Final, edited version posted 10:12pm EDT, 10/08/2012
About a year ago, we presented a featured special webcast event, of which I was the principal subject, an event chaired by Matthew Ogden, with reported questions presented to the audience by Meghan Rouillard and Michael Kirsch. Now, the time has come for a comparable webcast event:
I. ““THE MOMENT OF OUR GREATEST CRISIS”
It has been evident to me, for more than a year, as I have warned repeatedly, and also consistently, in public, that the trend in world affairs since the 1970s at large, has continued to be hinged on what has now become the gravest, present, virtually immediate threat to the human species, in all known history so far: a converging, present threat of implicitly global, thermonuclear bombardment leading promptly into a “thermonuclear winter.”1The first dramatic demonstration of “nuclear winter” was that of Soviet principal Nikita Khrushchov’s demonstration of the explosion of his “super-bomb.”
This has been, what now remains as an immediate threat now presented to an increasing number of the most powerful of the world’s presently leading national governments: “The Winter, not of our delights,” but the infamous “nuclear winter” of general thermonuclear warfare, which President Obama’s policies mean for today, represents a mode of warfare culminating upon a sudden interval of approximately less than an hour and a half, but whose effects coincide with the notion of the deadly “thermonuclear winter” which must be the resulting, deeply reactive, global “winter” of years of radioactive launching of a globally extended “nuclear winter” to be born of the global impact of general thermonuclear warfare. This present threat of a “thermonuclear winter,” is now a very near-term threat to the very existence of the human species, especially for as long as the prospect of a second term for the British monarchy’s choice of its asset, U.S. President Barack Obama, exists.
At the present time, the leading source of the threat of such a warfare, is located strategically, more precisely, within the trio of the British monarchy and its auxiliaries among the Saudi kingdom and the British puppet known as the U.S. Barack Obama Presidency, a war now poised against not only British-imperialist-chosen targets such as Russia and China, but also against the human species throughout the world at large—whether such effects were actually desired by the authors of such action, or not.
For us, in our United States, the likelihood that such a global event would occur, hinges, in its core, on the presently continued influence of the regime under the actually de facto, terrorist dictatorship of the current U.S. President, Barack Obama. With Obama’s continued degree of a fraudulently usurped, and related depravity in U.S. national politics, a thermonuclear war, and its mass-murder of either most, or even all American citizens, could not be prevented from occurring at this time, unless Obama were rightfully expelled from office, that on the sufficient basis of the evidence already available to date.2Or else, in such an instance, as by the dogma of Barack Obama, the British Queen’s recent “green” insistence on reducing the human population from about seven billions, to about one billion, would appear to be a highly probable effect.
“Dictatorship?” you might say. Ask: why do those influential citizens who hate Obama, now profess to intend to vote for him? Perhaps out of fear of Obama, as the same fear was once associated with the name of Adolf Hitler, all of which is like the same, justified fear of the Emperor Nero, already, some long time ago?
The crucial fact is, that no important power on this planet could prudently consider launching such a now immediately threatened thermonuclear war, excepting the power represented by the combination of the circles of Barack Obama, the British monarchy, and the British royal puppet of “9-11“ notoriety, known as the Saudi monarchy. The issue, for all sane statesmen, including leading military circles, today, is preventing such a war, which means the mandatory, justified, and urgent removal of President Barack Obama from office. Without the currently continued role of an Emperor-Nero-like Barack Obama, as essentially a mere stooge of the integrated British and Saudi monarchies, such a thermonuclear war would have been virtually impossible at this time.
What I have said on that subject this far, brings up a crucial, and very important practical question. Polar bears, Kodiak bears, and grizzly bears, each kill, and are known to have eaten human beings when such prospective victims were available to them. Do we say that those beasts have conspired to choose such behavior, or is it their nature? Do we call cows, eating defenseless grass, “conspirators”?
The answer to that question, for the case of the world today, is to be recognized as what truly competent historians and others may identify as the often “grisly,” but consciously willful behavior of republics and nationalities generally, as being nothing different in essential principles, than what many among our sillier citizens often deride, since the aftermath of “World War II,” as being allegedly “conspiracies.”3Since the 1950 adoption of the morally depraved “Congress for Cultural Freedom.” In that, and related senses of practical meanings, all great upheavals in human history, especially grisly ones, are fruits of “conspiracies.” Indeed, like species of predatory creatures generally, all of the most notable wars, and war-like human conflicts, are products of nations doing what they profess that they do not know they are actually doing, as American citizens show such brutish qualities of ignorance, when they did not realize what they were actually doing when they might have intended to have voted for President Obama.
