The seemingly obvious was, actually, never true!

Contemporary Pseudo-Morality

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 21, 2013


What is human sense-perception, as distinguished from the denizens of the animal kingdom in general? How, and why, is this so?

In the animal domain, mere sense-perception merely appears to reign predominantly. In the domain of the competent state of the human mind as such, notably among such of mankind’s truly modern geniuses as Max Planck and Albert Einstein (or Bernhard Riemann, earlier), the outlook has been absolutely different. Among the latter, mere sense-perception is progressively diminished in its relative importance, and, therefore, is relatively diminished in its prescience of authority, while the noëtic powers of the human mind had emerged, for a while, as increasingly dominant, per capita, as the relative authority of ordinary human sense-perception diminishes in its relative usefulness.

The conflicting notions of apparent “values” which this fact presents to us here, are such that, for some people, even most today, and for exactly that reason, today’s commonplace forms of human beliefs, particularly respecting notions of sense-perception as such, are, often, flatly, to be refused, for reason of a sensed corruption caused by popular habits, habits such as a failure to recognize the most relevant distinctions actually separating the human species, systemically, from the beasts. The actually fruitful distinctions of the human mind, have been typified, notably, by great intellects, such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, who had, both, succeeded mightily on this account, in their time, even despite the post-World War I period’s rising influence of the degeneracy under the monstrously evil, British “witch doctor,” Bertrand Russell.

Thence, the troublesome issue which we shall consider here, is properly the subject of a systemic error named “sense-certainty,” an error from which most among even presumably well-educated ranks of humanity, such as even many skilled professionals, usually suffer: an error which they have now often flatly failed to recognize as being the required key to a crucially needed distinction of the often little-known truth, from the popular frauds presented in the much-abused defense of alleged sense-certainty.

So, for exactly that reason, I take this present occasion to forewarn you of the meaning of this following fact.

The Fact of the Matter

I mean, here and now, the fact of the root of that “popular” folly which I frequently challenge in this present report. Such a folly persists as having been one situated in the heritage of those habits which had been established by the doctrinal cults of both traditionally reigning oligarchies, and their more abundant victims. These have been the habits still presently typified by the modern, Anglo-Dutch imperial, globally extended oligarchy. That fault now still persists as the expression of an oligarchy which, in its turn, is as I shall emphasize the ugly facts to be considered, on that account, here: it is an oligarchy which has demanded a general consent to a practice of both general human self-degradation, and, now added, pursuit of intended, top-down mass-extinctions among the general population of our planet. I point to the genocide demanded currently by that same, waning, “British” (Anglo-Dutch) imperial monarchy, which has now demanded precisely such virtually satanic atrocities of genocide.1I.e., the now declining British Queen, Elizabeth II, has demanded a rapid reduction of the human species, from seven billions souls, to one billion, or less.

The most crucial fact on which this following report depends, is the evidence that only the human species is actually known to us as being uniquely enabled to discover the actually, currently (but also rarely) experienced existence of a human foreknowledge of a future. That is, a knowledge of which only a relatively few among us, thus far, have actually succeeded in achieving the needed quality of insight into the relevant realities which mankind must now bring into its willful shaping of its own future. That knowledge is the essentially knowable factor which could be, and actually must be considered; to that degree that it is to become known as the proper distinction which this requires of mankind per se, however exceptionally rare those relevant individuals may have often appeared to be.

A Nicholas of Cusa, a Johannes Kepler, and a Bernhard Riemann, or, a Max Planck and Albert Einstein, will serve us here, efficiently, as examples which typify those among the relatively few in modern society who had emerged into modern times from a great Fifteenth-century Renaissance, thus to give birth to what was to have become a presently, ultimately waning, now post-Twentieth Century civilization: that despite the heritage of a few who had contributed the truly good precedents at our service on this account, insofar as some among us continue the practice of our own republic’s true tradition, still for today.


1.

THE THESES WHICH WE REQUIRE

The folly to be confronted by my presentation of the case to be considered here, is that what is merely “popular opinion,” is a case for study to be located in the fact, that the presently most common blunder among our population generally, has been the self-destructive, but popular habit which is often identified as “sense-certainty.” That common practice is one which is also to be recognized as a bad habit, a self-destructive habit which had been actually proposed, repeatedly, among a, largely, wretchedly mistaken, but nonetheless popular standard of a still current, but merely popular opinion: a blind faith in what were merely common sense-perception as such.

