This is the final, copy-edited version. 3:22pm edt - 6/26/2012
Paul Volcker blurted it out!1In the course of publicized discussions now, Wall Street’s Paul Volcker has uttered an up-to-date confession, blurting out the hard facts of his intention to suppress Glass-Steagall, and swindle the American people of about $2 trillions’ “worth” of presently worthless gambling debts. These largely worthless gambling debts are piled up in the hyper-inflated “bail-out system.”
Among his other qualities, virtually until the moment of his death, our republic’s John Quincy Adams had been the greatest of American diplomats since Benjamin Franklin, and had remained as the former diplomat whose leadership had already established our republic as an efficient force from the Atlantic to Pacific coasts.
The treasonous British agents, led by U.S. President Andrew Jackson in his time, together with a cabal of British agents led and controlled by the already treason-saturated British agent and assassin, Aaron Burr, acted to destroy the Bank of the United States, and used that mechanism of treason which, in point of fact, created the process leading into the U.S. Civil War.
However, for some emotionally and otherwise confused observers, still today, it might have appeared to have been President John Quincy Adams who had caved in on his own 1828 re-election campaign. It might have appeared to any actually honest, but confused observer, that Adams had “failed” to destroy the pack of treasonous scoundrels. including Jackson himself, a pack associated with the Aaron Burr who was the British monarchy’s leading spy, and also the assassin of Alexander Hamilton. It had been Jackson’s prominent henchman, the highly culpable Martin Van Buren, who was to be awarded official blame for bankrupting of the United States by Jackson’s accomplices in the Panic of 1837 (but it had been British agent Aaron Burr, who had led in crafting that dirty deed).
Who? tell me, then: among all of those scoundrels of that Jackson gang, which among them must actually bear the principal burden of the blame?
However, once that much has been said, it was not only Jackson, but a pack of British agents, who organized the actually winning margin of votes for the wretched Jackson during Jackson’s two terms as U.S. President. The dupes might be ridiculed for the combined, disastrous result of Jackson’s two successive elections, and for what the aftermath of his wretched career had left behind for the United States.
Truth and “voter opinion,” have often been opposing forces in history, as in the case of Jackson’s own election, or the comparable case of President Barack Obama presently. That could not have become a relatively typical malpractice against our system of government, as that has occurred again during most recent U.S. Presidential elections since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, but for the continuing influence, still today, of the incompetence embodied in a misled public’s credulous opinions.
What was wrong with those damnably fooled voters, then, or, to a large degree, now? However, that much said, who were actually the most guilty of those who are rightly to be blamed? Essentially, the blame belongs less to the actual, often foreign perpetrators of the treasonous schemes of Jackson’s gang, than to those of our citizens who should have known better. Actually, the evidence against Jackson and his accomplices was, and remains clear. Scoundrels abound, but who contributes the truly great crime of a tacit public consent? What had gone wrong with so many, damnably silly voters?
Naturally, it is true that those who actually organized the treasonous Jackson Presidency, were, and still are, necessarily, largely to be blamed. Nonetheless, no one has an actually affirmative quality of right to be “exonerated” for having acted stupidly, as large chunks of our nation’s electorate have frequently done, especially since President Kennedy had also been eliminated, one from among a long list of assassinated Presidents. Who, then, is to be blamed for the frequently deadly errors often inherent in usually long-ranging popular opinion, or the not-infrequent practice of an incumbent government’s own silly error in going along with the crafting of what has been frequently an intentionally malicious scheme crafted from within the leadership of our nation’s government; the root of the evil lies in the systemic error inhering in some expedient sorts of perversion of law-making as such.2To speak frankly of the essential facts of the current U.S. election-campaign, neither current, putative Presidential candidacy is fit to be elected. The current President, Barack Obama is the relatively most evil by a long stretch. The plausible Republican candidate is a disaster for the nation in his own right. The only presently visible hope for the nation is to impeach Obama almost immediately, to save the nation from absolute destruction, and defeat the currently plausible Republican candidate. Such an option is very real, and could rescue civilization generally at this juncture, if the will were there to bring the arrangement about.
The Jacksonian perversion drew all varieties of such faults into itself.
There is, usually, nothing accidental in such cases of persistently recurring falsehoods as the “Big Lie” of the Jackson candidacy; but, usually, the intended financial lies are used to influence prevalent popular opinion in a more vicious way, even a putatively educated public opinion, as had happened, not inevitably, but repeatably, in past times.
Such abominations as those are typified, among similar types of cases of errant commitments, by such devices as the fraudulent teaching of what was never true, as in Euclidean geometry, still today, or the deliberately, systemically fraudulent opinions in Newton’s concoctions, even among many trained, and otherwise only presumably reliable scientists. Instances of such evidence present significant clues to that kind of a broadly ignorant popular opinion which has been pre-shaped, and used to craft what is customarily referenced as public, or, often, “pubic” opinion and practice of nations.3A fire which occurred in the celebrated Library of Alexandria, had destroyed the section of that famous Library devoted to the leading knowledge of geometry at that time. Thus, influential figures associated with such as Aristotle and Euclid were enabled to put across what had been earlier correctly known to be fraudulent in scientific opinion respecting geometry. That foolishness tends to prevail in both low- and high-ranking educational institutions of the world, still to the present day.
Now let us be concrete.
