LPAC New Paradigm for Mankind April 2, 2014, Transcript
April 3, 2014 • 10:31AM

Watch the video presentation here, or listen to the audio here.

CREIGHTON JONES: Good afternoon and welcome: This is the New Paradigm For Mankind. Today is April 2nd, and unfortunately the Fool still persists in Washington, D.C., but we will be dealing with that appropriately. My name is Creighton Jones, I'll be hosting today. And joining me are Jason Ross from our scientific team, the Basement, and of course, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

Now, speaking of fools, Mr. LaRouche, you've recently released a paper called "The Incompetence of Twentieth Century Science Education," and you start off by elucidating the foolishness of David Hilbert, who attempted in 1900 at the International Mathematics Congress, to pose the challenge of fully codifying mathematics, to in a sense say, we've come to the end of science, we can now have a fixed, complete system for mathematics, which will represent the completion of, in a sense, human thought. And this was a challenge then taken up by Bertrand Russell, which Jason will get into a bit.

Now, the attempt of Hilbert to pose to this challenge, or what he was posing was really an attempt to kill what had been developed by the likes of people like Riemann, who in a sense showed that there is no completion to the process of the human mind and that you can't rely on mathematics, you have to go into the domain of physics. Now, he did this himself, Riemann, in attacking one of your childhood enemies, Euclid. And Euclid attempted the same thing, to codify geometry, to codify the real discoveries of Greek science; and as you made the point, and it's worth noting, Euclid really was a student of Aristotle. The same Aristotle who was a hater of Plato, hated the real Platonic tradition and is likely responsible for the murder of Alexander.

And so, it was a student of his, a man by the name of Demetrius of Phaleron, who was kicked out of Athens for his practice of sophistry, who was a well-known student of Aristotle, who after being kicked out of Athens, then came and created the Library of Alexandria. And it was at that position, that one of his first steps was to bring in Euclid as the head of the mathematics department, where they brought in all the works from Athens and from around the world on geometry and mathematics, real, actual physical discoveries had been made up to that point, and gave Euclid the job of codifying all this, systematizing it, and basically taking out the real discovery process and just turning this into effectively a brainwashing operation.

And so, this was what then, over 1800 years later, Riemann took on, and showed the fallacy of, and really launched science into a new paradigm. That's what Hilbert then attacked. And that's in fact, what the challenge is today, to still right the wrongs of what Hilbert had set into motion and which Russell had taken up, and which to a large extent is responsible for the dumbing down of the population worldwide. And is largely responsible for the fact that we still have a population which is willing to tolerate everything from the massive shutdown of hospitals, and the mass death that's ensuing because of Obamacare; which are willing to tolerate an ongoing cover-up of what was really behind 9/11; are willing to tolerate an economic policy of looting in the name of bailing out the too-big-to-fail banks, which really have the planet on the verge of extinction, either through a long, drawn-out green death policy, or a much shorter-term extinction at the hands of thermonuclear annihilation which Obama's currently pushing us into with a confrontation with Russia, most immediately.

So that's the challenge we face, seemingly insurmountable problem, but which have a common root, and therefore, also have a common solution, which it's now our job to further elucidate and make conscious in the minds of the population. So with that, I'll turn it over to Jason who has some profound thoughts on this subject.

JASON ROSS: Thanks Cody.

Two weeks ago, Lyn, on this show, we spoke about two different triads of development that you had laid out: That of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler; and then, that of Planck, Einstein, and tentatively of Vernadsky.

Now, the first triad, you had said, Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler really defined modern science, and that no one could really claim to be a competent scientist without knowing their work, understanding their work.

And then, you spoke of Vernadsky's outlook as laying out a crucial role to play in resolving the paradoxes still remaining in the work of Planck and Einstein. Since then, you've written two papers, and there'll be links to these in the video description, "Is Satan Still Operating From Inside Bertrand Russell's Corpse?" (sounds like a very accurate image); and more recently the paper that Cody just referenced, "The Incompetence of Twentieth Century Science Education".

So what I'd like to do today, is give an overview of some of the concepts in your most recent paper; I hope to address the relevance of those of ideas, as you're pointing out, the relevance of these concepts in a climate where thermonuclear war is on the agenda, the financial system is, as you've said, like an elevator whose cable has been cut at the 70th floor, plummetting rapidly to the bottom, and I want to do that by taking up three concepts in particular: First is the Zeus/Prometheus conflict and the existence of trains of development in history. The second is specifically on that second triad, to get into Planck, Einstein, and Russell, who were doing much of their work at the same time period, and it's very good to compare where Planck and Einstein went versus where Russell didn't go. And then third, about your really provocative comments on language-culture and immortality in your most recent paper.

So first, very briefly about the Zeus-Prometheus conflict: Because, when did mankind begin? Well, there's different definitions of this, but the one you've consistently used, Lyn, is the use of fire: That unlike the tool of a monkey, say a stick put in a termite mound, lick off the termites — okay, that's interesting; or a sea otter cracking shells on its chest with a rock — fire isn't a stick and it's not a rock, or a belly. Fire is a principle, and you've dated the beginning of the human species, with the controlled use of fire, which fundamentally set us apart from the animals, none of which use fire, although your pet dog might enjoy curling up next to the fire with you, they're not going to make their own fireplaces. And in the wild, they don't exactly enjoy it!