As a matter of fact, that bad habit, in and of itself, had never been a reflection of any truly competent physical-scientific principle. The truth of the matter at issue, was known as being variously foolish, or even evil, among such followers in both Classical art and true science, as those of such modern exemplars as Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, and, after them, of Cusa’s great followers in scientific progress, notables such as Johannes Kepler and Gottfried Leibniz, as their work was continued through to the appearance of such of my own choice of such later exemplars as Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein. So-called “sense-certainty” had always been merely a specific peculiarity of what had been little better, in respect to the errors of presumed relative truthfulness, than being another guise of common, more or less silly gossip: a quality of such mere gossip often mistakenly named as being, allegedly, a variety of actually so-called “knowledge.”

As the cases from the earlier modern geniuses, Brunelleschi and Cusa, through to such as Riemann, Planck, and Einstein, have been typified by their discovery of realities: such realities are not expressions of what is popularly considered as “human sense-perception;” it is the development of the specifically noëtic powers of human mind as such, powers which define the expression of our human species as being not only biologically, but also functionally human. Bare faith in mere human sense-perception, is essentially “a worse than merely misguided notion of science,” is a notion which is conceived as, relatively, “the harvesting of adult baby talk.” The human process of birth, is a process of what are to be rightly considered as having been successive steps of human existence from birth, as if from the foetus to the infant born, to the child, and thence toward the adult state, a progress which, at its best, properly comes to share a common quality of both the creative Classical artistic and scientific genius, as the examples of both Max Planck and Albert Einstein typify that set of qualifications.

That is to insist, that sense-perception, when considered as if in and of itself, is neither a fundamental principle, nor a “defining characteristic” of life within the universe itself. Rather, it belongs, intrinsically, to a category of something included among the relatively superficial (e.g., merely sense-perceptive) notions of the role of the human mind; it, therefore, represents a lower standard of a state of belief which has been induced to assume the form of a product of what are the superficial and also dubious functions, which are to be classed, generally, under the heading of a kind of intellectual trash known as merely “sense-perception.” It is a by-product of the effect produced by those confused, but nonetheless actually human beings, who do not yet realize that what they themselves have been induced to actually represent, as victims of the mental disease of blind faith in sense-certainty. Sense-certainty represents, as if intrinsically, an irrationalist variety of primitive misconception of mankind, which is chosen by many, even most, from among the human species. Mankind is, taken in the large, still, unfortunately, waiting to grow up to a state of what is truly humanity, and, is still, in the large, therefore desperately needing the benefits awaiting mankind’s obligation to “finally grow up.”

The essential point of the issue of principle in what I have just stated here this far, should persuade us to recognize the need to emphasize the modern human intellect’s developed abilities. The which are to be treated as a needed shift in progress, a progress which, rather than relying on sense-perceptions, soars upward into higher states of existence than the numbing experience of a relatively fixed, mere sense-perception as such, to true Classical and physical-scientific commitments to “actually growing up.” It is therefore proper, and even urgent, to shift the standard for the human adult outlook from merely looking out toward Mars and to the asteroids seeming to fill nearby solar space; instead, we must be committed to viewing the very existence of mankind from the vantage of a mankind looking as if down from Mars, and perhaps a more remote point of reference beyond, looking into a future of changed existence of man-on-Earth, away from, and beyond the merely conventional, but practically silly image of a man attempting to see himself in the simple mirror of naked sense-perception, as that were experienced on Earth.

It is now time “to grow up,” to become liberated from the relatively infantile fancy of sense-certainty as such, and, therefore, to rise to experiencing our own true existence, and destiny within the Solar system, as being enclosed by considering the experience of Earth from the standpoint of the Solar system as it might be considered, in turn, from a superior, galactic point of reference. Mankind can not exist forever in a merely childish state of that childish outlook of mere Earth-bound sense-certainty, in that universe which actually contains the processes which govern the existence of our planet Earth.

Thus, those still presently bitterly confused believers in mere sense-perception as a primary source of knowledge, have mis-read sense-perception in a childish way, as if Earth itself were actually “a principle of sense-perception of a mere experience of travels on Earth,” and as if those so-duped, must therefore, be permitted to misbehave like a person who is possessed by a perfect presumption that he, himself, like the disgusting Charles Darwin, is broadly, and rather simply comparable to the product of a specifically-talking variety of ape.