Would you have done, willingly, what the U.S.’s Paul Volcker has done recently, in proclaiming a reported intention to “bail out” about $2 trillions of intrinsically worthless debt, thus looting and thus bankrupting virtually the entirety of our nation, all done at the collective expense of, especially, the great mass of the ordinary citizens of the United States now?
Volcker has acted in the avowed intention to do just that, so, and has publicly declared his intention to do such as that: adding to the significance of the fact that the Glass-Steagall Law, which would, in fact, rescue the U.S. population from the greatest depression in modern U.S. history, should not be re-enacted, if the wretched Volcker had his way. All the most essential features of evidence exposing Paul Volcker’s complicity in this despicable matter, clearly exist, although some of the fine details remain to be pinned down more exactly. Volcker must be recognized, as having been implicitly treasonous in effect against the U.S. citizenry, in a not very well-concealed intention during a span of recent months; only the most glaring evils of his scheme had been waiting for their frank public exposure, by his open profession of malice against mankind a short time ago.
Take the similar example of the most recent, and absolutely worst among the most recent U.S. Presidential elections;4Two terms of George W. Bush, Jr., and one of Barack Obama. Obama has been the most worst. and, then throw in the still earlier, highly relevant case of the pathetic character of the Presidential incumbency of the George H.W. Bush who was virtually sent home to stay, as soon as his first term was up; that is to say little concerning the actions of Democratic President Bill Clinton’s wretched, Republican successor in the Presidency, whose own incumbency has been, chiefly, a by-product of the purely malicious attempted impeachment of President Clinton himself.5The impeachment effort launched against President Clinton, occurred in response to the President’s intention to introduce an urgently needed economic reform against the kind of virtual racketeering engagement in Russian national finances which had been patched together by London and Wall Street cabals. Without the effects of the attempted impeachment of President Clinton, the present U.S. crisis would not have been set into motion through the wicked Gramm-Leach-Bliley law now defended by a Paul Volcker remembered from the days of Jimmy Carter Administration notoriety.
All that much said and considered so far; now return to consider the core of the matter which I had already presented to you here in the opening of this report. The principal facts are now stated here, as below.
It was actually, and very plainly, Aaron Burr’s personal role in directing of the backing of the Andrew Jackson Presidency of 1829-1837 itself, which led in shaping of the inherent evils of both the Jackson administration and its continuing faction, up through its own continued, implicitly treasonous intentions against our Federal Constitution.
That evil which is embedded in a truthful recollection of the President Jackson administration, had resonated since a time prior to its beginning, to far beyond its end. The same treasonous Burr was not only flagrantly a British agent, of a noxious quality much like that of Britain’s Tony Blair, but also an active enemy of our United States all the way through and beyond the conspiracy which involved the murder of Alexander Hamilton, and which had also led in organizing what became both the 1837 Panic and the economic ruin and demoralization which dominated the nation up to the outbreak of the Civil War. It has been the legacy of what was to become the Confederacy, which has been the root of that continuing evil, up to the close of that Obama administration which has, itself, nurtured the root of that evil which had been the Jackson Presidency. It was an evil crafted in a manner like that employed on behalf of the candidacy and Presidential incumbency of today’s would-be “new Emperor Nero,” the Obama who is the unnatural outcome of such so-called populist traditions.
Such is the dupery inhering in “the Jacksonian Tradition!”
What Shakespeare’s Casca had said to Brutus, could be said of Jackson, and of Obama, however evil they were in their own right in whatever has passed for their “real life.” Casca said:“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
That could be said of notable U.S. Presidents, of which the virtual “Emperor Nero,” Obama, has been only the worst among the true“underlings.” In the latter case, we must include charges against a comparable British underling, such as the referenced case of Tony Blair, who had sent the U.S. military to a fraudulently launched, and mass-murderously prolonged war in Iraq, all done on the authority of nothing as much as Blair’s (more or less chronic) outright lying.
Aha! There we have the common essence of both Jackson and Obama, and of the Emperor Nero, alike!
Speaking generally: as a Shakespeare would have understood, it had been Jackson, himself, who had copied the part of Casca into the 1828 U.S. election. It was the crime of treason-in-fact which had won “the proverbial day” for the breed of Andrew Jackson. It is that treasonous tradition which has been actually the prized proof of nothing so much as what has become our republic’s, chiefly British-Monarchy directed, habituated, and also generally stupid follies, as then, and as now. A related kind of folly has been more or less chronic during most of those recent times, a folly which brought our great republic into the humiliation represented by the ruinous, merely allegedly successful forms of virtually treasonous qualities of certain allegedly “successful” Presidential elections.
The time is overdue for taking time to think through a bit more quietly and profoundly than recently; we must now act on the urgently needed reforms.
When we take those currently proceeding concerns into account, must we not suggest some actually mysterious cause for the doubtful origins arising in matters respecting our nation’s system of lawful justice? Then, where we had causes for systemic public error to have been uncovered, so, often, as this kind of error has actually occurred, how have such faults been, apparently, so wonderfully concealed from the virtually self-blinded eyes and ears of a vast number of our citizens, that despite all evidence “in plain sight”? Shall we say that, perhaps, it has been that they are blindly innocent, and could not have foreseen the stinking ditches into which they themselves have been prone to roam so idly? Not at all: for such misguided political leaders, the relevant comment is: “Go along, to get along.”
