MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it's Sept. 22nd, 2014. My name is Matthew Ogden and I would like to welcome all of you to our weekly dialogue with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. As you can see, we're all gathered here in the studio today, live. I will introduce our Policy Committee one by one, beginning with Bill Roberts, who is sitting right next to me, who is from Detroit, Michigan; Kesha Rogers, who is from Houston, Texas; we have Rachel Brinkley, joining us here in the studio from Boston, Massachusetts; we have Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; we have Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and Diane Sare from New Jersey. And as you can see, we are also joined by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. So, I would like to let Lyn begin.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we had a dinner last night; it was a preparation for an organization of the organization that we embody here, and it was necessary; it was necessary in several ways. One was to think about what we were doing, and the other was to comment among ourselves as to what our reactions were to different things we were doing. So, this will be a regular institutional characteristic of this organization as such. We represent, essentially, the core of the people who are directing the process of development of the behavior essentially of our organization, and so therefore it's essential that we have such a conception, that we do not have a helter-skelter or some foolish thing like that. And that we will then, thereby, as ourselves, we will lay down the rules by which we will organize our work. But this will be a national organization, and also to some degrees international organization. And we will each be participating as voices in that, because some of our people will be, for extended periods of time, be in distant places, so therefore, that's necessary.
But this is a permanent part of the organization, thus to speak; it is something which is essential. It is something which is specific to this organization. I don't think we presently have any knowledge of anything like it, and what we did last night around the dinner table, was also quite unique. And that will be the standard, essentially, which we use to introduce ourselves, each again to the other, as we meet again, and again, and again.
KESHA ROGERS: Okay, good. I'll just take that up as we get started here with the discussion, which, I think the most important thing we can give to the American people, and to the world as a whole, is a direction of what the future must be, must look like, what is the concrete plan. Because, right now, you take the Americans, they don't have a vision as to where we want to take mankind, and what their responsibility to mankind is. And we know that things, we have outrageous, insane policies coming from Obama, which obviously we know, and if people haven't got the point by now, Obama has to go! He should have been out a long time ago. He needs to be impeached, because he's holding us back on focussing on what we should be focussing on, as mankind's responsibility to unify the world, to bring a sense of harmony, what "peace on Earth" in a real sense is going to look like. How do we end all of these wars, and what is the effect of, where do you want to take the world? Where should we be going?
And that's the thing that's going to bring a certain sense of optimism to the population. Because you know, people are so disgusted with the Congress members and their cowardice, their lack of real focus or momentum toward doing anything for the good, everything is about their own self-gratification, and they're looking at Obama continuing with these wars, continuing with violating the Constitution, everything that he's doing, and sitting there and not doing anything about it.
But if these members of Congress and also the population, had a better conception, a better sense of what is our responsibility as human beings to move the world forward, to have a concrete plan of action, for what we want this nation, what do we want the world to look like, I think people would have a different response to their responsibility, and they would start to move. And so, I think that that's what we should start to define in these discussions. How do we give people that sense of responsibility?
So I'll start with that, and I may have some more later.
MICHAEL STEGER: Well, one of the questions that we're confronted with, and this came up in the discussion yesterday prior to dinner, was that you've got a legacy of an empire system that has shaped the identity and the conceptions of not only the American population, but leaders around the world. Including largely in the United States and Europe, there's a complete failed conception of the role of a nation, the role of the contribution nations make to the development of mankind, and you now have emerging a new world system, but it's premised on a completely different conception of the role of nations. And that legacy of empire doesn't just create this geostrategic competition which is now thrusting us towards war, it does create a legacy of thought, of language, of conception. And I think in a certain sense, people have to begin to understand that the scientific conceptions that have been laid out by Kepler and have been advanced to some degree, and Lyn what you've been developing with this conception of economics, is something that people have to realize that when you free the human mind, you unleash a kind of natural creative potential of the future, of discovery, of an ability to expand the human species to the domain of the Solar System. And to a certain extent, people are even unaware of even the chains that have caged in the qualities of the human development.
