THE SEARCH FOR A MISLAID TRUTH

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

October 12, 2013


Actually, how good, or bad, is sense-perception? Or, to put the question squarely, how far should you really trust sense-perceptions, and for what purposes? Therefore, go back, once more, to my own “bench-mark” publication of June 10, 2013, Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare,1[[EIR]], June 21, 2013 [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4025genius_cusa_kepler_shakes.html]] or [[LaRouche PAC]] [[http://larouchepac.com/node/26982]] and to closely related, subsequent publications of mine, on the same subject, which I had uttered, earlier, during the course of this present year to date.

Take into account the history of mankind’s past, and then current beliefs, such as, in particular, the still lingering fraud of Euclid in our educational systems, as contrasted with the proper indictment for which Bernhard Riemann had aimed in respect to the then-continued follies of the contemporary geometry of his own time: follies which, in the large, had been perpetrated, as if officially, in presently, still contemporary, academic times: especially since the dominant, post-World War I role of the modern arch-hoaxster, Bertrand Russell.

Now, the world is presently hovering at, figuratively, the brink of the opportunity for mankind’s contemplated ventures into nearby Intra-Solar space, and, prospectively, beyond. There, sense-perception as we had thought that we had understood it from within the climates of Earth, is now menaced with a loss of control brought on by those evil old, oligarchical habits on which mankind had depended, now, too long. Our old habits will, even at their best, no longer suffice; the old habits of sense-perception are challenged by our species’ “toe-in-the-water” gestures in the direction of a relatively nearby part of solar space. Now, just as Nicholas of Cusa had demanded an escape from the Atlantic boundaries of Europe, to enter a new world whose reach had lain beyond the habitats of the old-Europe-centered continent, it may now be said, that nearby space is not to be contained by the habituated, old fantasies of the human species, nor by fantasies whose rude view of life had been confined to Earth, nor to dwell in a different human life isolated in a distant single world, such as Mars, beyond.

Do not be childish! It is not necessarily the case, that some of our human species are about to flee successfully, en-masse, to a prospective refuge to be sought in a residence on Mars, or anything like that. However, it is now within the prospective reach of our human species, to extend its powers to within some now-redefined limits within the Solar system, and then beyond: it is precisely here that we meet the prospect which is to be actually considered by us currently, presently here and now. We must, of course, aim to gain control over menacing asteroids, and those comparable cases which point toward the immediate mission now challenging mankind. Call this “the defense of Earth” from within the Solar system, or, perhaps, also, from the forces beyond, forces which are the immediate challenges before us on such accounts.

Perhaps, you had once imagined that you were watching the trail of footprints left by some creature invisible to your senses. Or, for example, you might have wished to deny that such a trail had ever existed to be experienced; but, in most such cases, that had been, nonetheless, what had been actually happening recently. The fact could have been, that that event had possibly been simply a case of a foolish misunderstanding, one somewhat like the experience of another case, that reported for the case of Edgar Allan Poe’s celebrated “Purloined Letter.” You might have wisely chosen to admit, that precisely such kinds of experiences are the typical result of believing in the reality of a mere ghost, the ghost of disembodied sense-perceptions. This might be properly classified as “the intrinsic folly of contemporary forms of belief in sense-certainty.”

Or, even otherwise, intelligent persons might fear that their errant passion on this account, leaves them so wound up with their attachments to their own, errant notions of “the physical per se,” that they might have lost sight of the profound nature of the distinction of actual scientific knowledge, from the errant babbling of the mere “sense certainty” of the mere mathematicians. Under certain circumstances, that could become the grip of some sort of foolishness in its own right. Take the typical sort of a case of mental disorder deployed in even the name of “science,” such as the case of errantly rated contemporary physical scientists, including those among notable Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries’ university professors, who have mistakenly committed their careers to certain, actually absurd, reductionists’ fantasies, that done all too often in defense of the hoaxes of such as the wretched Sir Isaac Newton and his relics.

It is important that such mental disorders of belief as Newton’s, in still contemporary cult-beliefs such as those, be cleared away, now, in a time when the practice of serious science must venture outside the domain of childish belief in the follies promoted by belief in bare sense-perception, as now, when the needed remedies for such nonsense, are rather long overdue.