Perhaps (and much more than merely that) some improvements in the defining of the practice of the application of an otherwise truly well-intended constitutional law, were long overdue.
The original U.S. Constitution with its then-intended purpose, had not been the source of our nation’s errors; it was the sly misuse done in the name of so-called “popular opinion” which customarily did the dirties; it was an opinion of a variety of often curious origins, which was induced to supply what could have been described as the “popular intention” of the given law, or what has been identified recently as what is named “spin,” which has been the outstanding work of the pranksters-in-fact in this matter. When you permit “spin,” you have destroyed the very principle of not only the law, but honest law-making, and, in fact, “honest anything.”
It has been the usual shame of our republic, that most persons in the U.S.A. (and other locations) who show little, or, even no competent knowledge of our republic’s constitutional foundations, have often been the collective author of a great part of our republic’s cruellest moral failures.
Law should not be a matter of merely maintaining order among what life often merely appears to define as a restive, if also more or less witless variety of “human cattle.” Law within and among nations, must have a specifically intended basis for providing the effective advancement of the human species. Those facts are clear when mankind is considered as a species which is distinct from all known lower forms of life; there must be true scientific advancement, as much as moral, rather than what has been too often the management of public behavior among managed sorts of the popular opinion among those whose actions verge on those of virtual “human cattle.”
That which is named as individual human “freedom,” must be understood to signify an advancement in the competence and efficient moral and scientific power of each of the successive generations of mankind. That means a rise to an increase of the power of the human mind within the universe, rather than the frequent downward drift into emphasis on British proposals for the culling of the foolish human herd, or for the corrupting effect of a show of respect for the passion of the intrinsically “amoral” anarchist. Not only the existence, but the upward transformation of the succession of the individuals, is an obligation of society; but, to what kind of a process of evolving organization of society, shall both the society and the individual be obliged to adhere?
There should be a well-defined intention which unifies the actual duty of society and the role of its individual member, as our republic’s founding predecessors, among such as the Winthrops, Mathers, and Benjamin Franklin, had indicated such a requirement. What is the properly guiding purpose of that desirable bond? What is the definable purpose of that existence of the individual, which both society and the individual must serve in union of a common purpose? Avoiding collisions is desirable; but, in what selected sort of condition of a planet, or our Solar system, or beyond, must this occur?
Aaron Burr and his dirty tool, President Andrew Jackson, are presently long dead. The principal features of their offences against society will, in one fashion, or another, ultimately come under the obligation to suffer the effects of what their evil deeds have done to their posterity. The point is, that that criminality itself lives on, still today, as the evil of the relevant opponents of the Glass-Steagall law demands that it be so, still, presently, now.
A couple of generations ago, a certain popular sport, identified as automobile “wreck’m races,” supplied an image of a model for a widespread tendency for recklessness. First, create the catastrophe, and then, lament the act, but with only crocodile tears for the victims whom they had conspired to lead into misery. The reckless rate of rising forms of misused taxation, with deeply reduced per-capita popular earnings, have changed things; which is to say have lately made them ever increasingly worse, that in some continually altered manner and direction.
As a matter of physical-economic facts, the U.S. physical economy has been in a net long-ranging decline since the combination of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the practically decade-long, worse-than-useless U.S. war in Indo-China. The long-ranging potential for the now-threatened ultimate doom of our now rapidly collapsing U.S. economy, has now reached an end, in one sense or the other: unless we change that long-ranging post-Kennedy Presidency’s long-term direction now.
Let us try to make sense of an experience lived in that crazy-quilt world of today. Consider an emblematic sort of relevant case.
I can point with relative satisfaction to one case which some among my own collaborators and I have presented on behalf of the account of one among the great discoveries which have been made, that respecting the true nature of the human species. That case is one which was presented, in successive effects, by Arthur Nikisch, in first approximation, and, then, a full-throated practice of what had been Nikisch’s own intention as it has flourished in the conclusions presented for practice by Nikisch’s properly defined successor, Wilhelm Furtwängler. I try to make proper use of what my associates and I have discovered and developed on our own account, especially respecting the lessons adduced from examples akin to the discoveries of Furtwängler, and to his outlook; I must also now consider what I have dared, and also the others associated with our cause in this matter, must have been enabled to discover, rediscover, or copy entirely on our own account, because he, or she, and relevant others have prompted me to seek what I would not have dared to uncover but for the inspiration prompted by examples from those rare and great geniuses on whose influence we have relied with good reason.
Admittedly, my own generation, its forebears and some contemporaries, were not the best models of achievements of the type which I have admired the most on this account. Of those who influenced me, the most were the exceptions of even their own generation and professional circles.
So, those observations and their reservations once stated, let us now apply this same principle of musical creativity to the need to cure the problematic features of the contemporary opinion and public practice in what I respect as a true and proper notion of public law. The leading issue is the science-related development of the creative powers of the human mind of the individual members of our society.
You might, therefore, wish to ask: What, then, is my argument in defense of proposing the considerations which I have come to associate with the successive phases of progress by Nikisch and Furtwängler respecting the principles of musical composition and performance?
The particular, and crucially important factors to be considered on this account, have had their principal origin in the development of the systematic work of Johann Sebastian Bach’s introduction of the provable nature of “the future”: the future as the essential vantage-point of upward direction of change of the composition and performance of the combination of music with the process of living of human life.
