Corrected, edited version posted: 8:16pm edt, 6/18/2012.
The subject of the measurement of physical space-time, has been a source of mystery which has variously teased, occupied, tormented, and refreshed my thoughts, that done during seven decades of my adult life, up to the present moment. Now, although a significant part of that persisting, and tantalizing mystery, has already been solved for me, there is also much which remains as being the unsolved questions which I must cram into the few relatively remaining opportunities which life were likely to permit me to suffer, or enjoy.1If I sometimes seem to repeat myself in elements of these reports, it is intentional If I sometimes seem to repeat myself in elements of these reports, it is intentional and necessary, in cross-referencing, as I do here, where I reference elements of the slightly different treatment of the area of the subject of ontology which I had treated in “The World’s Breakdown-Crisis Is Now,” of May 29th (EIR [http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2012/3924lesson_furtwangler.html] or Lyndon LaRouche PAC [http://larouchepac.com/node/22838].
As I have indicated heretofore, the obvious part of the specifically scientific obstacle now confronting me, as I address the reader here, has been an effect of the mistaken, but popular habit of presuming that the mere flow of accumulated passing experience of specifically human sense-perception, might, itself, supply me, or others, with certain relevant elements of knowledge respecting the entities and actions of our universe. In fact, the difficulties to be considered on that account, are not particular, but are systemic, as Wilhelm Furtwängler’s celebrated formulation outlines the principle. Let us say, “There’s the rub.”
Indeed, several aspects of the presently persisting popular errors, might seem, to some, to have been previously solved by wishful minds; but, those errors will have turned out, again, as before, to have been just one more bit of “intellectual fools’ gold.”
There are available approaches toward remedies for such problems as those, despite the customary, stubbornly persistent trends toward failures in these matters thus far. Things might go better, if that stubborn fact were kept in mind.
The track which leads toward the increasing urgency of solutions, even of actually global solutions, begins with recognition of the fact that the prevalent expressions of the simple incompetence of the usual arguments on behalf of the legendary classroom’s imagined “common sense,” are usually typified, systemically, by the fraud of Euclidean geometry. Contrary to Euclid, sense-perception as such can not provide an essential measurement of an idea itself.2The common academic hoax called “Euclidean Geometry” was the product of an opportunists’ exploitation of the destruction which had occurred as done to a crucially important section of the great library at Alexandria. Whether as a result of the ignorance among some backward scribes at that library, or the outrightly malicious fraud of Aristotle himself, the Euclidean fraud had been a recurring phenomenon up to the time of the Carl F. Gauss who understood the nature of the fraud, but chose to avoid the subject. Cf. C.F. Gauss to F. Bolyai, Göttingen, 6.3.1832. (Cf. Schmidt 1899, pp. 108-113.) Carl Friedrich Gauss, Der “Fürst der Mathematiker” in Briefen und Gesprächen, Kurt-R, Biermann, (ed.), C.H. Beck, München, 1990.
Or, to restate the problem in more modest terms, the shadow cast, merely appears to measure the real event; the truth does not lie in simple appearances as such. For example, the truth of this matter which I am now putting before you, here, had been most usefully and successfully defined, not as a matter of clever mathematical tricks; it is a matter of discovering the right principle, as that has been done by Wilhelm Furtwängler’s great discovery of the true principle of music. Some among my immediate associates, and certain others, have each pointed attention to a broadly definable recapitulation of relevant aspects of Furtwängler’s own, highly successful solution to the actually relevant problem.
My own approach to this subject, places much of the blame for the still prevailing ignorance in this matter, on the following set of implied, false presumptions:
(1.a) Error: Presume that the universe is built up from inanimate materials, which, in turn,
(1.b) Error: extract from the universe what are presumed to be an inherently smaller mass of simply living processes,
(1.c) and which, implicitly, is the imputed origin of a still smaller portion of living matter which expresses creative animal powers, which, in turn, is expressed in the generation of a still higher quality of existence, that of specifically human creative processes.
My own approach, contrary to such commonplaces as those above:
(2.a) is toward those superior, living processes which are intentionally creative (i.e., human creativity),
(2.b) and, which, therefore, subordinate merely living processes,
(2.c) also, in turn, subordinate the large amount of non-living material.
