Science’s next new undertaking:

WHAT MAKES SENSE?

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 30, 2010


In my “The Present Fall of the House of Windsor,”1EIR, Dec. 3, 2010 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2010/3747fall_windsor.html) or LaRouchePAC (http://larouchepac.com/node/16619). I had brought to the point of a conditional conclusion, a series of reports on the subject of the definition of human creativity. I have now reached the point of presenting a certain quality of summation of that project, a development which clears the way for my associates’ taking control over the continuation of this project.

Now, I first turn your attention to the second phase of those reports on this same project, a phase which may be characterized as being intermediate, rather than one reaching what will be the intended, final objective of my own report here, that of defining human creativity as such. After that second phase of my role here has been completed, I shall conclude this report with the presentation of a statement on the subject of what shall be the objective for the third, and final phase of my outline here.

Our subject throughout this series of projects in the Basement so far, has been human creativity as such. That subject-matter is lodged, in fact, within certain functions of the human mind which are beyond the scope of what have been customarily treated, heretofore, as sense-perception as such, functions which are, despite temporary hesitations, the subject of those capabilities which reach far beyond the potential of any known living species other than mankind.

So, on that account, our work has now so reached a second phase in this present study, that at a point prior to the more ambitious goal which I shall address later in this report, of defining human creativity as such. The point of presenting this second phase, is that we must now include attention to specific types of universally principled functions which have remained, so far, usually overlooked in their role as actual features of the often neglected, higher order of the totality of the functions of sense-perception.

So, when we shall have come to the matter of redefining “creativity” itself in those improved terms of situational reference, it shall then be our turn to deal with a different quality of question, this time under the same heading of “specifically human creativity,” rather than as an extension of the domain of what are merely variations within the actually, or implicitly sensible experience of mere pleasure or pain, which mankind shares, in significant part, with the impact of animal biology.

Nonetheless, since “creativity” does not exist, ontologically, within the realm of what have been defined, heretofore, as even a broadened apprehension of sense-perceptual functions as such, we shall come to the later point in this discussion within which we are challenged to take up a fresh, expanded view of the question: Where do the creative powers of the specifically human quality of mental activity lie?

Thus, in summary, we are confronted with three categories of direct, or indirect human experience: 1.) What is traditionally regarded as the subject of human sense-experience; 2.) An intermediate domain, which recognizes qualities of sense-experience which can be recognized in domains much broader than conventional notions of sense-perception; 3.) The known domain whose characteristic is the role of specifically human creative powers of insight and innovation.

In earlier reports on this subject, the emphasis had been placed on the crucial importance of the second, middle ground, that of sensible experiences beyond the category of the five heretofore “conventional” notions of sense-perception, including the prominent role of the added experience expressed by aid of the role of scientific instruments.

Now, in this present report, our attention is focused on the domain of a middle stage of our obligatory investigations, a stage which is represented by the seeking out of the subject of those additional sensory powers which are expressed within the ranges of cosmic radiation, which now includes what are both useful and tolerable for both human and other forms of life, but are, nonetheless, not yet the voluntary expressions of specifically human creative powers.2I.e. a domain of cosmic radiation whose existence requires attention to a realm of what is efficiently sensed as effects, but have a comparable function, for the human mind itself, as distinct from the merely ordinary notions of the range of functions of sense-experience coincident with merely animal-like behavior apparently included often within human behavior. This includes the effects considered below, as produced by relevant domains of what may be now classed as cosmic radiation. Kepler’s emphasis on the sensed experiences which define methods of crucial scientific experiment, as expressed by his uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, is typical. Einstein’s notion of the universe as “finite, but not bounded,” expresses this general notion. See further treatment of this topic, below.

Although these extended powers of sense-perception, include, for example, the special senses expressed as being employed through the design of migratory birds, the extended categories of sense-perceptions, such as those of such birds, do represent an intermediate quality of types, which all share the quality of the intermediate quality lying between what might regarded as presently accepted notions of sense-perception and the cognitive powers unique to the human species among known species of living organisms. Next, comes creativity in and of itself.

It is my function in this report, to identify the mission which this indicated set of steps implies, the mission which other members of the team will, chiefly, carry out.


Introduction:

A Brief Review

In this report, we will have divided the categories of human knowledgeable experience among three types, as follows.

  1. Presently still conventional notions of sense-perception.
  2. Cosmic radiation other than ordinary sense-perception.
  3. Creativity: the powers of the mind per se.