It was that Bach who emphasized the conception of basing composition explicitly on the oncoming (i.e., future) development within the body of the composition in progress, as in his collections of preludes and fugues. This replaced being confined to the present; instead we should have pursued the influence of the future instant, as being the appropriate moment of action for changing the present, enjoying thus the actually accessible future moment, not limited by the present, as providing a moment to have been achieved some moment ahead.
The creative human individual is one whose present action will have occurred, literally, a moment ahead of the moment it is experienced! Thinking ahead!
It was precisely this outlook respecting those creative powers of the imagination, which has been the root-source of my relatively unique, factually established competence and success as a forecaster in the field of a science of political economy, a subject which is to be noted in respect to the leading subject-matters to be taken into account here.
That very principle, as presented so by Johann Sebastian Bach, as in his Preludes and Fugues, as by the followers of Bach in this matter, is the essentially underlying principle of all properly acceptable forms of Classical musical composition. That view of Bach’s work, notably as appreciated on a consequent, crucial point by Arthur Nikisch and Wilhelm Furtwängler, successively, is also the properly required basis, in the conception of the future action within the domain of the “almost now,” for both competent economic forecasting, for all true artistic creativity, and scientific progress and related progress in general.
The relevant work of the original author of the needed conception of a principle of science in music, Arthur Nikisch, and his follower Wilhelm Furtwängler, is not “merely” a matter of music in the customary sense. It goes directly to the most profound, and most rarely understood principles of universal physical science as such. From the vantage-point of situating Arthur Nikisch’s and Wilhelm Furtwängler’s work in music as such, the discovery in music refers to a universal quality of a universal physical principle of science, which is, in no competent respect, limited to musical phenomena as such. Classical musical composition, as this is actually demonstrated by the success of Nikisch’s and Furtwängler’s experimental discoveries in music, is manifestly expressions of universal physical laws, through discoveries which supply a crucial quality of correction to previously established notions of physical principles generally.
The principle to which I have just referred here, is definable as an escape from the systemic errors of presumption which inhere in a notion of physical science which corresponds to customary notions of the nature of the actual basis of the “structure” of the universality of customary standards of experimental physics. The only claimed authority which is supplied to buttress a contrary opinion, is a stubborn refusal to investigate the relevant, specifically indicated evidence.
The continued survival and progress of the people of this planet, depends upon overcoming the resistance to progress, a resistance caused by a conventional sort of error which must be corrected by aid of steady improvements in educational programs and programs of improved health and welfare. Otherwise, failure to move forward with such progress limits the generally approved experimental approaches to a certain presumed consistency of the notion of principles of experimental evidence which delimits the domain of specific definition of “matter” or its likeness to conventional notions of sense-perception, even when more sophisticated experimental designs are included. A related difficulty has been explored by certain experimentalists who have gone, in studies of life-as-such, beyond the general methods which had been adopted earlier by a leading world scientific genius of the Twentieth Century, V.I. Vernadsky.
A systemically related, and more than somewhat notorious issue of physical-scientific method, arose in a crude error committed by the dupes of Vernadsky’s most vicious scientific opponent of that time, Alexander I. Oparin. The point of this matter, is, that once we enter the domain of a principle of life as such, and human mental life most emphatically, science has entered a domain generally far beyond the cruder domain of non-living processes, as the great Max Planck came to recognize the lessons to be learned from Wolfgang Köhler on the subject of the differences encountered in seeking to compare the mentality of apes with the case of the human mind (i.e., the Gestalt psychology lesson).
Now, that much said, having placed the point which I have just introduced here, now in the broader perspective than musical composition as such: Now view the matter from the standpoint of such distinctive accomplishments, as by a formally original specialist in physical-economic forecasting, as I have become such. This is not, of course, limited to economic forecasting as I do. All competent expressions of science, are essentially expressions of processes which are congruent with physical-economic forecasting of a quality which rejects a mere financial-accounting method’s inherently systemic error. This emphasis must be especially strong, respecting scientific incompetence in both economics and other human behavior generally.
When that investigation is carried into the domain of Nikisch and Furtwängler, the prospect of a revolution in the customary practice of physical science confronts us.
We must then add to these just stated considerations, the subject of the inherently systemic defects intrinsic to the employment of the statistical basis for physical-scientific and other investigations. This prompts us, if we are responsible in treating the matter, with a general warning presented by Bernhard Riemann in the concluding, third section of his celebrated habilitation dissertation. This, in turn, impels us to do a turnabout into the domain of Nicholas of Cusa, and, thence, into implications of the crucial work of Cusa’s great student, Johannes Kepler (i.e., vicarious hypothesis) as that was done in the crucial aspects of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation.
Thus, there exists a profound concurrence among elements of physical scientific progress in matters of principle, that as in Classical artistic composition, or, in physical-economic forecasting. All of these both represent, and are all valid expressions of science in general. The essential distinction of honest man from both beasts and foolish people, is the action of bringing a discoverable sort of impending future reality into the form of an intelligible expression of being. There, as in my own experience in forecasting, lies the essential distinction of both man from beasts, and from the functions assigned to the unfortunate, those who are content to be merely financial accountants.
The typical, essential incompetence of the reductionists generally, now comes prominently into play. Specifically, the assumptions of “elementary” physics which are adduced as consistent with the traditions of statistical methods derived from the notions of sense-certainty, “deeply color” ordinary statistically relevant methods, and, thus, stand outside a presumed experimental method of the customary sort.