As I have already indicated here:
The common mistake has been the heretofore customary failure to recognize, that that which Wilhelm Furtwängler had demonstrated, is that sense-perceptions, when considered merely as such, express, in and of themselves, that which, like metaphor as such, is merely a reality lurking within shadows, like Kepler’s vicarious hypotheses.
Kepler had known these as being of truly physically “unsensed substance” which latter only the principle of mind as such could actually know. That is to emphasize, that we do not actually know directly what the fact of sense-perception as such indicates.
Sense-perception as such, is merely a shadow cast by that which is unseen by the senses as such; it is not the planet which is seen. As Kepler emphasized, the image of the planet is what the Sun sees, or, in other words, that which we seem to recognize to the degree that we seem to be able to think like the Sun. Furtwängler, in his turn, had made the relevant distinctions efficiently clear. Audiences have sensed, with awe: how can we sense the distinction in the result of Furtwängler’s performances?
How was that vision made possible? There is a knowable principle involved. The principle coincides with the higher principles of action in the universe, which are knowable for the noëtic specifics of the human mind, but which do not exist in “the opinion of” dead matter. That problem presented by “dead, not living, matter,” is typified by the crucial discovery of universal physical principle recognized by Wilhelm Furtwängler, and also demonstrated, as physically, by him, in actual performances.3The ontological hoax of both Bertrand Russell and his dupe Alexander I. Oparin is relevant in understanding the fraud which Furtwängler’s discovery discredited.
I. THE DOOM OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
The most foolish practice in the name of “science,” is a reliance upon the sophism which is known, otherwise, as if being the interpretation of words by mere words, as being representative of self-evident objects of thought. Human beings must learn to recognize that which remains unsensed. What we actually know, is only that which, so to speak, lies as if “between the cracks.”
Heraclitus and Plato, and Philo of Alexandria,4In relatively recent times, there has been renewed emphasis upon attempts to discredit the extensive documentation of the ties between “Philo-called-Judaeus” and original Christian apostles, such as the martyred Apostles Peter and Paul, most notably. The formal root of such a continuing doctrine of exclusion of Philo from his tradition, is tied, especially in recent times, to the fanatically errant Venetian influence against the presently still most notable, principal among the original Renaissance founders of modern European science, such as Nicholas of Cusa. The formal great error in nominally pro-Aristotelean concoctions, is that it excludes any actually functional essentials of Christianity in particular, and requires, instead, the substitution of essentially mechanical types of literary wind-up-toyisms.
The essential principle of Christianity, in particular, is located in its “most efficient” expression of practice in the mission of the Creator to which mankind should respond. At the least, that is what such a commitment by us signifies. That latter view is presented most simply and clearly when we take into account both, first, the scientifically, currently pending probable date of the extinction of the Solar system, and, secondly the requirement of the rates of economic progress by mankind within our galaxy, to meet whatever might be the date mankind must have progressed to a new, higher destiny, within, or beyond this present galaxy. The dates for such events are not a practical issue; the intention to meet such a challenge, is what is crucial. Of most relevant notice here and now, is the implicit commitment required for human science-driver practice. The meaning of all human life lies in the consequent ultimate mission for the period during which this Solar system continues to exist as habitable; after that, new considerations would have to come into play. It is the immortality of the functioning human individual personality, which should be the focus of our guiding intentions. are among the notable ancient thinkers whose work, when carefully considered from the standpoint of my prefatory remarks, above, warns us against a commonplace reliance upon what were merely sense-perceptions of sense-perceptions.
Such commonplaces as those, are to be found in the typical cases of those hoaxsters known respectively as Aristotle and Euclid. One persuasive bit of evidence on this matter, is to be found, since long before Kepler, in a discovery by the great scientific genius Eratosthenes, who crafted the method for considering the size of the Earth by scrutiny of the shadow cast by the Sun. That was the same Eratosthenes whose work inspired that of such successors as the modern Nicholas of Cusa and Cusa’s follower, Christopher Columbus, which persists as if embedded in the latters’ intentions respecting the existence of what were to become known as the Americas, lying across the Atlantic Ocean.