LAROUCHE: The problem is chiefly the fact that the very principles which the system is based upon are the principles of Kepler, Johannes Kepler. And Kepler's discoveries are the proper definition for setting for the entirety of what we think we are as mankind. For example, people think we'll say, that star out there means this; bunk! There's no such relationship, as such. What's out there is an influence, which we don't really fully understand, as Kepler made this very clear: We do not really fully understand, what that thing is. But we do know that it works. And therefore, we say: Well, this thing works; we don't fully understand yes, but we're going to continue to work, to find out what that thing is. And the human beings who are intelligent, and I mean by intelligent, that they are given intelligence by society, not just naturally intelligent; but that they are able to make discoveries which they make themselves. They make discoveries of principles that they make themselves. These things are changed often, by them, because they have to make corrections about what they thought was the right choice.
And Kepler makes this very clear, just in his relatively simple kind of pose. When we do that, when we as human beings do that, and try to do what Kepler did, and have insight into what he did, then everything is different. And I think the thing today that is most comparable, is what is happening in China, in terms of the development of the space program inside China itself. This is the model for the discovering of a new approach to the Solar System. We don't know what the answer is yet, but we know there's an answer there, by its nature. And we know that we want to discover, what that answer is. We are teased, just as Kepler was teased, but we are determined to make a contribution to the future of mankind, by making such discoveries.
And that's the difference between the guy who goes around with an opinion, which is merely a guy running around with an opinion, probably with nothing hanging out that you want to show. But, nonetheless, mankind does have the ability, to recognize the future not as a fact, but the future as something which is sensed as coming on.
DAVE CHRISTIE: You know, just on Kepler, and really, the individual that probably took up the torch of Kepler most specifically, was Leibniz; and of course, Leibniz had a certain role in China, in Russia, around bringing mankind together around principle. And I find it notable that, it was really Leibniz that first began to elaborate a concept of economics, from what someone called "thermodynamics," but I think that has to be seen in the right kind of way, and I think what you've done with your concept of economic value and economy in general, your breakthroughs on that, have been around the expansion of the energy-flux density of mankind as a whole.
And what has struck me in thinking about that, that that's actually the principle by which you want nations, the creative output that gets you to higher orders of energy-flux density, is the form of dialogue on principle between nations, towards advancement. Because I think what you had said earlier around the concept of sovereignty, that you don't really just want sovereign nations around a limited concept of sovereignty. You want a community of principle, but you have to ask yourself, what defines that principle? And I think that's where the scientific question comes in, that a lot of people see it as somehow abstracted or separate from humanity, when indeed that is the question of building up the future and expanding the capability for mankind as a whole.
LAROUCHE: That's what the importance of the work of China is, now, in its exploration of nearby space. We don't know, but we do know there's something there, and we are trying to understand what it is.
DIANE SARE: Well, the irony in a certain sense, is this was the mission, this was Cusa's intent and Leibniz's intent, and their foresight that you had to create a government, not in Europe because of the oligarchical system. And the irony is that Americans have become very small-minded, and it was a real operation to promote Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, over people like Alexander Hamilton and John Quincy Adams. So that, when you have something which we could take great joy in the relationship of the United States as an identity, to the discovery process that's occurring in China, Americans are missing it, or they feel that somehow this is a detriment to us, as opposed to recognizing that this is actually a further development of this principle, in a sense.
STEGER: We were noting that Napoleon in the 1800s said: Let China sleep, because when she awakes, she will shake the world. And in a certain sense, you get a sense, if we can awake the United States, a similar kind of process can also occur with what's already been developing. The United States has lost its real identity, as your wife pointed out, it's as if we have a cultural revolution, as they had in China! We've had it now for decades, and you see it today in New York in the United Nations, this Green agenda.
And so to reawaken that real American spirit that's embodied by John Quincy Adams and these others, and to bring it together with this Kepler identity of science, it can shake not only the world, but it can shake the Solar System.
BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, when you have problem and you're identifying a problem such as space, what is the Solar System, and it hasn't been solved yet, but you're saying: Okay, this is a certain process we have to create, it's obvious that what you want to do is you want to get collaboration around solving that process. And what China has been doing, and what the BRICS countries have been doing, is not saying, we know all the solutions for all of humanity's problems, but by creating a process which engages the leadership and the populations of countries, you create a certain type of strength in coherence. And that process itself actually — it organizes all the parts but it creates a development of an idea of what humanity is. And yeah, has Diane was describing, the United States, because we've lost the Classical culture, and we don't have that conception of a mission for humanity, we're being left out of this process; we've taken ourselves out of this process!
But certainly, we have to see that the strength is in the unity of effect, it's in the coherence of the process, as opposed to — and maybe we should review, — I mean, what we're stuck in is a geopolitics paradigm in which everything comes down to mankind as — it's all a utilitarian short-term thing, and the identity of human beings is stuck in the short term, and as objects, as individuals, as individual nations.
But China's not just overthrowing that idea, but they're creating a process by which all countries can get away from it.
OGDEN: Lyn, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more, you delivered a very provocative answer to the final question on last Friday's webcast, and you discussed the nature of universal principles, which really is what Kepler discovered. But you made the point that a principle is something which regulates the system, but is not regulated by the system.
OGDEN: And so therefore, what you experience is only a shadow of that principle, which you can experience but cannot control. And that's the nature of what Kepler was able to discover. I wonder if you could say more about that.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, well that is the principal difference, that is the distinction; that mankind has the limitation. For example, when people say, we try to measure something like space, this space, and it's nonsense! But they keep insisting that there has to be something like that, which defines the principle of the thing. And you have even in our own organization, you have people who will insist on that, but they don't realize that this has nothing to do with reality. The challenge is, as Kepler put it, the challenge is, you've got to recognize that you do not see and hear the truth! You don't! What you do, is you respond to, the pressures which, well, shall we say, punish you, or rebuke you, for an imperfect opinion. And therefore you try to bring yourself into agreement with what that opinion should be. And you don't expect to have a correct decision. You want to get a better decision on that decision than you had ever before; that's as far as you are going to go. And so therefore, the idea of looking for, measuring space-time and things like that, is nonsense. It doesn't work that way. But people keep insisting that, because they wish to believe, that there's some kind of simple way, of explaining how things work. And it's not true.
Mankind has always yet to discover the truth about his own existence. And the better you can do that, the quicker and better you can get around.
ROGERS: It's what you've been discussing with the problem with people's belief in their senses.
SARE: Not even their senses. I mean, you think about the crazy things that people believe, we're really in a dark age: that some evil people are reptilians; that Elvis Presley has been sighted on Mars; and then they tell you, "but you'll never be able to impeach Obama, I know that!" [laughter]
OGDEN: That's really is what Kepler did elegantly, with his method of the vicarious hypothesis. Because he presented a hypothesis, and then showed how the universe, reality disagreed.
LAROUCHE: Yeah. I recall you were having some fun with that, in a meeting we had some — about nine years ago. [laughter]
OGDEN: You have a good memory!
LAROUCHE: No, on just this question. It came up in the terms of Furtwängler.
OGDEN: Right. Well, and that's, I thought was very interesting about your dialogue with Megan Beets on the webcast on Friday, because you made the point that this is a principle which is a musical scientific principle, a scientific artistic principle which are one and the same thing.
LAROUCHE: Let's just say "resonance." Resonance. Some things are resonant: You know them by the fact that they are resonant. You don't know them by description. You know them by resonance. And therefore, you respond to the resonance and keep it in mind and hope to make a discovery which will give you a little more insight into what that's all about.
RACHEL BRINKLEY: So you're not trying to make a declarative statement, but you're just creating something that's true, without adding on anything that's unknown, it seems like from that discussion; maybe you can elaborate.
But I also thought that it had to do with Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, where he writes in all these different music keys, and breaks the rules of the key in every single piece. And so, it gives you a sense that there's something higher that's outside of each of these.