There are two aspects of the work of Nikisch and Furtwängler, the which go most directly to the solution for the tendency for erroneous assumption in most so-called “physical science.” The first class of such needed corrections of customary methods is typified by the demonstration, by both Nikisch and Furtwängler, of the existence of an efficient agency in human mental life, which rules as if “between the cracks” of those higher cognitive powers of the human mind, powers which are expressed with strict experimental precision in the work of both these musicians.
There has been a third consideration to similar effect, the methods of Johann Sebastian Bach as expressed for the worthy experimentalist in Bach’s understanding of the adducible principle permeating the motive for Bach’s sets of compositions of preludes and fugues, a knowledge which is properly considered a natural human right of the population. This, Bach’s argument, brings the subject-matter into direct relationship to my relatively and also uniquely successful professional practice as an economist, since the late Summer of 1954. That is the crucial issue; the name of that issue, is the active function of “the future” within the presently oncoming action.
All competent science depends upon that function of the future whose active function is limited to some human beings. I am highly familiar with this fact, as being the characteristic of my professional focus on knowing events whose probability lies within the domain of future time. I mean, by that, that persons who use “current date”are lacking in true competence in their attempts at a formal effort to deliver a forecast; those who rely on statistical forecasting are intrinsically incompetent in their work. A few examples are a minimal requirement at this point.
Now, for a moment, let us wander here as if in a public garden. Seek a point from which to begin to bring the kind of order which we must now bring to bear. Now, consider the proper meaning of the word “law” as it should be experienced here.
There can be no denial of the reality that the very notion of “law” by and among today’s individual nations, presents a difficult challenge to the imagination. This is clearly so for those who would consider themselves as being qualified to hold court over the management of society’s rules of behavior within a society, as today: rules of behavior which are defined as marked by their inherent conflict with notions which they label as “scientific principle.”
One suggested approach, which I emphatically do not recommend for those seeking order, has been a certain necessary part of the alleged “benefits” of the merely minimizing of conflict among the respective cultures and sub-cultures; that is the notion that there must be an arbitrary sort of minimization of inherent differences in the practices among cultures, a notion which has not been a particularly successful arrangement in actual history thus far.
Systemic problems should not be compromised, but remedied according to true principles of reason: too many governments are compromised far too much already on that account.
Now, conflict is conflict, and one effort to rule it out arbitrarily, is approximately as bad as another. The notion of imposing “rules under which all must play,” is inherently vicious, and even more likely to promote homicide on a massive scale than any other. The fear of the awfulness which conflict might engender, could be regarded as the intention of introducing a “cooling off” of sources of bitter religious, or comparable hatreds; but, history does not proffer good performance-records on that account, either. The simple fact of the matter is, that there is no substitute for what might be fairly described as serious attention to the appropriate principles of what is properly to be recognized under the abused name of “humanism” combined with justice.
As the close of the Nineteenth Century approached, the 1890 ouster of Germany’s great peace-shaper, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, opened up the planet for what became known as “The First World War,” but has been actually the ebb and flow of an expanding and worsening state of actually continuing world homicidal conflict from the beginning of the 1890s up through the present date. The outbreak of what has been, actually, a permanent state of off-on world warfare since that time, coincided with weapons systems beyond the earlier imagination, and, early on, became not only the setting for the greatest increase in man’s power, beginning with nuclear fission; we have entered, in the closing moments of what was the nominal end of the Second World War, into the age of nuclear fission through thermonuclear warfare and beyond. War as we have known it since the founding of the British Empire, is no longer an actual option for any part of this planet.
This does not require suppression of nuclear fission and higher orders such as thermonuclear fusion and matter-anti-matter systems. It requires that we proceed with the great increase in useful power, on which the continued existence of the human species, in fact, absolutely depends: cancelling nuclear power and hoping for human survival are a contradiction in terms. Thus, this means a change in the modes of required cooperation without loss of the principle of the sovereignty of each nation under the indispensable preconditions of accelerating rises in what is to be identified as accelerating energy-flux-densities of a power and scale needed to meet the new conditions now naturally in progress from changes in the position our Solar system within its progress through the reigning galaxy.
With these, great powerful weapons, we shall be equipped with indispensable forms of great powerful technologies which will now become rapidly the means needed to cope with the new difficulties the Solar and Galactic weather-systems will present. War, as we have known it, must become extinct among nations; more urgent challenges will, of a perfectly natural sort of necessity become the central, natural, and mutual concern of the nations of the Twenty-first Century and beyond.
The true law is the commitment to the great changes which must happen, if the mission which is the security of our human species, and the successful continuation and improvement of its ranks, is not to fail.
By “serious humanism,” I mean that law of tolerance which is implicit in the nature of nothing less than both the uniquely successful existence and launching of the scientific progress, and its correlatives supplied by the human species as such. The challenge is: where might we begin to locate this excellent point of departure?
There are, in fact, certain well-defined elements of evidence on this matter. That much said, let us, as a community of sovereign “earthling nations,” now get down to business. Take the following considerations, for example, keeping my references, made above, within the implicit bounds of the great principle of Wilhelm Furtwängler which is being kept in the background of this present phase of the discussion. Provided we do not descend into bestiality, as some nations today have been deluded into considering as an option, the new technologies we develop for the sake of humanity, will bring about a shift in mankind’s outlook, from people confined to Earth, to nations cooperating in managing the Solar system, and beyond.