Truly great statecraft demands that the knowable fraud thrusting most currently public political and related mass opinion forward, such as the continued political support for President Obama’s re-election, has little more rationality, and also much less morality in its motives than those of grisly, predatory beasts generally. Call such wicked nonsense of Obama dupes “national interest,” and foolish, self-claimed “patriots” will show about as much insight into their own personal motives as any “poor, but viciously damned fools” who could debase themselves by voting for Barack Obama, again, in spite of the evil which he has already done this far.
The crucial question now posed to all humanity, is, for example: How were it possible that a human population could have been induced, as has happened with the case of the Obama Presidency, such that a species of ostensibly human life, one so marvelously exceptional in its natural potentials as the foundations of an actually human society, could have been susceptible of degenerating into the intrinsically fraudulent and depraved state of mind of the grisly contemporary, mass-murderous, so-called “environmentalists.” That points toward such as the British monarchy and its U.S. and Saudi accomplices, those of both the earlier and current expressions of the mass-murderous practices of the “original” 2001, and present, Obama “9-11“ 2012, versions of the British royal, imperial-Saudi hoax of terrorism. A terrorism as typified by what was once named the original “9-11,“ now in progress on a far greater scale at this present time—a threatened thermonuclear scale?
Oligarchical horrors of that form typified by the current patch of British-monarchical and Saudi schemers, those which I have referenced, most notably since the original version of so-called “9-11,” are real horrors in their own right. These have included such cases as that of the tyrannical mass-murderous obliteration of Troy, a mass-murder which typifies the use of salting of agricultural soil to exterminate a victimized nation, or the same type of practice by ancient imperial Rome, or, in the ancient regimes of Venice, and since the rise of the British empire during the Eighteenth Century, and beyond. The series of “great wars” since the “Napoleonic Wars” in Europe, or the British orchestration of the war which the British empire created as the U.S. Civil War, and the launching of the so-called “First World War” and its successors, have dominated the world increasingly since the ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck.
It was the ouster of Bismarck, done on the order of the British royal family, which set the recurring “world wars” of then and now, immediately into motion, as by the British empire’s orchestration of the coincidence of the 1894 British assassination of France’s President Sadi Carnot, with the British imperial crown prince’s engagement of Japan in a war against China: warfare which set into motion all of the world warfare since that time during the early 1890s to the present date.
The pattern of an interweaving of a globally extended process of virtually “world warfare” since the 1894 echoes of the assassination of France’s President Sadi Carnot, has been an undulating pattern of flows and ebbs in the experience of “world warfare” since the British Crown Prince’s 1890s alliance with Japan for that time’s war against China. That conspiracy set the pattern for all the flows and ebbs in modern “world warfare” into motion, as over the period since the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck.
It had been Bismarck’s economic policies, as developed on the basis of the John Quincy Adams and Abraham-Lincoln “economic models,” explicitly, since the later 1880s, which made Bismarck, and also Germany, the principal target of British imperial hatred. The leading influence on Bismarck’s policy-making during and beyond that time, had rested on the guidance supplied directly by the leading U.S. economist in the Lincoln-Carey-shaped United States’ rise to industrial great might: one which had been inspired by the policies which Bismarck’s policies had directed, policies motivated by the fully witting choice of the guiding footsteps of President Abraham Lincoln’s economic policy.
That is the unique source of the British empire’s hysterical determination to have brought about the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck; that has also been the issue at the source of all warfare spread through the world since the ouster of Bismarck from his office. Without the ouster of Bismarck, “World War I” were not possible, and, therefore, neither were World War II. Now, the issue is “World War III,” an immediate threat of a virtually global thermonuclear warfare.
In fact, the British monarchy’s organization of the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck, has been, ironically, the root of the entire social-political history of this planet since the ouster of Bismarck by the then new, British Royal family-controlled, German Kaiser who “fired” Bismarck, in order to unleash British-orchestrated “World War.”
That tale to be told is true, in respect to all the claimed elements of physical evidence. However, there is a still deeper subject of investigation which has a particularly leading kind of importance for understanding the roots of the danger of a virtual doom of the human species which is now lurking in the British monarchy’s and President Barack Obama’s lurch toward the threatened thermonuclear extinction of the human species at this time.