Such persons as these simple-minded victims of mere sense-certainty, share a commonly asserted, utterly mistaken, and actually depraved belief, one which has been familiar to us as from among many Anglo-Dutch notables in history, as in such specific cases such as the British Empire’s late Adam Smith, or his follower, the miserable hoaxster Charles Darwin, as also, among that same school of rabidly foolish followers, there were the brutish H.G. Wells, and the most wickedly vicious (and, frankly Satanic), Bertrand Russell, or our own present swindlers of the Wall Street types and their wretched so-called British empire and its lackeys: such as the British-Saudi-made authors of the “9-11” attack on the United States.

Some Relevant Points on Background

The essential truth respecting such wretchedly evil creatures as Britain’s H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, is that they, and their followers, were attached, with a certain queer sort of passion, to the roles of being merely products of the same set of intellectual degeneracies typical of such as our own, depraved, U.S.A.’s “Wall Street types.” Such wretched (and also often evil) persons as those, have established themselves, as being maliciously proud and often intrinsically evil-in-fact, and are thus wretched creatures which are to be, therefore, so identified for sufficient reason of their depraved notions of what they might claim to know as “civilization.”

Frequently, even usually, the characteristic evil among political circles such as those of Wall Street and the likeness of its fellow-travelers, defines what is frequently misjudged as being a system of what fools choose to identify as their “morality;” but, it is actually situated within the framework of that domain of the silly, and of the dumber domain of the so-called “practical,” rather than “the honest.” Truth is defined for those latter, morally impaired creatures, such as Wall Street’s, and its likenesses, as in terms of what is designated as the currently “practical standard” of “practically accepted behavior” otherwise to be better known as common to what were to be better described as the trans-Atlantic swindler class. It has been the influence of precisely such standards of behavior, which had fostered a present, persistently dominant practice of what is the “actually evil,” such as that is expressed among what pass for the top-most ranking, and practiced expressions of economic evils, such as those of Wall Street (in our U.S. society), who function as those criminals-in-fact who menace the proper rights of the members of the nations of mankind: a violation of the natural rights of mankind, a violation which is typified by the mass-murderous effects of a monstrous, intrinsically hyper-inflationary, pure swindle named as an actually criminal practice of a form of outright theft of the people of nations, an overt robbery of nations which has been called “quantitative easing.”

The distinction of what I shall identify here throughout, as truly human principles, when they are matched against the alternatives, must be located, essentially, in the human species’ unique, inherently continuing dependency upon a rising rate of effective energy-flux-density per capita. This is to be located as within, in turn, that which we are enabled to experience as specifically accelerated increases of a realized, human-driven, form of energy-flux-density per capita, as this must become expressed in mankind’s active role within the framework of the Solar system, and (ultimately) beyond.

The Customary Folly of Sense-Certainty

It is shameful, that still today, while the citizens of the planet Earth are now being plunged, in the main, into something worse than even mere ruin—even into now threatened mass-murderous practices against the majorities of entire nations, and, even, also threatening an intended “British-Dutch led” thermonuclear extinction of our species, that an intrinsically ruinous threat which is now being pursued to such an effect, that the imperiled majorities of a nation’s people are, by and large, being duped, like ancient serfs, into a state of what is named as the sheer foolishness of a worship of a mere “sense perception.”

Should you not consider that, perhaps, there is no mere coincidence in the conjuncture of those foolish, so-called “facts” bearing on the matters of the global practice of evils represented by Wall Street and London now? The fact of the matter is, that the consequence of that presently accelerating Anglo-Dutch corruption, is to be defined as such on account of the destructive effects of a certain widespread belief which is widespread even among the presumably most literate fractions of the human populations of this planet. Specifically, there is a tendency to rely on “so-called,” actually mass-murderous beliefs, in “environmentalism,” which are, in fact, increasingly mass-murderous, but also absurd systems: an absurdity expressing humanity’s present tendency toward a planetary mass-murderous program of virtual human extinction.

There is no good reason to doubt, that mankind’s currently prevalent reliance on mere sense-perception as such, reflects an ultimately vicious form of a prevalent, sense-perceptual, self-delusion. As I have already emphasized this point of fact, above, we must continue to recognize the reality of the fact of the delusion which is still, presently, currently rampant for most of the human membership of most among the human cultures of our planet. We are currently experiencing the ominous effects of a widespread set of popular delusions which presently permeate national cultures among the trans-Atlantic regions, most emphatically.