That provisional example means the following. Look briefly, now, to the roots of such perspectives which came into being during the course of “Old Europe’s Golden Renaissance.”
The precise distinction of a modern science which was introduced to practice by such notables as the Fifteenth Century’s leading scientific geniuses, Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, had introduced concepts which, while echoing the best directions of the thoughts of the greatest among then known ancient scientists, represent policies for action which featured an implicit yearning to reach still, presently beyond any of those which have been actually, presently known to mankind. Two points are to be emphasized in this present chapter of the report.
The best achievements known to us from ancient, into modern physical and related science, have the commonly underlying feature, of implicitly rejecting the commonplace notion of “mere sense-perception:” doing this by means of the adoption of new principles which had urged their influence upon the leading intellects of science and related matters during the often overlapping lifetimes of Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, and the latter pair’s immediate students and later students and followers.
Now, we have said enough of our seeming to wander among the gardens. Come down to the business immediately at hand.
That tendency for scientific progress during the span of what we identify conventionally as modern European science of the great European Renaissance and its outcome as its presently contemporary kin, has been in a state of what is most favorably described as notions which reach beyond the confines of mere sense-perception as such. Such conceptions are familiar in a fragmentary way; this can be shown in terms of the very concept of “fire,” if and when that is used to present a characteristic practice unique to mankind distinct from all among other known living creatures.
This brings us to the needed approach to the subject of music as such.
Indeed, all that we know appropriately as being efficiently truly Classical physical science, reflects conceptions of that type which I have just referenced above.
These should be very well knowable to us as the essential principles required for Classical artistic composition, such as, uniquely, for actually Classical musical composition. However, our insight into such matters, requires comprehensible forms of access, forms which correspond to experiences in respect to the notion of Classical artistic composition and principles of physical science, which address concepts whose very natures locate their identity as if in between Classical artistic composition and essential principles of physical science.
I restate that point as follows.
While great musical composition does have elements of its characteristics which can be regarded as products of a specifically musical tradition, all truly great movements in musical composition are often more a breaking-free of precedents, than a product of refinements; the great musical artist is intrinsically a true revolutionary from within his own artistic government. The cases of Arthur Nikisch and Furtwängler are excellent demonstrations of this.
Watch me carefully from this point, onwards. I am up to something which you must discover.
For example: The relevant aspects of the creative work of Johann Sebastian Bach, and the opening of new dimensions bearing on Bach’s unique initiatives, as by Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler, have a peculiarly distinct place in the study of such conceptions. In those instances, the congruent interdependence of the human mind’s action, both to produce an underlying effect, and to comprehend that experienced effect itself, form a contrast which coincides in a uniquely wonderful, accessible mode.
That same modality defines both the essential subject and the relevant means of “experimental action,” on which the intended effect is moved to emerge, as the expression of a pre-sensed precursor of a goal yet to be heard.
Now, prepare yourself for an approaching revolution in what might appear to some to be just about everything.
I now have two principal goals set before me, goals which I have yet to identify explicitly here. Be alert for surprises.
First: Musicians and their Times.
In this matter, I have been fortunate personally, to have come to be associated with a notable few, and relevant access to their work, a few found among the examples typical of the greatest musicians of my time. The advantage of this relationship between the great artist as either, or both composer-in-mode and the inspired audience and enabled amateur, seizes our emotions in precisely the mode of the arm of the workman and the creativity which guides the generation of the accomplished artistic work. My sense of the debt which is my obligation to the great artists, including some notable contemporary ones whom I have known personally, is enormous.
What I present here is not exactly confined to Classical musical composition in a narrowly defined sense. Music, when rooted in both Classical poetry and the power of true metaphor, is a proper model of creativity. In that respect, musical composition is the most accessible approach to Classical artistic composition and its relatives, which is available to the human experience, and there are very strong reasons for this fact.
Yet, in my experience of many decades this far, the fact that the music per se is directly the subject of the action, prompts powers of insight which, while they may be expressed, lack that wonderful immediacy of the power to express the proximate idea of music as such, as in no other way.
This limitation to which I have just referred, is not a fault of Classical artistic composition more generally. Rather, those arts necessarily contain the opportunity for a dramatic-like expression of the pure germ of the musical essence in itself. It is music addressed to a musical mission within society.
Thus, we are appropriately guided to seek out the efficient expression of the appropriately relevant passion of music, as being a power to shape human action to a musical-subject-driven purpose, and as a medium of expression presented with the added advantage of a chosen mode of reference. All of this which I have outlined here, thus far, corresponds to what I have recognized in the Classical repertoire generally: the hand moves; it must do something in the universe we experience. Music can not be truly music unless it is a specific mode of action; as action, it is located for expression in a medium. Classical musical composition, is the nearest to the essence of artistic composition on this account. The other modes within the bounds of Classical composition, are the effects which create means and subjects which lend substance to the intrinsic quality of the essential principle of art; without such essence, we could not imagine ourselves to exist, or others to have existed. It is the role of a sense of motion which encompasses, but is not limited to sense-perceived notions of motion.
Art so defined, presents mankind in its essence, with work waiting to act for the realization of an intention for which the gentle, yet irresistible power, of musical artistic composition permits expression. Music expressed is passion as such; it moves when the motion of the clock appears to stand still.
