Final, copy-edited version, posted 11:24am est, 1/07/2013.
For mankind, the most urgent knowledge should be the discovery that that which even most among our present scientists and other contemporary learned persons had believed to have been a universal principle, had been, actually, a systemically deadly error of judgment on their part. There have been relatively rare exceptions this far. For our convenience here and now, those errors have been broadly classified, by me, as, chiefly, the following, three points of observation:
(1) First of all: blind faith in the presumed elementarity of sense-certainty,1(sense-perception per se) is the relatively worst mistake encountered among those who had not been either ignorant, or, had been, simply, clinically insane. That means that you must adopt included precautions against a certain, widespread, related error. That has been the error of belief in a systemically fraudulent, pseudo-principle of “sense-certainty,” a belief which is proximately consistent with the intellectually numbing fallacies inhering in a Euclidean geometry.
(2) Secondly: take as an example, one recently actual case of a relatively large asteroid, one which had been discovered only a relatively short time before it had “narrowly missed” an awful collision with Earth.
Consider a complementary threat, one which would be presented to us by any relevant type of large asteroid whose threat-potential, while known to be on a fairly estimated trajectory, lies, for example, within the lapsed space-time of arrival of, perhaps, a year, but an interval which is, therefore, too brief a lead-time for steering us into safety by presently known, available means. That, therefore, would put us all in a situation in which mankind’s systemic error might be that of wishing to presume the adequacy of the rates of scientific progress of a society which must resign itself to accepting an apparently inevitable lack of the means to turn that threat aside in a timely fashion, while still merely wishing for the best.2That situation is not “merely hypothetical.” The subject which that stipulated case implies, is of the type which would be generated by the relevant party’s acceptance of the state of mind specific to belief in the “inevitability” of sense-perception, or, in other words, the presumed inability of a member of the human species, to actually foresee a new, original principled change of qualitative state of existence into an ontologically actual, future qualitative state. In fact, it must be presumed that any healthy human personality possesses an innate potential to foresee an actual sense of a direction-in-principle “into the actual future.” That, in fact, is what is shown by all true discoveries of universal physical principle which express the quality of (as if “seeing”) a “willfully changed qualitative future.” It is truly significant as a matter of fact, that certain animals, such as a herd of pigs, can “foresee” an earthquake before a human sensorium would react; but, the swine merely react in that way, rather than replicating human creativity’s distinctive potential to foresee the creation of an ontologically new category of qualitative state of existence, as in the cases of the then ontologically novel discoveries of such as Nicholas of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, or Albert Einstein.
(3) Now consider a third, qualitatively different type of case, this time, the case of a type which is, nonetheless, a significantly comparable, but, nonetheless, a distinctly different type in effect.
In that given, latter case, the source of a deadly class of dangers is represented by what would have been one which would have menaced the continued existence of our human species in a different way than the aforementioned two examples. In this third type of case of a deadly threat, the cause of the problem would be located in mankind’s reliance on a belief expressed in the form of what is presumed to be an implicitly “religiously blinded faith” in the desired a-priori outcome: “being somehow,” of merely human sense-perception per se (i.e., “sense-certainty”).
In the “real case” of such a belief, the “proverbial rub” would be posed by a presumption which would represent a most remarkable state of affairs consistent with the “happiness” brought about through U.S. President Barack Obama’s virtual closing-down of NASA’s characteristic function. Thus, that illustrates such a sordid type of case as Obama’s characteristically, permanently-rage-driven intellectual and moral devotion, that expressing the intention of outright evil. It were an evil which were, at least for some, an astonishingly comparable behavior, comparable morally to what were represented by the life’s history of both the Roman Emperor Nero and Nero’s virtual model, President Barack Obama.
Those three, illustrative cases, when so compared, might be justly considered as typical of the concerns which I express in presenting this report.
Now, for what should become obvious reasons, I shall place all of these aforementioned, three, hypothetical types of cases, under the reign of the attempt to specify a common dominion of the three cases. After all relevant facts have been considered, each of these three, interacting types may be appropriately classified to a common end, as reflecting mankind’s lack of the will to muster us to react appropriately, even merely sanely, to each of that set of three alternate situations presented. The probable cause for a failure of the third type, would be of the form of an “Obama-like,” implicitly stubborn refusal to have acted to prevent the consequently horrid results: that result is the third, worst case, morally and otherwise.
The reality which might resolve that awkward irony, is that Obama’ s intention for mankind, is intrinsically that of evil.
That latter, “worst case” option, would have expressed an error similar to that of a certain foolish judgment made by the ancient city of Troy, a city which had, in fact, been tempted into that opening of the city’s gate which had brought the Wooden Horse and its lurking thing, to-be-unleashed inside that wall: to doom the duped citizens of that city of Troy while they had slept. That case of the folly of Troy would have been, in effect, much like voting for President Barack Obama for a new term of office today. Thus, evil had struck, yet again. So, it had been Obama’s virtual shutting-down of NASA, which had left our foolishly vulnerable world under his mistress’s (Queen Elizabeth II’s) tyranny: that without even a preliminary stage of an effective defense against awesomely terrible threats from within nearby Solar space. Hence, the true irony of a conflict between good and evil in the real world of today.