In opening the consideration of this added, intermediate dimension between ordinary sense-perception and the discussion of the discoverable location of the foundations of human creativity, it were fitting to preface this introduction by suggesting the reader’s own attention to a relevant process of published discussions between Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler, as their views are to be considered by situating them in respect to the vantage-point of the concluding, third section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.

Those suggested matters should be addressed from the standpoint of the related developments associated with the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky and his followers, that in their investigation of the special principles of living processes generally, and human creativity most emphatically.

From that just stated brief glimpse, onward, the point is, that our approach must emphasize the broader standpoint of cosmic radiation, as distinct from the presently more conventional, but ontologically defective, notions of space and time as such. Those are conventional outlooks which are regarded, mistakenly, as being virtually the presumed “ontological underbelly” of what might be otherwise considered as merely “wave functions within space.” For our part, we situate the immediate part of the discussion of the manifest principles upon which human creativity acts. In this way, we must situate the matter, this time, in terms of the corrected form located within the ontological framework of cosmic radiation, rather than the misleading notion of wave-functions within an implied ontological notion of an “elementary domain” of a “space” which is presumed to be ontologically independent of “time” as such. With that correction, we are prepared to reconsider the relevant features of what have been called “wave functions” more competently.

We must emphasize an extremely important warning. The lawful processes which correspond to the role of living processes, can not be treated by the same standard as non-living processes, and, the specifically noëtic processes of the human mind can not be treated as if they were “merely” living processes. That warning of mine merely echoes Riemannian precautions which have been employed in a specific way by V.I. Vernadsky, respecting the lithosphere, biosphere, and noösphere.

Also, we must approach already known, and, also, other discoverable features of animal sense-functions as situated, ontologically, in a universe defined as the role of singularities which are to be located as lying, ontologically, within an elementary universal domain of cosmic radiation.

All that I have said in this Introduction, up to the present point, is to be read as reflecting what must be adopted as the view of a universal Creator whose image is reflected in the creative powers of the individual human mind, as compared with a lower aspect of the phase of the universe limited to the otherwise living, and non-living features of the universe. In other words, we will have rejected the intellectually fatal error in method, of attempting to build up to an image of mankind which is often, wrongly, systemically presumed to be derived from the ontologically, systemically reductionist presumptions inferred by beginning one’s study with images adduced from examples of the beasts, or of even non-living domains.3Just as man is superior to the lower species of existence, so man must find his own existence as an expression of that superior agency which has generated a mankind distinctively superior to that of the beasts. “The clockmaker has a maker.”

The first step in this report, is to examine the extension of animal, and also certain relevant features of human “sense perception” which lie “outside” that range of the habituated notion of the so-called, “five traditional” qualities of sense-perceptions among human beings. Typically, as some of my associates have emphasized, this means attention to such evidence as the already somewhat richly documented evidence bearing on such cases as the ability of migratory birds, and other fauna, to “follow,” at least often, relevant features of the electromagnetic field to their successful arrival at some implicitly intended, targeted destination, as in recurring seasonal migrations. Members of “the basement team” have already emphasized related phenomena in the matter of “what really makes some presumed pathogens” actually dangerous, sometimes, but not always, to human health: a distinction which overlaps the related matters of cosmic radiation.

Then, there is the matter of creativity as such.

The feature of such studies which will bear on a subsequent recasting of the treatment of the subject of human creativity as such, is what is already implicitly clear, in my preceding publications on the subject of human creativity: the point is, that the reality which is accessible to the notion of an ontological, rather than merely descriptive quality of human creativity as such, can not be defined in terms of the ontological presumptions of customary sense-perception. I would emphasize here, the treatment, as by Bernhard Riemann, as in the third section of his habilitation dissertation: efficient universal principles are located, ontologically, in those attributable ranges which lie beyond the reach of human sense-perception, within both the respective domains of the very small and very large.4These considerations bring into play the ontological implications associated by Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann with the revolutionary quality of ontological implications for physics of the contributions of Niels H. Abel, as contrasted to the views of the Augustin Cauchy who plagiarized and corrupted the work of Abel in a most shameless fashion. After the attention to Abel’s work by Dirichlet and Riemann, there was no competent argument for a formally mathematical physics, rather than the mathematics subsumed by attention to the universal principles expressed by a competent physics. I refer to the frauds associated with the followers of Ernst Mach and, then, the associates of Bertrand Russell, as within Russell’s part, apart from Whitehead, in the Principia Mathematica, and in Russell’s frauds against science during the 1920s and beyond. Actual modern science lies essentially within the principled terms of such followers of Leibniz, the leading mathematician of the late 17th and 18th Centuries, as Abraham Kästner, Gauss, Dirichlet, Riemann and Weber, and of followers of Riemann such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky.

