Edited version posted 12:04pm edt, 8/19/2012.
The following report is intended, essentially, to define the significance of presently critical problems which have arisen within the fields of the heretofore little-known aspects of the physical-scientific principles of economy. This is a matter concerning the need for the cure of a kind of mental disorder which is being spread, influentially, under the pretexts of “the follies of academically popular economics.” I begin with a specific clinical case, the immediate circles of the current President of our United States. This case runs as follows.
According to reports just lately received, U.S. President Barack Obama’s notoriously slippery crony and Chicago veteran, Cass R. Sunstein, appears to have arranged his hasty exit from Obama’s team. Although, at last report, Cass’s wife, Samantha Power, remains nominally readied to continue her post with the Obama Administration, for whatever her personal reasons. In the meantime, Samantha seems thus disposed to continue with her push for what might well be, in fact, a virtual “World War III,” in fact a threatened thermonuclear war, to be launched by the included, explicit intentions of President Barack Obama. This is a scheme which has included the notorious Susan Rice, and also other authors and notable accomplices of an ongoing, massive human butchery in Syria and elsewhere: a slaughter which is currently operating under the auspices of some from inside the UNO. Therefore, I had already set this present report into motion, a report which I had begun just briefly before receiving the news of Mr. Sunstein’s prepared retirement.
Nevertheless, while Sunstein may be fleeing from his career with the White House, or had merely modified his intentions, he has not shown any change from his regrettably personal devotion to that wickedness which he and Obama have shared, as the legacy of their all-too-common Chicago and Harvard University Law connections.1Cass R. Sunstein, “Conspiracy Theories” (University of Chicago-Law School), and Adrian Vermuele (Harvard University-Law School) 2008.
Notably, while some apparently upside-down citizens have denounced my perfectly truthful and fully factual report on Obama as “over the top,” the actual facts, once matters are considered rationally, show that the fact is, that those who have attacked my views of his wickedness as being “over the top,” are truly not “over the top” themselves, since they, quite to the contrary, have already touched bottom, with little prospect for a rebound. Nevertheless, Obama’s (and Tony Blair's) copy of an Adolf Hitler-modeled “health care” policy, remains still Obama’s own philosophical “carbon copy” of both Britain’s wretched Tony Blair, and, incidentally, also the earlier version of the same spirit, that of Adolf Hitler.
What is notable about Cass R. Sunstein’s character for the purposes of this present review, is that had he not been a member of the administration of President Barack Obama, we should have counted him as merely one of those innumerable fools, high, or, mostly, low, who have been peddling “conspiracy theories” similar to his own. These have been, “theories”of the brutishly crude sort which had been lately known to us in our United States, off and on, since Harry S Truman’s entry into the U.S. Presidency.2For the young-uns: There is no period in the spelling of the “S” of “Harry S Truman.
The difference between then and now, is, that the U.S. came out of the end of Harry S Truman’s incumbency, in a relatively far better social status than a U.S.A. now ruined, at an accelerating rate, under the pair of “conspiracy theorists”and flim-flammers Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein, but also other nations. Obama’s have been the policies which his administration has deployed in seemingly successful attempts to ruin the great majority of the citizens of the United States, often with a cruelty which has been abysmal. On that account, the present-day health-care and related doctrines of Obama and Cass Sunstein, have been, generically of a quality of likeness to both Nazi Germany’s propaganda machine, first, and the related practices of the post-Hitler, “post-World War II” Congress for Cultural Freedom, later.3Hitler killed his victims; the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) worked to destroy their souls.
As for myself: in my opposition to those chronically lying wretches, Obama, Sunstein, and their likeness, I am writing here in my capacity as being in fact, an exceptionally successful, long-term economic forecaster (as opposed to mere statisticians). I speak and write, on record, as a singularly successful forecaster, as I have been since the success of my first public forecasting, during the late 1950s.4The continuing study in my capacity as a management consulting specialist and closely related practice, had soon come to be concentrated for a time, in the nation’s own automobile manufacturing; but, was extended to include other leading U.S. industries with characteristics akin to those of the auto industry. My forecast during those earlier times, was first presented at the close of August 1956, warning of a deep recession to hit the U.S. economy in its auto and related sectors as a whole, beginning February-March 1957. It hit exactly as I had forecast; the crash which erupted, as I had forecast, in February-March 1957, and continued into the Spring-Summer of 1958, and was the worst set-back to the U.S. economy prior to the wave of decline which dominated the post-Kennedy U.S. war in Indo-China, and beyond. This has been broadly defined as a pattern continued, actually, to the present date; but, has been most ferocious under President George W. Bush, Jr. and, worst of all, the brutish Barack Obama.
Otherwise, my putative rivals in the trade were forecasting by statistical-trends methods, which, in general, have infallibly failed on a matter of principle, as they did from the beginning of February-March 1957, exactly as I had forecast. It is the reliance on “statistical trends” which is the chief root-cause the incompetent performance of most “market forecasters.” Consider my celebrated Dec. 2, 1971 debate at New York’s Queens College for some key insights into this matter. That distinction is not relative, but specific.
Now, putting aside what I have referenced as that pair of subjects, Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein, I have remained uniquely successful in such matters of economic forecasting. I am still advancing in an active and successful practice in crucial aspects of relevant skills, as I have nearly touched the age of ninety years, albeit with the expected bumps and bruises of sundry sorts taken into account, as it were a likely prospect for all such professionals, if they are fortunate to enjoy an opportunity like my own.