So going back to these early times, there is tremendous progress. You think about where we've come, or what makes us different from the animals, there's so many things you can look at: you know, what did fire let us do? What did the act of domestication, of control over life, the creation of agriculture, the creation of corn out of teosinte, the domestication of animals, to eat and to pull plows; the control of water, with canals and irrigation systems, these go back thousands of years; the use of salt as the first technology in food. Salt allowing the preservation of food long before refrigerators existed, you could preserve your food that way, for different times of the year. Fermentation to preserve liquids: if you just took barrels of water on a long ship voyage, it's going to go back and you're going to get sick. Fermentation, among its other uses, allows you to prevent the growth of deadly things in your water, or wine, or beer, or whatever you're making.

So in all of this, there's a natural tendency, as you said, the natural state of the human species is to be of a Promethean sort, rather than a Zeusian outlook. But since the very beginnings of mankind, certainly, since the bronze age, we've known of the existence of oligarchies, of the oligarchical system. It's plagued us basically since the beginnings of history.

And I want to read a couple of quotes from this report on the "Gifts of Prometheus," about Prometheus and Zeus. So, Prometheus, who I'm sure you're familiar with, if you're a frequent viewer of our programs, was a Titan who took fire from the Heavens and gave it to man, despite Zeus's intention that human beings would not have the use of fire. But it was not just fire. So, let me read one quote from Aeschylus' play Prometheus Bound, where Prometheus says,

"Listen to the miseries that beset mankind, how they were witless before, and I made them have sense and endowed them with reason. ... First of all, though they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail. They had ears but did not understand. But just shapes and dreams through their length of days without purpose, they wrought all things in confusion. They had neither knowledge of houses built of bricks and turned to face the Sun, nor yet of work in wood, but dwelt beneath the ground like swarming ants in sunless caves. They had no sign, either of winter or of flowery spring, or of fruitful summer, on which they could depend, .... but they managed everything without judgment, unless I taught them to discern the risings of the stars and their settings which are difficult to distinguish. Yes, and numbers, too, chiefest of sciences I invented for them, and the combining of letters, creative mother of the Muses' arts, with which to hold all things in memory (writing). I, too, first brought brute beasts under the yoke to be subject to the collar and the pack-saddle, so that they might bear in men's stead their heaviest burdens. And to the chariot I harnessed horses and made them obedient to the rein.... It was I, and no one else, who invented the mariner's flaxen-winged car, that roams the sea (the sailing ship). Wretched that I am, such are the arts that I devised for mankind, yet have myself no cunning means to rid me of my present suffering."

So, there's much more of this report, the physical chemistry that gets at Prometheus, goes through the major advances that define physical chemistry as our increasing power over nature, and the conflict between the Zeusian outlook and that of Prometheus.

But let's focus on these triads here: So the first triad of Brunelleschi, Cusa and Kepler, we'll speak more about that next week. To look at the second one, Planck, Einstein and Vernadsky, let's look at this time-period of the dawning of the last century. So the year's 1900, the 20th century has just begun, where will we go.

Well, two things happen in 1900, two very different things happened: Planck developed the theory of the quantum, to explain black body radiation, a new physical hypothesis. That same year, as Cody, mentioned, the international congress of mathematicians met in Paris and David Hilbert set about the task of axiomatizing mathematics. Now, being a mathematician can make you uncreative enough; being a logician basically seals the deal! And Hilbert was trying to turn mathematics into logic, which would end any necessity of reality being a part of mathematics. This is 1900.

Where does this century go? In 1903, Russell wrote his first math book the Principles of Mathematics, in which he argued that mathematics and logic are the same. Here's what he says in Chapter 1, [as read] Russell says:

"The fact that all mathematics is symbolic logic is one of the greatest discoveries of our age, and when this fact has been established, the remainder of the principles of mathematics consists in the analysis of symbolic logics itself."

So, forget the work of Riemann, forget what Planck just did a few years later: For Russell, the greatest discovery is that math is actually logic. This is the same Russell, who said of his youthful experience with Euclid, that he had "never found anything more delicious, and that it was like falling in love for the first time."

Also in this book, Russell says, "For us, since absolute space and time have been admitted, there is no need to avoid absolute motion, and indeed, no possibility of doing so." So, in 1903, Russell still believes in absolute space, absolute time and absolute motion, something that Leibniz had thoroughly proved to be wrong over 200 years earlier, in his fights with Descartes. But Russell still believes.

Well, what happened in 1905? This was Einstein's so-called "miracle year," this is where he released papers on the photoelectric effect, which expanded Planck's concept of the quantum, on Brownian motion, on the equivalence of mass and energy with his E=mc 2 formulation — Special Relativity! Which very definitively proved that Russell's notion of absolute space and time and motion exist, was a completely ridiculous concept! Einstein thoroughly proved in it 1905!