LAROUCHE: That's true, but this was exactly what produced this. That was already created. And what we did in music, in Classical music, is we actually got to understand that distinction. In other words, it's something which you can know, in a certain way. It doesn't mean that you know it, in a nominal way, and the problem is when people try to make a nominal characterization, of some factor like this, then the confusion starts. It's once you recognize that you do not have the kind knowledge of definition, you don't have it. That's what Kepler did, Kepler's treatment was that. There is no proof of principle. There is a proof that there is a lack of a principle. And the proof of the lack of the principle, is what makes the music.
CHRISTIE: You know, Lyn, I was just thinking about it, because what you had put forward as a challenge to the organization as a whole, on mastering the New Astronomy by Kepler and the Harmonies by Kepler, and especially in the New Astronomy, where it could have been where you said, all right we're going to figure out Kepler, the epitome Copernican astronomy which is sort of, I don't know if you want to say "textbook," but it's a lot of what Kepler has as the sort of, maybe answers, or at least a synopsis of things. But, what you don't get is what you get in the New Astronomy, for example, where he rigorously presents a certain hypothesis, and then, effectively demolishes that hypothesis, to only come with the new one.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly. That's exactly....
CHRISTIE: Maybe, that's...
LAROUCHE: That's the key thing. There is no such thing as a fixed policy, a fixed category. What there is, is an experience which you can replicate, as an experience, and which can be changed in its actual expressed value, by your discovery, of a new use. And the new use is not something different, as such, than you knew before. The new use is exactly that: It's a new use of an old discovery.
I mean you have the two kinds of discoveries, the discovery of what you don't know; then you have the effort of the discovery of the attempt to discover, what you begin to know, which doesn't tell you the truth, but it tells you that there is a truth out there. And that's what Kepler did. And if you go through his entire presentation, that is the core of his argument.
STEGER: From it he unleashes a quality of optimism that had not been seen. I mean it was a response in development from the Renaissance. But what Kepler unleashes with that is a kind of scientific method which begins to establish the relationship of principle, its knowability, its ability to be acted upon
LAROUCHE: But this is all Cusa, Nicholas of Cusa. [laughs] The founder of this whole business!
STEGER: We were joking, based on the discussions from the webcast, that, in response to the last question, that it's a question of Classical music in how it developed, up into Beethoven and Brahms, into Schubert, in this development process up into the end of the 19th century. How do you re-create that? Many people are wondering, how do we re-create that kind of Classical culture? But the irony of it is that, can it just be re-created by simply reintroducing Beethoven and Brahms?
LAROUCHE: No! It cannot. It cannot.
Because what the relationship of the experience and the experience, they bound you together; you can't separate one from the other. Furtwängler, for example, Furtwängler's work, you can't do that! You can't mix that up. What you can do, is you can get a good performance, by Furtwängler of some great work, and by studying that, you can find yourself overwhelmed by the levels of discovery that you can find yourself plunging into, from the experience of one of his great works, of Furtwängler's great works. And then, when you look at Furtwängler's, all of his works, particularly the later works, you are astonished that he existed.
ROGERS: That's an interesting challenge, though, because it seems that you can — it almost seems that it would be easier to a certain extent, to relive the discovery of Kepler, because you have defined steps, in terms of — or scientific discovery, Kepler or Leibniz, or Einstein, and so forth. But when you get into the realm of Classical art, and reliving the discovery of Furtwängler, it really is an interesting challenge. [laughter] Because how do you do that? Because then you get into the realm of what is, how it is, that you get into the mind of that composer, in the same way that you get into the mind of a scientific composer. Which, in the culture that we live in right now, and the musical culture and so forth, it's very — it seems like it would be two different domains.
LAROUCHE: It often is two different domains, or less. [laughter] No, and the people even who try to do it, who understand it, to understand it, they themselves don't understand it.