Under those conditions, my crucial consideration in presenting the report of the subject-matters which I present here, is, that, without both the expulsion of President Obama, and, also, a radical and sudden change away from President Obama in the methods of U.S. economic policy-shaping, this nation of ours is simply, as it is sometimes said, “not going to make it,” even in the short term before the next Federal election, or, even before the coming Democratic Party’s Presidential nominating event. Otherwise, his continuation in the role of President, would almost certainly be your personal doom.
To be clear with the readers on that point: the principle of any competent economic forecasting, was never premised, in principle, on the presumption of a specifically “predicted” date, although I have successfully forecasted such suggested “target-area-datings” from ranges of less than a year, to several years of the relevant “count-down,” and have done that much more than once. I have reported those datings as suggested ranges of certain datings, datings which must be always competently presented facts of the matter which I have presented.
Note this: Usually, exact “predicted” dates could not be competently presumed by anyone; usually, with rare exceptions, only patterns in trends could be measured by anyone with fair approximation; but, this must be done nonetheless meaningfully. Competent forecasting is not essentially a matter of mechanically predetermined specific dates, but must represent a fairly estimable, qualitative quality of interval of change, such as “a turning-point,” in the direction which is imposed for some probable future range of dates.
For example, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has defined a causal quality of turning-point in actual U.S. physical-economy trends since that time. A forecastable change, is one which is inherent in an (often) currently foreseeable change in quality of direction of the relevant, underlying social process. For example, had President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, been permitted to live, neither the needless Indo-China warfare of the U.S.A., nor economic disasters experienced by the United States so far, would have, almost certainty, ever occurred. It is the quality of change in characteristics of an ongoing policy for action which must be the standard for economic forecasting.
Thus, the scientifically premised forecast’s outcome, is located in the effects of the pulls and stretches of the process under way. A forecastable crisis can be hastened or delayed by certain kinds of events, or the tug-and-push of key persons, policies, and processes inserted into the relevant “count-down.”5For example, the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln (directed from London at that time), is a clear case. However, the assassination of President McKinley, and the motivating issues which steered the assassin, were clear, as were the motivating issues of that time which led to the still presently history-changing assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, also, his brother, and are indelible for the clearheaded and honest thinkers of today. As the “ghosts” in a most memorable, internationally famous German movie, Spukschloss im Spessart (1960), said, “Die Hauptsache ist der effekt” [The important thing is the effect].In each of the actually historical cases, the motives for the assassination lie not in the identity of the assassins as such, but who employs the capabilities available for hire.
The introduction of the “greenie policy” has been such a cause for what has been a series of qualitative turning-downs of the U.S. economy since that time; it was the coincidence of that factor, and the anti-Kennedy onslaught which has been the dominant factor of failure of the U.S. economy over the span of time marked by the related, deeply underlying trends. In human behavior, as distinct from animal life, it is changes in, or lack of appropriate changes in effected voluntary-economic trends, which shape the ups and downs in the voluntary determinations of economic history.
The function of any competent forecasting, is not to observe history as if passively, as a set of veritable certainties, but to change it, willfully!6Think! What would history have been had President John F. Kennedy lived through 1960-1975, or longer? Or, had President Ronald Reagan succeeded in pushing the SDI through as a U.S. program, in either of his public attempts.
A change “in trend” may be foreseen through insight into physical-scientific means, either to prevent a change in quality of direction, or to create one. For example, my 1971 forecast for the breakdown, which preceded the ouster of President Richard Nixon, is typical of the matter of principle in respect to forecasting. In the 1971 case, I was the only notable economist of the time who had actually forecast what did happen, and why, during that mid-summer, when it hit. In that case, notably leading economists stated, that they had no record of their actually having foreseen that event; hence the celebrity consequently conferred on me on that occasion.
For another example: I have projected, currently, the disintegration of the present U.S. economy (and more), as it has done so, through the course of the continuing of the ruinous, current U.S. policy-trend which has persisted since the attempted impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and until the introduction of three specific measures which will be required to launch a general physical-economic recovery.71.) the original Glass-Steagall law of Franklin Roosevelt’s administration; 2.) the rebuilding of the U.S. physical economy through a change to a credit system of Federal physical-economic national recovery and growth; 3.) the launching of the NAWAPA program, under modernized technological adjustments. The combination of these three shifts in the U.S. economy, away from its present disintegration, to a recovery program providing no less than six millions physically-productive jobs.
Therefore, for me, the shameful thing which I recognize in the chronic failures of the kinds of putative professional rivals to which I have referred here, is a failure which has often shown its roots among statistical “forecasters” generally. That is to say, that those fellows seem to still believe in their failed method, for the greater part, stubbornly, continuing to rely on the inherently failed practice of “statistical methods,” even amid the presently accelerating, general breakdown-crisis of that trans-Atlantic economy which they had done so much to create, still today.
To sum up this immediate point so far: the reason most political leaders, and kindred types have been led into bringing destruction upon our own, and others’ nations, is that they depend upon what they regard as “established statistical trends,” as former President Bill Clinton joined that political horde for the occasion in 2009, despite my warning. It was the failure to accept my published warnings, which unleashed the hyper-inflationary lunacy which has brought the United States, like western Europe, into the grip of a threatened, virtual hyperinflationary extinction, now. The outcome of an election, for example, is often one prompted by the worst possible candidate, or the assassination, perhaps, of the best.
The chronic characteristics of those broadly indicated methods of my putative (and also foolish) rivals, was already made indelibly clear in their confrontation with me during and since that mid-Summer monetarist crisis of 1957-58, a pattern whose effects lingered then until the upturn coinciding with the election of President John F. Kennedy.8The actual descent into the sudden and increasingly deep U.S. economic recession of February 1957 into the late Spring of 1958 was followed by a period relative stagnation. Since more recent decades, the reports of those developments have been customarily falsified, for obvious motives. Virtually every leading economist engaged in economic forecasting which had been done in opposition to my forecasts since, was exposed as incompetent, during the course of the events during that post-Kennedy time; and, there has been little improvement on that account since, as was clear in the pattern of developments since the onset of September of 2007.