You'd think, if Russell was not an evil man, he might notice these things and change his tune. He doesn't! Over the next several years, he writes a very extended version of his earlier math book, even less — well, anyway, it's called Principia Mathematica, so, the same title as the Principles of Mathematics but now the title's in Latin, so look out!

Now, in this book, Russell continues on his track, that mathematics is logic and we're going to systematize all of mathematics to make it nothing but logic. So this is what he does from 1910 to 1913.

Meanwhile, Planck and Einstein are collaborating, and in 1916, Einstein releases his paper on General Relativity! So, if you think about different tracks of thought and were they will take us, if you look at the dawning of the 20th century, so you've got what Planck and Einstein are doing, you've got where Vernadsky will end up going, bringing in a new concept of scientific thought: You've got this development, it's real physical science! It's discovering things! It's creative!

And compared to that, you've got Russell, who's laboring over these mathematical tomes, trying to prove something that's impossible.

Now, in 1931, Kurt Gödel proved, on Russell's terms, because you could already prove that Russell was being an idiot, but not in a way that Russell had to accept, because he could simply say, "I only believe in observation and logic, so unless you can prove me wrong on those grounds, I don't care." Well, Kurt Gödel had proved that Russell was wrong. So, just to say a little bit about that, and then something about language, and I'll read a quote from your paper in a second. Language, normal human language, has the ability to talk about itself. So when we use language, we can talk about objects: This glass has water in it. It's more than half full, so we don't have to debate that thing. You know, this pen is on the table; the table is sitting on the floor.

We can also make statements about language, like, "the statement you said earlier, is wrong." So now, you're not talking about a specific thing that somebody's addressing, you're saying that what they said is wrong. You can talk about language!

Now, whenever you can talk about language, you have a problem from the standpoint of logic. So, I'll use an example that Russell actually used, and Gödel used against him to demonstrate that. It's called, "the barber paradox": Here's how it gets set up. The story is, there's a small isolated village somewhere in the Alps or something, with a reasonably small population, and there is one male barber who lives in this village. This village has a law, that there are only two types of men in this village, now all men shave, that's one of the laws; then there's a law about how that happens. The first type of men, shave themselves and are not shaved by the barber. The second type of man, does not shave himself, and is shaved by the barber.

But, what if you ask, "who shaves the barber?"

Well, if he shaves himself, and he's not shaved by the barber, that's rule #1, so that doesn't work; if he doesn't shave himself, rule #2, then he is shaved by the barber, which is himself — so that doesn't work, either. This is what you would call a simple paradox. That question, "who shaves the barber?" does have an answer.

Now, maybe you do have to come up with that question that breaks the system apart, but already inherent in the description of the village, the problem was already there from the beginning. So that would be an example of a system, that has a contradiction in it.

So, Russell's view, and this is a specific one, basically any language where it can refer to itself, where the barber, he's a man in the village and he's also part of the rules, so that dual nature, of the rule's talking about him, and being in the rules, that self-reference, if that's in the language, you can always make a paradox like that.

So, rather than accept that, Russell worked very hard to make a new language for mathematics, in which you just couldn't have any self-reference. So he did this by assigning numbers to every statement. So, "this glass has water in it," would be of type 0, because it's a statement about an object. If I said, "Somebody saying this glass has water in it is telling the truth," that's a type 1 statement, because I'm saying "somebody who says..." and then a statement about the glass. Somebody who says, (quote) "there is water in the glass," so know it's a statement of type 1, where it's a statement about a statement about something.

So, Russell did this to try to make sure you couldn't make a statement about yourself, because any statement could only be about lower type things. If this seems somewhat cumbersome, it is, because Russell's doing all of this, just to try to prevent this paradox that he knew would break down his whole attempts. So he thought he was very smart, he releases the Principia Mathematica with its Latin title (very impressive)...

JONES: Romance novel.

ROSS: Right, it's a romance novel! Yeah, he has a creepy relationship with this stuff, although it's not just like he's an academic. He's an evil man, and we'll get some more into that.

Now, another thing about this, is that what Russell's doing is, okay, we heard from this earlier quote that he thinks math is just symbolic logic. He also believes, like any person in the tradition of Paolo Sarpi would, that although we admit that Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things, he made a lot of specific claims that were wrong; but we don't want people thinking too much, we will put a limit on what kinds of thoughts people can have. We will say, "Yes, you can do experiments, and you need to use data and observations to make new scientific breakthroughs, but they're all going to be math formulas. That's the only type of physical law that can exist, a new formula."

So, if Russell has now ended the development of mathematics by finding the final system for it, saying "this language will never change," he's just said there's going to be no new kinds of physical principles. That might seem arcane, to some of our viewers, I know, but it's incredibly important, because it affects our thinking not just about science, but about, really, everything in the way that it filters through. I mean, a lot of times, the thoughts that govern how you think, you're not aware of them; you couldn't even express them explicitly. It doesn't mean they're not acting on you. And sometimes, it's a lot of work to figure out what they are, to expose them to the light and then clean them up.

