New Paradigm for Mankind Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Transcript
March 20, 2014 • 11:32AM

Watch the full video here, and listen to the audio here.

MEGAN BEETS: Today is March 19th. Welcome to this week's edition to the New Paradigm for Mankind. My name is Megan Beets, and I'm joined today in the studio by Jason Ross of the LaRouche PAC Scientific Research Team and Lyndon LaRouche. Now, people who have been following this website know that the days and weeks that we're living through now are not only a crucial turning point for the future of the nation, but this is the decisive point for the future of civilization; and we are long beyond the point where Obama's removal must occur, before his British Empire controllers have the opportunity to pull the trigger for World War III.

Now, we had some significant action inside the Senate occurring over the past week, begun by an important speech by Dianne Feinstein last Tuesday, on the issue of what really amounts to violations of the constitutional separation of powers by the White House, on the issue of her staff being spied on by the CIA at the order of the White House. Now, her raising this issue, which was echoed by prominent Democratic leaders, senators and others, was not a response to some immediate situation; this is something she's known about for quite some time. But this is a response to the pressure coming on from the global situation, and it indicates that we are now in an impeachment mode.

Now, in that context, last night Mr. LaRouche, you delivered an address to your associates and you described it as a "much-needed included lesson in the principles of physical scientific principles," without you said, we could not succeed in our mission, and you challenged us to understand the crucial difference between literary description and actual physical scientific discovery. So, Jason, I think you have a little something to say on that.

JASON ROSS: I do, I've got some things to say about the future, and looking at it. I actually wanted to start with a quote from another discussion that Mr. LaRouche had with his associates a week ago. You had said, then, Lyn,

"And don't tell me it hasn't been proven yet; before you start saying I haven't proven something you better check your own record on forecasting great events.

"And that's why I'm insisting on, don't try to go from your own standpoint! Don't say you're 'uncertain' about this. You have no right to be uncertain! When have you ever taken on a historical forecasting process like this? When have you ever done that? Who's ever done it? Who's ever done it repeatedly? And if you're not able to forecast, don't try to put yourself in a position of judging how forecasting works. Before getting into that business, you better find out what forecasting is, and you better find out whether you have the capability of performing it."

So, that's excellent advice: Like take any of these strategic situations, take what's going on right now with the threat of thermonuclear war with Russia. Many people, almost everybody, including many people working with you, have disagreed repeatedly, whether they say it or not, with your assessments on this. And you have to ask yourself the question, about a strategic concept, say, "what right do I have to disagree?" or better, "what right do I have to have an opinion at all on this matter?" Because so often, people don't conceptualize a full view of global strategy. If you're not, in your own mind, working out your view of global strategy in history, then your opinion on strategic matters really can't matter. They can't be valid, if you're not making them from the standpoint of someone trying to think about the future. And if you're not, you should just be quiet, because you really can't be right.

So, on the Russia front, for example, you know, a year or so ago, some people were saying, "well, LaRouche is exaggerating. The anti-missile systems being placed in Eastern Europe won't be ready for years, so the opportunity for a first strike, which is still insane, against Russia, isn't going to be here for years, so the threat doesn't exist right now." Well, as we've seen, with what happened in Ukraine, which was pushed from outside Ukraine, of course, using elements that were there, and then the continuing pressure, even after the Ukraine operation that they pushed, somewhat failed, the intention is war. The intention of the empire is depopulation, and the intention of the British Empire, like every descendant of Zeus, has been to crush human creativity. As you said, "that's their zest in life," and they're going to do whatever's necessary to make that happen, and they're perfectly willing to play "chicken" with Russia, to try to get Russia to back down, and if they won't, they've got to be willing to have their bluff called.

So, you were right on that. The rightness didn't come from the immediate events all pushing on each other, and we're going to get into a little bit later, why sense-perception makes people think that way, and what that has to do with actually animal ways of thinking, that we've inherited; and how global strategy works.

To take an economic example of that, because you've been very insistent the past couple of weeks, that strategy's always global, in whatever sense "global" had meaning at the time that you're talking about it in history; to take two economic examples, let's look at biofuels and fracking. Now, fracking is no fracking good, for many reasons. Supposedly, it's an economic boom, because it creates jobs, it creates oil, we want to be independent — I mean gas, rather — we want to be independent from foreign countries, etc. But to look at the physical economics of it, the energy cost of liberating that shale gas, means that there's a huge energy investment to get the hydrocarbons out. If you look at it in terms of how many labor-hours equivalent it takes to get a barrel of oil, that reached a minimum in around 1998 in the U.S., for extracting U.S. oil.