Despite the fact of that experience, there do exist actually hopeful alternatives, which must now be seized. These alternatives feature conditional measures met only among what might be fairly identified as the influence of the higher intellectual powers of the human mind, powers used as if “in parallel,” but actually in opposition to the otherwise influential, more brutish habits imposed by the powerful upon the more numerous populations of the poorer so-called “lower classes” of the combined aging and impoverished. Under such policies as that, even what had been merely purported classical-artistic composition and its performance, are often degraded into becoming merely supplements to the cruder forms of a general belief in raw sense-perception, even among a majority of today’s relatively “most literate classes.” So, for most of the human populations, a weird cult of “sense-certainty” dominates the overwhelming majority of the populations of nations: hence, we are, presently, in one way or another, all victims of a mass-mania of “sense-certainty,” a cult of “sense-certainty” whose very existence pollutes the name of “truth,” making a shameful mockery of even the mere name of “the human mind.”

At this point, it is most useful to take into account, and summarize certain correlated facts, as follows.

Have There Always Been Other Options?

The core of the delusion which I have been describing this far, is the state (again, I am obliged to say “delusion,” in fact), induced by a drunkard’s-like belief in primary, ontological existence of mere “sense certainty.” It ends only after a human being has recognized, that even the mere the idea of “sense-perception” as being considered as being an even essential measure of identified values, has always been, intrinsically, a source of fostered delusions.

In contrast: In the history of modern European and American cultures, two figures had been outstanding during the course of the Fifteenth Century Renaissance, and beyond: the great intellect of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and his elder, the great composer and builder met in the slightly earlier part of that same century, Filippo Brunelleschi. Similarly, Nicholas of Cusa was, by a far reach, the most profoundly accomplished among scientific figures of his century. He had been the great genius who had urged the building of the movement which, in its intended effect, directed Christopher Columbus to cross “the great oceans,” that Europeans might choose to emigrate there, to settle there and free mankind from the evils which had continued the repeated cases of a virtually Satanic rule over societies within Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa, up to that time.

As a result of the successful impact of what had been the labor of a then-deceased Nicholas of Cusa, the settlements which had been established within the Americas according to his intention, contained a factor which contributed greatly to saving Europe itself from a hopeless outcome of the evil which had been brought about through the forced decline of what had been, earlier, the so-called “Golden Renaissance” of Cusa and his colleagues.2Jasper Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s Debate With John Wenck, The Arthur J. Banning Press, Minneapolis, 1981-84. This factor of Cusa’s intention transported across a great ocean, continued to be active, even up through to the waves of evil which have brought Europe to that presently nearby threat of doom, a present peril which has continued to menace Europe repeatedly, under the influence of such imperialists as the nominally English-Dutch, imperialist tyrants, a tyranny which had brought the trans-Atlantic region, and beyond, into continuing surges of essentially global warfare, as that had been continued, (with merely temporary interruptions) up to the very present date, all since the ouster of Chancellor Bismarck, an ouster which had launched and had continued to the present day’s brink of a virtually perpetual, now presently increasingly threat of actually thermonuclear holocaust, a holocaust which presently threatens the continued existence of the human species on this planet; but, otherwise, an application of thermonuclear fusion which, when deployed appropriately, presents us with the needed means for the prospectively great future of the human species.

That which I have written here, this far, is merely the gist of what should be foreseeable as the outcome of the following analysis to be considered here now. That much said, only the essential introductions have now been made here this far. We must now continue with deeper insights, into the actual implications for mankind’s prospects for its future.


2.

SENSE-CERTAINTY IS A TRAP FOR FOOLS

“But, perhaps you had read my news inside-out!”

That most commonplace, and also the most thorough-going incompetence, which confronts the attempts at setting values according to popular modes of comprehension for the sense-perceptual true values of a planet, would be comparable to the example of the human habitation of Earth. The fact of this matter is, that the values assigned for the examination of earthlings’ sense-perception, even when most broadly defined, do not even begin to actually measure the role of mankind’s behavior as a living species, even for Earth itself.

To make that point clear in an emphatic way:

That intrinsically futile presumption might be replaced by a turnabout which puts the emphasis, on the actual process of change itself. In other terms, the identifiable process of ontological change, rather than an “object-thing,” must be recognized as absolutely primary for mankind’s requirements. I mean the characteristics of a seemingly self-evolving process of continuing change, rather than being what it actually the folly of a kinematic principle projected as underlying the mere description of an unseen “organized process.” All that empty-headed foolery of mere description was represented, in fact, as what should have been properly named as merely “sensations.”

The essential characteristic of the human person, is the potential, specific to mankind for as much as we know to the present time, to foresee the future. Admittedly, only a relatively small minority of the populations exhibit that ability to look into the actual future. Notably, all of the small minority of thinkers in the domains of Classical artistic composition and of physical science, are identifiable by their present abilities to see into the future, expressed in the mode of a specific insight into the making of the future.