That much said, the immediate issue confronting us after this set of paradoxical considerations, are now taken into account: Hence, “What is the human mind, actually?” I shall now examine, and strongly emphasize this matter of principle and its implications during the body of this report, all that in due course, as will follow implicitly here.
Thus, we have the varieties of foolish beliefs which are to be met frequently, among even the overwhelming majority of all those cases today, as also the earlier leaderships of nations this far, as throughout most parts of a presently global society:3E.g., the present Anglo-Saudi and closely related aspects of current society.
First: we must consider the cases of those portions of the leaderships of what are, globally, the most influential nations, portions of processes which are also the particularly problematic aspects of no less than most societies currently. Therefore, let us consider what have been the customarily failed effects of an a-priorist quality of reliance on what is called a notion of the so-called “evidence” which has been adduced from current, but also intrinsically failed proofs, alleged “proofs” which have been based upon, and, therefore, delimited by merely convenient selections of sense-perception as such.
Second: we must take fully into account the inherently worst systemic error common among people this far, an error which is that of the mere presumption, that mere human sense-perception could actually measure the physical principles which underlie, and reign over the universe. That is the core of the entirety of the argument which I present as the initial basis for this present report.
It is the universe itself, which actually determines the principles to which mankind’s progress, as if on Earth, must adhere as “bounded.” This is true, despite what were merely conveniently wishful, popular, usually stubborn, and systemically incompetent confidences, confidences which were adopted by faith in sense-perception as such. It is that systemically paradoxical quality of those distinctions, which we must recognize in the difference between, on the one side, the mere approximations which are based on sense-perception, and on the opposing side, actually authoritative evidence, which is to be considered as due to be “tangibly” experienced, as the true principles of the universe which mankind must seek to discover, and to master through the actual agency of what were properly identified as “reason.” That change is to be made out of regret for the want of regard given to those types of discoveries which have been implicitly dictated to such sane scientists: dictated as being those future states of the universe to which the typically misleading opinion of the member of human species has been currently impelled to adapt, foolishly, as if blindly a-priori.
The paradox to be considered on behalf of our thesis in this present report as a whole, is herewith presented as follows:
For example: Now review what might be identified as the evolutionary history of our own species of U.S. government, for example, such as the regrettable, Congressional motto of “Go along to get along.” That mere motto has tended to invite those regrettable follies which remain characteristic of our republic’s legislative and related mispractices, practices which had been adopted in the absence of the adoption of those relevant, needed principles bearing uniquely on concern for the future qualities of the consequences of mankind’s willful action.
For example: What should we choose to be our “law of the Solar system” as such? This must be a “law” which is certainly not to be degraded into a set of “mere sophistries!” Yet, the widespread opinion present among even the governments and general culture among many relatively leading nations, even respecting their currently prevalent claims to scientific practice, has been commonly premised on the fraudulent, but popularly admired “evidence” of what is merely human sense-perception. The notion of the meaning of “sense-perception,” is actually an intrinsically misleading presumption, one which presents us with what is merely the misconceived name of, rather than the actuality of true principle. How, then, must we overcome the presumption of “the bare bodkin” of a blinded faith in the mere sense-perception of a mankind wrongfully defined as being lawfully delimited to bare perception as such?
Consider a certain relevant case:
Heretofore, popular opinion of assorted forms, varieties, and degrees, even generally accepted scientific forms, had been not unfairly treated as representing a misleading experience which had been located, primarily, as if being limited to an observation premised on what might be merely the combination of observations of Earth and our Moon, treated as primary. That is as if to say, that that limitation were to be preferred as an arbitrarily assigned, “authoritative” standard for defining the meaning of presumed universal principles of the universe as such. A “suddenly discovered,” nearby passing of what we must regard as a rather large asteroid, ominously near to Earth, only illustrates my criticism of the “worse than do-nothings” on this point.
To repeat the most essential point in fact: the principle which must be emphasized, and that now urgently, is that sense-perception as such, has never been proven to be better, in any way, than what is actually required as measures needed for the purpose of the actual discovery of both old, and newly discovered qualities of universal physical principles of qualitative (rather than merely quantitative) scientific progress. I refer to the importance, even urgent need of stricter attention to those implicitly deeper implications as the work of such exemplary personalities as Max Planck and Albert Einstein have made such a point. That point must be taken together with the actual notion of a principle of the human mind (as distinct from the mere brain, alone), as that distinction is qualified by the collaboration of Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler on the subject of “mind,” as distinct from the reductionist’s insistence on a distinctive quality of the mere “animal brain.”
We must be forewarned against an always increasingly dubious attempt at merely pragmatic approximations, such as an approximation which had been adapted for service to the promotion of an allegedly “real” authority of mere sense-impression per se.
Now, let us illustrate, and summarize that warning in the following manner.