That was the same Nicholas of Cusa, who went even far beyond the achievements of his acquaintance and biological senior, the already greatly accomplished physical scientist and musician of the design of the Pazzi Chapel, Filippo Brunelleschi. So Cusa had done, for his part, in the actually original founding of those universal principles of modern science which have been, in fact, derived from the standpoints of reference presented by such predecessors as Plato and Heraclitus. Contrary to Cusa’s own intentions, mankind’s commonplace attempts, still presently, to promote what is often considered as a reasonably reliable attempt at knowledge of mankind’s social history, have often been muddled, and otherwise obscured. This has occurred through the inherent rapacity of societies which have been more or less wholly subordinated to the influences exerted by what is fairly identified as the “oligarchical principle.”
The latter influence is the expressed practical substance of that evil of “oligarchism,” which we can trace, conveniently, as existing since that humanly disastrous siege and fall of Troy, which was launched by the mass-murderous cult of the Olympian Zeus. Nonetheless, the existence of the great stellar calendars associated with trans-oceanic navigation, should have forced attention, long since, to the eastward (and reversed) trans-Pacific navigational exploits by the followers of Eratosthenes’ leadership in their time. Such explorations had reached to as far distant eastward as the present coast of Chile, as this feat, which included the attempted return, is dated from the lifetime of the great Eratosthenes.
The point of the foregoing, summary argument which I have placed here this far, is simply that we must not preclude some positive effects of even relatively disastrous reversals which have occurred within large areas of human culture. This must include accountability for the damage which had been done to the “collective” human mind of entire cultures, including damage to their “collective memory,” a damage which has, in fact, been generated by allowing the continued existence of such perversions as that of the modern New Venetian system which William of Orange had represented in his time, and related, oligarchical monstrosities experienced in relatively long sweeps in human cultures. Such setbacks as those must be converted into the progress which is prompted by the hatred of failure.
On this occasion, I am pointing, once more, as on relevant other recent occasions, to that which should have now been already clear beyond reasonable doubt, from among whatever else may also be considered as relevant. The consequent choice of our subject here, is the great, revolutionary achievement of the discovery made as the physical principle of action presented by Wilhelm Furtwängler. Furtwängler had succeeded in this, where other notable figures in science had failed, and, chiefly, continue to fail presently.
Furtwängler’s achievement on this account was in no way accidental; he had discovered the needed great principle, and had succeeded in proving the case as far as he had presented it. He had succeeded in this, because he had sought out success through adoption of the actually relevant outlook on physical science, rather than the mere scrutiny of a mere science per se. He had accomplished as much of that which had been done by himself, through imagining an objective which were unseen in and of itself, as Nicholas of Cusa would have considered the subject-matter similarly within his De Docta Ignorantia.
The crucial point for our continued reference on this particular occasion, is that, here and now, Furtwängler’s discovery on this account, meets fully the required standard for the defining of his discovery as being much more substantial than that of a true, universal physical principle of musical composition. Nonetheless, the two presently most crucial antecedents for us, that of Johann Sebastian Bach, and that of Bach’s follower Wilhelm Furtwängler, remain, on this account, as having been reflections of what had been, earlier, the leading roles of Nicholas of Cusa and of Cusa’s senior, the great physicist and musician, Filippo Brunelleschi, in the context of the process of the founding of the Fifteenth-century Renaissance.
That was a role in which Cusa had launched a competent basis for the development of a modern European science, and had launched the basis for that later great 1648 Peace of Westphalia which, at least temporarily, rescued the best of that which has, lately, barely survived the present-day modern European science and related culture. The secured continued existence of trans-Atlantic civilization, now depends upon an efficient resumption of The Peace of Westphalia in full as such—and the expulsion of the evil Tony Blair for reason of much cause.
In the end, that principle of music, so unleashed as from the inceptions associated with the relevant, continuing work of Johann Sebastian Bach through Wilhelm Furtwängler, has enabled mankind to preserve a great cultural intention in Europe and beyond, an intention which had once seemed threatened to pass away in the aftermath of the death of Johannes Brahms.
It is, therefore, historically fitting, that a successor of Brahms, the great, but wickedly abused musical genius, Wilhelm Furtwängler, should have earned, as he has done, the greatest achievement of actually Classical musical composition, an achievement which has been presented, from the turn into the Twentieth Century, to the attention of a presently diminishing few who maintain Furtwängler’s legacy today. Hopefully, we look forward to the realization of the great enjoyment of the inspiration which Furtwängler has bequeathed to our future, as also to all those heroes whose intention that master-musician has served in one way or another.