What I shall present here, all in due course, are in the included nature of much-needed new discoveries, such as my intended warning against rejecting presumptions heretofore often considered radical, but which are, nevertheless, urgent matters of science (rather than merely mathematics), matters for practical consideration now. Some of what I shall include here, all in due course, reaches far beyond what might be considered, popularly, as radical; it is, nevertheless, necessary for this immediately present time, and beyond. It might be considered by relatively many, as far beyond their earlier comprehension, but is, nevertheless, an urgently needed, preparatory conception for meeting onrushing future times.2Reality and sense-perception are to be recognized as contradictory; sense-perception is a kind of shadow cast, not the actual reality of experience.

This much said in preparation, I shall now proceed accordingly.


I.

THE FOLLY OF SENSE-DECEPTION


As I had emphasized in my Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare,3See footnote 1. one among the greatest achievements of William Shakespeare, had been his treatment, in his King Henry V, of the role assigned to the part which Shakespeare had given, there, to the character named “Chorus.” The other most powerful of Shakespeare’s dramas on this account, had been, respectively, Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello, all of which are most powerful for the reason of the particular quality of extreme evil which was coincident during the times of their original publication; but, the most intellectually compelling, profound work, lay, as I had already written, in what was the effect of the particular role which Shakespeare had assigned to the part of “Chorus,” in King Henry V.

In the course of my presenting the case for that comparative assessment, it was, and remains essential, to situate such assessments among those dramas according to the ebb and flow of the times within which the compared dramas reflected, each in their turn, the related quality of actually historical, bad times within the transition from the Elizabethan period, through to the horrid ruin by the wars unleashed on the world by the evil Dutch empire’s royal house, as that evil was continued through to the nominally British empire of these present days. The contrast of the two varieties of evil of their respective cases, is the basis for the properly essential assessment of the flow of events, during those times.

That same argument, which I had presented repeatedly earlier during this present year, follows, actually, from the body of evidence to which I had just referred, above. This provides the direct proof of principle for my following, additional statement of physical principle respecting the relationship which I now identify here as what should come to be regarded as the most systemically crucial elements of the relationship between Mars and Earth. The relevance is available, on the condition that you are enabled to avoid the intrinsically deadly shallowness of currently prevalent, nominally sophisticated opinion.

Between Mars & Earth

The course of history since these presently recent times, up to all that has been heretofore broadly considered as the practical prospects for a future Earthly science, includes all that which resembles commonplace notions of human practice, including the generally accepted academic practice of what is currently known as science. Therefore, now consider the prospective subject-matters which I shall introduce here on the subject of nearby Solar space. This certain kind of outlook, has led relevant opinion respecting the notion of mankind’s relationship to Mars; to the notional conception of the prospect of some ultimately actual settlement of actually human populations on Mars. Whether that kind of settlement might actually occur, or not, is not to be the primary relevant subject for discussion here.

Instead, let us consider the relatively nearby planet Mars, as if it were being ruled, intrinsically, as merely a functional subject of human life on Earth. Might the relevant accumulation combining Mars and the indicated set of asteroids, be, actually, functionally, candidate-subjects (e.g. “as if they were non-life kinds of colonial subjects”) for directly, common human control over “dead” satellite colonies, to be controlled by mankind from Earth? The recent case of the landing of Curiosity on Mars, may be considered as an intimation of mankind’s prospectively, feasibly direct, future control of a virtual “monarchy” represented by the virtual personality of mankind “back on Earth:” thus overruling the notion of the future sovereign colonization of such as Mars, as a notion superseded by an assigned role of being a simple non-living, virtual suburb of our own Earth as such. That is the crucial fact of the subject-matter to be considered here.

The Needed Explanation!

Now, consider the relevant argument which what I have just stated, above, now properly implies.

There is nothing in the nature of such matters which is lacking an actual basis in evidence for serious consideration of this matter which I have just stated, already, here and now. In the course of the time which I have implicitly allotted for this report, I shall now point out the argument required for defining the universal physical principle which supplies the evidence for that conclusion, here and now. I proceed, thus, as follows. The relevant, most crucial category of evidence, is to be located in the difference in terms of ontological principle which separates the specific category of mankind from the category of such forms as beasts, and, therefore, from those subjects of an ontologically inferior nature below.

The grave, but also prevalent and foolish assumption has been, largely heretofore, that the required scientific evidence could be allowed to be defined in terms of simply a mere reductionist’s choice of merely mathematically defined evidence! Thus, putting aside the presently, widely defamed reality of the uniqueness of the universal, ontologically noëtic principle of human life per se. Death is widely accepted as a matter of principle, but, contrary to loose misconceptions, the actually ontological distinction of the generative principle of the origin of life as such, is actually not. That, as I shall now emphasize throughout this report, repeatedly, is crucial. There is no actually given proof of life on Mars, this far; that is a certain relatively crucial quality of difference.4For example: What is the actual origin of life, as contrary to the folly of the British myth induced in the former Soviet Union’s Alexander Oparin-Haldane-Fensenkov, radically speculative hypothesis?