This far, in writing on this matter here, I have focused on music as such. That was not my essential intention; music so conceived, is the essence of the actual expression of the notion of an underlying, impassioned intention. It is therefore required, as being its own image, as Classical poetry also does this, as the principle of true metaphor does this. No more, and no less, but always essential. Music, so conceived, is us, our soul.
It is important to realize, that the principle of music as I have barely outlined the case here, is an apprehension of the presence of the beauty of the human soul. Viewing the future ahead of mankind, it is not inappropriate to nurture or borrow mankind’s cultures. Putting the point in Christian and like “models” of cultures, those objects which we regard as sense-perceptions, are not the actual “us,” but, rather, express a point of principle which we encounter as a prescience of ourself, as in I Corinthians 12-13. We are never “flesh as such.” True music also teaches us that. In great art, we are as if “lifted up,” as with a prescience of our own immortality, to such effect that the song within us, if it is beautiful, takes over the mortal existence of the musician, as if the flesh were almost not necessary at that moment.
Do not take this lightly. Of necessity, humanity will be managing the Solar system, and that progress should be expected to unfold with the development of bases on our Moon from which, within about a generation, thermonuclear-fusion impelled, manned vehicles should be travelling betwixt Moon and Mars within about a week for each “commuting.” This prospect is very real; the effect will include a change in outlook of the quality of a shift from managing operations within the planet, to the management of regions within the Solar system. The immediate prospect for man’s management of the Solar system, is presently projected as being within the means of matter-anti-matter systems capable of a certain degree of capacity for management of our Solar system internally.
At the very outset that such a pattern of man’s development of the management of our Solar system begins in earnest, the human species’ self-conscious sense of identity will undergo a rapid evolution. Nations will still exist, but the human individual will think in terms of living within the Solar system, rather than within the planet.
I am not projecting “a wild and woolly” populating of planets. I am projecting the development of extended operating systems, within the Solar system, which are largely as we say “management systems” which must be developed in depth, chiefly as in the approximate form of “management and security systems,” such as those now required at an increasing rate, to protect planets from large rocks and comets, a risk factor which we now expect to become an increasing responsibility in the periods ahead. Let us say, “management systems,” and understand what that term means.
At the same time, to appreciate adequately what I have just laid out, compare the so-called “energy-flux density” of nuclear and higher orders of systems of power which have opened to us with the transition to systems of power vastly more powerful than anything conceived a century or so earlier.
That change will keep us all very busy. Yet, it also implies something more of a practical nature. Compare the standard life-span of the human individual with the expansion of the range of operations by mankind within the range of the Solar system. Longevity as we have known it will transform mankind’s reach and outlook, and will, thus, shift the “demographic” span of individual human experience accordingly. Family ties will become much more significant under those conditions.
This shift, into the managing of the interior of the Solar system, and the like, will naturally transform mankind’s view of itself, as managing more and more of the Solar system’s planetary areas from their exterior, rather than within the territory and skies of planet Earth.
This effect could not be brought forward in any way except as the exploratory discovery of, first Arthur Nikisch, and, then, Wilhelm Furtwängler, have clarified what is fairly identified as the discoverable nature of the absolute principle of true Classical artistic composition and its performance goals, seeks out the realization of the intended effect.
On this account, the music in accord with those considerations which I have indicated here thus far, is in itself an expression of a yearning toward immortality, a notion of “immortality” which is inseparable from what we may identify as the immortality which subsumes the notion of a sense of the ordinary flesh. We live as incarnate beings which seem to come and go, but which, in our passing, we may express as a mission, a purpose for living and having lived, which allows us to consider a moment of mortal life as an expression of another presence, an efficient quality of presence, which is the attributed confinement of human mortality within a prescience of personal immortality, as my earlier reference to the passage from the Apostle Paul indicates this.
It is those specific qualities of passions, which partake of an immortal meaning of the actions performed within the confines of a mortality. If we have not achieved that sense of our mission in existence, it is almost as if we had never lived at all. There is no need for pawing the dirt in the stable on this account; the expression of the principle is implicitly exact, as the work of Furtwängler has demonstrated this in actually heard practice.
Thus, to conclude this special aspect of the matter I have placed here before at least some among you, which is the efficiently practical mode of access of the mortal personality to a corresponding universality which we, perhaps, explain to ourselves, as what shall have been our mortal self. Hence, the miraculous power of what Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler, represent, successively, as Wilhelm Furtwängler carries this forward to a certain relative state of perfection of the essential conception which emphasizes this explicitly, in pointing our attention to the essential, implicitly immortal substance of our incarnate existence, and as I shall present a physical principle which supports all the essential features of what I am writing here.
The trouble which all serious efforts to understand the successive accomplishments of Nikisch and Furtwängler encounter takes us far beyond the notion of music as a form of entertainment. What is occurring in the process leading through such modern sources as Filippo Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, into the fundamental scientific discoveries of Johann Sebastian Bach and his greatest heirs, is to be considered, with the relatively greatest emphasis, not as a development within music regarded as “entertainment.” It is, in fact, to be recognized as being, probably, as I shall insist here, the greatest breakthrough in modern physical science. This is actually the essential feature of what the work of Wilhelm Furtwängler actually made clear.
I explain what may be a shocking fact for many: What is the human mind, actually?