Furtwängler’s contributions to us, and to our benefactors, must be considered as a presently more than merely timely choice.
There is a presently building crisis within our Solar system, ostensibly one approaching the introduction of needed changes in adopted principles, changes to be made by the human species. The hope for those changes is now approaching, ominously, those new demands implicit in a fresh and greater crisis on an ever more than global scale.
I say here, summarily, that Wilhelm Furtwängler and Russia’s Vladimir I. Vernadsky, represent, implicitly, a certain coincidence in a continuing, common, but deeply revolutionary, higher mission, one greater than were realized during their lifetimes. This has been a mission which must now assume its proper, emerging shape as the force of the common means and objectives of a more richly developed standard for membership in mankind. This must speak for a hope which defines the presently recognized limits of present hope for a continued future existence of civilized mankind, even for the hope of the continued existence of mankind generally.
You could not know creation, unless you had experienced the act of creation by looking at the planetary system through the power of vision echoing that of a working Creator within the galaxy which we presently inhabit. In the meantime, presently, the crucial challenge to the presently necessary contemporary expression of a true, contemporary human mind, demands our emphasis on that specifically leading point which I am pointing out here.
We now require, urgently, a shift of the emphasis of our necessary attention, away from the implications of presumed “sense certainty,” into an actually practicable insight into the nature and embedded intentions native to the matured human mind. We approach this matter as being predicated upon that notion of mind which is one which does not correspond ontologically to the contemporary notion of simple-minded “sense-certainty.” Wilhelm Furtwängler’s indicated, great discovery, has enabled those willing persons who can be defined as representing a clarified mind, both to bridge whatever the newly discovered gap might be, and do that with a prospective safe arrival at “the other side” of the hopes for human survival
Furtwängler himself has been a hero who did not fail, although, to a large degree, his European society has since failed enormously. The intrusion of the post-World War II, British-directed oligarchical tyranny, is to be found, still, as reflected in British paw-prints left upon the German royal family after the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck, as such a triumph had been proclaimed on British Royal Family orders, as after the morally horrid effects of the Versailles-Treaty travesty.
This process, since the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck, left not only all of Europe, but chiefly all of Asia and the Americas, subject-in-fact to a British imperial tyranny, which had, not so incidentally, brought the British monarchy’s opportunist choice of the moment, Adolf Hitler, temporarily into reign. In that time, many Germans gathered to join, temporarily, what the British empire had considered Britain’s “useful target for destruction” on the European continent, Adolf Hitler. Now, in that same British imperial tradition, there has been the British Golliwog and U.S. President Obama, who is being used in the determination tbbo destroy the many poor, duped fools inside our United States, as by the instrumentality of the puppet-President and “modern Nero,” President Barack Obama.
On this account, the British empire sometimes supports its temporarily apparent beneficiaries, such as the fallen Nazi regime, for “too long” for its own “alleged good.” Americans who are really well-informed, will eventually recognize that fact, if their successive generations actually live long enough to reach a recognition of that truth.
So, it happened, that by the time I had spent my war-time and later military experience in Northern Burma and India, I had already come to understand all this, not perfectly, but clearly enough as to matters of principle. The insistent influences of prolonged world war are capable of teaching profound lessons even to poorly tutored people. Perhaps, only those statisticians who are to be properly ranked as certifiable fools, would miss my point. I explain that often missed, latter, critical point as follows.
If we trouble ourselves, as being Americans, or one of many other comparable cases, to review the recent passing of the U.S.A.’s Twentieth Century, we should have recognized what had been the legacy left by the assassination of President William McKinley. This was reflected among McKinley’s attributed successors such as the thoroughly wicked nephew of a condemned U.S. traitor, the condemned and more than thoroughly treasonous James D. Bulloch, who is to be remembered as the uncle and spiritual father of the same Theodore Roosevelt who, himself, fathered much evil.
This was a legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, continued by the thoroughly evil Woodrow Wilson, who relaunched the Ku Klubx Klan, bigger than ever, and celebrated that Hellish commotion from within the premises of what Theodore Roosevelt had unchristened as “The White House.”