Since then, we've had to use more and more technologies, which it's good to develop new technologies; but there's an increasing economic cost, a physical cost, of going through all the added effort, to end up pulling out the oil. Or pulling out the gas. Same thing with biofuels: Now, biofuels — it's kind of funny to talk about them as a fuel source, because the intent is mainly to destroy the population, but let's say we try to look at them as a potential fuel source: It takes so must energy, so much water, and so much then so much energy to convert the biofuels, that the return on investment, if you look at the amount of energy that goes into producing biofuels, compared to the energy content of the fuel that you can then — the food that you can then burn in your car or pickup truck, it's like 30%, is the return you get on it — being charitable.

So you might say they're marginally profitable, but in reality, they have negative economic value. I want to use a concept, this is a funny term that economists like to use, the "opportunity cost." They say, because every time you make a decision to do something, you decided not to do anything else! So you might say, well, what was the cost of ruling out all your other options, what was the other action you could have taken? That's what economists call an opportunity cost — although they do a terrible job of estimating it, because they don't have a global approach to strategy in economics. The idea of what your other choices are, that you ruled out by taking one decision, well what are all those choices? You have to be a creative person to actually understand that, and even get an idea of what opportunity cost is. So, what's the value of fracked hyrdocarbons? What's the value of those hydrocarbons, or what's the value of biofuel as something you can put in your car, compared to, what's the value of pursuing fracking as a national policy? What's the value of pursuing biofuels as a policy?

The value's negative!

Leaving aside the pollution and the mess of fracking, what is the value of trying to become, in Obama's words, "a new Saudi Arabia"? I don't want to be Saudi Arabia! No one in their right mind should want to be like Saudi Arabia! They exist by exporting raw materials, and in case people hadn't noticed, they're hardly a bastion of democratic values and equal treatment for people, like half their population, for example, women who don't have many rights.

So the value is not about the fracking, the value is not about the biofuels, the value lies in what is the direction that you're going to take for the future? Now, in your very recent paper, the paper you titled, "The Meaning of Life As Such," you wrote about this. You said, "Heretofore, most of the time, nations have tended more to falling into their future, frequently catastrophically, than choosing it effectively." And it's only if you have in mind a vision of the future, a plan for the future, that you can possibly make competent strategy! Otherwise, you end up responding to things in a way that someone else is probably controlling! It's like, look at Ukraine: Would a Ukrainian expert have foreseen the developments that took place in that nation? Partially, yes. Natalia Vitrenko, a former Presidential candidate, in a discussion with you and some others about a year ago, in Germany, had pointed out the rise of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine and the threat that they posed. But what set off the timing? What set off the timing of the Association Agreement with the EU? What about Victoria Nuland and others' meddling in that? That didn't come from inside Ukraine itself. Strategy is global.

And the greatest cause of people making misjudgments, you say, is not recognizing the existence of, and that satanic quality of the British Empire. People don't recognize, or refuse to recognize that evil exists. And then they end up trying to explain bad things that happened in terms of more familiar emotions that they might share, like greed or avarice, or trying to make money — none of which are really what's guiding empire.

It's an ideology, it's not just money. They can make all the money they want, they do that through quantitative easing.

So, how does one become a forecaster? Or at least better understand your forecasting technique, so that — 'cause people might look at what you've done and say, "Well, LaRouche is making this assessment. I've disagreed with a number of times in the past, and generally he's been right, so maybe I should just keep assuming that." That not a bad policy to have! But far better is understanding how you think. That has a lot more value, going into the future.

And we've done work on this, in various means, in these shows, through the website, and the subdomain, science.larouchepac.com, you can find some of our projects on this. But let me take this up — there's a new paper that you began writing today, in response to our discussion last night, called "The Satan in Bertrand Russell." Now, I haven't finished reading it yet, but you say, in the beginning, "The problem of tending to refer to the exterior of a physical scientific principle, rather than actually presenting a competent representation of the principle itself." You can't be a competent economist, for example, without that. You know, you might be an economist who says, "I see the value of science," you calculate the return on the investment, but if you're not really inside it, if you don't know what the scientific method is, what creativity is from the inside, you don't really get it and you get it across to other people. You're not going to grab people.

You refer to the 1900 Paris mathematics conference, where, among other thing Hilbert put out a number of problems, one of this was to axiomatize mathematics. Now... you can't. [laughs]

Gödel proved a couple of decades later, in a really beautiful proof, that, I'm sure it was one of the things that made Bertrand Russell madder than anything else...

LYNDON LAROUCHE: It did.

ROSS: [laughs] That logic, you might think that, okay, the world around us complex, we never understand it all. But surely logic, surely we can understand logic itself!