From this point in the report, henceforth, I shall emphasize the systemic distinction of mere sense-perception from that which meets the standard for reality.

That means, that the still popular, but incompetent notion of a primary emphasis on “sense-perception as such,” falls essentially into the category of a fantasy, that actually as a particular kind of lie which has captured the beliefs of the susceptible ingenue. Instead of mere observations of sense-perceptual experiences, we should rely upon such ironies as the celebrated 1960 German film’s thematic witticism: “The important thing is the effect.”3“Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt,” from the 1960 German film Das Spukschloss im Spessart. Rather than merely reciting the name assigned to an effect, identify the effect itself, but not within the crude terms of sense-perception as such: that required correction supplies the only trustworthy notion of a competently scientific approach. For example: rather than merely pointing to the name of a living process, produce the effect, and then produce the cause of action which had generated the effect.

Shakespeare’s Outlook on Science

Now, with that point of introduction now just stated, let me refocus your attention, again, on the implications of William Shakespeare’s treatment of his invention of the character “Chorus” in his King Henry V.4Compare the implications of my published report, Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare, the hoax of sense-perception, June 10, 2013, published in [[EIR]] [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4025genius_cusa_kepler_shakes.html]] June 21, 2013 or [[LaRouche PAC]] [[http://larouchepac.com/node/26982]]. The thoroughness of Shakespeare’s treatment of the role of Chorus in that drama is among the most provocative pieces of thoroughly crafted irony on the historical record. Admittedly, Shakespeare, especially in his great later compositions, is extraordinary; but this use of the subject of Chorus, in King Henry V presents a multi-dimensionality in depth, which stands out in that way as no other of his works. Almost certainly, its “deep Classical Greek dimensionality” had probably been proven to be far too deep for presentation to most of Shakespeare’s own audiences. For me, personally, what we might term the deeper dimensionality of the play named King Henry V, is among the most profound in conception of virtually any publication of a great Classical work of art on record. I mean by that emphasis, that it has no merely literal meaning; it, like a true drama, stands outside the dimensions of what were ordinarily considered as sense-perception, for the sake of its efficient relevance to the rarely recognized profundity which lies beyond mere sense-perception, which relies for its bearing on ordinary physical science as such. “Ghosts are everywhere in it; but they speak the truth all the more efficiently for what the play actually contains,” insofar as it touches the intentions of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.

For example:

The plausibly original, ancient Greek presentation of Chorus, was an array of blindfolded thinkers (“the better to see the truth – unimpaired”). The functional matching of Shakespeare’s Chorus with the Classical Greek mode, leaves no reasonable doubt respecting Shakespeare’s emphasis on his functionally defined choice of the name of “Chorus.” All that hovers betwixt two domains; which is, therefore the reality, that of the players, or the truth-seer? “Chorus” is the reality of the shadows of the unfolding imagery of the panorama of the characters seen and heard while moving as if they had been merely the likeness of shadows cast upon the stage.

However, Shakespeare’s own King Henry V, is no ordinary panorama. The essential fact of that matter is the need to free mankind from the childish superstition of bare sense-perception as merely that.

The characters presented as on stage, are shadows cast by Shakespeare whose effect is as if dreaming aloud on stage. More than just that; the drama shows something crucial in the subject’s, King Henry V’s vision, that of a drama which had been fashioned by the imagined actual existence of the players attributed to the events, when witnessed as if they might be imagined to be really on stage. Shakespeare, acting as if through the medium of Chorus, presents an adopted choice, an imagined drama placed as if by a personal narration by a Shakespeare as author and narrator, then presenting an account of events on an imagined stage for a real history, but behind the narrator’s curtained place. Shakespeare is as if the sole speaker on stage; he can be seen and heard; the rest, are ghosts, like shadows, imagined as shadows whose heard voices are a substance which is hidden behind the curtain of chronicled events, which is heard as the sights and sounds of the story being told, a recitation of events which might be placed actually from behind the curtain, as done for the purposes of a demonstration of a principle.

As for the players which had been actually assigned by Shakespeare himself to the performance, the players on stage, are not seen directly in this cut from the proceedings; they are imagined creations of the author, and, like the best drama performed on a Classical stage, carry a power of persuasion which no ordinary flesh and blood speakers could have conveyed: only truly polished performers and directors on stage could have been so intimately persuasive in such a presentation intended by Shakespeare. The action of the imagined characters is thus suggested to be more real than that drama itself.

Now, turn around the setting identified above. Now, the images of the actors as on stage come forward, while the voice of Chorus recedes into the background in times when Chorus’ voice and accompanying sounds appear to the audience’s imaginations.