There was the related case of the mysterious death of what someone must have regarded as an apparently inconvenient Warren G. Harding, who died, as asserted, from eating live oysters on the train ride across the American desert. There was a thoroughly evil Calvin Coolidge, and a brutishly wicked President Herbert Hoover whose Wall Street backers attempted, after Hoover’s term in office, to install a Hitler-modelled fascist dictatorship over the United States.
Then, once President Franklin Roosevelt were deceased, we had to compare the towering genius of that Franklin D. Roosevelt with the wretched (and also silly) Wall Street maven Harry S Truman. We rightly preferred the stalwart President Dwight Eisenhower, as I did in my time; and the great patriot in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy. We contrasted the once not unreasonably terrified President Lyndon B. Johnson, to the wretched Richard M. Nixon. We contrasted Nixon’s stumbling replacement, Gerald Ford, to the both mean and pitiable James E. Carter. We contrasted the usually calculable President Ronald Reagan to his Vice-President, the essentially contemptible George H.W. Bush, and compared that Bush with the President Bill Clinton who was much more effective and deserving than those wretches who had attempted to impeach him. We properly contrasted President Clinton with a pack of worse than worthless rubbish known, in succession, as George W. Bush, Jr. and the virtual real-life copy of the Emperor Nero known as the totally impeachable, self-styled, Nero-like mass-murderer, President Barack Obama.
The pattern which I have just laid out for the reader, is a sample of the efforts of the British monarchy’s presently continuing world empire, an empire which is deployed to effect a virtual subjugation of the Federal government of the United States during most of the terms of the incumbencies of the Presidents; it was George Washington, the great war-hero of the U.S. defense against Britain; the heroic James Monroe; the great nation-builder and master diplomat John Quincy Adams; the towering hero Abraham Lincoln; an inspired William McKinley; that true giant, the great Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose mission had inspired that John F. Kennedy who, in turn, stood out above others in his distinction as truly great, as distinct from others who were actually only good. What this signifies, above other considerations, is that since the crushing of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony by the forces associated with the New Venetian Party’s William of Orange, that New Venetian Party has dominated the planet’s destinies, often entirely, most notably since the 1763 Peace of Paris to the present day: a New Venetian Party of which the world must be freed once and for all, now, freed by aid of the likeness of the good right arms of our patriots.
During the process to date, there have been temporary moments of effective sovereignty under some U.S. Presidents, some of the time. It is also true that, during most of that time, since the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s time of a brief, functionally qualified independence, that until the last quarter of the Seventeenth Century, the American forces of national independence have been more capable of sustained resistance to the global tyranny exerted by the British empire, than other nations thus far. With some brief exceptions, Britain may have sunk low for a time, but has remained—as the British Empire, not England—as being an imperial power explicitly born in the Roman imperial tradition, and devouring the other nations of the planet. The immediate, less-than-colonial status of the nations of western and central Europe today, emphasizes the virtual non-existence of any current expression of their wish for independence from the British world empire of today.
The root-power of that evil which the British Empire embodies in global fact, bespeaks an ancient legacy attributable to the more than murderous destruction of the city and people of Troy, and the significance of that destruction of Troy in respect to the emergence of the original formation of the Roman empire as continued as a principle-in-fact of that empire, down to the present day.
So far, the certainty of the worst which has been provided by widely adopted characteristics of what I have just summarized in outline here, is best identified in the concept of “monetarism.” On this subject, almost every installed statesman on this planet is, if not a true virgin, a seriously confused amateur. Hence, certain problems typical of nations, are what they are. The crucial fact which such a fact imports, is that the monetary systems of our planet are, each and all, virtually sink-holes of popularized delusions, that respecting even the bare conception of the function of “money.”
That outlines our republic’s currently leading problem.
Therefore, I now, first, attack that specific problem here. Let us place the subject of this discussion under the category of “the function of the human use of fire.” Name it that principle of “Prometheus” which affords us our species’ uniquely existential, actual distinction of man from beast.
In this location, you may recognize the principle which underlies the secret of the meaning of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s great discovery of what I identify somewhat differently here, as the principle of physical science, the principle of true “fire.”