Consider a more serious quality of actually scientific investigations into that deadly challenge presented to mankind, a challenge which is represented by various present forms of a mortal threat to mankind, as from both a combination of asteroids and also higher-order qualities of threats to human existence. On that account, we are appropriately prompted to question ourselves as follows:
“Only after the crucially principled discovery of the principle of vicarious hypothesis by Johannes Kepler, could we rely on attempted observations based on the Solar orbit, to encompass the mortal dangers presently indicated as expressed by a cumulative assembly of a million or more asteroids and the like, when each is each considered as if either one-at-a-time, or as a relatively few cases.”
Since the progressive ordering in the launching of man-made devices has now come to include the effects of President Obama’s crushing of NASA and related examinations of Earth from reference-points on Mars, and the like: a new kind of actually “strategic” approaches to this growing array of artificed experiences presents us with the challenge of uncovering newly defined qualities of options. We are thereby prompted to shift emphasis from views provided only by a view of our Earth and our Moon, to a view from the reference-point represented by a Mars which an actually, chronically lying Nero-like President Obama had demanded that we avoid exploring, forever!4E.g.: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Glass-Steagall or Die, EIR http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2012/3949gl-st_or_die.html , Dec. 14, 2012, or Lyndon LaRouche PAC http://larouchepac.com/node/24741 .
Now, with that much said, mankind’s endeavors have been dependent upon developing additional instruments based on Mars, and, prospectively ever more of these. We shall have been committed to enter into an arrangement in which we are well-situated to begin to explore the richly populated space of objects, such as asteroids, which are situated within the space between the orbits of Mars and Earth, doing this in ever fresh and extended modes. What we might learn from the fresh standpoint provided by the coincident standpoints of both Earth and Mars together, will be, whatever turns out, an important change in standpoints of reference, in any case.
Thus, the question posed implicitly by the recent addition of “Curiosity” to Mars, and what must be yet to follow, provides us implicitly fresh viewpoints for exploring the vast accumulations of a myriad of presently known, and yet more plentiful unknowns, roving betwixt and between. We have an implied obligation to explore this suggested, altered approach for nothing less than the reason of exploring the rules of the universal quality of ontological game which might actually be operating within that domain.
In this matter, we are confronted with the actuality, that the existing, prevalent dogmas of physical-scientific practice, are customarily premised on the residue of a mish-mash of methods remaining from attacks on the science of the followers of the original founder of an actual modern science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Cusa’s followers, an array notably featuring the inclusion of Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Leibniz, were confronted by the attempts to reconcile the dogma of an actually, already, fully discredited sort of the simply fraudulent sort of Newton-polluted, neo-Newtonian dogma left now in the wake of the added lies of Bertrand Russell and Tony Blair.
The point is, that, when keeping in mind the pollution of science left over from the history of both the real, and, the contrary reductionist modes of the currently prevalent dogma: If we are really serious, we must be prompted, to resume the tradition of those who had freed mankind, after great struggles, to permit the truth to escape from prolonged incarcerations of science by the reductionists’ hoaxes represented by such notorious wretchednesses as the Olympian Zeus and such among his putative spawn as his Aristotle and Euclid.
Let us now pose the completion of our lesson presented here accordingly. The following, several distinct points are to be considered within these following chapters.
The relevant “tip-off” to the source of the kind of fatal error I present as to be considered here, was already revealed implicitly, in the misguided efforts to superimpose the dogma of mere sense-perception upon physical science generally.
The ugly, implicitly fraudulent error, is the ugly presumption that the agency of human sense-perception must be treated as nothing other than as the authority for defining choices from which the notions of universal physical principles must be derived. Hence, the widespread superseding of an actually physical science by what is merely mathematics.
However, since, such as the exemplary, celebrated habilitation dissertation of Bernhard Riemann, and, most notably, the further advances which are now associated with the leadership for the entry into Twentieth-century science by Planck and Einstein, that notably in opposition to the systemic frauds of the likenesses of science stemming from the contentions of the late Bertrand Russell and his dupes.
Russell serves us here as a means to typify crude attempts to attribute physical principles to the product of mere sense-perception: an expression of that practice of the reductionists’ fraud against science, the which has been among the most crippling of the measures taken to deprive even many scientists of their rightful access to actual insight into the principles which define the actual meaning of “future:” a notion of a specific, uniquely distinct principle of the notion of “future” which must be “located outside” the realm of mere sense-perception as such.
Specifically, as Kepler had shown with his discovery of the universal physical principle of vicarious hypothesis, and also that ontologically related principle of metaphor which is specific to the domains of Classical artistic composition, no actually universal physical principle could be defined as a product of mere, bare mathematics as such. Hence, we must recognize the indispensably fundamental distinction of physical science from what is a “physics” degraded to a method of merely mathematical deduction. Hence, the need to defeat the hoax-like characteristics of the use of mathematics as a deductive approach to defining any actually meaningful notion of a universal physical principle, as this consideration is featured in Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.
The frauds of both Aristotle in general, and Euclid in particular, have been resurrected as devices employed to drag science, again and again, into that morbid pestilence of those deductive methods which have brought the philosophy of death into its rule over so much of what had been the better domain of human progress.