Now, let me speak of that drama on my own account, as if I were performing the voice of Shakespeare’s figure of Chorus.

I have not been idly playing with your attention in the foregoing bit of thought-experimenting. There is a deeper purpose to my course of action here and now. Follow me now, accordingly.

No Tricks on This Stage

Now, it is time to revise what had appeared to have been the script of this drama. Now, sense-certainty takes its turn in playing the fool. The fool caught out, is now what is commonly known as sense-certainty. Now, that once said, on top of what had been the topic of discussion for this present chapter, we have touched the grisly truth of the story which has already been in progress: the story which you may have been misled to believe, had been that of sense-perception. It is the intention of Shakespeare to function in the role of Chorus in the selection of either a time past, or a future time.

Now, shift the point of emphasis, to the Classical image of the traditionally ancient Greek Chorus. On that account, I shall speak for myself here and now.

The essential, but, unfortunately, only rarely acknowledged fact, which separates the human mind from that of the beasts or their living likenesses, is that only the human mind is known to us, presently, as being enabled to generate knowledge of a physically efficient principle which shall actually generate an actual future state in, for example, the immediate future of society.

On that account: take the case of a Bernhard Riemann, “speaking” on behalf of his account in his own habilitation dissertation, or, later, the cases of both great scientists Max Planck and Albert Einstein, who are also, like the Bernhard Riemann of his own habilitation dissertation, speaking for the future which already exists in their expressed foreknowledge. All essential discoveries of a future truth by human individuals, express the true principle of the human mind’s ability to know, and to relay actual knowledge of a quality of change of principle for a future which lies, efficiently, in the actual future, rather than that of merely sense-perception as such. Contrast the case of Bertrand Russell, who had no actual principle, but whose forecasts were expressed as if coming out of an unkempt outhouse, where he had recently deposited something nasty, perhaps some likeness to that credulous Russian scientist Alexander Oparin who had served, repeatedly, as a dupe of such as the British circles of Russell and Haldane, that in opposition to the still originally great Russian-Ukrainian scientist V.I. Vernadsky, still to this present date.

The Actual Principle of the Human Mind

It is necessary, at this point, to emphasize the fact that I have accomplished more than several, rather widely known notable discoveries of future principled states of qualitative changes in the mid-courses of actually future history, chiefly political-economic forecasts, such as that which became most notable in my late 1960s forecast of the collapse of the U.S. economy which actually “exploded” during the Summer of 1971. There have been some actual such unique historical occurrences earlier and later. These have been notable publicly because they had occurred as abruptly expressed events in the public domain of national economies, or even internationally, and had been thus notable for reason of the emphatically political character of the implications of the relevant developments.

Notably, since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and, the subsequent assassination of his brother Robert Kennedy, there has been an accelerating decline in the occurrence of publicized actual discoveries of economically consummated, principled achievements of discoveries of actual physical principles in the United States. In general, not only have the competently defined “I.Q.” implications collapsed, but the level of intelligence within the general population has experienced a still-currently accelerating decline in rate of validatable discoveries of actual principle, which has been obscured by the accelerating accumulation of vicious stupidities associated with the spiral of “green” mental degeneration of the citizens spread among so-called “environmentalists.”

However, all those are, in the main, merely phenomena, although they merely reflect matters of principle which, essentially, go much deeper. We shall now consider the more crucial points. The case of what I have presented here, earlier, as my argument respecting William Shakespeare, remains the essentially relevant point to be emphasized.


3.

THE NOËTIC PRINCIPLE

The challenge posed by my arguments presented here this far, is typified most efficiently by the inherent corruption expressed in the absurd, but popular, reductionist dogma of the wretched Euclid. It was a doctrine which I had met, in a manner of speaking, in my introductory secondary-school class in geometry, which had, in fact, demonstrated to me the fraud inherent in the Aristotelian method, the method expressing such notable nonsense as the ontological farce of Euclidean geometry.

Consider the following, pregnant excerpt from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in his tour to doom. The subject which I call to your attention, consists of 10 concluding lines from the celebrated Act-III soliloquy of Hamlet:

. . . But, that the dread of something after death –

. . . The undiscover’d country, from whose bourn

. . . No traveller returns, – puzzles the will,

. . . And makes us rather bear those ills we have

. . . Than fly to others that we know not of ?