That point had been made starkly clear for deeply embarrassed economists, already during my December 2, 1971, widely reported public debate with Professor Abba Lerner at New York’s Queens College. That had been, in effect, my debate against the Keynesian and kindred circles of both Britain and the United States, circles from which the same generality of economic forecasters never regained its earlier reputation for credibility, still to the present date. They are still, until fairly recent report, pathetic adherents of the intrinsically incompetent practice of “statistical-forecasting methods.”9Cf. Footnote 4.
Those opponents were never “honestly” mistaken; they were, and still are, systematically wrong in their misconception of the actual nature of economy itself. Conformity, instead of principle, was decisive; hence, their chronic failures.
The principal subject-matter of the following pages, had been signalled as the core of my July 31 (2012) “Beyond Sense-Perceptions.”10See http://larouchepac.com/node/23498 In this, my present continuation of that same core-subject, I shall show here, that successful forms of what is actually competent physical forecasting in economy, are all, really, a matter of a lawful, and inherently foreseeable result of human science: if you have both the ability and opportunity to master the relevant aspects of that science. The urgent need I have addressed here, has been to point to the nature of the experimental evidence which helps to rid the relevant scientists of their sensed need to continue relying on sense-perception as such. In fact, the proof is elementary, but, only once the fuller treatment of essential principles is adequately understood.
If you wish to enjoy a successful economy, you must adopt the science which will guide you to create it.
As I had warned earlier:
the distinction of the human species from among all other living creatures presently known to us, is expressed as the potential for what must be a strictly defined notion, a notion of the ontological quality of what we must require, as premises, for productions in the domain of general human creativity. That means the intention to create, willfully, those new states in nature, which nourish the hope which our species’ mere continued existence of our own species may require.
You should begin, here and now, with the continuation of that discussion, by recalling the crucial point with which I concluded that recent, July 31 report.
Firstly, it has been a serious habit of systemic error, for anyone, to seek to adduce subjects of physical science for which data are systemically dependent upon statistically-based conclusions: conclusions such as those which depend, in turn, upon data derived merely from current human sense-perception.
A competent definition in this domain, is found for us, independently of customary human opinions of today; it lies solely in the evidence of mankind’s willful ability to muster successively higher orders of degrees (intensities) of “fire,”11i.e., per capita, per square-foot of intensity, etc. a perspective now ranging into thermonuclear fusion, matter-antimatter reactions, and beyond. The simplest sort of competent statement on the principled nature of that evidence, is that mankind is the only presently known species whose existence depends on devotion to escalating modes in the use of “fire.”
Consider the following argument on that just-stated account.
When we combine that approach to sought evidence, with the inclusion of lessons taken from the study of the principles represented by the combined work of Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler, we have stepped outside the ordinary bounds of sense-perception as such. We have shifted toward the acceptance of a viewpoint provided by the notion of “fire” as a principle of human existence, rather than merely its effect. We have entered, thus, into the domain of the principle of a domain of higher ontology, which does not mean merely energy-flux density per se; it means the implication of reaching beyond the experience of sense-perception, into the domain of human creativity as such: into the domain which bridges “fire” with the role of the noëtic powers of the human mind as such, a subject-matter, essentially, of the domain of the stars.12When working backwards from today’s customary notion of music, a highly imperfect notion when consider ed as being rooted in dependency on sense-perception as such, to the apparently transcendental domain of the common (actual) principle of the human mind, upwards from the domain of sense-perception as such, to an element of discrimination which reaches beyond mere sense-perception, as such, and into the domain of mind as such. Bach’s emphasis on the principle of the future expressed in his Preludes and Fugues, as reflected so powerfully in the work of Wilhelm Furtwängler, typifies this. The same rule, when made familiar to us from the work of Johannes Kepler’s discovery of a principle of gravitation, applies here: we hear the shadow of the reality.
Now, rather than measuring reality in terms of sense-perceptions, regard sense-perception as a type of shadow which represents the typical sources and effects of humanity’s willful power to create. This means a rejection of the mistaken notion that the higher powers of the human mind can be attributed to the practice of deduction per se. The essential subject is not what is heard, as such; we must discover our response to the unheard principle itself: it could be said, that we must “hear” what that unheard reveals as if “from within the cracks of irony per se.”
This distinction actually takes us beyond deductive processes as such, into matters which react to deduction, but which are not contained within it: that which is “within the cracks of ironies per se,” a sense of prescience which is to be experienced as the actual human creativity which is located beyond sense-perception as such. That principle is the only one which really distinguishes man’s existence as beyond a deductive mode. That is the same distinction from the ape, which pertains to man’s ability to know the powers which lie within those higher ranks of the higher uses of power, uses which exist only by means of the actions specific to the products of the work of the human mind.13Repetition of this point, in various “languages,” seems superfluous to some readers. They must remind themselves, as Johannes Kepler repeated the essential point on this account, that what passes among some people for “sense-perception,” as a direct effect, is itself a vicious error born of conventional presumptions being substituted for reality.
“Classical music” in the sense of the domain of music for the colleagues of a Bach, Nikisch, or a Furtwängler, touches directly on the musical abilities which link the functions of the human mind to those higher powers of “fire” whose willfully human expression distinguishes man essentially from the ape.
The essential distinction of man from beast lies within the bounds of the rarely employed, but nonetheless existent capability of the human mind to react to the future, rather than merely the past and present experiences.