The name of that difference lies, uniquely, in an ontological principle which is embedded in the humanly specific, universal, ontological principle of actually human, and, specifically, uniquely human-species’ quality of specifically human creativity. The universal physical principle involved in making this distinction of principle, coincides with the distinction of the actually creative human beings, such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein, from the systemically bestial dead,5Systemically “reductionist.” such as the doctrine of the late Bertrand Russell and his ontologically kindred, behaviorist type of systemically avowed, and actually evil, reductionist. It is also the intrinsic evil embedded in the Anglo-Dutch system of “Wall Street” and similar tyrannies.

The distinction is otherwise expressed to the same effect, by the essentially categorical distinction of the uniquely, and distinctly noëtic powers of the actually healthy state of the human mind: as that is typified by the human mental action defining the distinction of a true universal physical principle, as distinct from a merely mathematical mode of attempted, but wrong definition of a true principle of nature.

There are two such outstanding distinctions which meet my standard of reference for ontological life: (a) life as a principle; (b) the noëtic powers known specifically to be those of true human creativity. Yet, the universe as we experience it, is also creative. The proper notion of an existing Creator, is a congruent notion. The notion of mankind as a reflection of the higher authority of a Creator, fits within the same general notion for us who are merely human varieties of actually creative beings, and, therefore, “no mere folk,” no mere reductionists, above all.

Those terms which I have just referenced, serve us as working principles for our reasonable experience now. On that specific account, I am justified in making the following, specific set of distinctions, bearing on the relative distinctions of meanings which, so clearly, apparently separate Mars from the nature of the creative (i.e., noëtic) strains among the human species: essentially, the species of the specifically human mind, rather than those whose pro-reductionist conditionings, as in the particular cases of contemporary trends in so-called “education,” have wrongfully denied them that, as in cases like those of both Bertrand Russell and his brutes and dupes. The requirement can be expressed in terms of efficient access to powers expressed specifically as actually human creativity, whether it is to be considered as defined temporarily, permanently, or both.

This outlines the case to be defined. This argument, as made here thus far, is intended merely to set the stage for a summary of the needed finer points of distinction. Those relevant arguments now follow in due course here.


II.

THE HUMAN MIND


The distinction of the human being from all other, presently known types of living creatures, lies, intrinsically, in the behavior representing a potential for effecting willfully self-directed categories of, specifically, ontologically upward changes in the expressed, intrinsically willful characteristics of the human species per se. I mean, therefore the principle of life generally, but the life of human individuals, above all else. That situates the crucial fact for our consideration in this particular, present report!

No other species which has been presently known to us, has been enabled to replicate that specifically willful quality of noëtic capability. That ability of the actually noëtic processes within the bounds of the still living human mind, must be recognized as the principle which pre-defines the essential function of a truly healthy state of the still-living human personality.

The human species is categorically unique on that account, to the extent of our present knowledge of life on Earth, or of Mars, for example. “Human” is otherwise absent from the animal species. Our present knowledge on this matter is located, crucially, in the human practice of willful use of fire, when “fire” is expressed in practice on behalf of the needs for the net progress of the development of that human species. All other forms of life are incapable of such efficiently willful use of “fire,” and what it represents in the life-course of the human species. The progress of the human species on this planet, depends upon dedication to a persistent increase of the relative energy-flux density of the sources of power adopted by the relevant gatherings of members of mankind. Human societies which do not conform to that imperative, are threatened with extinction as if they were merely another species of beast: such is the foreseeably threatened destiny of human cultures when they are associated with the so-called “environmentalist” cults.

Nonetheless, the present murderous cults, ranging from cannibalism to “zero economic growth,” when considered as a phenomenon of human existence, have been a powerful, repressive instrument, one whose existence continues to be perpetuated by what is identified as the oligarchical class, as that class is typified, currently, by the thieving magpies of Wall Street and the oligarchical likenesses found in the British empire and kindred locations. The inherently genocidal characteristics of such latter cases, are being very plainly expressed in actions against the present populations of the United States and Europe (among others).