And therefore, this is the part which gets close to Kepler, to Kepler's conception. You can get close to the concept, you can recognize the concept as an identity, it's like you can shake hands with someone, but you don't know what's in his pockets. [laughter]
OGDEN: I think the question is the fact that creativity is never — is never a question of mere imitation. You cannot reach creativity through imitation, and what Furtwängler always emphasizes is that, you're not just reproducing an object, or a piece of music, but you're re-creating it in the moment. You have been possessed, or consumed, by the presence, a mysterious presence of a principle, which actually takes you over.
LAROUCHE: What do you mean by re-creating? That's the question.
LAROUCHE: And re-creating and recreating are two different things, hmm?
OGDEN: [laughs] Sure.
LAROUCHE: And that's the point! And therefore, the act of re-creating something that has been, in a sense, created, or is incompletely created, and that's where the fun comes; that's where Kepler comes in, for example. That's where Furtwängler comes in. Furtwängler is actually precisely a master! Precisely! Not something unique. This guy is without challenge. There is no challenge in him that I know of, that is really independent. This guy just drifts from death to immortality. [laughs] And the beauty of what he does, is still rotating and spinning out there somewhere in space, all the time!
So these kinds of achievements are exemplary. They're also difficult to replicate.
SARE: One aspect, I mean, just reflecting on this, which I think is somewhat underestimated, is the question of the tuning. Because if you want to have an internal reference of the Harmonies, then there's the signing voice and the relationship of the appropriate scientific tuning is absolutely crucial. Because how would you have an internal sense of the music, if everything is off; if everything is off-kilter, then you don't have a relationship to it in your mind.
LAROUCHE: I think we had, in the course of the post-music business, the time when music had essentially died or was being killed, that Furtwängler typifies those who could do things like that, that were needed. What had happened is that we created a culture, a popular culture, or a so-called professional culture, and the culture itself was the poison that destroyed its own meaning. And we just haven't gotten it back yet. People could actually re-create that kind of music creativity; that can be done, in principle. But you have to have the person that can perform the principle. And there's where the rub comes! All you have to do is go to any concert hall, and you get the rub. [laughter]
SARE: Well, that was really explicit. I mean Adorno had a list of what he wanted to do to the population with the so-called modern music. I mean, Bertrand Russell also said this, right? Phrases repeated to music is a very good way of brainwashing, but Adorno said he [inaudible] that the ultimate aim of modern music was necrophilia, as a culture. And you have a really hard time with people, because they say, "it's not the words," like the idea that you can have so-called "Christian rock"! That it's the actual noise, itself, not the words!
LAROUCHE: [laughs] That's perfectly true. That's absolutely an accurate description!
CHRISTIE: It's funny, those were the same networks that went after Furtwängler as being — or the question of the fact that he played under the Nazis, when they brought in the damned Nazi system, the new Nazi system, the Congress for Cultural Freedom and so forth. I mean, that's what they brought back in.
LAROUCHE: Yeah! Obama's a perfect case of that! [laughter]
ROGERS: Well, this idea of "re-creating" is interesting, because you never start with the conception that you've already reached perfection and that things are already perfect. And that the universe, you know, it's funny, what you're saying, the creator is not perfect, no. But that you are, human beings were put into being to make that creation more perfect. And so re-creating is the concept of "making more perfect."
LAROUCHE: Well, essentially, it's difficult to get into that because you get into a very difficult kind of reification of things. And what you have to do, is you have to actually get a conception of what you mean, by your intention, in what you express. Now, then, your question is, do you want to be buried with what you have adopted as your system. Or, do you want to find that you have a reincarnation in yourself, as a result of reliving and reexamining your own intentions. That that's really what we should mean by creativity, real creativity. Can you create something, in effect, which actually meets that challenge? Can you do something which makes the world better? And that's it.
So the idea of making the world better, did not mean ending in a final decision on the world as better, but a world which is becoming better, a world which is being caused to become better. And just teaching a child music, for example! What're you doing, you're trying to get the child to accept the idea of better, than music, which is already a difficult challenge. Whaaow!
So, but the other thing is, you want to find out something which has a real meaning, a real significance to this idea. And you're doing a struggle to produce something that meets that standard.