That future-oriented view which I have just summarized in that just-stated fashion, presents us with a higher order of insight into “fire,” as human practice shifts into the “more dramatic” realms of thermonuclear fusion and matter/anti-matter domains of practice, and as the development of human control over processes on, and affecting Mars, will soon prompt us to regard galactic “forces” as the foundations of those developments which enable the potential powers we shall find to be familiar within the Solar system and our galaxy. Only threadbare habits stand in the way of viewing matters from this standpoint which I have just identified as the uniquely appropriate standpoint of the human mind in the practice of physical science.
That much said this far, we should find that although this view may not have been considered “comfortable” at first glance, the practice of remote control over the functions which Mars will provide for support for man on Earth, will lead to an appropriate sense-comfortable view of these matters.
Now, it were time to consider a cruder sort of commonplace problem:
Until now, the included consequence of the customary, but errant economists’ trend has been, that those “other” economists, to whom I have just referred, above, have been, inherently, victims of the commonplace social pressures of academic life, pressures which may be fairly identified as reflecting the status of victims of something resembling such precedents as the folly of statistical rules for a Euclidean-based arithmetic, such as the intrinsic stupidity of any so-called “marketing forecast.”
The complementary effect of that kind of persisting, regrettable trend in current opinion, has included some degree of the fostering of a “fascist-like” mentality in cases comparable to the wild-eyed, arbitrary codifications inherent in Cass Sunstein’s perverted, also essentially capriciously expressed examples of his practiced mentality. Those trends may often resist Sunstein’s obvious nonsense, which is perhaps useful in dealing with less important subject-matters, but they will otherwise tend to adopt “a professional’s respectful toleration” for even the perverted state of mind which is to be accurately diagnosed as comparable, historically, to “fascism,” as that diagnosis is to be made by attention to the standards of those comparative historical practices which are urgently needed for the requirements of physical and related progress among human beings, presumably people who prefer to avoid the pathways of embedded tendencies for extinction.
The crucial element of policy to be considered in presenting this case, is that any competent attempt at “a science of economy,” must be premised upon the most profoundly essential distinction of man from beast. Specifically, and, most emphatically, the human species is the only presently known species which is capable of generating policies which are based directly on the qualitatively principled consideration of consequences for the future, rather than the projection of deductions from conditions viewed from the past. The crucial issue here, is, therefore, to be located in the rejection of simple predictions (a systemically reductionist standpoint), in preference for what defines a functionally absolute, systemic distinction of the mind of man, from that of the beasts. “Fascism” is essentially “man as a beast.” Or, for example, an Aristotelean, or other sort of philosophical oligarch such as, for example, the Cass Sunstein who fills what he does not actually know, with the “empty space” which he employs as a receptacle for any merely nominal future which he chooses, for him, because, for him, it never did actually exist. (In other words, he considers himself freed to lie a lot about what he apparently believes does not exist).14All of my allegations respecting the methods of argument used by Cass Sunstein are to taken from my reading of the item authored by Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, as referenced by my first footnote of this document presented here. It was like an experience of the hollow sound left by the label on a dirty empty bottle: no substance, but mostly disease. What a fraud! Also typical of President Obama! Instead of thinking of that President or Sunstein, put the words they utter in the mouth of a delinquent among the rabble of Chicago’s “Weatherman” cult.
Or, in other words, mankind’s true mental powers are intrinsically noëtic, as Johann Sebastian Bach insisted, rather than commonly used deductive methods.
The practical point to be restated, is: that if we are to consider ourselves as functionally human in what must become, in effect, our actually galactical outlook, we must develop our capability for successfully changing the relevant, previously adopted principles by which most of us are presently “ruled;” we must replace “practical” habits for truthful ones: which is to say, for virtually scientifically prophetic ones.
Thus, it is in respect to precisely that specified precondition, that human beings in a healthy state of mind are categorically unique among all known living species. This exists in respect to the fact, that we each should have cultivated a built-in potentiality to act creatively—to act to the effect of changing the outcome of the future, rather than proffering decisions made merely in deductions from the course of the past. Our proper human mission is as typified by those who have already shown themselves to have become capable of making the contribution to mankind made by a science-driven forecast of the future, rather than a mere deduction from which the more or less successful action is commonly adduced. No animal species is capable of doing this willfully, as the same must be said in respect to “market-forecasters,” common statisticians, or other stubborn relics of beliefs, all of which types should be soon rescued from the misfortunes of a suitably departed past.
Mankind, as known to us this far, is the only presently known species capable of actually creating an original future in a willful way, that by the means of proper choice of future efforts. Unfortunately, only a small ration of contemporary persons, even of the putative rank of contemporary “experts,” have actually developed that nonetheless accessible capability which reflects the sense of meanings to be associated with a true principle of physical-scientific progress.15At this point, I am pointing, implicitly, toward the unique significance of a correct insight into Wolfgang Köhler’s influence on Max Planck in their coming to a shared definition of the notion of the principle of the human mind. It is the popular misconception of the meaning of the human mind (a reductionist’s misconception based on commonplace notions of “sense perception”), which has usually blocked insight into Köhler’s profound, physical-scientific insight. The link here, is to the physical meaning of metaphor, as this was presented by Johannes Kepler’s “vicarious hypothesis.” That notion of “vicarious hypothesis,” when recognized as the meaning of “metaphor,” is equivalent to the conclusion which I present in the brief Chapter II-“The Argument Which Must Be Used” of my July 31, 2012, Beyond Sense Perceptions. For example, the Aristotelean method associated with the strictures of Euclid, is a typically depraved, ancient example of the methodological incompetence of the “statistical” method which presently obstructs most of man’s pathway to a serious prospect for a future, for our human species.
