systemic error of Archimedes’ notion of a quadrature of the circle. The correction of Archimedes on this account, was introduced to modern science by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, a correction which reflects Cusa’s treatments in his De Docta Ignorantia.
10The failure to denounce the so-called “principles of sense-perception,” is a prime example of such fraudulent oversights. The fraud of Euclidean geometry’s a-priori “principles” is a case in point.
11Cf. The Laxenberg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
12Perhaps the most notable precedent for Nicholas of Cusa’s seminal De Docta Ignorantia, was implicit in Filippo Brunelleschi’s contribution to the cupola of the Cathedral of Florence. There, Brunelleschi introduced the physical principle of the catenary (e.g., funicular) curve as a physical principle of physical construction. The further development of the notion of this curve was echoed by the extended notion of the combined catenary and tractrix by Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, and as implied in aspects of the work of Johannes Kepler. Note the relevance of a certain error, which was exposed by Cusa, as Archimedes’s erroneous effort to define the generation of the circular curve according to a merely formal geometry (such as Euclid’s). Otherwise, Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia is the most crucial founding work for a modern physical science.
13Any government of the United States is obliged to fulfill the intention expressed by the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution. This includes the intention of establishing and maintenance of a credit system, rather than utilizing the option of a typically European model of a mere monetarist system.
14As a result of the disintegration of the authority of the Habsburg-led Council of Trent, the original Venetian interest was divided into the Habsburg-associated faction which became known as “the Catholic party,” in its opposition to the New Venetian Party of Paolo Sarpi. This division led into a revived wave of religious warfare. The decline of France’s Louis XIV, and the rise of the Anglo-Dutch party associated with the followers of Paolo Sarpi, most emphatically since the “Seven Years War,” led into the 1763 Treaty of Paris, through which the Protestant Party of William of Orange and the establishment of the newly minted British Kingdom created the conditions associated with the rise to power of Lord Shelburne in post-1763 developments leading into his 1782 accession to the Ministry. Shelburne’s organization separated oppositional elements through respective British treaties among the United States, France, and Spain, and by creating the British Foreign Office. The Office has served as the actual ruler of the British Empire over most of the world, as over virtual British puppets, including numerous terms of the U.S. Presidency, as under George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jr., and British Royal puppet Barack Obama, since that time, to the present date.