As I have just made the point here, above: the errant presumption is that which delimits the “domain of the believable” to, specifically, something between the actual, or merely presumed experience of the sense-perception of the past and or immediately present. What is even worse than either of those errors, is the added, “strong” element of a mere populist’s belief in a merely mythical future under a reign which is virtually “carbon-copied” from a fancifully conceived region of the past. My complaint is against a belief in a concocted future which never really existed outside the realm of those fantasies which are to be identified as products of what has been the worship of what is actually defined as a practice limited, on principle, to what, in the end of all relevant fuss and feathers, is an exotic subterfuge of what remains essentially—ontologically—as merely sense-perception—but, “with feathers.”
To make this just-stated point indelibly clear: I contrast this to the phenomenon which corresponds, in its effects, to the discovery of universal principles, as after the practice of such as Nicholas of Cusa and, therefore, his faithful student Johannes Kepler’s rarely understood notion of vicarious hypothesis: or to the principle related to that genus of Classical artistic composition, which is that same ontological principle of metaphor specific to the varieties of expression which are only typified by Johann Sebastian Bach’s discovery of a principle of universal human qualities of creativity in composition, a principle matching, in effect, the discoveries of both such as Cusa and his brilliant and exhaustively rigorous student, Kepler.
The emphatic point to be presented in this instance, is that the mental processes of truly Classical artistic composition in music, poetry, and drama, as also the process of actual discoveries of universal physical principles, is delimited to those modes of efficient knowledge for practice which are not deducible from what is fairly to be deplored as representing “merely mathematical” physics. In fact, Classical artistic composition is the actual author of the capabilities for efficient discovery of what are denoted by “physical principles as such,” as the discoveries of Gottfried Leibniz demonstrate the case for the generation of the principles of universal physical and related discoveries.
As Johann Sebastian Bach demonstrated with his sets of preludes and fugues, the proper function of the human mind can be expressed only as knowledge whose existence is rooted in the creative expressions of the anticipated future.
There is a thoroughly distinct proof of this matter as I have identified it here this far: not stuff for the education of the modern expression of academically qualified echoes of the higher ranks of the newly described, “same old peasant slaves from the current past.”
Accordingly, on just this, thus pin-pointed account, the hallmark of all that has been important in the net outcome of my own life’s experience this far, is what may be seen in retrospect, as being the regrettable popularity of an acceptance of the evidence submitted to the effect experienced by most of humanity, including most so-called physical scientists, and by the mere mathematicians who operate on a relatively lower grade, of which all have always failed in attempts to see the future in any form earlier than the arrival of the current present date.
These folk are, for the most part, functionally illiterate in underlying requirements for actually comprehending these matters in ways other than a merely mathematically-deductive description of the principle of “creation per se.” Specifically, even the top-most strata of the majority of professionals have often failed to recognize what has been the essentially human distinction for the “actual future.”
Consequently, the current human majorities’ belief, is embedded in a specifically defective quality of a systemic type of popular delusion. That delusion is expressed in the form of a devotion to an obsession which delimits the category of “generally accepted knowledge” to the erroneously presumed, merely mathematical, or mathematical-like certainties of a quality of a merely imagined past, a past which had neither already occurred, nor probably ever will. The great majority of humanity has habituated itself to inhabit that pathological quality of the general, so-called merely “popular” outlook, still today. The error to which I have just pointed here, lies within a span of folly which is prevalent among the governments of this planet this far: the folly of “blind faith” in the axiomatic presumptions respecting the meaning of sense perception.
I restate and summarize the foregoing argument in successive stages, as follows:
The “statistical economic,” or related modes of forecasting, are presently, in effect, expressions of “a cultural disease,” one which now threatens the human species with a looming, early prospect of thermonuclear extinction-warfare, a warfare which, in turn, threatens to be launched soon, under the continued reign of Her Britannic Majesty’s (and her ever-evil Tony Blair’s) British-Saudi empire of today.
I am referring, here, to such matters as the continuing expressions of the so-called “9-11” conspiracies of these recent years of that same British-Saudi conspiracy which has been expressed as a type in such examples from both the U.S.A. of September 11, 2001, and in President Barack Obama’s assertion of what he has spread in the forms of fraudulent denials and wickedly false claims respecting the Benghazi assassinations of September 11, 2012.
The possible threat of the human species’ sudden extinction, as, perhaps, through an early thermonuclear holocaust, now lurks “just around the fabled corner.” Yet, the needed change for the better, is a conjecturable alternative, and also a beneficial turn just around the corner, if the truths respecting the Queen’s own President Obama, and Obama’s credulously foolish admirers, were suddenly turned around: a turn which is, currently, still a possible result of something which the Queen’s and Obama’s ostensibly leading and belligerent partisans have customarily rejected, or hysterically overlooked.
I explain: this is to be understood as a matter for treatment of the subject of a science which reaches beyond the pathetic dogma among many notable scientists now. I refer to categories of delusions, or, in some instances, simply critical oversights, respecting what needed to be identified as the credulousness of faith in mere “sense-perception.”