That summary outline properly defines a kind of “gap” lying between the non-knowledge gained from within the bounds of sense-perception, when sense-perception is considered merely as such, or, the better view attained when we also consider the difference between such improved views on the matter of perceptions (the second category defined for the purposes of this present report), and the higher-ranking actuality of an ontologically higher domain of objects of attention which exist only as in a genuinely human discovery and deploying of discovered universal, physically efficient principles. There are principles which exist, as such notions for us, only as creations of the noëtic powers of the human mind (i.e., Vernadsky’s Noösphere). These are the powers whose expression is also properly associated with Classical artistic composition.

To restate the argument presented in this introduction so far, consider this.

We must shift the notion of reality, from the notion of discrete objects as such, into a process of sense-perception which is in accord, functionally, with the practical effect of the function of sense-perceptions, including those aspects of the function which lie beyond the conventional notion of the implications of what have been, heretofore, standard definitions of the sense-perceptions. We must proceed, thence, into the indispensable, higher standpoint from which an ironical notion is expressed, memorably, by the ghosts in Spukschloss in Spessart5A 1960 German comedy film.: “the important thing, is the effect.” The Platonic outlook of: “The footprint we are considering has had a maker.”

In this approach, both in the present phase of the writings on this intermediate stage of the exploration of human creativity as such, and beyond to human creativity as such, we are traveling along a course of investigation and related practice, in which creativity as such (our third category) is the attributable, ultimately higher expression of the principle of our universe. One could say, that creativity as such, belongs uniquely to the process of continuing creation by the Creator of the universe, a process which we, as mortals, are properly, and peculiarly destined to express. It is an expression, as embodied in the effect of the discovery of universal, characteristically anti-entropic principles, which distinguishes the actually moral person from the hominid virtual beast who recognizes no obligation to the service of the empyreal intention of universal creativity per se.

The target of our ongoing process of discoveries bearing on the function of specifically human creativity, has a secure direction and objective, but is nonetheless, for us appropriately humble folk, a pioneering venture in the course of which we must consider successive layers of comprehension of discovered principles. Such invoking of the higher powers of creativity, is the comprehension which wise men and women had called “science,” as in progress from a critical treatment of sense-perception, to those higher powers of the mind beyond what is presently considered the elements of sense-perception, and into the domain of the identity of the human individual’s immortal, assigned duty to be creative eternally.

However, we must now add a qualification to the conclusion of this present introduction. The power of creativity does not lie in deductive method, not with mathematics, not deductive methods, but, rather, those creative powers associated with true Classical-artistic modes of composition.


I. From Sense-perception, to Beyond


We must begin the statement of our case for a science of human progress here, as being necessarily situated in a social process, that situated within the practice of particular nations and groups of nations.

This is no diversion from the scientific subjects referenced in this and similar reports. Mankind is not merely a specimen which happens to have been located on Earth; mankind is the ruling form of influence inherent in the specifically voluntary capabilities represented by the creative powers of the human intellect. It is the farmer, not the rooster, who reigns over the hen house. It is the human farmer who reigns over that whose fate mankind willfully determines. Government is properly given over to the governing principle of human creative scientific practice of societies and of the human and other species which are the subjects of those societies. This means the inclusion of the creative artistic faculties of the greatest Classical poets, painters, sculptors, and musicians, whose ironical spirit informs the competent practice of discovery within the domains of physical science.

Although the name of “science” is often misused to suggest that some higher authority, such as government, controls the destiny of mankind, such beliefs fail to consider the processes which create and shape competent systems of government. That is the matter which I must first address, here, in this present chapter of the report.

For example. The slave, who accepts slavery, blames his fate on some mysterious forces shaping his destiny. He believes almost a-priori in the virtual inevitability of his condition of slavery, because the power to which he attributes his servile condition has made him, or her, a species of slave, and this is therefore regarded by him as the supreme power to which he must submit, or, in the alternative, resist. He does not yet grasp the notion that he has a maker which is his, or her true creator, and which reigns, ultimately, above ordinary political or comparable authorities.

Hamilton’s Case

Take the crucially important case of the original Secretary of the Treasury of our United States, Alexander Hamilton, whose achievements must be studied for the purpose that we might know how the outcome of human behavior as over man’s territory, is determined by the intentions of the human will.