The impaired subjects, Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein, have been typical of the quality of a spirit of despotism which reflects that pair’s share of depravity, a depravity presented in the form of a very crude sort of common habit. It is that actually mass-murderously fascistic despotism, which they typify, which must be removed from its poisonous influence on our constitutional system of government, before it is too late to do so effectively. That requires a quality absent from both of that pair: the ability to tell the truth (even in some relatively simple matters).
We may hope, here, as I do, to persuade more of our folk to agree with my counsel respecting this subject-matter. It would save human lives, that probably in relatively large numbers, considering the awful trend of conditions to which our citizens, in particular, are being subjected by nothing other that their present devotions to tolerating lies, as by President Obama, which have been regarded by some unfortunates as the presumed wisdom of the past.
That view which I have expressed, thus, is key for understanding how the human species has progressed, on those occasions when it has, in fact, succeeded. This is the point at which all other known species have not only consistently failed absolutely on this specific point; but, also as they have failed throughout the record of the emergence and decline of all other known living species, throughout the presently known existence of other forms of life on Earth so far.
Those other creatures have had their place in the process at large; but, the essential quality of human life, is unique to that of the inherently natural mission implicitly presented to mankind. It is human creativity, otherwise to be known for purposes of professional practice as a science of insight, on which the willfully continued independence of the future existence of our species depends.
Out of finding success in dealing with that experience from that standpoint of reference to which I have just referred, we are enabled to distinguish two, contrasting measures of such attempted success. The more common mistakes are clear in their natures.
First, some among us, although successful in recognizing a discovery of principle, have been thwarted in their attempts at experiencing its realization. Second, when any serious failure comes, it is a failure which is usually to be rightly blamed on our society as a social process, more than the error of any exceptional influential, individual member other than one of the highest ranks of society. Leaders of society generally require the most careful scrutiny in respect to their selection of leading policies. Many among our Presidents, for example, have been fairly described, with a few notable exceptions, as actually “ bummers,” or “flops;” the best were, all too often, assassinated in mid-term, or escaped such, or related treatment, by avoiding acts which would offend our republic’s actually most influential adversaries. Some have gained a sense of security from either assassination, or brutal political humiliation, by kissing threatening interests, from the bottom up.
The argument on that account, is essentially as follows.
Actual human successes by some, usually require human consent by other persons. There are, admittedly, rare exceptions to that rule—putting to one side the pathological varieties. Those more successful in making true discoveries have (chiefly) been given, or merely permitted to have the opportunity to pursue their discovery through insight into a manifestly, and uniquely, future-based benefit to be contributed to mankind. Among all these, there has been, chiefly, so far, a small minority of persons of their own time in history, who have gained access to the potential for acquiring the use of a principle of human success in moving significant progress of society from within its ranks, voluntarily. Even in such rare cases, such as one of our greatest statesmen, John Quincy Adams, their moments of greatest intensity of their success have been temporary, and the power they had once employed for society’s benefit, was often—“from the outside”—crushed for the advantage of a most wretched sort of scoundrel, such as Andrew Jackson and his filthy crew, and by the cessation of the progress of our U.S. republic, progress which had been ruined, as, again, during the recent dozen or so years, frequently abruptly. Hence, there is the urgency that such exceptional progress occur fairly widely, as in the present moment of an oncoming general economic breakdown-crisis throughout the trans-Atlantic system, in particular.
There is a somewhat known rule for selection and support of persons appointed to occupy the relatively highest office. Others might either expect death, or some cooked-up sort of infamy, a condition with which I am somewhat familiar. In a sense, my just-referenced case of the evil President Andrew Jackson typifies the customary follies of a credulous and small-minded general public suited to elect a President George W. Bush, Jr., or, even far worse, a Barack Obama. Such is the all-too-typical effect of a certain moral disease of among the citizens, a disease called “populism.” Crooks like Andrew Jackson in the Presidency, breed popular toleration for treason-in-fact by their disorienting influence on a credulous mass of “populists.” Count, for example: how many U.S. citizens are still, today, dumbed-down sufficiently to admire Andrew Jackson, even warmly, still today?
Let it be said: “By their fruits you should have known them,” unfortunately eventually. There are, fortunately, remedies for that condition, if we have the skills and determination to bring them into being.
To reach a competent definition of the meaning of our subject here, “science,” the most significant of the actual, or merely potential successes by mankind, are those which are typified by what is to be ranked as the discovery of universal physical principles, a quality of scientific principles which is typified by such accomplishments as those by, most notably, Germany’s Max Planck and Albert Einstein, and Planck’s associate Wolfgang Köhler. Each and all of these latter are to be viewed from the vantage-point of a crucial, but (presently) rarely-held adequate notion of the human mind.
Those exceptional scientists, or their like, are to be contrasted, as most notably (and conspicuously), with the way in which such apostles of sheer evil, such as Bertrand Russell and his followers since his wretched, and his later years, typify the modes in which a corrupted popular mind of laymen and scientists alike, works largely through the tendrils of opportunism to pollute, or even destroy their own society, as “environmentalism” does today.
There is a specific principle to be emphasized, most of all, to understand the true meaning of the individual human life. On this account, the case of the leading edge of the work of Köhler on the conception of the function of the human mind, is exemplary: as I shall summarize crucial elements of that case in due course, below.
There is little to be considered as “accidental” in such a division of outcomes among our uniquely human species. Individual cases among us vary; but, the principles which define all of them in principle, are implicitly understandable as specific in one way or another. As you shall read below, “implicitly understandable” is the term of a special, and also crucial importance for the purposes of my argument here. One point on this account must be emphasized above all others, as follows. Insight into the principles of Classical musical composition and its performance, can be, and, therefore must become, of the highest relevance in gaining insight into the deepest social processes of human mind.