Those latter issues lie at the root and heart of the present global crisis of all humanity. Those errors are essentially knowable, and, to a significant degree, known among the best modern minds. The present, most deadly of general crises of humanity, demand a certain fundamental change in what has been, heretofore, leading opinion on the subject of the deeper roots of what is widely presumed to be the human mind. With the advent of the present, most deadly thermonuclear and related crises of society world-wide, now, we must consider the deeper roots of the human mind with which the present level of humanity’s thermonuclear experience demands that we equip ourselves for the continued survival and progress of our human species.
Over the interval since the late Nineteenth Century and the earliest Twentieth, modern scholarship in science had already dispelled the once long-admired delusion, the delusion that the Homeric legends were merely myths. The facts so far in evidence have demonstrated that the physical evidence uncovered in the course of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, had shown, and that conclusively, that the pattern of events associated with the Homeric accounts, were essentially a matter of true, and also grave historical fact, that in respect to all essentials of the deepest-rooted of the relevant, combined ancient and modern categories of available archeological evidence.
Excluding the statements by political quacks, the essential mere facts of that matter of a “practical” science of human behavior, are more or less well known among relevant leading scientists. However, it is not sufficient merely to know “facts;” it is most essential to understand how such facts may actually be “brought together” to a demonstrably efficient singleness of effect in principle. Above all else, science depends on its qualitative forms of progress, by discovering the universal physical principles which render earlier beliefs in principle practically obsolete, a matter of the subject of universal principles which have been the prompting of my successful forecasting over the course of more than a half-century of my own life’s experience and special achievements.
As long as we permit ourselves to limit the evidence to our study of the matters of human sense-perception-based behavior itself, customary scientific knowledge in this matter suffers serious limitations, even grave practical errors. Therefore, mankind’s attempts even to decode the evidence of history, has often incurred some gravely systematic, and, often, most highly significant errors, in matters of the progress of physical science, and otherwise.
Specifically, for as long as specialists and others continue to rely on that kind of evidence which I have just identified, the efforts to define human social behavior in any degree of actually ontological depth, have usually halted at the limits of the joint discovery of a generally outlined principle of the human mind which had been shared by Wolfgang Köhler and Max Planck. The latter pair of scientists have not erred in respect to what they have proposed in this matter; but, that discovery of theirs has not yet been carried forward deeply and broadly enough to uncover and correct the stubbornly remaining, systemic fallacies inherent in the current use of sense-perceptual experience, as such. The effect is such, that a correction is urgently needed, that if we are to become able to capture a sense of the principle which is to be considered here as a true authority of the now urgently needed quality for the present global and broader crises of mankind presently.
On this account:
I had been drawn, through my certain, relatively uniquely successful achievements in developing a science of general economic forecasting, to develop, and employ experimentally my own broader and deeper approach to these and related subject-matters. For the needed service to the interest of relevant investigators, we share the presently urgent need for required attention to a crucially important clue leading toward certain crucially needed categories of discoveries of heretofore little-known, but already existing cases of universal principles.
The relevant precedents have been known, actually, or implicitly, typified for our reference among the better known predecessors and followers of Heraclitus and Plato, as from among fairly numerous cases of other ancients of still relatively profound scientific interest as true discoverers. Unfortunately, from our present knowledge of the opinions distributed among even the best among them generally, they have not really recognized the most crucially vicious features of the doctrine of sense-perceptions. The fault of many among even those sometimes justly considered as the relatively best scientific observers, is that they seek to interpret the experience of sense-perceptions as being axiomatically primary, rather than tackling the implication of the demonstrable facts which can be proven, but which are not simply adducible from sense-perceptions as such, and therefore could not be competently “known” from that standpoint.
The case of the methods of a science of musical composition, such as that illustrated by the combined cases of Bach, Nikisch, and Furtwängler, takes us to the borders of that same issue of universal physical principles which I have just referenced.
The effect of this discrepancy in current scientific and other opinions has been, that interpreting sense-perceptions is the interpreting of those mere shadows of sense-perception which are merely virtual sense-perceptual “shadows,” and which are called “sense-perceptions,” but which do not supply actual evidence of that which can not be found by confinement to methods of the virtually deductive analysis of what are merely sense-perceptions.
I mean that what we may call true “physical principles,” are, notably, the set of those principles which are a negation of the evidence supplied from within the bounds of sense-perceptions as such. The most crucial among those principles, is the principle of life and time as such, most emphatically the powers of discovery of principles which are not derivatives of sense-perceptual powers as such, but which are of a provably, ontologically higher order of nature, nonetheless. The case of the most famous of the deepest levels of discoveries of principles by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, helps simply and gracefully, to typify a source of insight into the implications of the irony of their most profound achievements.