What I have just stated is true; but, that truth requires deeper insights, if we are to avoid the presently lurking threat of a general extinction of the human species, a threat which lies within a role based on any continued extrapolation of such reductionist practices as those. The butchery, even virtual extinction of the people of Troy, on a certain horrible morning, is only typical of the long record of the practices inherent among the inherently criminal characteristics of the oligarchical class, as had been shown similarly in the history of the Roman Empire, as in the bestiality shown by the so-called “British” mass-murder among the people of India, and parallel such cases.

What I have just summarized is fact; but that is only the beginning of the needed insight which those facts require.

Why Should Mankind Exist, Anyway?

In the course of examining the history of mankind since millions or so years of recent existence of the human species on Earth, why has mankind been so extraordinarily important, far more than any other form of life known on Earth so far? Unfortunately, the popular attempts at explanation, by specialists and others, too, have been the source of the essential ignorance which people have employed in their suggested explanations of this apparent mystery. That ignorance, has been the source of their widespread failure to recognize that which should have been most obvious: the uniqueness of the essential basis for the progress of the human species among all known others.

The proper answer to that, requires attention to that willful increase in energy-flux density which is uniquely characteristic of and specific to our species. The only natural enemy of mankind as such is found amid mankind itself, in the continued toleration of the existence of the inheritance of the oligarchical form of society, the oligarchical form which is the only aspect of the human species, the oligarchical “species,” which is, actually, intrinsically, biologically and otherwise naturally unfit to have been enabled to continue to be lived in that type of expression as its species.

The key on which to focus is mankind’s use of “fire,” both actual fire, and man’s mastery of the use of a dedication to an increase of the energy-flux density mustered and aggressively applied by any human society fit to exist as a tolerated form of society. For example: any society which is committed to what is called a “green society,” is a pestilence which tends to be expressed as a crime-wave against some, or even most of past cultures of actual societies, pests ranging from cannibals, to the evil of the predators of North America’s Wall Street.

What then, is the real alternative to the continued reign of such monsters as those?

Beyond Bestiality, There Is Fire of the Mind!

Mankind has always been recognizable as being mankind, by our reliance on the cultivated development of the principle of “fire.” Any chemist of actual scientific worth, could explain it quite readily, if they wished to do so. Study the role of the chemistry expressed in rising states of relative energy-flux density, from simple use of fire, to “thermonuclear fusion,” to “matter-antimatter” prospects.

The act of discovery of what is truly a creative change in the known, unknown, or, in the alternative, knowable principles of nature; is an ontologically defining action on this specific account. That has a uniquely special meaning, insofar as we are considering the specifically unique class of events which are represented by the roles assignable to the human species.

The crucial matter to be considered to be foremost, is the essentially needed consideration of the intrinsically unique quality of the role of actually human creativity as in no other way than as a physical principle as such. The essential evidence of what can be classed as a physical principle experienced within the universe, depends upon the contributions presented by a rigorous notion of the distinction between a mere phenomenon and the practically universal efficiency of what can be efficiently denoted, experimentally, as a physical principle of continuing action. The notable principal discoveries of physical principle by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, go directly to the point for a suitable choice of example for purposes of illustration. As a matter of contrasts, the case of Bertrand Russell and his acolytes, especially since the 1920s in particular, typifies the reductionists’ frauds uttered in the foully abused name of “science.” All of the advocates of the so-called “green doctrine” typify not only outright frauds against science, but are implicitly the advocates of mass murder, even the very contributing authors of generalized genocide.

Insofar as we do know the relevant issues currently up to this time, there is no known instance of any species, other than the human species, which has manifested the ability to generate both explicit knowledge, and related capabilities within itself. All that we have actually known, essentially, heretofore, is that that function does exist in that specific way, and that the exhibited principle itself is accessibly unique to our own species’ present knowledge.

To restate the point to be made: contrary opinions, such as merely deductive ones, are intrinsically erroneous. For contrast, the principal discoveries of founding physical principles of, again, Max Planck and Albert Einstein, are exemplary of the needed directions. Or, the choice might be taken from the earlier times of modern science, of such discoveries as those of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia and, his follower’s, Johannes Kepler’s scientifically revolutionary introduction of the notion of such examples as vicarious hypothesis. From those sources, we have had access to the evidence of a leading role in pre-establishing what may be fairly regarded as the underlying principles of any competent expression of a modern physical science relatively free, at the least, from the customary rubbish introduced as science more recently.