The available key to understanding of the paradox which I have targeted in this way, should be recognized through the means of evidence to such effect, that the existence of the effects of human life on Earth—and, therefore, implicitly everywhere, is now a conception prompted by need to study a possible remedy for the colossal, present threats of human extinction by the influence of the so-called “green movement.” Such threats are to be recognized, for example, in the lack of needed, relevant development of relevant man-made systems, systems which must continue to be built up on Mars—whether or not mankind actually takes up some human residence there within the span of the coming generation or two. That means that we must assist in bringing about the deep-rooted change which lead away from those cults of sense-certainty which continue to cramp the mental powers of even a wide majority among relevant types of scientists now.
In summary of the immediate point at hand: The inability to “foresee the future presently,” and rather relying upon a mere, current-time-bound experience of sense-perceptions, is the most significant of those mental habits which cripple mankind into a state of failure to seize the critically needed means for meeting the needs of an available future. Attention to that fact is mandatory, even among what are considered, if only by a stretch, as among the better-informed intellects of the world of today.
Therein lies the issue posed by the essentially systemic fault which is embodied in the reign of a relative silliness, a silliness which is also expressed by the systemic error of a widespread reliance on deduction in human opinion-making, especially the effects expressed among those in society who occupy its ostensibly most influential ranks. However, it were not sufficient to limit our report to within those limiting topics as such. First, the fraud of attempting to attribute the authority of the universe to matters within the pathetic bounds of sense-certainty must be expelled.
In these prefatory elements presented this far, I have warned against the popular, but awful errors of reductionism; next, I must, next, pin-point the functional location for the cure of such habits.
The actual birth, and also the high-point of modern European and closely related civilization, had emerged in the form of a general principle which had been typified against the background of such cases as that of the martyred Jeanne d’Arc, and in the consequent Christian reaction against the bestiality of those English Normans who had tortured her most wickedly in burning her alive to death. Those Normans, including their evilly unfaithful priests, expressed a bestiality which prompted a spiritual-intellectual rebellion which was to be become known as “The Golden Renaissance” of such outstanding leaders of all humanity since that time, as the Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who shares, to the present date, the foundations of such among his students as Johannes Kepler, and also such as Gottfried Leibniz, all sharing, thus, their consequent bearing of the special authority of being the true authors of the foundations of all competent expressions of a modern European science.
The wretched, lying Normans who cremated Jeanne d’Arc alive, were like the infamous succession of Roman emperors, their Venetian successor, and, yet again, the “New Venetian” faction which conducted both the so-called “Dutch wars” against the France of a foolish Louis XIV, or, also, akin to the followers of such evil incarnations as the British spy and murderer Aaron Burr, or other evil American creatures of his type and time, such as Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and the later financial and narcotics-trafficking agents of the British empire still remaining dominant among us. The latter set’s such activities represent roles performed, up to those presently kindred financial agents of the British empire presently in even our own financial institutions’ ranks in our midst, agents who have acted to help in crushing the explicitly Constitutional intent of our republic, enemies of all mankind up to the full extent of their evil capabilities. Treason, when considered in strict fact, thus now abounds among us, barring the precious accomplishments by our noblest citizens, whether higher or lesser in recognized rank.
However, the underlying criminality continues to reside, essentially, in the reductionist corruption typified by the permanently chronic traitor to the U.S.A., the British agent Aaron Burr and such among his corrupted likenesses as his asset, Andrew Jackson, and the related “philosophical reductionists” generally.
The principle put at issue on that specified account, has been that exhibited in the case of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, the work on which all among the greatest valid discoveries of all of the valid progress in modern European science have since depended. The outcome of that specific set of discoveries, is also typified by Cusa’s truly greatest followers in science, such as those who are best typified by Johannes Kepler in his discovery of the still most rarely fully-understood principle, that of “vicarious hypothesis,” a principle still among truly leading scientists of principle, of today. Gottfried Leibniz was, of course, also such a crucially important case.
Whereas, while some currents in modern science have continued to produce new discoveries of more or less great merit in their own right, contrary currents of both opinion and practice have also grown in their, relatively speaking, morally downward influence on a growing relative majority of what passes for “scientific opinion:” especially among those adhering to the “green delusion.” The recent decline since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt has been a downward trend since the assassinations of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt’s choice of U.S. President John F. Kennedy (and, implicitly, of his brother, Robert). So, consequently, all actual progress in human knowledge, has occurred as what have been creative impulses, impulses which have acted in a mode which has been contrary to the presently gaining trends toward general depravity in what passes currently for “popular opinion,” especially the opinion of both “Wall Street” and its admirers.
Such a trend toward both moral and physical decay in academic and other mental life generally, as since the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, had been most notable throughout the world in general, notably since the aftermath of the 1890 ouster of Germany’s Otto v. Bismarck by the agents of the British empire.
Bismarck’s ouster then, an ouster whose effect has continued to prompt the effect of creating a celebrated, continuing vacuum in the moral decline of civilized life generally, since that “world war” he identified was first launched, by means of Bismarck’s ouster by, and for the British Empire, a crime inherent in that ouster which has been continued by that same empire, as in the 1920s under the influence of the monstrously evil Bertrand Russell.