The contending, Homeric figures, of Prometheus5With due respect to Ludwig Beethoven. versus the evil Olympian Zeus, reflect, in fact, the distinction of the behavior of true-to-life human beings from the bestiality inherent in the so-called “oligarchical model.” The typical expression of that distinction, is, in fact, that principle of “fire” which is the true expression of the difference separating Promethean man from the quality of the feral beasts, the latter a sorry example of what the respectively ancient Roman and modern British empires have shared, deeply, in common.
For the purposes of defining life-in-general as distinct from non-life, the characteristic of life as such, is to be located in evidence of the anti-entropic impulse identifiable, in our case, as an insurgent quality of “energy-flux density” which inheres in the role of the living human species as an institution. That is exemplified by the cases of the particular instance of all known forms of fire and its principle,6E.g., increase of energy-flux density per capita. as being an inherent property of any and all forms of life. The notably categorical distinction among those species, is often expressed in the species’ characteristic, relative energy-flux-density, which is expressed, in turn, in its role as related, “when controlled” in the mode of energy-flux density, to a function of life.
For example, the specifically oligarchical systems in society tend, inherently, toward a decline, in the sense of being “used up,” in the energy-flux density of each part of the system, as all oligarchical systems of society ultimately reach an asymptotic “ceiling,” at which point they tend to converge on what are called entropic trends, in respect to oligarchical culture’s “destinies.”
For example: since the famous decline of the original Roman Empire, the present British empire of Queen Elizabeth II, is gripped by a damning sort of its insistence on mandatory decline in the human population, both in the quality of its individual members, as in their entirety, and as expressed in a disgusting moral decay of the British culture, a decay whose expression is currently motivated as an intended reduction of the planet’s population, from a presently estimated upper limit of seven billions human persons, to a rapid decline into an adopted level of approximately one billion.7The notion of reaching a “bottoming-out” at about one billion, is practically nonsense. The kind of quasi-linear reduction which the “greenies” have in mind, would be self-accelerating beyond the limits which could be realized by administrative controls. Extinction would be the likely, and early outcome.
A human species which persisted in tolerating such a moral and physical depravity as such a British global policy for mankind as today’s, should be regarded as a human species careening into a self-inflicted sort of its own hoped-for extinction. That is a result which were foreseeable on the account of such facts as the British monarchy’s precipitous decline into a quality of features which distinguish a self-doomed sort of failed species.
However! I hear a resonance of something inside the British system’s soul, which exhibits within itself a compulsion to cease its own existence, so that it might gain an escape from the ills of an evil passion which grips it relentlessly from inside its increasingly self-tormented being.
What I have just stated is not fancy, but fact! I explain that as follows.
The soul of any species is expressed for us as a deeply sensed sort of raison d’être: something about oneself which is as if sensed in some miraculous mirror, becomes a reflection which may turn into a horrid reflection in a kind of mirror, a process from which the tormented sick soul, such as the type of a Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth, wishes above all else, to escape. Like the Emperor Nero, it seeks desperate escape, in some form of physical, or spiritual suicide, or both, from the horror of foreseeing the continually tortured disintegration of itself.
Suicide! Like the Satanic Iago of the second edition of the Verdi-Shakespeare Otello: “I believe in a cruel God!”
The facts of that present case for the House of Windsor, like that of Shakespeare’s prophetic portrait of the self-doomed soul of Richard III, like Henry VIII, is now become the relentless captor of the monarchy’s self-tormented, collective soul. Suddenly, like Shakespeare’s self-doomed Richard III, or the real-life Emperor Nero, the life for which it would have risked all, now becomes the fearful image of its condition as a mass-murderer whose own cessation is the only peace which it ultimately desires more than all other options.
Presently prospective times for imperial monarchs, would be inherently awful times for all mankind, but especially for those relevant oligarchs whose prospective drop from power is of a type which is ultimately experienced as existential, not relative.
The effects are not quantitative; they are far more bitter than merely existential. As the accumulated scientific evidence respecting the progress of the evolution of living species demonstrates, the existence of living species is not reversible, except through extinctions of those species which fail to progress as species-types: a change from lower qualities of species, to those of relatively higher intrinsic qualities of “energy-flux densities.” The principle is, now, in the midst of this global crisis: progress or extinction! The precondition for the contrary effect, the desire for the survival of the human species, lies, uniquely, in the direction of transitions toward systems now consistent with mankind’s use of controlled thermonuclear fusion.