So, here's what Gödel does. I'm not going through the details in it, although it's very, very clever what he does: He figures out a way to turn any mathematical statement, such as "the statement 2 plus 2 equals 4 is true" that would be a type 1 statement, because it's a statement about a statement about numbers — he figures out a way to turn any sentence into a number. So, by encoding any sentence, which might be thoughts about thoughts about thoughts, and turning it just into a number, you're able to make a statement about a statement, that is officially of Russell's Type 1. Gödel then uses that, to basically say, "this statement is false."

Now, Russell, his language would not allow you to say, "this statement is false," because that statement is about itself, and that's not allowed. Statements can only be made about lower-level things; Russell with his clever — I don't want to call it a "trick," because it's a real thing — but Gödel, using this crack said, "this statement is false" — Boom! There's a paradox, it's not consistent, Russell's whole book, which despite not being very interesting was supposedly the great triumph of killing science and turning it into logic... it's over.

And apparently, Russell's coauthor, Alfred Lord Whitehead admitted defeat on this, and realized that, oh — probably regretted spending so much time on such a dull endeavor with Bertrand Russell, who I can't imagine is a fun person to work with. Russell didn't admit defeat on this one. Russell's followers believe in artificial intelligence.

Now, you might say, look, already with what Gödel proved, anybody working on artificial intelligence, in the sense of trying to be really human intelligence, should just quit! They should stop! It won't happen! We've known it's impossible since 1931! It was proven impossible in '31.

You can't change the language logically, you can't develop new metaphors logically, there will always be things to know that can never be derived from a logical system. Science can not be made mechanical. Gödel proved all of this, so why bother trying it?

Well, the only way you can keep trying it, is if you say, okay, that's true, there are some things logical systems can't do. But, the human mind's a logical system. So that's what these artificial intelligence guys do today: Instead of trying to make the computer do something it can't, they say that the mind can't do things that it can! So that's their way and Russell's way out of that.

So, something on Riemann and Euclid, Cody had referenced in the beginning on this, is, let's go back to Euclid, who was more of a librarian than a scientist — well, he worked at the library — who went through all these books where discoveries were made, and instead of going through how the discoveries were made, said, "well, here's some basic thoughts, and starting from them, we can figure everything out, not just what we already know, but implicitly everything we might know. That is the future doesn't really exist in a way different than the present. These axioms are everything." And you could mechanically develop new things from it.

Well, that was wrong, in what Euclid did. The other thing that was wrong was that, in making specific axioms, for example, that space is flat, that parallel lines exist, one of the things that Euclid said is that, given a line and any point not on it, you can make a another line that is parallel with the first one, that even if extended forever will never meet. You can also make only one such line. Well, by the time of Gauss, people had been proving that that wasn't true! You could make a geometry in which there was more than one parallel line! Or in which there were no parallel lines. Take the example of being on the Earth: If you and your friend, let's say you stand in an East-West orientation — say you have a friend who's standing 10 feet to the East of you, and you say, we're both going to walk North, you're both moving parallel. You're going to meet at the North Pole. So, on the Earth, there are no parallel lines.

So, Euclid was wrong, but what Riemann says, not just in demonstrating that Euclid was wrong specifically about the shape of space, is that there's no way to find the answer to what is the shape of physical space in the math department. That you can't sit in an armchair and imagine what space is like: You have to do experiments, like Einstein did, and Planck did! You have to get out there and figure it out, because the foundation of the geometry of space isn't geometry, it's physics.

It's those physical principles that make things happen. That's the only way to understand anything. Now, people don't do this with economy, for example. You look at things in the economy like money, and you try to measure things in terms of money: That's really stupid. It's like watching shadows and trying to figure out something from them. It's exactly like that. The basis of economy, just like Riemann said the basis for physical geometry, is the physical principles that make things happen, the basis for economy is what makes economy happen? The specifically human ability to develop new physical principles and then implement them socially. That's the basis of economy!

So, as you've written in your economics textbooks, Lyn, if you make that the basis of economy, then, it's possible to be a competent economist! If you don't, it's impossible! You will never get it! You can't possibly right about long-term things.

So: Let me read a quote from your paper, "The Incompetence of Twentieth Century Science Education." So, it's in the section "Zeus Against the Renaissance," and I hope this is the latest version of it, and I'm not slightly misquoting you.

You wrote that:

"Mass murder in the name of religion, when taken in the alleged pursuit of religious fanaticism, such as fascism, murderous religious fanaticism, or similar brutishness, has sometimes dominated modern European cultures, and others ... are typical of the evils which a true scientific practice must extinguish for the sake of humanity itself. Those murderous fanatics of terrorism, whether inside regions of Europe, or elsewhere, must be subjected to the governing reigns of truly human law, as I shall deal with that subject-matter in the due course of this presently continuing report.

"Inspiration, such as religious inspiration, without the same truly human, scientific reason expressed by the original Christian martyrs and their like, is an expression of the essentially evil spirit of the fanaticism of a Zeusian-like Satan himself, and the British imperial monarchy of today, too, as it should be recognized, exactly so, among all the truly civilized nations generally. It is proof of the goodness of the cultures of mankind which is required, when intended for the commonly future benefit of all nations, which is the only proper universal principle of government."