Gödel said, no! Even a logical system, has embedded in it, part of the creativity of the universe. Even trying to axiomatize arithmetic will fail. Gödel showed that two things would happen: one, either that there are true things that your axiomatic system doesn't include; or, that your axiomatic system includes contradictions. You'll never have a closed, final axiomatization of arithmetic. And if you can't even do arithmetic, forget physics or anything even broader.

So Russell wasn't happy about that, but, look, Cusa already knew this. These two points are exactly two points that Cusa makes. Those two points again, that there's always something there that isn't included, and that your current system includes a contradiction. That's the practice of modern science. Cusa knew that there's always more to find out, and that it was actually by contradictions that the mind is stimulated to reach those new ideas.

You take, in his De Docta Ignorantia, he speaks specifically about astronomy there, for example. He says that the Earth could not move on such a perfect circle, that it couldn't be yet more perfect, and therefore, it doesn't move on a circle; or, that it could not move in an orbit with a center, that couldn't be yet better, that there isn't a fixed center. You know, he describes how the North Star can't be fixed, that basically, fixity, and therefore mathematics or Euclidean mathematics can't be the basis for anything in nature! He was completely right! And this is at an early time, compared to — this wasn't driven by the tools of astronomy, of the measurement devices.

This is from the mind. And then, look at what Kepler did: He did exactly what Cusa had laid out! He wanted to answer a new question, and he also showed the contradiction in trying to approach it in the way that his predecessors had. So, he showed that the wrong question was being asked. Sometimes you wonder about something, and you pose a question in a way that precludes your ever finding out the answer... until you realize that your question is wrong. Which you do all the time, in answering people's questions: You actually make a comment about their questions sometimes, because it doesn't have an answer.

Like if somebody asked you, "Excuse, what kind of moss is a baby?" You could try to describe a baby in terms of moss and plants, you know, you might have something to say. Maybe you'd at least get the mass of the baby, but you couldn't give a satisfying answer, because a baby isn't a plant. Maybe that's an extra-silly example, but the same thing is true of the planets.

Kepler's predecessors, what did they want? They wanted a model for the preception of the planets. They wanted a model for where they would see the planets in the sky. You know, his predecessors, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe — Ptolemy was very explicit, in not even considering the fact whether what he laid out was physically real or not. I mean, it was really just where a planet would be perceived. He didn't even give the distances of the planets from the Earth; he only gave relative sizes of their orbits and their epicycles; maybe, that's a bit too detailed, but he wasn't even trying to be physically honest.

Copernicus: We all hear that Copernicus put the Sun at the center — he kind of did. But his actual theories, none of them used the Sun! The center of the Earth's orbit was still the thing that all the other planets went around.

I mean, it really wasn't until Kepler, who — see these other guys, in trying to model appearances, it's very much like the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics of today: We're going to model appearances, and as Niels Bohr famously said, "There is no real world!" Or, I'm slightly misquoting him, but science is what we can say about nature, it is not what nature is. That's what Niels Bohr had said.

And Kepler, he had showed that the question these other astronomers were trying to answer, was, "what type of flower is a baby?" instead of asking, instead of saying, "where will the planets present themselves to my view?" he said, "what's making them move?" He brought physics into astronomy! The Sun actually moved the planets!

For Copernicus, the Sun was sort of sitting at the middle, while things went around it. For Kepler, the Sun's conducting their motions — totally, completely different thing! You know, not to get into it, but this is why artificial intelligence can't work. You ask a computer various questions, and it tries to answer them in terms that you say you want the answer to be given — the computer isn't going to tell you, "your question was stupid, and here's why, and here's the new metaphor for thinking."

Okay, last point here, about sense-perception, and the brain and the mind. The mind isn't the brain. The brain does affect the mind. I think everyone knows that, even if it's something as simple as having a couple of drinks.

Now, there's many parts of the brain, the brain's evolved over time. There's some parts of our brain that are similar to those in reptiles, and there are some parts that are not. So over evolutionary time, there's been the hind-brain, the mid-brain, the front-brain, the limbic system, with the hypothalamus, the hippocampus, and amygdala; and then, with the more highly developed mammals, the neo-cortex, and our very uniquely developed frontal cortex.

Now, the mind isn't the brain, but it's important to think about this. Some of these old parts of our brain control our very base instincts, which sometimes almost feel like they're not coming from us, almost like they're some external force. You know, there's base instincts that we learn to overcome; it's part of growing up and becoming mature, such as a child learning to use the toilet, and not just release themselves wherever, as one example. Or, you realize that sometimes, you're really hungry, but you shouldn't go to McDonald's you should wait until you get some real food, it'll be better for you in the long run. Or you've got some sexual or violent urge that you probably should not fulfill, even though part of you might be saying to do that.