In effect, what has been called currently a British “population policy” is the empire’s simple deed of genocide; it is even a virtual threat of extinction of the human species. It has been an image that reeks of Tony Blair.
Thus, an end to all that disgusting business which evil brings upon itself. As the poet said, we have other fish to fry.
It will have been deemed a wretched people, if there are people any more, which had not soon come, by now, to partake of the wonderful insight which Wilhelm Furtwängler had discovered and presented in the honorably triumphant execution of his great intention. Thus, since then, indeed, a time of great wretchedness of peoples has not merely come; many nations of this world have been snatched up, so, into a sort of Hell’s punishment befitting lost souls reeling in their endless agony of a meaninglessness of their lives, on precisely that account. The worst has been, that once the great beauty had been sounded, but then betrayed, a new kind of Hell, far worse than anything before, had been brought into being, that as the punishment which Europe has brought directly on itself, and that by its submission to that truly Satanic evil which had once been named, “The Congress for Cultural Freedom.”
Yes, there had been worse before that time, but this time, having discovered beauty once, it had rejected truth, and now adores “the deadly green” evil.
There has been a long recorded history of life on Earth. The direction of this history has been relentlessly upward in the net effect of the progressive net development of species, always in the direction of a more powerful, and more useful service to a universal Creator. The failed souls have been ultimately doomed to their extinction, and it were probable that this should always be so. Little which has been good, has actually been completely lost in its time, at least to our actual knowledge, excepting the willful great sins of mankind. In this universe, great evil demands a greater good.
Yet, the matter thus at hand, is not quite that simple. The greatest sin of mankind, which is that against the Creator, has been the great evil of the Olympian Zeus, an evil which has actually been the failure of mankind to progress. Weep for the stench of the rotting dead sheep which pollute the grass. Wilhelm Furtwängler made a great step of progress on behalf of all mankind, and that truly in service of the Creator. Suppressing that progress would be, as it has been, a great crime against the Creator, for which the punishment is being plainly delivered now, and that, suitably, by mankind’s own hands, and that, too, now.
There are things, now, which urgently need to be changed. As Wilhelm Furtwängler has shown, the change is the same as that in his discovery of the true principle of beauty, as shown in such instances as his unmatched, remorselessly majestic great beauty of Franz Schubert’s Ninth Symphony, a performance directed by him, which has persistently resonated, and gripped me in my own recollection, during more than a half-century to present date.8For me, it is a notable irony, that that Schubert symphony’s score was delivered to the hands of Robert Schumann by the deceased Schubert’s brother, in Vienna.
When we seek to present what might be considered a practical reading of the experiences to which I have made reference during this chapter so far, the crucial point of science to be brought forward here now, is that Furtwängler was the uniquely original discoverer of the explicitly true principle of human creativity as such, not only in Classical artistic composition, but in all aspects of true science.
I must now explain.
The great problem posed to physical science and art alike, has been the captivity of the human powers of imagination, in physical science as otherwise, to the faculties of that which is identified as the notion of “sense-perception.” Wilhelm Furtwängler conquered that riddle by introducing the actually efficient discovery of the “near” and “far.”
Heretofore, generally, the presumption had been, that truth lay in a direct “translation” of sense-perception as such. Furtwängler’s notion of “near” and “far,” freed the appropriately sensible human mind from that traditional bondage to the actually literal.
That fact, as just stated here by me, signifies, that there is no desirable notion of literally analytical sense-perception as such. The paradox involved is typified by the apparent illiteracy of any effort to translate knowledge of the real universe from an agency which adduces meaning from mere sense-perception. The simplest clear demonstration of that fact, is exhibited in two related types of human experience of what can be defined competently as “knowledge.”
My own “possession” (awareness) of that quality of knowledge came in two relatively most notable experiences. First, and foremost, my rejection of Euclidean geometry as an intrinsically absurd notion; second, the impact of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, and the concluding section as underscored by the startling implications of the lustily beautiful irony of the concluding sentence of the piece.