This had been preceded and continued as if by the monstrous Lord Shelburne who had revived the intention of a world-wide, new Roman Empire, through the time of Russell’s death (1970), as through both “World Wars” I and II: all that proceeded under the influence of the presently continuing threat from the tradition of Russell and his current mimic and ruffian in global mass-murder, Tony Blair.
That new Roman Empire adopted by Shelburne et al., was created by the same legacy as the present British-imperial authors of the lurking thermonuclear holocaust who are represented by the influence of such wretches as the international hoaxster, and leading Obama advisor, that same Tony Blair, presently.
The modern style of “World War” had been launched under such figures as the William of Orange of the new world empire which had been consolidated, as also by Tony Blair recently, in his evilly, chronically, and mass-murderously lying man’s reaction against the Peace of Westphalia. That had been done under such most evil British imperial creatures as the notorious Lord Shelburne who established, according to his own expressed intention, both the new World Roman Empire wishfully echoing the Caesars, and now as that under the current date of that British empire, and also as the present, increasingly mass-murderous British-Saudi empire currently often referenced as the “al-Qaeda” of “9-11” of 2001, and of the new “9-11” launched under the tenure of President Barack Obama today.
That problematic feature of present-day, trans-Atlantic history, is the principal focus which I am applying here under the dubious mystique of al-Qaeda. I do so for the purpose of clarifying the crucially needed understanding of the actually underlying subject of this present report. The issue is not “British,” nor “English.”
The issue is precisely as Shelburne decreed, as he did in the contexts of both the agreements of the 1763 Peace of Paris, and the 1782 founding of the British (imperial) Foreign Office, and of the negotiations steered by Shelburne himself in 1783. This had been an intended British replication of the original Roman Empire, which is still, today, the legacy of the same “New Venetian system” of both William of Orange and, later, the Lord Shelburne who had shared this legacy in their respective times, and which is still the current legacy of the British empire and its mask of nominal identity as “al-Qaeda” presently.
To summarize the point up to this time: as during the most relevant development of the British empire as such, between the times of the 1763 “Peace of Paris” and the 1783 treaty, under Shelburne’s emerging role as the de facto founder of the British (imperial) Foreign Office’s role (1782): So, effectively, the sundry reorganizations of the original (i.e. imperial) “Foreign Office” are continued to the present day, as, for example, the Saudi Kingdom and its associated elements, such as those of Qatar and the quasi-mythical al-Qaeda, which are, in fact, an integral part of the currently actual “British Empire.”
Notably, cases of assassination campaigns against President Charles de Gaulle, President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert Kennedy, and kindred assassination-operations such as Tony Blair’s intrinsically, explicitly fraudulent concoction of a needless “Second War” in Iraq, are typical of these British imperial operations, as such imperial features are sometimes relatively distinct from the relatively modest realities of the United Kingdom and certain other cases. This imperial pattern had been set by the Roman Empire and its Mediterranean-centered successors, such as medieval Venice, and the New Venetian empire associated with William of Orange’s role in campaigns to destroy France as a power under Louis XIV, and in the same William’s role in the subjugation of what are referred to as the British Isles, including mass murders among the people of Ireland.
All-in-all, the pattern which we are considering here, is aptly traced back to such well-documented instances as the siege of Troy, when that past development is now examined in the setting of the various archeological sites of that specific geological identity still today. The Anglo-Saudi operations of today, thinly masked under the foggy mask of al-Qaeda, are in the same category as the wars conducted in the form of those mass-executions and salting actions which were the relevant outcome of not only the famous Trojan War, but of the legendary reign of the Olympian Zeus, and its most notable heir, known, in part, as the Roman empire, and, also the heritage of the New Venetian empire of William of Orange and the British empire of which my United States was victim. The general pattern of relevance here, is the history of the existence of the imposition of mass-murderous reigns of what are classed as “empires” of the Roman empire, its antecedents, and its heritage of the same essential cultural expression, including those elements associated with the mass-murders expressed in the bestialities of the Roman imperial arenas, and the traditions continued in that direction, as “spectator sports,” still presently around the world now.
We must now recognize, that so-to-speak, “with full force,” the systemic distinction of civilized human society, as distinct from the traditions of the methods of quasi-extermination used to conduct Trojan War and the worship of that Olympian Zeus and the imperial tradition which his name represents. This means an abhorrence of the reign of societies premised on the motive of a beast-like physical force, an abhorrent premise. The premise which, in practice, has depended on the systemic form of limitation respecting the use of “physical progress” per capita and per square kilometer. The contrary policy is expressed in the service of those activities and purposes which are specific to the increased development of the human species’ dedication to ultimately unlimited increase of its powers.
Such development serves its truly human purpose, to the extent that we might be ultimately enabled to escape the wretched fate ultimately foreseen for our Sun during some relevant time, presently believed to occur in some very distant future. The incorporation of the developable functions of the planet Mars into such included missions as the defense of human life on an already threatened Earth, is our properly included mission as a species.