And here we get to the language part.

"The only civilized differences among the worthy nations of this planet, pertain to the essential role of what can be fairly described, by definition, as language-cultures. This means, not the meanings of mere words as such; those words, are merely the footprints left behind by the passage of time. Truly Classical artistic composition, including science and great classical language-cultures, could never be degraded to the form of mere meanings of individual words and sentences; language-culture must apprehend that which is to become discovered as known from the future of the speaker, and, also, his forerunners before him."

So, something on language, that, the meaning is not in words as such. If you look at different languages, even what might seem to be the same word, one that refers to a very common thing, like hand or a color, have different meanings in different languages, and have had different meanings in that language over time. Think about the colors, there are shades — no pun — there are shades of meaning behind what do people think about some as simple as a color. Red has a different sort of feel to it, in Chinese, than it does in English. Blue, there's two words for different shades of blue in Russian; we've got one typical one. But certainly in more complex concepts, the words don't have a meaning that exists on its own. There're steps in development. You said, "they are merely footprints left behind by the passage of time." Language develops.

And the really nasty thing that Russell and these types try to do, is to kill the development of language. To say that all your future thoughts, any new discovery, any new concept will be expressible using words as they have meanings today. Well, where's the room for metaphor, then? I mean, Mr. LaRouche, you've said repeatedly, that metaphor is the most comprehensive concept to understand what a breakthrough, what a discovery is, that it exists as a metaphor, in which the concept can not be expressed in terms of the current language, but changes that language, develops it, changes the kinds of concepts which can be expressed.

Well, you can't do that, if you have said, physics is math, and math is logic, and anybody who's experienced the thrill of working with inference rules and modus ponens, can tell you, there's nothing creative in logic!! There's nothing real in logic. It maybe can help you not make grossly wrong statements, but logic has excused itself from a developing reality. The symbols in logic, explicitly, have no real meaning: In other to really be logic, they have to throw away any real meaning on their part.

So, in terms of the future, in terms of having a concept of the future, and being able to have, you wrote in this paper, also, about the increase in suicides among students, among young people. You said, "This is no mere sociological phenomenon; it is the characteristic of the fanatic who sheds life readily because human life itself has no credible meaning for him, or her: exactly what has been done to the typical American adolescent (among others) presently, and that increasingly so." I mean, you said, this lack of human life having a "credible meaning,...Thus, the Saudi mass-killer and our West Coast drug addict are victims of the same, culturally induced homicidal pathology."

You can't be a sane person, without a connection to the future, and you can't get an actual, efficient immortality, without taking part in this characteristically human journey of developing a better understanding of the universe around us, and increasing our control over it.

So let me just end with a quote, your closing quote here, from that paper. You talked about what we find when we really look down, and say, "what is the foundation of nature? What's it made out of?" You said,

"At that stage, something conclusive has been reached here, at least: a principle, not a mere thing. Habit defies acceptance of such elemental notions. The allegedly 'smallest' disappears, and the noësis takes control. All now has the name of creativity per se. The answers remain enigmas, but they are no longer, merely fantasies: push them, and see how they react, or do not react. The result? We define it as a discovered principle."

We're never going to be done discovering these principles, unless we exterminate ourselves in a thermonuclear war, in which case, if you think about the meanings of the lives of people of everyone who's come before, those people's lives, not just those of the future and the present, lie in our hands. We have a contemporary Zeus, the current British Empire, that is perfectly willing to take down civilization, rather than lose this non-principle they're committed to, that of rule over others.

Let me end with that.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, one thing you bring in for illustration on this thing is the crucial issue. This is not original as a concept to the Renaissance period, but the fine work of the Renaissance scientists actually clarified things that, for example, there are things about Plato, as to how he thought, which can be inferred, but they're not explicitly presented. So that we have a lot of material from the past, which is quite relevant, but it does not represent a record of the actual process of discovery which lay in that. We have only fragments left of what the great discoverers from earlier times did and knew.

But in modern times, we came to a new concept. The new concept, really which starts with the Renaissance, a new, fresh start, and this is where the Brunelleschi process becomes, and then Kepler from there, these three points. The points of Brunelleschi, the points of Cusa, and the points of Kepler.

Now, what happens? We say, we are living in a world which is dominated by sense-perception. Now how do we get out of the assumption that it's sense-perception which is the universe? When we know that there are things that are really not consistent with sense-perception, or any sense-perceptual system. So you have ironies, which break down the idea of sense-perception, but that's not complete. When you come along with Kepler, you have the first great decision, defining all modern science, which is actually effected by Kepler.

Now, you have three steps in this thing: You have the minimum. Brunelleschi eliminated all lines, in the sense of line per se — no lines per se, don't exist. Number 1. Cusa: The universe is a unit, it's coherent, it has universal principles built within it. Fine. So you've got two statements which are true, but you don't have an experimental resolution to demonstrate it. Kepler does: Because Kepler fools around with trying to come to a closer and closer approximation of the curvature characteristics of the Solar System, and hen, concludes, no that doesn't happen. It is not something you approximate by a mathematical deduction, it's something that you find, this is an absolute principle. You can not get away from it. When you come to that discovery, of his principle, of his sense of the Solar System, there is no measure. There's a quality, a quality as such. It's a true universal principle, hmm? A thing that is independent of the sense of quantification, is what's important. The only quantifications you get are, minimal, maximal, and specific.