The great curse of mankind, down through as much as we presently know as “the ages,” has been the imprisonment of the minds of human individuals within their adopted submission to the reign of merely sense-perception. This is actually the significance of what Wilhelm Furtwängler has accomplished for all mankind.
The relevant, cruelly stubborn problem, has been a prevalent sense of impotence which arises in physical science as usually conceived, when we are confronted with the stubborn absurdity of attempting to adduce the physical principles of physical science from what is merely sense-perception.
The evidence proving the ultimate absurdity of reliance on sense-perception as such, would be beyond doubt, if society generally were capable of telling itself that it has recognized a reliable quality of superior principle of experience which could lead mankind to a method which supersedes what is merely sense-perception. The point which I now make with emphasis, is that Wilhelm Furtwängler had implicitly “broken through” that customary barrier. I now proffer, next, a summary explanation of my argument. My view on this matter will probably turn out to have been the most important of my life’s work this far. Curiously, but, perhaps, not really surprising in the end, is that the principle of my discovery presented here, is, after all, elementary. Nikisch and Furtwängler had actually made the crucial first step of that deep-rooted, and fundamental scientific discovery.
Considering the auspices, I think it appropriate to proceed directly to the kernel of the argument which identifies my personal discovery. The relevant core of the argument runs as follows. The relevant subject is “the commonly desperate search for the ultimate infinitesimal.” It is those musicians and the like who have failed to grasp this point correctly, who have failed to grasp the entire point which I emphasize here and now.
If we continue along a pathway of a search for the absolute infinitesimal, the effort to partition physical space-time into “sufficiently small” portions, is clearly the pathway to epistemological absurdities. The hopeless paradox invoked along that pathway becomes quickly obvious (if not in time, on principle). The “purely infinitesimal dot” does not exist in this universe.
For example: Bertrand Russell’s dupe, Alexander I. Oparin, was obviously a credulous fool sucked into an imaginary “very deep space” filled with nothing at all, as were the Bertrand Russell-fabricated fanatics Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, who each were expelled from Göttingen for the same ontologically excellent reasons, but at different times. Von Neumann’s was the most disgusting of the two cases, most dramatically, and that for exemplary motives. The foolish “pure mathematics” argument were clearly an extension of the same delusion adduced for Euclidean geometry.
Rather than proceeding from the fanatical extremes of the imaginary perfect infinitesimal, as the silly Oparin did, in seeking to define a mechanical ontology for a principle of “life,” what should have been obvious, is the utter nonsense of seeking to adduce the allegedly infinite from the presumably axiomatic basis of the allegedly infinitesimal: a wild-eyed fantasy if there ever were one. The reductionist premises his argument on that which he has presumed arbitrarily. For our practical purposes, the universe exists in the primarily very, very large, as Albert Einstein’s finite, but unbounded universe, prescribes. Whereas, the axiomatic presumption of the reductionist, is his own conviction, that in such matters, he himself actually claims, even insists, to know nothing of what he is talking about, as in the case of Bertrand Russell’s fool Alexander I. Oparin.
Rather than toying with the fantasies of the dupes of the infinitely evil, self-created Bertrand Russell and his poor dupe Oparin, or the similar John von Neumann, we must rely on the physical-experimental evidence chosen by the Nikisch and Furtwängler who have successfully freed the human imagination from the grip of an axiomatically empty space of mere sense-perceptions.
Now let us restate the preceding, illustrative points from a fresh, and, greatly superior approach.
The most vicious of the popular errors inherent in the customary practice of physical and related science, is the existing, wide, almost universal dependence of “physical science” on what is identified as the notion of an axiomatic role of sense-perception as a standard for measurements. The practical reasons for using such a mode, need not be argued strenuously here. It is when that mode is mistaken for anything more than a convenience, that for lack of a better means and method, that some harsh warning signals must be introduced and applied. There is no self-evident quality of truthfulness in reliance upon sense-perception as a standard for measurements, or otherwise.
However, even before the point that we are obliged to recognize the qualitatively, deep functional differences innate to the work of Arthur Nikisch and Wilhelm Furtwängler, there are gross margins of systemic error inherent in any attempted reliance on “sense-perceptions,” particularly as assumed standards of measurements, as, for example, such cases from V.I. Vernadsky et al., in the matter of ordinary chemistry and bio-chemistry.
On top of all that, there is absolutely no decent confidence available for defining principled coherence between sense-perception as such and physical principles defined with the notion of an independence of sense-perception. Samples include the scandalous frauds of such as Bertrand Russell, or of his dupe A.I. Oparin, on the subjects of physics and living processes, and the related, Oparin-like, far-distantly-living infinitesimals, proposed for the statistical fantasies of the late, mad John v. Neumann, as relevant illustrations. In many aspects, those fellows share the root-basis of the intrinsically reductionist, wild-eyed, oligarchical fallacies of Aristotle and Euclid.
There is a great Solar system and a great Galaxy out there to be understood and treated. The changes are vast, and rapid, and they are very large. Prepare to enjoy the change. For us, thus, true civilization has only begun to begin. The humiliations which the young United States had endured, must be recognized as a fading image of a world which is already soon passed. Enjoy the prospect of foreseeing the future which lives within your anticipation, and never forget whence you have come from, back in those bitter days when that brutish thug Andrew Jackson had been a name with which to reckon. Think about that, and enjoy a hearty laugh.