Life does not “pay us off” individually. What happens to us, is, often, less a matter of our affairs for today, than what we might have hoped to have contributed through our own exertions for the shaping of the outcomes for combined present and future.
Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler demonstrated that for the history of music, ironically, as also the appropriate framework given only to what had been members from former generations. What we do, finds its importance in our specific contributions for themselves, as of the living, to those outcomes which will be realized, likely, not by yesterday, or today, but, in the future which we must work to bring into being. Those are the most important of the achievements of any generation of human beings, including, most emphatically, those rising to influence from earlier generations than their own times. Classical musical composition is a very special, essentially unique quality of the most crucial aspects of the human mind. The loss of general access to that musical life has been, in fact, a crucial factor in the degeneration of the social-mental powers of the post-World War II generations, while a similar decline is to be recognized among composers since the death of Johannes Brahms. Nikisch and Furtwängler are exemplary pioneers of modern musical discovery on related accounts.
What we should recognize as that most gratifying to our knowledge of our Creator, is the occasion when an idea wrongly buried in the past, is as if resurrected to become new triumphs in bringing forth our future, as Johann Sebastian Bach demonstrated the principle. Ideas, especially truly mental achievements in generating physical or related principles, are the essence of all true human accomplishments, that either for now, or for the future, discovered. or rediscovered, which had been conceived in a sometimes seemingly, or actually forgotten past. If you seek to demand a payment for your having lived, try seeking that in what you will have contributed to the resurrection of what has been formerly neglected, that for the sake of unknown goals, goals which often might not be recognized for you until after you were gone, or which even you had, foolishly, ignored or even repudiated.
That is the moral price, and gain, of having lived as the member-in-good-standing of a human species. The crucial aspect of any related sort of discussion, is best illustrated, on principle, as located in the specific quality of that point as a matter of an absolute distinction. Let us continue our statement of this case at hand, from that following perspective which I have emphasized in my most recently published treatment of the matter of the essential distinction between man and other living species.
Question: What must you accept as your obligation to the assured accomplishment for future generations?
This means the increase of the power of mankind, as through a passion for successful progress in the continuing development of the human species into its future: a purpose, an intention, which defines the true meaning of what shall be done as a fruit of our having lived to create a better future for coming generations than we shall have experienced for ourselves. This must be a greater power of our human species to bring into being a better future for mankind than we shall have experienced in our own lifetimes. Only mankind has access to active knowledge of its own delectable future.
That is the true principle of a science of political economy. In truth, there is no other true principle. All actually significant evil, assumes the form of a persisting effort to return to the condition of a life dictated by a stubborn past, as both slavery and other expressions of servitude, express a devotion to what is truly evil, the evil which is typified by the so-called “oligarchical principle,” or the inherent bestiality of the cultures of cannibalism.
Now, let us interrupt that part of that discussion at this moment, to bring another into tandem, such that both considerations may be combined.
Measuring practice against the scale of a likeness of clockwork, would be a doubtful proof of anything important for us in the present discussion. What is the relevant, compelling sense of order toward which I am pointing here? How is that order to be proven to be a correct, or, perhaps, a wrong choice?
There is a fundamental distinction to be emphasized respecting mankind’s active, and, hence, valid notion of the existence of a future. The difference is illustrated by reference to that which lies between the notion of producing an event as such, and the fresh creation of a certain class of a new kind of event. As my associates and I have lately shared emphasis on this point for the case of Classical musical composition, I have added a special sort of requirement, that the best access to an actually scientific, and truly wonderful comprehension of that distinction, has been typified by what I have already referenced here, together with colleagues and others, earlier, as the succession of Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler.
Robert Schumann presents a particularly notable reference for matters of this specific quality, by his emphasis on “the species” of what he names as the “The Prophet Bird.” Here, we touch upon a deep meaning of the principle which unites Classical musical composition and physical science, each as inherently of a common species.
Truly Classical drama, when composed and performed as such, belongs, as least implicitly so, to the same category. The significance of the sometimes recurring use of the theme of the “Prophet Bird,” by Robert Schumann, is to be recognized as a kind of “return to the future,” which is already a definite kind of implied principle for Johann Sebastian Bach, and typical of all adequate performances of truly great Classical musical compositions.16Cf. The opening statement of the first movement of Robert Schumann’s Opus 14, for example. I will address this more fully in the concluding chapter. Such is the principle which was the same established by Bach’s conception of the role of the future in defining the necessary intention of musical composition. The idea of “going into the future,” is a characteristic distinction of the principle of human creativity, when it is treated as a universal principle presently unknown for any case but the human species.
This represents a sensitive problem of ordering for Classical musical compositions, such as those of Bach’s well-tempering, or the management of the relationship between earlier and later, in Furtwängler’s performances. The ostensibly formal (“beginning-to-end”) order in those, or related cases is relative, even if the intention of the composer’s score requires a somewhat more complex attitude of the performer toward the composer’s attitude toward the mental sense of the ordering of the ideas, than that of the performed score within the experiencing of a performance. The notes may seem to proceed in the order of the printed score, but the experience in the mind of the performer (and, hopefully, the audience, too) is an essential difference in the effect of what the quality of irony we might associate with that counterpoint is intended be: as by that intention of the composer of the score, which is intended to be imparted to the mind as in the meaning of the composer’s evolutionary design for a process of reciprocating development, as if returning, repeatedly, to sometimes almost impassioned attacks on the battlements, repeatedly, so to harvest the fruit of a wonderful passion in a way beyond words as such. Hence, Classical song. For example: music whose meaning is to be located earlier in an element of surprise which takes over the intended meaning of the printed score.