Same thing with sense-perception: That's developed over time. Mammals, especially the higher mammals, like a dog or some kind of ape, or something, even elephants, they're definitely able to identify individual objects; it's not just a sea of colors, they can recognize people, of course, they can recognize things. They've got a visual field.

Now, just like the demands from our older brain — even though our mind isn't the brain, but we do have brains — even though sometimes the older brain puts demands on us for pleasures it's desiring physiologically in things like this, I think the same thing is also true, to a degree with our visual field. That is, the way our vision works, bears something in common with the way animals see things. And the same is true of all of our sense-perception: Then when we use the way our sense-perceptions work, if we try to use that as a guide for how the universe works, we're making a mistake: We're allowing the functioning of sense-perception, to limit us, to prescribe the kind of thoughts that we're able to have about the universe, itself, and that is a limitation we have to overcome.

You know, human beings can see and feel ideas, animals can't. When Kepler proved, through the failure of the vicarious hypothesis that mathematics was a failure, the experience, when you go through that with Kepler, and experience this failure and realize there is something more, you're enjoying an experience that you can't share with your pet. [laughter]

LAROUCHE: No.

ROSS: You know, you can enjoy your pet, but that's just not something you're going to be able to share with your pet dog: it's a uniquely human experience.

Plato's Socrates in I think it's Book 5 or 6 of The Republic, has this discussion about the difference between an object and its shadow or reflection, and also, a concept and its shadow or its reflection, where that shadow or that reflection is tied to the senses, but the concept itself is free from it. And that we have to be creative in our use of the visual shadows, as a springboard to leap upwards to the ideas themselves, which is very much the same as the distinction that Cusa makes.

So, just one more thing about putting your mind in that state of mind, is culture: what's the value of leisure? Now, there isn't really a difference between science and art, even though it sure seems like there is, but there oughtn't be. So just like people, you know, many people are very concerned about their diets, for example. They make sure they don't want to foods that are bad for them, so maybe this doesn't taste that good, but you know it's healthy, and in the long run it's good for you, and so you eat carefully. People will pursue long-term goals, they might purpose technical education, with the goal of having a better job, or something like this. But then, how many people, spend their leisure time, just doing whatever feels good to them, instead of thinking about putting things in your mind that are going to be good for you, instead of having some trash rattling around in there.

So, it's something that just sort of slips by as being "separate." You know, "I've got my thoughts, I've got my concepts, and then... in my free times, I just kind of do this or that." It has an effect on you, and we really should be more discerning about what you put in there, the kinds of things we feed the cultural side of our mind.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about, developing some concepts about how to approach, improving people's understanding of forecasting, to understand what you're saying better.

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, you first have to discount, axiomatically, any confidence in sense-perception. That's the first principle. And you have to realize that there are other forces which are not located in explanations of the brain. Therefore, the sense-perceptual apparatus which the brain is a crucial part of, the brain is designed in all species that have brains, apart from the chicken brains, which are rather questionable in terms of what they amount to; two little noodles there, sticking out, and the chicken functions on the basis of these two little growths! Not really that intelligent: I think their memory is almost nil. Their response to the environment is maximal, they'll eat anything that looks like food! But their memories are very short, they're very responsive to stimuli, responsive to temperature, all kinds of conditions. They herd with each other, because they do recognize their own species' affinities, because they respond similarly.

But the animals that actually have a brain, as opposed to these chicken noodle-things, generally are limited because they don't go beyond it. That doesn't mean that the animal kingdom does not respond to things outside the brain. But that comes from what we call the social characteristics of the animal, the interaction of animals, and different animals with other kinds of different animals does present something which is outside the individual brain or its equivalent. That's a reality.

But the particular thing, the only thing that defines the human mind, as a mind, is the future. And therefore, you have to say, well, if somebody can not think in terms of the future, there's something wrong with their mind as a human mind. It's not functioning as a human mind. And you find where you say, you make a distinction, where you make a pragmatic decision which is just a guess, but the good, informed guess is, that when the mind is really functioning, it doesn't resemble something limited to the brain function. In other words, sense-perception exists, but if you're responding only to sense-perception, your brain does not take care of you on that one.

The thing is, the human brain actually has a response among human beings. It's not located in the individual human being, it's located in the relations among human beings. And this relationship becomes known as the mind, which is not a physical organ in and of itself, it's a function which does rely upon the sense-perceptual mechanisms of the organism, which probably has something to do with the human forebrain; that it's doing some other function, which the brain does not do in other animal species.