The crucial fact here, is the already demonstrated principle, that the origin of such notions of universal principles in modern science, is that which is embedded implicitly in Johannes Kepler’s principle of “vicarious hypothesis,” the same notion on which all of the most important scientific discoveries respecting a scientific ontology, continue to depend, that as a matter of choice of method still for today.
The crucial fact respecting current human opinions in such matters, is that popular opinion, even most among today’s scientific opinion, lacks any actually practical acceptance of the already known, competent insights into the deeply underlying roots of the actual principles of the human mind, such as those principles of science introduced by Nicholas of Cusa and, of particular importance in this present case, the discovery of the applied principle of “vicarious hypothesis” by Cusa’s great intellectual heir, Kepler.
This converges, precisely, on the issue which has typified my own clear, and usually unique successes as a forecaster, despite imputably rival leading economists. This pattern has been curious to some, but, then, that fact itself is not really only curious, as I shall emphasize here.
One of the most readily accessible demonstrations of the scientific principle thus involved, is that which is illustrated for modern Classical musical composition and its performance (in particular) by the collection of preludes and fugues by Johann Sebastian Bach, as he was emulated on this account by the conductors Arthur Nikisch and Wilhelm Furtwängler. The latter’s work, when correctly understood, is an expression of the exact same root-principle as those of Bach’s two collections of preludes and fugues. The exact same method of approach, is that which is required, that as indispensable, for forecasting the future in economy, as opposed to the intrinsically incompetent, but still prevalent statistical methods of forecasting and related kinds of defective investigative practices. Otherwise, the government of the United States would not have made the awful mistakes of negligence in related security matters which it has accumulated, as if habitually, one on the top of the other, since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.4I shall take up the apparent issues posed by what I have just stated on President Kennedy in due course, later. For the moment, I must first reference the consequence of the distinction of leadership which I have just invoked.
The proper, if currently uncommon term of scientific principle required for precise treatment of such subject-matters, is the crucially fundamental notion of the principle of metaphor, a term with the same proper methodological order of essential meaning as Kepler’s physical-science definition of “vicarious hypothesis.” Kepler’s method points to a term of method implicitly emphasized later by Bernhard Riemann, as also by such “Riemannians” as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. This approach to the subject here, is as scientifically precise as a matter of universal physical principle, as I now illustrate that point here.
My posing that formulation at this point, provokes the appearance of an array of conceptions which can not be competently bounded by the standards of human sense-perception as such, but which are the uniquely efficient, knowable principles of specifically human creativity. These are principles which defy, and, thus, implicitly ridicule what remains, still today, the commonly accepted presumption that proof in science is wedged within the deductions associated within the bounds of ordinary sense-perception.
Therefore, let us now examine the intrinsic, systemic incompetence of an allegedly mathematical “science” bounded by the limitations inherent in human sense-perception.
Essentially, that indicates what competent scientific practice already knows, that universal principles exist only outside the bounds of sense-perception as such, outside the limits of deduction—e.g., mathematical deduction. The relatively perfect demonstration of the relevant principle of physical science has been demonstrated to modern science by particular emphasis on the implications of the work of Bernhard Riemann bearing on the unique achievements in defining universal principle by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, when those achievements are examined from the vantage of Planck’s collaboration with Wolfgang Köhler.
That viewpoint of metaphor, which I have just emphasized here, is the virtual “safe harbor” of all true work of genius, the aspect of those aspects of the universe which exist “only outside” the bounds of mathematical or kindred deduction: those only true laws of the universe which exist explicitly outside the bounds of mathematical deduction as such. The model illustration of that principled difference is traced most efficiently to the work of Nicholas of Cusa, as in his De Docta Ignorantia, and, notably, the faithful follower of Cusa, Johannes Kepler. Kepler’s most crucial accomplishment on this account, has been the notion of “vicarious hypothesis.”
This, “vicarious hypothesis,” means for both Cusa and Kepler, the same actual principle of “metaphor” which Johannes Kepler presented as the fundamental laws of universal physical science which exist only beyond the limits of formal mathematical deduction as such. Such is the actual distinction of the valid discovery of any set of universal physical principles. Again, the actual act of discovery of true principles tantamount to what we call “universal physical principles,” exists only outside the realm of mathematical, or related deduction.