Now, return to that issue associated with the presently urgent “Mars Mission.” Once we had turned our attention to the matter of known biological history of living species on Earth, the common feature of both the evolution of living species generally, and of that progress which is to be considered as unique to the human mind, is the uniqueness of the increase of the efficient “energy flux-density” expressed by the correlative of an effective, evolutionary progress in the development of the functions of the human mind’s unique expression, the expression of qualitative progress in those specific functions of the human mind which are not otherwise expressed by any known lower form of life.
The irony of all of this, is that the most essential principle of the human mind is frequently “muted,” even among truly intelligent persons of notable scientific rank in society. The honorable exceptions to such limitations, are relatively rare in society presently, and that, today, rarer still than in the time when President John F. Kennedy had still lived, in a time when I had been his junior by a relevant margin of less than a generation’s difference in our respective ages as adult professionals. The difference between then and now, on that account, is expressed by that relentless decadence which is to be recognized as typical, not only as the continuation of the accelerated degeneracy of the “68ers,” but which has been subsequently, continually worse up through the present date.
What might be described as the use of sense-perception to derive mis-alleged “concepts” of intended universal physical principles, can be effectively corrected in practice, but that only once we have considered the causal root of such a fallacy as that one: the fallacy of a misplaced use of a method of mere deduction. Essentially, that should be understood as signifying that the notion of sense-perception must be adduced from what are truly universal principles, not the other way around. It is the whole, which measures the behavior of what might be considered, wrongly, to be defined by that part contained within the bounds of mere sense-perception. It is the effect which must be shown to have been the originally determined effect on the part.
Let me point out in the following, preliminary choice of language:
It is the effect which must be shown to have enclosed what had been, rightly, or wrongly presumed to have been the proper design of what must be discovered to have been the properly, originally determined effect on the part.
What we are considering as our subject-matter here, is the long-overdue recognition of the fact, that humanity is not defined, in a functional sense, by sense-perception.
Rather, sense-perception must be made to become a faithful subordinate of those higher principles of the actual human mind which could never be redefined by mere sense-perception. The essential fraud in the ordinary use of the notion of sense-perception, is the inherently fraudulent pretension, that sense-perception measures the proof of the experience, while in reality, sense-perception itself is merely something contained, as like the guiding bellow of a fog-horn in an otherwise impenetrable fog.
Therefore, the following is to be said.
The misplaced presumption, respecting the part which determines the whole process, is what is at fault. The tragic error lies within the precincts of the popular misbelief, that respecting the effect expressed as the ridiculous notion that mere sense-perception efficiently prescribes, as if axiomatically, the presumption that the deductive mode of mathematical function determines the process as a whole, as has been argued, against the great Philo, as the notion of the “already dead world” as on behalf of Euclid and Aristotle.
There lies exactly what is systemically false in the prevalent notions of a “popular opinion” consistent with the notion of “sense-certainty.”
Having said that much, we must continue to work our way through the implications of what I have already stated this far. In brief:
Life is a universal principle of the universe.
For example: consider the fact that the properly economical deployment of a thermonuclear-fusion trajectory, must be defined by an ascent (“rise and fall”), followed by a descent into actual consumption, in the successively ascending-descending, thermonuclear-fusion velocity of trajectory for the policy of a direct, or proximate process from Moon to Mars. What must now be considered on this account, as the evidence to be considered for anticipated accomplishments, expresses the proofs that it should be obvious, that it is the action of the whole process to be considered, which defines the trajectory of the evolving report, rather than, as the notions of “sense-certainty” demand, the false belief which is that it is the mistakenly presumed action of the separately considered parts as such. This is the key to recognizing the intrinsic incompetence of a faith in what a bestialized human culture treats as the pathetic evidence of “experienced sense-certainties” echoing what is arbitrarily considered as being the expression of an already departed noëtic past.
From this point onwards, in examining that conception of a perpetually evolving future which is the subject of this report of mine, we must, first, recognize that the shallow belief in a human history defined by already past “current events,” is the effect, for actually human beings, of something like the effect of “self-induced brain-damage.” The healthy human mind creates new physical states of the universe prior to the actually manifest expression of those new states as “actually created physical experiences.” Human realities exist efficiently only as manifested expressions of a truly noëtic (e.g., “prophetic”) future, as typified in mode by discoveries of the principles which inspire a certain quality of the whisper of the future sensible result of the activity of the human mind as such.
“The so-called practical man, is all too often, the expression of a mostly dead-ended mind.”
Contrary to the appearances created by the suppression of the human species’ inherent noëtic potential, the essential distinction of the human mind from that of the mere beasts of all known assorted species, is that the mind in an actively noëtic state of being is, insofar as we have knowledge of the distinction of the actively creative state of the human mind, unique to the human species. Yet, the faculty which human noëtic mental functions express, has the form of being a unique echo of that merely biological noësis expressed in the progressive, but “merely biological” development occurring among the living species generally.
Putting considerations of so-called “neotony” aside, there are some important clues pointing toward a possible, better understanding of an ontologically distant, formal parallel; but the human mind remains unique.