. . . And, thus, the native hue of resolution

. . . Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought;

. . . And, enterprises of great pith and moment,

. . . With this regard, their currents turn awry,

. . . And, lose the name of action . . . .5Copyright MCMLXXV by Crown Publishers, Inc. Library of Congress Catalog 74-28554.

This wish for Hamlet’s protracted and foolish flight in search of death, had thus become his thus compelled intention, while that extraordinarily maddened and tormented life, went from blow, to blow, to the end. That end to his declaration portrays an experience from that moment in Hamlet’s depicted life which had thus become transformed, by an implicit intention to fulfill a horrid desire for death, the mission of the murderous coward who fears nothing as much as his own gruesomely tormented inner life, the will to wish he would have died, thus to have lived out a brutish obsession which carried him to a place beyond a protracted, gruesome outcome, which, despite all since, is a kind of crime which re-enacts itself among many nations of the world today.

The question thus put, repeatedly before the nations of this planet today, continues to be ominously prophetic still, from the presently living, unquieted moment, in comparison with the impassioned torment of successive, self-inflicted follies, upon our nations now.

When we make such matches in Shakespeare’s dramas, as between that of his King Henry V, and of his Hamlet, when compared with our critical, real-life moments of the nations of the world today, we may be justly compelled to wonder if, in certain of the works of Shakespeare, in particular, there lies an echo, as a kind of prototype, of what is concerning the sense of an actual destiny now lurking nearby us, now, today. That is, in fact, my comparison on this account, which is no idle sort of speculation: so much so, that we are obliged to view some subject-matters of history as having been omens supplied to us by those of us who are both wise, and who also tend to wonder: were this truly a forecast which has expressed the human individual’s natural advantage over the beasts, in making the species of great forecasts of the present future, which I, as others, have done, on a number of occasions, as the portent of an uniquely natural gift of mankind as a species, the consequent ability to truly forecast the pending outcome of a foreknowledge of an actually pending future. Others should have recognized the nature of certain human affairs on this account.

There are two, notably alternative explanations for what may appear to have been such foreknowledge of the actual future. I explain the relevant allusion to certain among Shakespeare’s forecasts from the set of his presented quasi-historical dramas: first, the role of “Chorus” in King Henry V, and, second, the later Hamlet.

From my own experience, there is nothing in such forecasts which might not be placed in some of Shakespeare’s dramas, nor, which does not fit some real-life experience of successful forecasting, and that of a type which I had experienced such on a significant number of actually historical occasions, and, as also representing that same, implied method of forecast which Shakespeare had often crafted as such conceptions of actual forecasting in certain notable instances. Nor should such connections be considered as improbable matches.

Those two occasions which I have selected from Shakespeare’s works, have what we might regard as tell-tale evidence to such an effect. I describe the relevant argument.

What Does ‘Genius’ Properly Signify?

The essentially functional distinction of what is properly identified as a human quality of “genius,” is that the effect as identifiable of exactly that, is a natural effect, one specific to the best of our present knowledge, as unique to the human mind, and as distinct from the capabilities of other known species. The relevance of that connection among other things, is that it requires actual evidence of a type corresponding, with remarkable significance, to the plot-design of the two cases from Shakespeare which I have referenced above. A similar phenomenon applies to work of similarly qualified playwrights, Classical poets, and truly exceptional Classical composers, as from Bach, through to Brahms, which also appears in the most notable musical performances of Wilhelm Furtwängler, such as his matchless concluding treatment of The Ninth Symphony of Franz Schubert.

This same quality of “true genius,” permeates science, poetry, and the discoveries of physical principle, alike. It is the same quality of genius which defined the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as also the unique quality of genius represented by Johannes Kepler. In fact, the only true geniuses known among us, are those who exhibit that same general qualification of individual human creativity.

The best evidence bearing efficiently on this general category of truly “creative” subjects, is to take note of the cases in which there is no essential distinction in practiced method, among Classical works of true discoveries in the domain of physical science and Classical modes of composition generally which also define the truly greatest Classical poets and Classical artists as a category. It is the category itself which is defining, rather than isolated manifestations of types of such principled creativity.

The interesting subject of needed attention on the account of such distinctions, is the great surge of a volume of failed attempts to match truly Classical compositions, by some purported substitutes. That latter trend, especially since the death of such as President Franklin Roosevelt and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, are instances which demonstrate the principle of their genius, and its effects, as distinct from such specimens of the most publicized representatives of three successive generations of the family of a Prescott Bush notable for his financial rescue of the political ambitions of Adolf Hitler. Throughout U.S. history to date, it is fairly stated that the failures of our republic have been largely due to what are fairly described as morally bankrupted incumbents installed in our nation’s Presidencies.