And that becomes the basis for all modern science, all competent modern science.

And so, what you're dealing with in these other cases, you're dealing with is absolute idiocy. But the importance was, that what Kepler did, in his discovery of the nature of the Solar System, what is its characteristic nature, he was the first person who actually defined, how you could have an object in space. You can not have an object in space by number theory; you can only have a distinct object if it had a self-subsisting characteristic. And that is the notion of curvature. But what's curvature? It's arbitrary, it's the principle itself that defines it, not necessarily its shape as such. Because you can treat it in different shapes that manifest itself, the principle. But it's still the principle, and it's not just magic.

So all modern physical science, is based on that principle, that notion of principle. What we have, what I've worked on, is now, there's a second followup: Because, let's go further, go to what Gauss did. Gauss was actually the person who really made this possible. But he didn't tell people what he was doing. He would say, "I will explain to you what my discovery was. I won't tell you how I discovered it."

Now, the reason was he did that, he did that repeatedly, and he sort of had a twinkle in his eye, at the end of this life on this thing with Riemann — "I won't tell you what it is." Why? Because he knew what the problem was with their minds. They all wanted a simple, deductive proof, and he knew none existed. Because he was operating on the same concept that Kepler had operated upon in discovering solar space. You do not find it by deduction. You find it by the elimination of deduction. And now, you look back to earlier periods, like Brunelleschi.

Brunelleschi eliminated all straight-line considerations, all ideas of straightness, as line. That's what he did: He started with optics. His first experiments were in optics, and out of his work in optics, which were especially at that point, he then attacked this problem of solving the completion of this cathedral. And so, people took that as something, in and of itself. But there was a principle there! People would say, "This is great! But how'd he do it? It's not supposed to work that way. Mathematics says we can't do that, it doesn't work that way, says mathematics.

But he didn't use mathematics! [laughs] He used the understanding of a principle of the universe. And he did the same thing, in a cute little thing he did, in responding to the same method he applied, with this Pazzi Chapel. And this thing, you walk into the thing... and it's singing to you. It's singing to you! And this is a little baptistery, which was created for the entertainment of some of the monks and so forth, where they would have their discussions. So he created this as an adjunct to a whole cathedral system in Florence.

And this thing — Helga and walked into this thing a couple of times, and we had, just for the experience, you walk into the thing, you say something, and the whole thing responds to you, it reacts like a living creature. And then you look at it again, and you realize that this characteristic was already there by your mere presence, inside that thing. And so, therefore, his whole discovery of curvature, physics, Brunelleschi developed all natures of physics in his own work. But then, Cusa went from that standpoint, and they intersected at a certain point, where he was going out of life, and Cusa was coming into his glory, so to speak, and the two things are quite related.

So, now, you had these two things. Brunelleschi defined the concept of the minimum, the ontological minimum — not a other minimum, an ontological minimum. Cusa's concept was the ontological maximum.

Kepler took a concept of discovery which was both and neither of those two, and that was the resolution. Now therefore, what you have then, you have Gauss is refusing to really disgorge what he really thinks. He gives, all the people who inquire, like the wide man sitting in his chair or something similar, and he's telling all the wise men who come there, "Yes, well, I won't tell you how I did it, but here's a demonstration of how I did it. A demonstration of the effect." And he did that all way, and people would puzzle at him, nag him and so forth, and he resisted them.

And you say, you had final scene, which is really sort of the final scene of Gauss to his student Riemann, and here's Gauss, sitting in his chair, in this place, where they're having this hearing on mathematics; he's just sitting there, saying almost nothing. But then, Riemann delivers his statement. Gauss smiles.

And what Riemann did in the habilitation dissertation, as an act of negation of a whole system of fraud, became the opening for all competent modern science since that time. So therefore, once you have Riemann, now you go back and look back at what you had with Cusa, Brunelleschi and Kepler. And you say, there's something new there, and you realize that Riemann touched upon it.

Then you see the work of what you have, Planck, minimus! Einstein, maximum. A never comprehended maximum.

So now, what comes out of that? What comes out of that, you're completely out of the ontological domain, as heretofore considered. The ontological domain is now human. The ontological domain is now a principle of human life; not life as such, but human life.

So therefore, we require a new, or fresh conception of physics. We have an ancient effort, which is a basis of what will become physical science. We achieve a model, a universal model of physical science, in approximation, with the work of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler. But that's not complete. Something else has to be considered. Because, you can situate life in that conception, it's implicit there, but it doesn't tell you what it is. What happens now, with the complex of what Gauss opens up, and says, you're not going to drag us into drawing final conclusions in science. I'm going to give you what is in process of being discovered, and that's what I'll give you. The process of discovery! Not an arbitrary finished, Euclidean type of system.