The proper conclusion of relevance expressed as human creativity, as I have identified it here, is the “fact” that the human mind’s noëtic capabilities demonstrate mankind’s access to the ability to act efficiently on what we identify as the physical future of the universe which we inhabit. It is particularly significant that man demands such a specific power “over time,” as a unique quality of our living species. This, incidentally, focuses a bright intellectual light on the practical meaning of mankind’s present modes for the human-managed development of not only Mars, but Mars’ potential in service to man on account of the need for organizing resistance to destruction of the human population of Earth from implied assaults from among a myriad of a suspected millions or more meteorites appearing to be roaming through the space which is located within the bounds defined by a description of the Mars and Venus orbits.
The success of the still relatively recent landing of the apparatus named “Curiosity,” has been a leap in the advancement of what should be considered as mankind’s increase of our power to “manage” what happens in the space which now includes increasing abilities to manage processes within the nearby parts of the Solar system, and, implicitly, beyond. Without a human foot on Mars, so far, Mars is, nevertheless, now an actual, and potentially rather efficiently developing “colony” and servant of mankind’s Earth. We should dare nothing less than that perspective for a revived NASA and the like, on this account, from here on.
This brings us to the importance of emphasis on the inescapable role of our inescapable dependency on increasing the intensity of leaps in the “energy flux-density” of the continued acceleration of the power of the human species, per capita, through the means of progress measured in accelerating orders of magnitude of the power which the human species expresses in its measure of the terms of accelerated leaps in the human species’ power per capita, whether on Earth, or in incremental power expressed within the Solar system’s prospective man-managed places beyond the reach of both present and future locations in “space” so-called.
We have already touched what remains only the apparently distant prospect of a future in which there is “management” of the means of matter/anti-matter reactions. What stands in our pathway of progress, is, chiefly, the cult of a tradition presently expressed in the existence of the British empire, and among the like-minded, today. We shall end the reign of that cult, or mankind would be, soon, no more.
We are now confronted, within the bounds of the preceding arguments, by the distinction of the human mind from the characteristics of all other living species known to us presently. However, although that is a true statement of fact, there is a practical difficulty in presenting that case to contemporary audiences, even many among leading scientists. The root of that difficulty is to be found, chiefly, in the legacy of the social rules of behavior bequeathed by ancient practices of human slavery (a.k.a. “serfdom”). The essential nature of that difficulty, in turn, is that most persons caught within the system of a class of rulership, are, indeed, profoundly conditioned to think and act as human slaves, slaves who claim the powers of violence against both their masters and one another, but rarely recognize the natural power of the individual to express a true power of individual creativity. Consequently, the custom of obedience to even capricious expressions of authority imposed, as some notion of arbitrary forms of laws and customs passed down from rulers upon human subjects, has produced modes, in society, which demand the denial of truly noëtic discretion for creative actions effecting actually provable discoveries.
Hence, for example, the transparency of the folly of reliance on what are intrinsically the follies of statistical methods of economic and related forecasting.
Thus, for example, it is the “authority of reigning authorities of custom,” which is expressed in the inherently fraudulent reliance on “statistical economic” and related forms of forecasting of developments in the general social process. Ironically, whereas the notions of “lawfulness in the universe” have been claimed to have been ordered for human society as if “on principle,” the entire sweep of modern academically preferred notions of human creativity is associated with devotion to fixed standards of pre-ordering of society’s processes, instead of truly noëtic ones.
This is particularly notable in the attempts to extend the powers of human free will to mathematical physics and related cults. The notable conclusion which this problematic presumption presents, is the insanely fanatical presumption that the universe is controlled by a system of mathematical physics which operates within the universal bounds of mathematical statistics! This is presented as bald-fact without proof, when the contrary premises are that mankind should be occupied not with the principles of consistency of mathematical deduction as such, but, rather that we must locate the principles of physics as in coherence with the lawfulness which is the actual precondition for both the mere existence of our human species, and preconditions defined by the methods through which mankind is lawfully enabled to change the conditions of mankind’s actually creative existence in the universe.
In other words, the truly greatest evil imposed upon mankind, is the peculiar species of evil represented presently by the lunatic cult of what is the inherently mass-murderous cult of so-called “environmentalism.” That has been a cult operating since before the siege of Troy under the reign of the force of evil presented by the satanic cult of servitude under the fiction of the Olympian Zeus.
The relevant evidence which those considerations require of us, involves, that in a scientifically crucial way, the essential role of the individual scientifically-directed human will in locating individual creativity, as expressed within the original achievements of the specifically sovereign, human noëtic powers’ individual potential to present individually launched discoveries of universal principle, as by Nicholas of Cusa and his inspiration to Johannes Kepler, on which physical-scientific and Classical artistic forms of individual noëtic practice depend essentially.
Mankind is at its best when both physical science and true artistic insight and its productions are able to change the apparent laws of the universe, when the methods of human practice are coherent with the disposition for creativity shown by the universe itself.
Much more could be said. but that is conveniently reserved, if momentarily, for this present occasion.