This does not actually defame mathematical methods, but, on the contrary, puts those notions in their proper place, a place within the entire scheme of both life and human creativity, within the inferior bounds of mathematically deductive ranges. The achievement of discoveries of actual physical principles of our universe, is not derived from mathematics as such, and yet is demonstrable mathematically as such when it is situated as the expression of some universal principle located outside the bounds of sense-perception as such, an expression which may be possibly demonstrated physically as a universal physical principle, but only when the subject meets the requirements of Kepler’s recognition of the need for the principle of “vicarious hypothesis” for defining those actually demonstrable principles of the universe which lie beyond the reach of mere mathematics, while, thus, creating our access to a proper mathematical representation of their physical-lawfulness whose authority lies only outside the bounds of mathematical methods as such.
To put the issue into a useful perspective, the following discussion is required.
That “typical classroom” standard of systemic incompetence known as the Aristotelean cult-doctrine of Euclidean geometry, puts mathematical results outside the reach of what are called “spiritual values in the universe.” The standard Aristotelean-Euclidean doctrine insists that the laws of an Aristotelean-Euclidean “universe” are implicitly premised on the notion of a universe in which “God is dead,” as Friedrich Nietzsche emphasized that same Aristotelean presumption.
That case points our attention back to the case of the siege of Troy in Homer’s account. After all, it is mankind, in society, which crafts the choices of beliefs to which various cultures turn for a choice of ideas intended to pre-shape the accepted behavior within the bounds of any specific human culture. For example: consider the famous I Corinthians of the Christian Apostle Paul, which inspired the concluding musical “Testament” of Johannes Brahms’ Vier Ernste Gesänge.5“Four Serious Songs,” with a sensitive preference for the beautifully inspiring recorded performance in Germany, by a dear friend, Gertrude Pitzinger.
Kepler’s part in this matter is a fully inspiring defense of the true principle of physical science (and theology) intended by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. This notion has two most notable implications for this present report.
To speak both frankly, and also truthfully in the sense of physical science, the reductionist ideology which not only Euclid but the clearly evil Aristotle represents, is not only a heathen theology, but a scientifically absurd attempt to destroy science on behalf of a radical form of anti-scientific reductionism. That is to emphasize that the discovery of what are ultimately provable as true universal physical principles lies outside the reach of mathematical reductionism, as the notorious case of bad science known as Euclidean systems excludes actually physical principles of the class which envelop, but do not rise to a sane reading of the products of merely reductionist mathematical methods. True universal principles are manifest only beyond the reach of human sense-perception as such. True physical principles can be discovered only where deductive methods can not reach.
The solution for the apparent paradox is usually treated as being “elementary.” Science begins where deductive methods have gone beyond the limits of experiment, and have thus entered a higher domain than mere deduction could have reached. Only the experimental discoveries of truths which do not exist within the bounds of mere sense-perception can be truthfully identified as science. God does not need mathematicians, but permits us to play with their imagination of what might lie beyond the authorities of mere sense-perceptions as such.
That is what may be read from the greatest of the ancient Classical intellects and their cultures: the truths of those principles which can be found by the true human mind as existing beyond the reach of mathematical deduction, or induction. It lies within the domain of true Metaphor, as “vicarious hypothesis” is to be named otherwise as Metaphor—in the place where mankind begins to understand the principles provided by the Creator, beyond the reach of what is merely mathematical deductions.
The so-called materialist, is intrinsically a bearer of the disease of evil. His reductionist, or so-called “practical” method, by presuming that reality is to be limited to the “atheist’s” presumption that nothing exists beyond the merely mathematical calculations of sense-perceptual experience, has proffered the prospective doom implicit in the reductionist school of Aristotle and his like.
The power inherent in the universe, insofar as we presently know this, is the supreme noëtic power which we must consider foremost—with two certain, exceptional special features included: (a) the noëtic principle of life in general, and (b) that of the higher noëtic form of human life.
I turn to those implications, here, next.
The most crucial among the facts to be considered here, is the fact, that membership in the human species, is the only presently known instance of a species which expresses that certain universal quality of the principle on which the continued existence of the human species presently depends: Mankind is the only species among those known to us, which is capable of operating on the basis of a systemically noëtic principle, a principle which is expressed only in the profoundly ironical actuality of the existence of our human species in its future.