So that goes on, and Gauss does that. And you have this young genius, coming along, Riemann. And Riemann actually does the attack work which clears the way for everything that followed him. And the most significant things were those which went right back to the Brunelleschi-Cusa relationship. And that was: minimus, maximus, and life, human life!

So that's the difference. So these two points in all modern, known science, hang on these two conceptions of what a physical science is. And what we're doing, we're still fighting today, in order to defend, or define and understand, what that principle is. It's not that man is something that's happening within space.

The other part of this thing, which is the connection: The great problem is that people believe in sense-perception; they rely on sense-perception as such. And that doesn't work. You have to rely on something else, which is a noëtic principle. Now, where do you get a noëtic principle? Well, you get noësis in all kinds of expressions, in living processes especially. The universe is noëtic, essentially, at the same time. But, the question is, where does man fit into this? And that's what becomes crucial, and that's where Vernadsky becomes the solution, in a sense the implicit solution, to do, in his time, what was actually done by people like Kepler.

Vernadsky was actually working on, the universe is determined by the change of the characteristic of the universe, by the characteristics of the action of life. But not life as such, by the mind of life. And life itself has no meaning, unless you supply this question of the question of mind. Because the existing of all animal life, is what? It's based on the concept of mind. Now, some things come in with a sort of a fixed geometry of mind. The human being is self-creative; it's the only species that is. And Vernadsky, on the one hand, started by the examination of life as a physical principle. And then he came to a resolution of it, which was not a complete one, of specifying human creativity, as distinct from the creativity of life otherwise. Willful creativity.

So essentially we are now within those boundary conditions. We have a basic concept of what science means! It has a long history to it: We have aspects of earlier things from ancient times — relics, pieces, fragments, fragments which are very important, but they're never quite completed enough for us.

But then you get into the Renaissance and the Renaissance really attacks this problem, and therefore, you get a formulation for what is the self-evidence characteristic of the universe, independent of sense-perception. Because by definition, it's independent of sense-perception, because it's a principle of action. What is the principle of birth of this experience? Birth is not a thing unto itself, birth is an action! And how do you turn physics into a principle of action.

And that's where we're stuck today. That's the best we have to offer, in terms of principle. But that's exactly where we are going backwards now, in terms of science today. We do not recognize — for example, the green policy, anyone who's a greenie is worse than an idiot, they're a criminal. Because their beliefs will cause them to become destructive of humanity and human life. Therefore, a greenie is a criminal, by characteristic. He's stupid, and he's a criminal. And that's what the significance is.

But this also means that we also have access to principles, in respect to space, solar space, for example. We have principles which we are able to explore; we don't completely know the answers, but we are able to explore on a new basis, through the human mind, and only the human mind.

So no longer do we depend on sense-perception for knowledge. First of all, you've already had the concept of creativity, which is very ancient with man, the idea of the noëtic process of the human mind, the distinction of the human mind from that of the animal. You already had that. But you really didn't solve all the questions that those answers already provoked; you didn't get answers — you got answers, yes, but the answers immediately confronted you with questions, for which you had no answers, or not adequate answers!

And so, what happens how? Mankind now has to realize that sense-perception is not the basis of human competence. Hmm? That we have to understand this other process of creativity, and it's those physical principles which are raised first in the case of the Renaissance case, now in the modern case. This gives us indication of — we really no longer depend upon sense-certainty. We have available to us, these discoveries, like Kepler's discovery: Kepler's discovery ended this crap! Because there was something out there, which had a certainty which was not located in sense-perception as such! But it was a certainty, it's something that existed, that couldn't exist, without that. And that was the great genius of this Renaissance process leading into Kepler.

And everything that came out of that, came out of the same thing: it came out of Cusa, essentially; it came out earlier from Brunelleschi — all modern physics came out of Brunelleschi, the applied application of it, on the notion of principle. And how we have a higher-level approach.

But now, what we've done, is by this principle and by what we're looking at now. With science we already have an indication of the universe is about, but only as an object. But now, with mankind's role as a creative force in the universe, of creating states of matter in the universe through mankind's insight into how they work, you are no longer dependent on sense-perception as such. Sense-perception exists, but you now compare sense-perception with a completely different system of knowledge.

Okay. Now, what's that mean? That means that mankind is leaving Earth. Not physically, but in comprehension of the universe itself, rather than the comprehension of life on Earth. And therefore, our destiny now is to break free of the old sense-perception system, and go to a higher system, which understands what sense-perception was all about, but doesn't take it as axiomatic. And that is where I think we are stuck, in a sense, so far, in terms of progress of science.

And actually, we're going backwards, in terms of practice. The green people are clinically insane. They're not insane only in the sense of being ignorant or foolish or funny ideas: They're insane in the sense that they're inherently insane. They are self-destructive; they're like a species which is going to destroy itself through its own existence. And that's what's happening: The green policy is self-mass murder. And there's one precedent in history for this: It's not just the British Empire. It's the Zeusian concept itself.

ROSS: Mm-hmm. It's not ignorance, it's a deliberate policy to reduce the number of people.