This principle which I emphasize as such here, is to be associated with what is to be qualified as the willfully upward-looking, ontologically, and willfully noëtic cases of what are justly identified as the makers of revolutionary progress expressed by higher insights into universal principle in the leading principles of willfully, ontologically revolutionary rises of physical principle among the human species. I mean that as occurring in contrast to the declines in the human species’ condition which had occurred when such ontologically systemically unique, upward-leaps, such as those of Cusa and Kepler, or Planck and Einstein, or the creations of kindred experiences, do not occur.

The distinctive feature of such an upward progress has been what have been physical-cultural upsurges of relevant societies, upsurges best measured commonly in upward-revolutionary changes in physical principles.

Some Important Considerations

For example, the United States has undergone a continuing process of worsening social-economic self-degeneration, since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That downward trend in the social and economic direction, had been in process as an actually accelerating, now shocking decline since the great “Wall Street crash” of Summer 1971, and had then become an actually continuing breakdown-process, repeatedly, with the advent of yet another U.S. election under yet another descendant, or associate, of the same Prescott Bush who had delivered the price paid by him and others such as Wall Street and London, for Adolf Hitler’s rise to dictatorial mass-murderous powers in Germany and other nations of that interval in history, and, regrettably, also presently.

The upward developments of mankind’s modern society, when they have actually occurred, have been the products of improved social-economic revolutions, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s accomplishments, prior to the crushing of the American development by the evil Dutch empire and its nominally British puppet, followed, in direct contrast, by the founding of our United States, and the subsequently truly perpetual state of warfare between the American patriots and the treasonously inclined, so-called anglophile (a.k.a., “Wall Street”) traitors risen to power as within our republic and beyond.

The cause for the degeneration, as we in the United States have suffered this, is a trend of the type which had already dominated the United States under the nominal leadership of President Harry S Truman, and, again, as an effect generated under the auspices of the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, all of which is to be located, typically, clinically, in the recently recurring eruptions of moral and intellectual degeneration of nations and peoples, as typified by such examples as the earlier Roman and the later, Dutch-British imperialisms of the Seventeenth, through present centuries.


III.

THE HUMAN PRINCIPLE


All that which I had been preparing in the unfolding of this report, this far, has hinged on my attention to a single great noëtic principle. It is a principle which is, so far, ostensibly unique to our human species. That is the specific and the unique principle of argument on which the entirety of this presently ongoing report depends.

Consequently, the most relevant principle here, is to be located by us, here and now, as the distinction of the merely animal forms of life, from the uniqueness of the actually intrinsic characteristics of the human personality: the noëtic principle which must be, heretofore, for us, ostensibly specific, and can be presented competently only when uniquely expressed as to the human species, that in precisely the mode and form which I have specified; no mere interpretation of descriptive prose as such, could be competent.

You will have understood the principle exactly as I have specified, or you had still lacked any vital actual knowledge of that subject, at all. In fact, most people appear to have lacked access to the relevant true competence in the principle which that properly requires. That principle is located, for practice, in what is fairly identified, again here, as that of a notional principle of “fire” which is, according to the known evidence this far, uniquely specific to our human species. It can not be competently created by description, but only discovered, like the conception of a human infant.

The interesting feature of such facts as those to which I have pointed here this far, is something related to the great William Shakespeare’s treatment of the subject of “Chorus” as presented in Shakespeare’s King Henry V. As I had emphasized in the relevant earlier publication, the attempt to reduce truly Classical approaches to scientific principles, has always been a most challenging choice of subject-matter; better said, “a trap for the ignorant believer.” The source of that difficulty, lies not in the subject itself, but in the prevalence of an inherently fanatical sort of popular ignorance—especially the stubborn, actually anti-scientific ignorance inherent in what is termed “common sense,” so described by those, unfortunately, merely “practical folk,” whether, for example, Republicans or Democrats, who avoid the highway while they are occupied in the pursuit of a consoling embrace of the ditch.

I do not deny that much which is presented in the abused name of “science,” is carelessly crafted “stuff.” This fault has been greatly magnified by the increasing lack of the proper foundations of any adequately competent practice of physical and related science: a decline in scientific literacy which has been an accelerating trend in society since such examples as the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. This shows in the sharply accelerating rate of decline in the competent practice of science since the stunning crisis experienced during the close of Summer-December 1971. What I intend by stating the matter in this way, as specifically here and now, is emphasis on the intellectual decline among the members of our U.S.A. population, and comparable, rabid quality of decadence of the cultures of Europe under the Anglo-Dutch tyranny’s ranting and raving destructions of their economies and the collapse into deadly “green” cultures.