So, what's it doing? It's correlating something. Because that's what the brain does, it correlates, by these chemical kinds of interactions. But where does the creativity come? And the difference is, the human being is not an animal, because the human being's function is not — the human being is the different from the animal, in the way that the human being is social, as no animal is.

The animals can respond in social ways; when you try to train an animal, that is a wild animal, the wild animal has no real, human-oriented discretional power. It can be induced in the animal by acting on the animal's behavioral characteristics. You can train different kinds of animals to behave. By training them, you're simply using the existing apparatus they have, and you're causing them to respond to the pressures you're exerting upon them to modify their behavior. Then they learn these as habits, which are induced almost mechanically as habits, but not mechanically in the raw sense, but in terms of how it functions.

But the human being, by being able to think of the future, which is what develops in the human brain, but develops only outside the human brain per se, because of this forepart of the brain gives you a capability which the animal species does not have.

So, now it's the human social relationship, which now becomes — the mind is based on the foundation of the existing brain, by a social relationship among human beings. And these social relations are then transportable by memory, so that when you die, you may have lost this sense-apparatus by which you created an idea, but the idea can now be transported to other people; and the other people then can take that experience and can build upon that.

That's, in shorthand, that is the way the difference of the human mind from brain functions. It interacts with the brain function, because when you stop the brain, you shut the brain down, then the human being is no longer able to function, because the apparatus on which its function, but the memory of what it did is transplanted into other people. So therefore, you have an evolution in the human being, which result of the evolution performed within people, within the community of people.

And you have the possibility of defective assumptions by human beings, and you can transport those defective assumptions, which many people do, defective behavior. The question is, there's some human beings who are more critical of this function itself, and will say, "that's wrong." He said this, that was wrong. Why? Because they're looking at it from the standpoint of the future, they're looking backwards from the future, and looking at the future, and looking backwards from that. And when you do that, you no longer depend upon the animal heritage approach to behavior. And the stupid people generally are people who respond to an animal heritage approach; simply, what they have learned, as human beings, not as animals but as human beings, they simply project. They make some new adaptations, but they project. They lose track of the critical factor of humanity, to saying "I was wrong. My daddy was wrong, my granddaddy was wrong, the neighbor was wrong, this was the wrong idea."

Now, let's take one very good case of this, just take the simplest most basic one. All right, let's deal only with modern civilization, because there's a very specific difference in quality. There are exceptions, like Plato; Plato's an exception, a very rare exception! He's probably one of the greatest geniuses we've ever understood, been able to understand in a systematic way with his writings. These are things that no one else has ever done in the same way! Anybody who's opposed to Plato as a scientist, is an idiot! And they all have been proven, more or less, most of the time, to have been idiots! Plato was the only figure in history, that we know well; we have many other people, who follow Plato, great scientists in ancient periods, still was called the ancient periods, and they also did similar things, like the discovery of the Moon. The discovery of Earth by looking at the Moon! That sort of thing.

But these are were creative people. But Plato was unique, in the sense that his approach is not just specific, it's categorical. And other people were influenced by Plato, greatly, to look in the same direction. And that's what led into, despite dark ages, led into Nicholas of Cusa, and not just Nicholas of Cusa, but also Brunelleschi.

And now, I would say, let's take the thesis, which I have, on the succession of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler, because that's the key to understanding what the idiocy is, of most science today. Particularly talk science. And what we have, mostly, in the world today is not science, but talk science. They gossip about things. They don't really know anything, but they've learned how to gossip: So they're like the chickens, not quite as dumb as the chickens, but they behave like the chickens. They gather around, they share their opinions, "brahk, brahk, brahk, brahk..." and so forth. And they go at it!

And I'm not really ridiculing people: I'm saying, they're stupid! [laughter] They don't need to be stupid, but they decided to accept stupidity. But they decided to accept stupidity.

Okay, so let's these two cases: All right, what did Brunelleschi prove? Brunelleschi proved the falseness of the straight line, of the existence of the straight line in the small. That was his great achievement. He extrapolated from the understanding that you can not use arbitrary predetermined lines in any way, to determine how processes work.

All right now, you come along, now Brunelleschi intersects Cusa at a very specific point, which is shortly before the death of Brunelleschi. He made a fundamental difference. He went to the top. He took the whole, and examined the whole, and he examined it from a social standpoint of the whole. Now, that left us two things: Instead of saying you have a straight line and a dot — forget the dots and the straight lines, or the crooked lines, or specific, arbitrary lines, just forget them.