Let us be prompted by such evidence, to bring into view, a fresh definition of human “immortality.” Admittedly, the use of the suggestion, to the effect that certain personalities from our past have been immortal, has been used in a way which is an abuse of a show of sentimentality. The only proper use, is one which springs from the notion of immortality as expressing a discovered principle of eternity, or, that which qualifies for reason of the fact that there is compelling evidence respecting principles of law in the universe, evidence which demands our attention to such discovered principles for the sake of humanity both presently and foreseeably beyond. The notion of Jesus Christ, is a prime example of the justified yearning for an—i.e., endless creation—as an immortality of principle, rather than merely impressive actions presented from the past.
It is only in the powerful notion of experiencing human immortality, that the purpose of great Classical poetry and music, and, in a different mode, great Classical sculpture and painting lies.
Having just said that much on that subject, the distinction of a qualified member of the species of human adult, is located in the fact of human creativity as a matter of an inhering principle of the worthy role in living by a member of our species. You can not punish the past; it has already escaped your reach. You can only prevent the recurrence of a past which should not have happened. All that might be properly said within such a context, is real. Even the dead are immortal, as the principle of valid, and false ideas demonstrates this point. There is a specific quality of permanence to time in our universe, as follows. My own poem’s “bending stars like reeds,” was and remains an illustration of the same principled intention. The poet’s use of the image of the churchyard serves a kindred intention.
In the competent practice of science, we have a record of the argument by Philo of Alexandria, against what he exposed as the fraudulent, typically Aristotelean principle of “God is dead.” Expedient varieties of notions of theology, which have come and gone, as if recurringly so, from time to time, must be put aside: the universe is unbounded, and was forever, and the principles which it forever occupies are immortal, too, that for better, or for worse. There is no possible end to the universe.17This must be said, since Philo’s argument has been a traditional outlook, especially by the Christian and other opponents of Friedrich Nietzsche’s “God is dead” thesis. What Philo did on this account, has been to focus on the evil of the Aristotelean argument for the case of “God is dead.” What Philo attacked was the assertion attributed to Aristotle, that life on Earth could appear only when God, as Creator, were dead. That was very truly Aristotelean. The Aristotelean dogma is derived from the so-called “oligarchical principle” of the well-known poisoner and otherwise unscrupulous Aristotle himself. That notion of Aristotle’s was central to the so-called “oligarchical principle” of the Roman Empire and that Empire’s notable successors, including the monetarist form of oligarchical principle of the present day.
The issues on which that matter of Philo’s thesis touches, have always been, within the scope of present knowledge since those times, reflections of what is rigorously defined as being “the oligarchical system,” the same issue as associated with the legendary war between the evil of the ugly Olympian Zeus against the loving Prometheus and Athena.
The notion of this division of mankind in Hell from mankind in Heaven, has dominated virtually all of the legacy of actually known European civilization, in particular, with the included presumption that the end of the reign of an Olympian Zeus, were the end of history in some very ugly form. That specific tradition, plays an important, ugly role in our immediate present; the oligarchical tradition is, thus, the popular lie, that the end of the oligarchy, is the advent of some permanent Hell.
I have, naturally, a specifically, rather well-known, contrary view in such matters, and am therefore an active opponent of global thermonuclear warfare. I do have influential opponents in this matter; but, what sane person would desire that those opponents should be triumphant on that account?
We have a serious problem, which now needs to be overcome, and that urgently.
There has been little reason to suspect, hitherto, that our use of both language as such, and its correlatives as such, should be considered as a fountain of “wrongness.” The present state of arrival of the pregnant threat of globally situated, general thermonuclear warfare, as occurring with the onset of U.S. President Barack Obama’s launching of an unlawful, and mass-murderous warfare into Libya, which expressed an evil Obama’s intent to continue that deadly adventure with the same war launched by him into Libya, and now extended by him and his lackeys into Syria and Iran, has become, implicitly, the threat of the greatest crime against all mankind of this century: general thermonuclear warfare.
It could have been, that within the bounds of fair estimate, that the continuation of the unlawful war launched by Obama against Libya could become, readily, the chain-reaction thermonuclear warfare which ends the existence of the human species on Earth—or, actually will, if you insist on permitting a continuation of the present efforts pressing upon the membership of the United Nations Organization (UNO). It is, in practice, up to you to decide whether you permit such an awful catastrophe to be allowed; excuses in such matters could never be forgiven. Your threatened extinction hangs upon the combination of that relevant question and your answer now.
That is where we all are, presently, without personal exceptions.
I can imagine a cartoon depicting a smoking, human corpse, cusps of flame at the tips of his horns, being ushered into The Inferno. That corpse is shaking his flaming head, muttering, insolently still, “I do not believe this will happen.” That is not a true story, of course. Hell is what a foolish mankind makes for itself by its compromises with the evil fantasy known as the game of “the oligarchical principle.”
In a certain manner of speaking, all of mankind’s literate prose, when taken by itself, is a lie, as a matter of principle. Therefore, we name it, in its rather commonplace sorts of opinion, as “literate.” If it were not actually a falsehood (when taken literally), it would not be considered as civilized speech. Is this “crazy talk”? Not at all; all the greatest poets, musicians, and dramatists—but only exceptional ones—would agree: that is what would show them to have been actually “great” artists. Simply explained: the truth in putatively literate utterances lies, if at all, within the dialogue, not the mere statement; without the response, truth itself would be a lie composed of declarative statements of action. There would have been no meaningful transaction. Such is the secret genius of Classical artistic drama, poetry, and song. Without irony, there is no truth.