OGDEN: You can't give a child a recipe or a doctrine; there is no final goal. It's a question of endless creativity and always becoming better.
LAROUCHE: Let's take the picture of love. Now, what's the meaning of love, real love? What defines real love? How do you define real love? Hmm? That's your problem. And therefore, the same thing is true in music; it's true in other things. You want to approach something which reaches the level of the idea of love, not a form of love, but the idea of love. And that's the best you can do. If you can feel that you love other human beings, in the sense that you care for their importance as an existing person in society, you are doing a pretty good job with your life. If you can't do that, you got little problems here and there.
And that's the difference. Because it's the same thing as Kepler's conception: You get something which is in motion, in development, you can't control it, that is, you can't control it voluntarily, but you can respond to it. You can let it act on you. But you don't have a final answer. Because every time you ask yourself for an answer, you come up with a new answer. It's change!
And that's what you're doing, is you want to change. Do you want to change yourself? Did you ever want to change yourself? Did you ever have an idea of what it would mean to change yourself? Hmm? And what it would mean to achieve that? There are certain values that do fit that. The idea of the idea does qualify! If you, in yourself, can think in those terms, you are showing real love toward humanity, you're expressing this.
So it's not a fixed thing, it's not a finished thing. It's an opportunity, which is created in society. And the opportunity is for you, or your child, who may be a dumb kid right now, is going to grow up, to become the musician you wanted as a child.
CHRISTIE: And it's only from that standpoint that anybody ever makes a real discovery of principle, is when they have that commitment to humanity. And then you see what the British Empire, the Venetians before them, would always do, would come in and discredit that, put up some stooge like somebody like Newton, who was the attempt to discredit Kepler, and then to always destroy the sense of causality. You know, if you look at what Kepler does, where he looks at the harmonics organizing the material, and then what Newton does, is says: No, the principle is in the material, and tries to ascribe the mass as the question of the gravitation. And it's to destroy a sense of causality, and also to create it where people become object-fixated.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, precisely.
CHRISTIE: You know, that there's no principle that determines the world, it's that the object-fixation determines your world outlook.
LAROUCHE: We had, at my birthday celebration a short time ago, we had a couple — three people who performed a piece there. The piece was done beautifully; they had not done perfectly in trials earlier. But, suddenly, at my birthday occasion, they did everything, just absolutely fine! And I think there are witnesses today, who are living witnesses who can attest to that.
And that's what you're looking for. You're looking for something which is permanent, not because it's a thing, but because it has a continuity of importance; that something you did, or somebody else did, which has a continuing importance for people up to the present time. And that's the best we can do.
And that's what this organization, with its assemblies as in last night, that's our purpose.
STEGER: I don't think there's anything more important to American politics right now than that question.
ROGERS: Yes, that's very true.
BRINKLEY: And that's — in the BRICS nations, you noted that they are models of what we need to do, but not explicit models. It's not like there's been a perfect model, that's been represented yet, in what any of these countries is doing. We still have to get to something better, and yeah, hopefully the United States is part of this. Once we free ourselves from this evil in the White House. But, just to make that note from what you're discussing today, that we are creating something of an international system which is going to be better, and different from what we've had before, but it's still evolving.
LAROUCHE: Yeah. That's exactly what we have to do.
OGDEN: And we're discussing a quality of thinking, which has to be the standard for leadership in this period of history, because it's completely unprecedented. So you can't just imitated the past, you can't just apply a recipe from the past.
LAROUCHE: You want this experience in some other person, which takes them, beyond their own powers of will, and takes them into a realm which they had never experienced before; but, on reflection, they never wanted to lose it. That's the best you can do.
LAROUCHE: That's fun, my definition of fun, anyway. [laughter]
OGDEN: Well, I think we've accomplished that with this discussion here, today.
LAROUCHE: Without to clean any oysters. [laughter]
OGDEN: Right! Okay! Well, with that said, I would like to bring a conclusion to our broadcast here today. Thanks for joining us, and stay tuned!