The Queen of England, for example, has exposed herself (politically and morally) by her intended, and also baldly declared goals of mass-murder amid the havoc which she and her Dutch accomplices have explicitly intended to be mass murder, and which they have continued to bring into practice. It has been on that account, that I reference her repeatedly stated intention to slash the population of the planet, rapidly, even suddenly, from an estimated seven billions human souls, to a single billion, or less. The still incumbent President, Barack Obama of the U.S.A., is now echoing the same trend of the Anglo-Dutch-led genocide now indigenous to western and central Europe, and, in progress in the United States under the influence of the President Barack Obama who is now careening the nation toward the depths of genocide with his most recently expressed policies of practice.

Such are the obvious evils centered now in the trans-Atlantic regions. Where such murderous crimes-in-fact reign, there is no true law, and even the mere name of “law,” becomes a travesty.

The Principled Practical Argument

The common error among even most well-written books on the subjects of grammar, even by what might be considered as educated persons, is reliance on mere description, or modified relations taken by descriptions adduced from the codified “laws” of mere grammar, rather than reliance on actually physical principles of human life. What is required, is an appropriate physical principle as such, not deductions crafted for the purpose of deductions; only truly noëtic creations as such are valid for such occasions.

Now, the time has come, here, to take up the issue of the prospects for human life on planet Mars.

Therefore, let us grant, by assumption, that an actually prolonged colonization of Mars by colonists, as distinct from “visits,” is a doubtful prospect for the expected future. Consider possible debates respecting the possibility of human life planted on Mars. Why, on Earth, would any prospective colonist desire to become a full-fledged settler on Mars? Since the successful launch of Curiosity, we have had the prospect of placing highly developed robots as implicitly permanently functioning on Mars; we have already taken a first step in that general direction with the landing of a skilled robotic work-horse named “Curiosity.” More in that general direction, is highly desirable from the vantage-point of Earth.

Let me come directly to the core of the issue now immediately at hand. The real issue, so situated, is the principle of difference between a robot and a human individual, and robotics does have the potential of inherent intention of design which could be most impressive for the purpose of considering the increasingly potent role they could perform on behalf of mankind’s extremely valuable development of Mars, that without requiring a single person’s permanent habitation of that planet. The essential distinction, between robotics and the human mind, which must be considered, is exactly just that. No “Buck Rogers,” or “Jules Verne” required.

The purpose of development of nearby bodies within relatively nearby Solar space, is to control both relevant planets (immediately) within the Solar system, and to enable systems established by Earth for the promotion of the interests of man-kind expressed through the use of sophisticated robotics as the means for Earthly mankind’s gaining of extended control over classes of in-space phenomena from controlling points within the bounds of Earth as such, and of a certain crucial role to be performed on our Moon.

The greatest source of practical obstacles to such arrangements as those, has been the stupidity of nations whose incompetent practices are typified currently by the suppressing of the urgently needed development of systems of expression of thermonuclear fusion needed in place, on Earth and in its immediate vicinities. However, before we could be enabled to install relevant systems on objectives such as Mars, we require a fairly estimated requirement of probably eight to a dozen years of leading installations of systems of thermonuclear fusion with such ranges as the trans-Pacific regions from the Mississippi River into the Arctic and deep throughout the Pacific Ocean, and deep into the mainlands of Asia and its maritime regions.


IV.

THE NOËTIC PRINCIPLE


Experience does sometimes teach important lessons, but, in my experience, the occasions have become relatively rare over the course of recent generations of the trans-Atlantic regions. The unfortunates do, admittedly, often with insistence, but foolishly insist that people could never possess foreknowledge of the future. Those folk almost never realize that that insistence from them is actually untruthful; it represents a condition of even allegedly “sincere” belief; but, more to the point, it almost never approaches “truthful.” Any fully competent scientist knows better; but, unfortunately, honest such scientists have become, increasingly, relatively rare.

I have made a certain kind of leading virtual profession of not-infrequent, successful forecasting, as I had done that frequently “on the public record.” These cases have been dated, in terms of my economic forecasting from occasions since the middle to late 1950s, the 1960s, and, somewhat more frequently, into the present time.

The proverbial root of my justly increasing confidence in the successes of my practice of forecasting, can be traced, in its roots, back to the times of my resentment against the frequent insistence, as in my education in public schools and later, against pre-packaged “answers” in school-time and related experiences. I emphasize what has often been prescribed as the commonplace basis for the use of such implicitly predetermined answers. Consider, for example, typical cases in the process of submitting to forms of management based on relatively “officially,” implicitly prescribed answers. I mean, for example, what had been prescribed questions built into memorized or similar “educational,” or comparable programs of pre-demanded behavioral modification, such as those presented against either students, or in the role of prescribed academic recipes stuffed into the heads of varieties of underlings of one sort or another, which is to say, what is essentially a prevalent vice.