Let's look at this whole thing differently. Let's say we have three points of knowledge, which lead in this span of two centuries, within two centuries, which defines the foundation of all competent physical science. The first is Brunelleschi on construction, in which he goes outside construction and says, there's a principle of nature; forget all these drawings, forget all these measurements, let's look for principle. And he went in the principle of the small. He said "small is wrong." He did, through a number of experiments with light and everything similar to that, and they came to the point of curvature: There is no such thing as straight line, there is only curvature. There are no points, there is only curvature. So he developed a general theory of curvature, and he tried to measure it, curvature, as a standard of measurement. What did he came up with? Well! He came up with a whole new architecture, but more: He took the simple thing of a simple, hanging chain, the hanging chain model. Just a fine-grained chain, very fine grain, which would get very close to what you're looking for. We said, these are the natural relations of our experience in nature, the hanging chain, which has nothing to do with any curve that the previous so-called authorities had ever discovered.

So, he went through this, and through his work on light, vision, so forth, he went through the whole process. Went through acoustics, went through every dimension he could possibly look at, and came out with solutions. But this was only looking at from the standpoint of the criticism of the small, the denial of straight lines. And the fact that these unstraight lines, need not be chaotic unstraight lines, they're not arbitrary ones.

So therefore, he had the general idea of a new conception of curvature as a principle of action! Not just as curvature, but a principle of action: Because that's what you do with a hanging chain bridge: you just taking this hanging chain bridge, and people used to walk across these things, and you know what happens when you step here, the whole thing goes like this... hmm? So forth. So it's a process, it's not a thing.

Now, we come along, and what happens to the other thing. Well, now you go to the other end, Cusa. And Cusa is in the large. Hmm? And you compare this to what was done by Max Planck as against Einstein: Planck went to the very small, Einstein went to the very large — and we have not fulfilled Einstein's design yet! We only have an approximation; people are looking for it.

Okay, now, you have two cases, in the Renaissance, and you have now, in the 1890s. This now embraces the entirety of all modern science, essentially! We have some things that have happened since then, but this defines something which is a universal system spanning these centuries.

Now, take another step. Well, then, we haven't solved the problem, but then came Kepler as a follower, implicitly of Brunelleschi, and specifically of Cusa, very explicit about it. He solved the problem. So a third, a solution! But Kepler's solution, depended upon both the implications of what Brunelleschi had done, which enabled Cusa to make his decision. But solution was not yet reached. The solution was done, by Kepler.

So all competent modern science, depends upon the reference to Kepler, in terms of Brunelleschi and Cusa. Anyone who eliminates any one of these three, Brunelleschi, Cusa, or Kepler, all as one group, is an incompetent in science, intrinsically.

All right. Now you come later, you come later, now take the next step, and now you take Riemann, in the middle. Riemann was the person who, following Gauss, but independently of Gauss, but also part of Gauss, made the great criticism of getting freed of the system of mathematical physics, which existed before. Gauss made the great accomplishment of free mathematics and science, from the previous system, entirely. But he didn't solve the problem. He defined the problem without solving it.

Now, you come with what Riemann did: Riemann went the next step, and he did it essentially it was his thesis, it was published as his habilitation dissertation. That thesis opened up the whole question, clearly where Gauss had left it. And there were a lot of other people who did work in the same direction, but Riemann was the one who succeeded.

Now, you come along, you come to another point, you come to the 1890s. Now you come to our new leaders, Planck and Einstein. Now, what's the solution? Well, it hasn't been defined yet.

That's my project.

ROSS: You know, and the other thing we get, after Planck and Einstein, is the potential to take their work from another perspective, based on the insights of Vernadsky.

LAROUCHE: Now, this is really the key answer, but it's not a completed answer. It's not a completed answer in the sense that Kepler did, earlier.

Now, what he did, Vernadsky attacked — essentially he attacked everything the British system produced, by saying that the whole system is based on the principle of life. And his question was, how do we put this in to the form of the question of the principle of human life, as opposed to life in general? That question has not been settled, and that's what fascinates me. Because that's the key to what the principle of mankind is.

So therefore, you have this history, where you find this triadic element, which is what you require as a minimum in logic and mathematics. If you don't have a threefold manifold, you don't have an empirical basis for the mind to work on. But they have to be principles, they can not be theorems.

BEETS: You know, everything that you've just gone through is a very clear illustration of the unique space of the mind, per se, as opposed to the space of sense-perception. What you outlined with the unity of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler, is exactly this social process of mind that you mentioned at the start of your remarks, which is that the ideas, the mental processes of human beings integrate in such a way that the body does not. That occurs among contemporaries, it occurs in many forms; it occurs in musical ensembles, with the integration of the mental processes of the members of a string quartet, or a symphonic orchestra. It occurred in the case of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler, where the mental processes will last outside of beyond the existence of the brain, can take up residence, in an almost literal way, take up residence within the mental processes and brain of somebody who's living now, and continue their work.