It is, of course, necessary that I explain this, as follows:
For the purposes of this present chapter of the report, reference Filippo Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, and their heir of principle, Johannes Kepler. Focus on Kepler’s presentation of the working principle of “vicarious hypothesis,” which found its root in the work of Brunelleschi and Cusa. Refer to such examples as Brunelleschi’s discovery of the physical principle on which the crafting of the cupola of Florence’s Santa Maria del Fiore, and Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia had depended. Locate vicarious hypothesis as a correlative of the scientific principle of metaphor. The more essential significance of the content of this present chapter of my report, will be located in the apparent ironies of the intentions of my denoted predecessors. This subject, subsumes the essential content expressed throughout this present report, up to this specific point in the account.
Excepting the greatest of mankind’s known scientists, the prevalent tendency toward error is what is identified as an assigned “literal” meaning of words employed as the subject of statements. The uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, by Johannes Kepler, is nothing as much as typical of insights corresponding to the root-content of that discovery.18Isaac Newton discovered less than nothing. Notably, none of the alleged discoveries by Newton were real; the very notion of a “Newtonian science” was an utter fraud from inception.. The origin of the frauds generated over several recent centuries were chiefly hoaxes concocted in defense of the frauds of such as Aristotle and Euclid. To be clear on this crucial point, consider the following.
In the process of “naming” a subject, the prevalent, ultimately absurd view has been the belief, that by naming what is identified as if it were an efficient object as such, that it should follow that we can attribute “properties” which are presumably “physically inherent” in the naming of the object.19Hence, we have the particularly amusing ridicule of such notions of ontological properties of experiences, as the 1960 “Die Hauptsache is der Effekt” utterance of Spukschloss im Spessart. Anyone who appreciates the joke within the reported use of that passage within the drama, should, shall we say, “get the point.” In a stricter standard for the practice of physical science (and relevant other matters) the object of what is merely sense-perception is properly treated as implicitly merely a shadow cast by an object which is not explicitly accessible to human sense-perception. It is treated, instead, as a metaphor.
For example, we do say, conventionally a “hot stove,” thus escaping the implication of hotness as an object unto itself. In other words, we require a corrected notion, as if of an “influence,” rather than a discrete form of object. This is made more emphatic in considering certain exceptional significant kinds of “hotnesses” such as those of the class of thermonuclear fusion and matter-antimatter. Hence, Kepler’s “vicarious hypothesis.” Hence, the distinction of “gravitation” is better than “gravity.” Or, the generic “metaphor.”
A closely related consideration appears in the work of Wolfgang Köhler’s success in presenting his argument on the nature of the human mind to Max Planck. The human mind has a universal characteristic, rather than an aggregation of elements. The influence of qualities upon one another, rather than the reductionist’s notion of a collision of “things.” “Souls” rather than “bodies.”
What I have just summarized, should be more accessible as a notion of a “soul” rather than a “body.” The body, for example, is prone to die; yet, the existence of the personality includes not only the effect of the personality which has lived, but the influence of ancestors on the individual’s sense of personal identity. The recent case of the Mars landing of “Curiosity,” is a suitable case-in-point. Consider the matter as follows.
For a number of strong reasons, mankind can no longer tolerate the expected rates of incidence of meteorites and the like crashing into the surface of the Earth. At the same time that we are to be concerned by increased risks to humanity from the presently known evidence of such ongoing threats to life on Earth, there are indications of more serious calamities from this and other sources. One of the crucial differences between the present risks and those which have been experienced on Earth during earlier times, is that, now, we have the option of improvements in humanity’s means to defend life on Earth against such calamities. That improvement was rooted during the middle to late 1970s, with the advances made in the combination of increasing feasibility provided by the 1970s and early 1980s development of strategic defense initiatives. Applying the principles of “SDI” to the mission of “SDE” (“Strategic Defense of Earth”), and now the installation of “Curiosity” on Mars, marks a condition in which it would be rightly considered a crime against all humanity not to develop these capabilities, as part of the Mars development program and the extension of SDI-like technologies on behalf of life on Earth.
The pattern of development of human capabilities within the “nearby” goals of space-exploration, brings into focus the notion that a human, either on Earth, or Mars, is capable of acting from based-locations, on a planet, or otherwise, to the effect that man-on-Earth, can direct a defense of Earth, either by means launched from Earth, or on behalf of Earth from Mars or comparable locations.
For example: it should be considered truthful to foresee, within a generation, or perhaps less, a rocket transport of persons, powered by controlled thermonuclear fusion, from Moon to Mars, within the passage of a week. With further progress in means, human beings can be in living transport at distances which would seem, today, beyond imagination, within our Solar system. In brief, the time and location in which one is situated within Solar space, and ultimately beyond, means a certain sense of conquest of space and time of the location from which a human individual can accomplish an efficient act within the inner reaches of our Solar system.
Then, think of the moral implications expressed in terms of mankind’s powers to do good, in places to which a human passenger might travel, or might efficiently act to control developments within certain parts of our Solar system. The resulting shift in defining time and place of movements changes mankind’s assessment of the effects of birth and death, and many other considerations.
Thus, from somewhere deep in our Solar system, we might think we hear a voice, or two, calling out: “Do it!”
Otherwise, my putative rivals in the trade were forecasting by statistical-trends methods, which, in general, have infallibly failed on a matter of principle, as they did from the beginning of February-March 1957, exactly as I had forecast. It is the reliance on “statistical trends” which is the chief root-cause the incompetent performance of most “market forecasters.” Consider my celebrated Dec. 2, 1971 debate at New York’s Queens College for some key insights into this matter.