The outcome of such “conditioning” of students, or others, has been a corrosive effect on the potential powers for recognition of truth throughout the relevant cases in that society. My greatest advantage in what passes as my public life and related occasions, is that I have tended, more or less strongly, against submitting to such doctrinal rituals of public mimicries. The benefit which I have enjoyed as a fruit of the freedom upon which I have often seized, is a result of my habituated awareness of the effects of an habituated, actually slavish sort of submission by the student, to a quest for what might pass for the likeness of what might be imposed as the putative “right answer.” Thus, I have often been privileged to see the truth most clearly, when the victims of what passes for “accepted” academic answers, turn out, in the end, to have been “official,” but “thoroughly and consistently wrong” in their beliefs. This has been relatively the case, most frequently, now.

In my professional practice of economic forecasting, for example, the celebrated public debate with British economist Abba Lerner at Queens College of December 2, 1971,6My putative rivals were forecasting by statistical-trends methods, which, in general, have infallibly failed on a matter of principle, exactly as I had forecast. It is the reliance on “statistical trends“ which is the chief root-cause the incompetent performance of most “market forecasters. and, frequently, over the later years, is relatively notable.

The public embarrassment of Professor Abba Lerner, on that occasion, was impressive in its effect at that time; but, the deeper implication of my own successful forecasting itself, had come to be chiefly (willfully) forgotten over the course of the wear-and-tear of time. Most of my opponents in that 1971 debate have either died, or have become overlooked over the course of the subsequent decades; but, the ignorance among economists and related cases, and their incompetence has become far worse than then, now today: on both sides of the Atlantic, than ever before.

Had This Problem Been a Fall in ‘I.Q.’

The subject which I have hauled into view for the purposes of this presently published report, is not unrelated to the popular notion of “Intelligence Quotient (IQ);” but, “IQ” as a subject of linear matters, and the effectively actual intelligence of persons, are not the same subject-matters. The distinction has crucial significance relative to the subjects which I had brought on-board in the Introduction and subsequently preceding chapters of this present report.

The essential fact of this matter, is that, indeed, it is clear that the equivalent of what had been the level of intelligence of the population of the United States, has been careening in the direction of the “bottom;” the resulting decline in level of intelligence, has now become implicitly catastrophic, becoming worse in each recently succeeding generation since the assassination of both President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert; but the trend since the political ascent of the set of the heirs of the Prescott Bush who had played a leading part in sponsoring Adolf Hitler’s rise to dictatorial power in Germany, has been characteristic of a downward accelerating, moral and intellectual decline spread throughout the nation in particular, and the Anglo-Dutch depravity spreading in Europe still.

That is a true fact which must be considered; but, let us pursue a more fruitful, more deep-going issue.

The Principle of Creativity

To repeat a statement of the theme which I have emphasized in the past, on this same account:

The distinction of the human individual, and his or her species, lies in the unique characteristic of dependency of the human species on “the principle of fire.” Not only, is the willful use of fire unique to the human species, but the existence of the development of progress by the human species, is what, in fact, distinguishes human individuals from the beasts. The successful existence of the human species, thereupon, depends upon the successive rises in energy-flux density on which the continued existence of our species demands.

We are, presently, at the brink of a mustering of reliance on the principle of energy-flux density associated with thermonuclear fusion, the standard on which the future success of the human species now depends as a working commitment to mankind’s existential future. Recently, since the launching of the Indo-China war which had been unleashed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (and, then, his brother, Robert), the United States has been ruined by the combination of a prolonged war in Indo-China, and the intimately related lunacies of the Anglo-Dutch destruction of civilization generally through promotion of a so-called “green” mass lunacy. The latter form of present-day mass-lunacy (and inflicted genocide of our own population as well), has brought mankind to a threatened brink of mass-murderous genocide of the human species generally.

That policy of lunacy, which has been led, in fact, by the Dutch and British imperial model policies of genocide, has brought all mankind to a threatened virtual, thermonuclear brink of sudden genocide against the entirety of our species. However, that is only the immediate challenge; there is, in the meantime, a necessary and wonderful alternative for that presently threatened tragedy of all mankind.