And this is something which was discerned by Vernadsky in his work, where he spent quite a number of years, working out a physical conception of life per se, in his conception of the biosphere. He discerned a different type of action occurring on the planet, which was the action of the noösphere, the action of the cognitive mental processes of mind.

LAROUCHE: The mind, as such.

BEETS: Exactly. And what he discerned, is that this process was actually primary, that this was actually taking over the planet and beyond.

LAROUCHE: Or should be. [laughter]

BEETS: Mm-hmm! Well, he hoped. He actually had a writing at the end of the World War II which was incredibly optimistic, saying that despite the destruction that's seen around us, despite all of this, there's no way to stop the coming into being of the noösphere. And he saw that...

LAROUCHE: And that was what Stalin believed, eventually, before he died. He believed that he'd gone through all these evolutions of his own development, including some very brutal ones, but which go with the Russian background, the slave system, the serf system; but they got to that. Vernadsky was crucial, and does represent a point of reference for the future of humanity now. And does open the gates to begin to understand man in a better degree, which was what his intention was. I mean, after all, he lived out a pretty full life, under tough conditions! So he did a pretty good job of it all.

But this leads to something more: It leads to the fact, first of all, the result of this process is, that the educational process, properly conducted, means that you have immortality of all the people who have participated in the process. That if they follow the track of the process, then they each have made a contribution which is permanent, and so therefore, the human personality, unlike in the animal personality, is potentially immortal. Because, the ability of human beings, to take the product of what their mind has generated, to transmit that as a foundation point, or launching point for future generations.

And everyone who is a true scientist, in principle, thinks that way! You always think, about what the foundation you're creating for the next, coming generations. You're always working on what're called a discovery, a discovery of principle. And what the whole system, of real science is, is based on the notion of principles. We calls these universal physical principles. We keep introducing, these are called, rightly, physical principles. They are created by the human mind's recognition of how the universe is composed! In which there are no dots or straight lines ever found.

And that's where most of the idiots are. They all are looking for mathematical points, of deduction or construction. With no idea of creating new ideas, which had never been known to mankind before, or has been lost and had to be recovered. And that's what you do, in repairing society: You try to get people to recover what their ancestors had lost, you try to intersect them with that experience, and have them move from that standpoint. And then, tell 'em, don't worry about it, you can now reexamine yourself, on the basis of you're going to through this experience. And that's what you really do, when you educate a child into adulthood in science, is you give them at any one or two points in their life, and one of these or several of these points will define their development.

And what will happen is, that there's one development which is crucial, there has to be a second development which is crucial, and preferably a third. And if they go through an experience where they've had this kind discovery of universal principles, within their own mental processes, they now will tend to have a secure identity, as a potential scientific thinker.

And everything really has to be based on these kinds of conceptions. And if you take these two — I mean, there are earlier ones. Obviously, Plato poses that same kind of question. How did he think it out? But the essential thing is, the human mind, in this respect, is immortal. The creative intellect, that perpetuates and advances the development of the human mind as a universal principle of mine, which exists in cooperation with the existence of the human brain, but is outside and beyond the human brain. Once it's created, the human brain that created it, is no longer needed. Except that the memory of that brain's action is very valuable to people to try to understand what they've discovered.

Therefore, that gives them an edge, of saying, well, we discovered this, we discovered this, we discovered this. So now we can take the history as we know it, and we take this, and we say, wait a minute — this is the way the evolution of our mind is working, especially, and we call that principle. And when people come to a universal physical principle, a universal physical principle as defined by a mathematical physics, properly, is always of that nature. We call it a principle.

And take the case, Brunelleschi: a principle! Cusa: a principle! Kepler: a principle! These are not mathematical entities.

ROSS: Right. Right, right.

LAROUCHE: The same thing is true, with Planck, with Einstein, and with the concept of life, which is brought to a certain maturity by the work of Vernadsky. These are all matters of principle.

And if you know this kind of thing — and only if you do! — if you don't think this way, you can't know the future. Because you haven't got the experience to be able to judge what the future is going to be, because when you know the future, and discovered it in this way, then you know it. Because you have a knowledge of what knowledge was up to that time. You may have some blanks, but you know what knowledge is, and you know that future is! Because you know where you're going, and you know where you don't know where you're going, too. Which is also, equally important.

So therefore, the human beings go through this kind of tri-point relationship. You have to have the contradictions, which gives you dimensionality to your knowledge, and what the tri-point means, it's dimensionality. You have one point, you have another point, and a third one; and this characteristic gives you direction. The order of the points, and the points are not just arbitrary, they're ordered: so, ordered points, in a series on a question, on things which correspond to universal principles, these are the way in which you know the future. You don't know it perfectly, but you know the future as you are capable of knowing it.