What followed from that content of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, were the implications of the sense of life per se, as expressed in what were for me, two successively ordered apprehensions. First, the existence of a principle of life per se; and, second, human creativity per se.
To appreciate the significance of that set of points as a single conception in effect, consider the utter stupidity and depravity of Bertrand Russell’s dupe, Alexander I. Oparin, especially, and most simply and directly, in respect to the notion of “life.” The significance of Oparin’s (probably) induced factor of scientific stupidity in this matter of a principle of “life,” is made clearer when the notions of the closely related terms of “life” and “love” are conceived as complementary aspects of the same notion. The lack of a notion of a coherence between those two aspects of human passions, can be regarded as expressing a principle of “potential for human evil,” particularly in the case of the criminal mind of Bertrand Russell, as that mental-moral disorder is typified by Russell’s 1946 proposal for “preventive nuclear war.”9The collaboration on the subject of the human mind, between Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler, et al. is highly relevant here, including Planck’s appropriate deference to Köhler on relevant points.
As the dialogue of Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler on the subject of the human mind indicates, these aspects of what we may term as human emotions can be placed in the proper perspective, but only if we reject the Russell-Oparin delusion respecting the meaning of “love” as being intrinsically a pathological form of human behavior. Conversely, the lack of a notion of the term “love” understood in the sense of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s principle of what is defined as “Classical” music in the tradition of Bach’s and Furtwängler’s meanings and actual usages, is a lack which tends to imply a pathological quality of misapprehension of the properly attributable meaning of human “love.”
The “love” of money as such, is such a pathological behaviorism with likely criminal behavioral implications, or strongly marked passion for either masturbation or its surrogates. The surrogates are far more significant, that notably in respect to the induced absence of an actual principle of love, as this is shown by the role of impassioned expressions of greed, as, for example, a confusion respecting the impulses of crude sexual appetites and financial lusts.
Wolfgang Köhler’s depiction of the healthy functions of the human mind, is emphatically relevant. The healthy human mental state must encompass the whole being, a state of mind which is specifically contrary to tendencies for the likeness of “object fixations.”
The crucial lesson to be adduced by us here, from the preludes and fugues of Johann Sebastian Bach, is Bach’s devotion to music as an experience of the future yet to be heard. The same principle “of the anticipation of the future to be experienced,” is the essence of the method exhibited by Furtwängler’s own direction. This quality of musical performance is a crucial point of distinction of the truly sane human mind from crude musical entertainments. It is also the principle which separates the healthy expression of the human mind from the likeness to a mentality of the beasts, and the likeness, or would-be likeness of “Wall Streeters.”
This distinction of the approach to music by such as Bach and Furtwängler, has crucial significance respecting the potentially creative powers of the human mind. It is therefore a matter of urgent consequence, that these specific qualities of the human mind which I have referenced here, act as if “a leading voice from the future.” That qualification defines the distinction of human powers of creativity from the “intelligence among the beasts,” as the power to think and act upon a human insight into the experience of the future.
It is the power to summon that experience which defines both the creative powers of a potentially effective development of the human mind, and resistance to pathological variants on the thematic behavior of the human mind. It is the notion of “human love” so situated in the human individual’s behavior, which supplies the “energy and devotion” to a future purpose which distinguishes the actually developed human mind from beastliness. It is the ability to participate in mental behavior of such distinctions, which enables a development of the human mind capable of rising above the relative bestiality of sense-certainties.
The essential principle of Christianity, in particular, is located in its “most efficient” expression of practice in the mission of the Creator to which mankind should respond. At the least, that is what such a commitment by us signifies. That latter view is presented most simply and clearly when we take into account both, first, the scientifically, currently pending probable date of the extinction of the Solar system, and, secondly the requirement of the rates of economic progress by mankind within our galaxy, to meet whatever might be the date mankind must have progressed to a new, higher destiny, within, or beyond this present galaxy. The dates for such events are not a practical issue; the intention to meet such a challenge, is what is crucial. Of most relevant notice here and now, is the implicit commitment required for human science-driver practice. The meaning of all human life lies in the consequent ultimate mission for the period during which this Solar system continues to exist as habitable; after that, new considerations would have to come into play. It is the immortality of the functioning human individual personality, which should be the focus of our guiding intentions.