LAROUCHE: It is evil per se. The British Empire is based on the principle of evil per se, just as the Roman Empire was based on evil per se: The Zeusian principle, in short.

And therefore, the greenies are all evil, not because they know they're evil, but because they don't know they're evil.

JONES: Yeah, and they inherently contradict, really, one of the fundamental concepts that Vernadsky was getting at, which is to really break the idea that there even is a fixed concept of a shape of space. But in fact, it's a constant process of change, it's an evolutionary concept. You're not discovering, even an unseen shape, you're actually discovering what's the characteristic of change? What's the quality of change, which characterizes what we call "life," and then at a higher level, which he was poking at, what does that characteristic of upward change that we understand as the noëtic principle?

LAROUCHE: That really is engineering. Once you discover principles, then you can now apply these principles to processes which you've observed as phenomena earlier. And you transform these processes from merely being phenomena, into being the actual lawful processes of development.

JONES: Right. Then you understand how the phenomena come into existence.

LAROUCHE: Therefore, the only way this society's going to survive, is by taking these considerations into account. We have to get rid of all these characters, all people greenies, who say they're scientists, must be expelled from the profession. Because they're committing a fraud! Any greenie who says he's a scientist, per se is committing a fraud by his mere existence.

ROSS: Because we know that we have a basis of science, that has to include human development. So if you excluded that, or said that's an evil thing, then you can't be a scientist.

LAROUCHE: No, you're not, you're a faker. If you believe in the green policy, you're a faker as a scientist. Anybody who believes in the green policy is a faker, if they claim to have scientific capabilities. If they want to say they're stupid, well, fine, say, you are stupid, that's true.

JONES: Well, they claim to say they're trying to maintain and continue existence in a universe which they deny has a principle of continued existence in it.

LAROUCHE: It's all gibberish! It's all just plain gibberish. No truth to it — they're idiots! Any professor, you say, "Oh, no! You mean, you're Professor Idiot. You got a professorship in idiocy."

ROSS: Even the basis of their public promotion of their work is based on idiocy: Popular opinion. A lot of this global warming, climate change, whatever word they want to use for it, now, since this cold winter makes it hard to say "global warming," you know, instead of — like, on no scientific principle would you ever accept a statement like "97% of people agree with this." Like people don't say, that general relativity is true, because "97% of people agree with it." You don't say "E=mc 2 because 95% of physicists responding to a survey agree with it"! The basis is scientific knowledge, it's not popular opinion!

So it's just hilarious that this whole global warming thing, that's the basis of their argument, "most people think this"!

LAROUCHE: What this is, it's called religious fanaticism.

ROSS: Yeah!

LAROUCHE: They're religious fanatics.

ROSS: Well, it's an article of faith.

LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know about faith.... it's loss of everything. It's bestiality! Even a beast will do better, because a beast has ignorance, that protects him from being stupid!

ROSS: Yeah, this is a developed stupidity. This takes time.

JONES: Yeah, it's a freakout about change: The climate's changing. Well, to them, that's an inherent contradiction to their idea of what should be a "fixed" climate.

ROSS: "Change is bad!"

LAROUCHE: I saw that, in actually, in early in my educational experience. The problem was what was induced in people, was a class concept; it's a relic of the Roman Empire and things of that nature. Look, you're ignorant. You will never know these things that other people who are smarter will know. You have to find your place. Now, if you get promoted and somebody calls you a "scientist," and certifies you as a scientist in an institution, you may be the greatest lying jerk in the world: But you're now a "scientist"!

ROSS: At least you're one of the greatest. [laughter]

LAROUCHE: So, the question is, is what is the meaning of truth? What is truth? And truth is how does the universe behave? Well, how's it behave, does it get better or worse? If it's better, what's the principle of its being better?

But that's where I have my fascination in on these kinds of subjects, the ontological questions. Sense-certainty is not truth, it's a phenomenon, not truth. Just the way that Riemann, in front of his friend, his teacher, his mentor, Gauss, was very happy with what he did with that habilitation dissertation. Because it destroyed everything! And these idiots, every one of these idiots, and none of these idiots — practically all opponents of Riemann, were systemically idiots! But intentionally so!

Because they wanted to be "approved of." And they lied, in order to get approval from given authority. They're still doing it in universities today. It's a little more shameless today than it had ever been before, that's all.

JONES: Yeah, a little more incompetent.

LAROUCHE: For me, this is what's important. The importance is truth, and the importance is, having some basis for concluding that this is the right thing, in principle. Not in opinion, but in principle. And you have in these cases, and these modern cases, particularly from the Renaissance on to the present, you have many cases of that type, and these two that I use most frequently, which is the Renaissance model and then the modern thing which came to a certain culmination in the achievements coming out of the turn from the 19th century into the 20th century. And that period was a struggle between good and evil.

JONES: Okay, well, I think we've opened up a number of relevant questions here...

LAROUCHE: Opening wounds. [laughter]

JONES: Yeah. Like the wounds of Caesar, I guess. So, yeah, we will pick this up again next week, and hopefully all of you will join us. Thanks.