That's all I can do, either. I don't think anybody can do it any better than that. That's the way the human mind works, successfully.

ROSS: And then your mind doesn't die, and that's a real — you live in the future.

LAROUCHE: That's exactly it! That's what the whole business means! You've died, but your mind doesn't die, your personality doesn't die, because it's part of the whole process of man's discovery of himself. And this knowledge of this experience is essential to mankind, to be able to reconstruct and reexamine, what man's knowledge is.

And therefore, you are always going at the idea that knowledge is evolving. There are new developments in process. And you think of the future in terms of the relationship of the history, like this triadic kind of pattern, this history tells you what the direction is, the directivity, the directness of this operation is. And if you know that, and you understand how the process works, you know how, within the dimension that you know, you know where you are on the scale of action.

BEETS: And you have a hypothesis about where man should be going next. And anybody who doesn't think like that deserves no place in government.

LAROUCHE: Exactly!

BEETS: And that's the crisis that we're dealing with today, that people in government go along with this "well, this is the way things work. Well, this is what I was told to say; well, this is the tradition; well, this is the way the current is taking us." As opposed to what you've asserted: Which is that the human being is a sovereign entity in the universe, which has knowledge of universal principles, and that our species has been assigned to play a particular, unique role in the universe of continuing its upward development. And that's the standard of policymaking.

LAROUCHE: We're in the state of development of knowledge of mankind, which has reflections back to Plato: Of an insight into knowledge, which has enabled him to be able to understand what he understood.

When we look at it from now, back to what he did know, which we can understand better, we now realize what made his mind work, we understand the principle that made his mind work. Not just over the subject, but the principle, the cautions, the doubts. And it's his [inaudible] is really what is important; he's always negative, but he's positive by being negative. No, no, it's not this, it's not this. It couldn't be that, it's absurd.

So he uses absurdity as against uncertainty. And therefore, by knowing absurdity, he now is able to chart a course in uncertainty.

And that's the best we can do. That's what humanity can do. But we live in a society which does not think that way; they're chaotic, they're anarchic; they will never be remembered when they're dead, not for long, because they never made a discovery. And it's only people who make a discovery of principle, one of the immortal discoveries, the ones that remain valid even though they're buried in history, that's what's worth remembering: The only thing that is worth remembering. The others' a waste of time.

And people's motive is not to be a waste of time in life.

BEETS: It shouldn't be.

LAROUCHE: No, it should be their motive, yeah. The question is, what're you going to contribute to the future? If you don't have a mission for the future, you don't really have an identity, because you have nothing on which to claim an identity. When you're dead, you're dead. What more, what do you want to know? You're dead! You didn't do anything, you didn't create anything. Not a good way to live.

But I'm just touching the surface of what I've been discussing, what my intention is on this thing. There is, out there, and the time has come, and it has to happen: Nothing that is being done by the nations, any nation, some are doing better; some are doing worse, but no nation, no culture is actually really effectively self-conscious of what humanity is. There are only a few individual people, as there have been in all known history, only a few people of all the population has ever really understood the making of history.

And the history of science is a very useful way of discovering what that means. What is the making of history? What is the making of history, from Brunelleschi, who died before Cusa developed the solution; and then Cusa had died, and was remembered by Kepler as the source of his wisdom, that his discovery was unique: No one has ever been able, to make an honest charge, or an honest challenge, to what Kepler discovered. No one ever did it. And no one ever could. Anyone who complains against Kepler, is a farce, a faker, they were all stupid. And you find that the greatest scientists, of all modern history, were followers of those three, as a package.

And the same thing applies to us, today: If we're going to solve the problem of civilization currently, we have to recognize where we are. And we go back to the 1890s, and look behind that, you find my dear friend who was an inspirer of this whole process, a great contributor to it; and you find, when still looking for someone to complete what Vernadsky did not finish.

BEETS: And that's an act of will. And I think that people should realize that there's nothing in the current situation that will automatically impel you in that direction. But it's an act of will, of those who are willing to step up and take leadership on that account, and that's what we're doing today, and that's certainly what you're doing today.

LAROUCHE: It's the human will. The dedication of the human will to its proper purpose. It's a big subject, with a lot more to say about it.

BEETS: Sure is. Okay.

ROSS: Well, one bit of housekeeping: In the video description, you'll find links for some things on Riemann's habilitation dissertation and on Vernadsky's fight with the British.

BEETS: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Lyn; thank you Jason, and we'll see you all next week.