This matter of the difference of a relative handful of great candidates for U.S. President, from the numerous alternatives, should be our present leading subject for consideration now. The history of relatively ancient, through contemporary European and U.S. traditions, are ably instructive on this account.

Good or Evil?

From readings of ancient through medieval and modern societies and their governments, the rough estimate of the contrasted qualities of nations and their systems of government, corresponds with often clear distinctions, to characteristics of two categories of systems of government; these categories correspond with impressive fidelity to William Shakespeare’s concept of two counterposed notions of the quality of mankind: the one, to work to ruin the moral and intellectual qualities of mankind as mankind, the other to liberate nations and peoples from such expressions of the so-called oligarchical conceptions of society. Wall Street, for example, is absolutely nothing but oligarchical, or, in other words, typical of reigning systems of society which are inhuman-on-principle in practice.

Such have been the cases of such as the mass-murder of the relatively ancient society of Troy, or the Roman empire, or the contemporary Anglo-Dutch empire (of which William Shakespeare, and later, the Massachusetts settlements had had a relevant experience), a British Empire created by the tyranny of the Dutch imperialists.

The principal motive for the nastiness of the imperialism-modeled systems of tyranny, has been the suppression of the morally superior cultural impulses, as typified by the mass-murder of the Christians under repression by the Roman Empire and also its heirs in intention.

What, therefore, is the key to the Christian Apostle’s superiority over the Roman rulers, for example? The New Testament, for example, had a rich Apostolic account of this matter.6There are two, closely related points of evidence on this account: I Corinthians, Chapter 13, and the distinction of the silly witchcraft of Euclidean geometry from a competent physical geometry, such as that discussed concerning the work of Jonas Bolyai, by his father Farkas, and the cautious support given by the great Carl F. Gauss. Euclid’s geometry is founded in an evil design, which is so to be recognized by actual scholars in a treatment of merely deductive methods.

The effect of an induced, reductionist world-outlook, is shown with significant precision by such examples as the conflict between the great scientists such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, and the rabidly evil Bertrand Russell and his present-day accomplices.

The effect of what are properly defined as reductionist ideologies, shows the lack (or, loss) of the ability to understand the functions of mankind on Earth, or, clearly, also, the Solar system. The effect of loss of an actual human mentality, in favor of so-called “practical” ideologies, is a loss of an entire category of the functions of the human mind, by such as among the members of the Wall Street gang, now, or the Emperor Nero, then.

This contrast, as shown by William Shakespeare’s craftings, when they are contrasted with the Anglo-Dutch faction assembled since Queen Elizabeth and the Stuarts, and their combination as the British empire, is a kind of loss of connection to the notion of the actual soul which no amount of preaching, or science-education could actually correct.

That is, not really merely coincidental with not only the masterpieces produced by William Shakespeare, as reflections of the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa and Cusa’s heir in science, Johannes Kepler. That is what each among the young should make certain that you understand.

Footnotes

1I.e., the now declining British Queen, Elizabeth II, has demanded a rapid reduction of the human species, from seven billions souls, to one billion, or less.
2Jasper Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s Debate With John Wenck, The Arthur J. Banning Press, Minneapolis, 1981-84.
3“Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt,” from the 1960 German film Das Spukschloss im Spessart.
4Compare the implications of my published report, Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare, the hoax of sense-perception, June 10, 2013, published in [[EIR]] [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4025genius_cusa_kepler_shakes.html]] June 21, 2013 or [[LaRouche PAC]] [[http://larouchepac.com/node/26982]]. The thoroughness of Shakespeare’s treatment of the role of Chorus in that drama is among the most provocative pieces of thoroughly crafted irony on the historical record. Admittedly, Shakespeare, especially in his great later compositions, is extraordinary; but this use of the subject of Chorus, in King Henry V presents a multi-dimensionality in depth, which stands out in that way as no other of his works. Almost certainly, its “deep Classical Greek dimensionality” had probably been proven to be far too deep for presentation to most of Shakespeare’s own audiences.
5Copyright MCMLXXV by Crown Publishers, Inc. Library of Congress Catalog 74-28554.
6There are two, closely related points of evidence on this account: I Corinthians, Chapter 13, and the distinction of the silly witchcraft of Euclidean geometry from a competent physical geometry, such as that discussed concerning the work of Jonas Bolyai, by his father Farkas, and the cautious support given by the great Carl F. Gauss. Euclid’s geometry is founded in an evil design, which is so to be recognized by actual scholars in a treatment of merely deductive methods.