It has been demonstrated, beyond doubt, that the Anglo-Dutch horror now threatening the human species’ very existence, as was done in the genocide against ancient Troy, must be firmly and permanently “shut down,” for the sake of the continued existence of the human species on this planet. It is most urgent, that the continued program of genocide associated with the Anglo-Dutch imperialism be promptly and thoroughly “shut down.” We stand now at the brink of a threatened end of the continued existence of the human species. Already from Russia to the Pacific and otherwise, the muster of conflicting forces of thermonuclear and related actions, demands the termination of the trends in policies of practice based on the intention of the Anglo-Saudi launching of the so-called “9-11,” since the year of the actual inauguration of President George W. Bush, Jr. The drums of global thermonuclear war are now already sounding, with the present Saudi kingdom the most mass-murderously inclined factor linked to the Anglo-Dutch postures.

However, as significant as that foregoing threat may be, the most urgent issue is not the prevention of such warfare and its like. The crucially important consideration for the longer term, is the present muster of national forces being assembled within Eurasia east of Russia, and reaching deep into the Pacific Ocean. These are forces of defense which represent a barrier against the present Anglo-Dutch evil, but also the opportunity to block the threatened extinction of the human species which the present Anglo-Dutch interests now threaten, unless they are forced to submit to reason. For us, that threat is also a threat of the extinction of our United States.


V.

THE AVAILABLE FUTURE BEFORE US


The foregoing chapter has now brought our attention back to the mission which I had been in the process of already outlining in the preceding chapter, here, earlier. To wit:

It is necessary to consider the fact, that what we call human sense-perception does not correspond to actually truthful representations of the Solar system’s experience’s view of Earth as such. That does not detract, essentially, from the actual usefulness of sense-perception for the ordinary usefulness of sense-perception as such; but, it does detract considerably from the truth as the barely exposed truth, as the truth might be defined by the bare experience of the Earth, or as the experience of animal sense-perceptual functions should view the planets and asteroids and Solar system itself. The particular problem this presents, is that we earthly humans have been “designed” to conform to the requirements of animal and like designs of animal and related biological sense-perceptions as such.

However, a broader view of physical perceptions has provided us with alternatives to mere animal sense-perceptions, as, for example, the leading edge of the known discoveries of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, for example. However, ... the result of such reflections on mankind’s actual (ever incompleted) knowledge of the true universe must assume the role of ever-deeper-rooted insight into the universe—as by an endlessly bottomless quest for knowledge of what the universe might be, as if “at bottom” and “top” alike.

My emphasis on the approaches of Nicholas of Cusa and Johannes Kepler, when combined with the systemic examination of the expressed, underlying principles of life-per-se, are otherwise complemented by ever-deeper powers of insight into the mysteries and motives of human social processes, while fighting against the wishful thinking of the simple-minded observers of daily life, as Nicholas of Cusa and Johannes Kepler typify the quests for newly universal modes for insight into what is a truly universal science which is to be found beyond the swamp-like experience of the merely practical man’s opinions. Mankind must throw off the yokes of sense-certainty, to learn to escape the swamps of mere sense-perception, to seek out the functional realities of our probes into the universe as primarily a universe, as Cusa and Kepler had set out such an experience in their time. We have a universe which must be made to qualify as our own.

There is one particular concern to be examined on such accounts: the underlying role of only truly Classical artistic composition, its mystery, and its performance, as for the mysteries required for truly Classical musical composition, drama, painting, and sculpture, as a medium of subtleties freed from what passes for the implicit beat of the inherent state of those acts of lurking drunkenness, of what is marked as merely popular entertainments. For that purpose, Classical artistic composition and its performance must carry our very souls as if into a greater universe, beyond any ordinary apprehension of the universe which we must experience as the higher reality enveloping our innermost experience of a truly Classical intention, an actual apprehension of immortality.

Footnotes

1[[EIR]], June 21, 2013 [[http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2013/4025genius_cusa_kepler_shakes.html]] or [[LaRouche PAC]] [[http://larouchepac.com/node/26982]]
2Reality and sense-perception are to be recognized as contradictory; sense-perception is a kind of shadow cast, not the actual reality of experience.
3See footnote 1.
4For example: What is the actual origin of life, as contrary to the folly of the British myth induced in the former Soviet Union’s Alexander Oparin-Haldane-Fensenkov, radically speculative hypothesis?
5Systemically “reductionist.”
6My putative rivals were forecasting by statistical-trends methods, which, in general, have infallibly failed on a matter of principle, exactly as I had forecast. It is the reliance on “statistical trends“ which is the chief root-cause the incompetent performance of most “market forecasters.