Thus, the most essential distinction of our species, is expressed in our innate potential ability, as a species, to effect certain efficient changes in the essential quality of human behavior, changes which pertain to our ability to foresee the future. We are equipped to accomplish exactly that effect, which is expressed in the manner illustrated by the principles of musical composition and performance associated with the achievements of such as Johann Sebastian Bach, Arthur Nikisch, and Wilhelm Furtwängler. That is an ability which I have experienced in my own relatively uniquely successful achievements as an economic forecaster, especially when my methods are contrasted with the inherently failed, reductionist methods of the leading mere statisticians.
For our purposes here, the most convenient, and, thereby, most efficient approach, for guiding economists to an understanding of, and escape from the customary professional’s consistent failures in method, is to begin with stubborn commitment to understanding three most crucial scientific principles respecting the human mind’s potential for foreseeing the future:
The first, is what is known to our experience as (a) the ontological principle of life per se. In this, we must proceed with great emphasis on the specific distinction of human life as it functions for us as an “independent” universal principle of action, all in its own right. The second, is the importance of insight into (b) the intrinsic error, of reliance on what is commonly referenced as “clock time,” or its equivalent. The third is (c) the “physical principle” of successively higher orders of universal power, as that principle was brought into a better focus by the principled initiatives, on this account, of Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
In presenting those three principles, it is essential that we consider the frauds perpetrated under influences typified by Bertrand Russell on the development in physical science centered on the influence of Bertrand Russell during “The Solvay Conferences” of the post-World War I interval and thereafter. The hoaxsters John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, are relevant illustrations of the type of clever, but not particularly scrupulous rascals of the Bertrand Russell “tribes” dated from that period of history and its outcomes.
Situate the significance of those three topics within the terms of the following broad description of the case:
However, are we willing and inclined to express this capability which lies, so to speak, at our feet before us? That is a matter of a different question—of a different disposition of our intention to believe. The answer to that question is to be found as located, usually, within the quality of world-outlook which only the human society’s particular cultural development has been known as capable of expressing. This expression is to be experienced either generally, or, in only some exceptional cases; otherwise, it has continued to be considered, largely, culturally suppressed, to the degree that many—even most—cases appear to be incapable of responding to that challenge of actually forecasting the opportunity which lies within the future.
The question posed by our reflections on the conspicuous intellectual and moral defects in the majorities of our civilizations, is whether the evils which we find commonplace throughout societies are innate to our human species itself, or merely the product of a traditional cultural depravity of both the usual individual, and the generality of our people?
I make the statements of those two points of reference, on the basis of my own experience as a forecaster of my type, as contrasted to those foolish, statistical forecasters, whose capabilities continue to be demonstrated to be virtually non-existent in such matters. A crucially important alternative is to be attributed to the method of Johann Sebastian Bach, as in his composition of his sets of preludes and fugues, which is typical of the method of forecasting which I have defended here. The composition of Classical poetry in its principled mode, also illustrates the same point. The style of our national patriot Edgar Alan Poe, also illustrated the point after his fashion.
There are two distinguishable classes of cases which are correlated with the exceptional cases: the one is associated with what is truly Classical artistic composition; the other is a notion of physical scientific forms of revolutionary progress in physical sciences. Both of these types have been relatively rare within the population as a whole; in present generations, the incidence to be noted during the recently concluded generations, has been “increasingly rare.”
For example: in the matter of mathematical capabilities, the ability to perform actually creative progress in terms of physical principles of an actually noëtic type has been increasingly rare. Usually, still presently, even when the behavior in question is not actually physically fruitful, when measured in terms corresponding to the goal for physical-economic, anti-entropic progress of the human species. The tendency to practice what are relatively useless forms of masturbation practiced in name of mere mathematics, has been on the relative increase during the most recent generations in the trans-Atlantic communities, notably that of the followers of John von Neumann, as in the cases of the United States and its universities, for example.6The shift to the influence attributed to Isaac Newton, is typical of that type of mental disorder.
The subjects of the immediately preceding several paragraphs, are useful to be considered, as for discussion, but they do not reach the deeper subject which remains to be considered. They fail to reach the issue of the errors intrinsic to sense-impression.
May I remind you, that the leading, and long-standing, fundamental error inhering in any attempt to define physical science in this universe as in conformity with the principles of the universe itself, has overlooked the extremely limited usefulness of sense-perception as an instrument for defining the actual principles which govern the universe. Sense-perceptions are, in effect, merely shadows cast by principles whose “residence” is located only outside the confines of sense-perception as such: as I had emphasized the relevant issues within the second chapter of this present report.