It ought to have become the prevalent knowledge of adult citizens of our United States, for example, that the fundamental, systemic differences between the constitutional design of our own constitutional republic and the systems of, for example, Europe, are the product of a principle which had existed in European culture, but was of a properly higher order of authority in the scheme of things, than any European system. It should have been the case, more generally, that government ought to be attributable to the intention of the Creator for mankind, as the leaders of our United States’ struggle for our peculiar kind of sovereignty, had sought to enshrine this in the evolving search for perfection in our Constitutional system, a perfection in the agreement between the ordering in our affairs and the implied intention of those natural laws of the universe which recognize the distinction of man from a mere object of a governmental system.

Take into account the true genius of Alexander Hamilton in pin-pointing the crucial principle of national banking whose application rescued the young United States from imminent disaster, and compelled the central conception expressed as our Federal Constitution. Grasp exactly the fashion in which Hamilton reached directly to a higher principle of creativity, that he might define a solution which could not have been secured through attempted interpretations of the alleged “wisdom” of the political systems of Europe at that time.6See a companion piece being prepared by Nancy Spannaus, on Hamilton’s role. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3748hamilton_constitution.html

As long as the banks existing among the separate authorities of the former colonies were state-chartered banks, the burden of carried forward war-debt, doomed the young United States. Hamilton solved this predicament by two interdependent steps which provided the entire basis for the establishment of the U.S. Federal Constitution. One was the creation of the Federal constitutional form of government; the second crucial measure, which demanded the creation of such a form of constitutional governmen, was to virtually outlaw a monetary system, by establishing the principle of a credit system.

The ability of the United States to copy the successful precedent of the role of the Pinetree Shilling under the original charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was the expression of a principle of credit, rather than a monetarist doctrine, a principle on which the then much-envied success of the Massachusetts colony depended. It was the British intervention to suppress that system of credit, which ruined the economy of Massachusetts under the British tyranny of William of Orange, et al.

The Benjamin Franklin who was familiar with that legacy of the Winthrops and Mathers, had projected the role of a “paper currency” in the principled likeness of the Pinetree Shilling. This connection was considered by Hamilton to the included essential effect of prompting the original design of our Federal Constitution.

Hamilton was confronted with the fact that the payment of the debts left over from fighting the war for freedom, could not be extracted from the past or present. Only the credit-worthiness of the United States sought in the outcome of its own future, could serve as a commercial quality of the negotiable, future physical wealth on which all of the successful policy-shaping of the United States has properly depended to the present time. Every deviation from that principle of a credit-system, to the swamp which is a monetarist system, has been a national disaster, as the very worst has been experienced in the United States, to this effect, under Presidents such as Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and, worst of all, George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama.

As Hamilton would continue to emphasize, both as Secretary of the Treasury, and later, that credit of a nation is to be secured, uniquely, through the increase of future physical wealth in public improvements of basic economic infrastructure and advances in the physical form of increasing capital intensity of investments in basic economic infrastructure and by science-driven increases in the equivalent of capitalized energy-flux density, which have afforded nations a source of redeemable credit which will be capable of outweighing the burden of debt incurred.

Competent economic policy is essentially a policy of fundamental scientific progress in principle, which is expressed, in net effect, in the increasing physical capital-intensity of public works and capital-intensive investments in the processes of both production and conditions of personal life of the citizens and their households. The essential point to be emphasized on this account, is that it is the physical law of the universe, a universe rooted in the required, continuing, anti-entropic principle of the creation of continually higher states of energy-flux density in the universe, which is the expression of the relevant principle of universal law of physical existence of mankind on which competent designs of the processes of government must depend.

Such is the key principle underlying the matters of physical science which are being considered here.

Truth, such as that of scientific principles, is not found in any mere mathematical formula. It is found in those same kinds of principles which lie within the same arrangement as Johannes Kepler’s unique discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.

The Error To Be Rejected

Consider the situation of relevant nations presently.

Most people, especially those who imagine themselves to be very clever, are so deeply preoccupied with thinking of themselves in such a fashion as by merely a desire for the appearance of cleverness, that their admiration of what they might esteem as their own clevernesses, is, really, often, essentially, a matter of mere sophistries. The sophistries are considered by such persons as being virtually a substitute for what are those discoverable principles on whose reign the fate of not merely entire nations, but even civilization at large, now, most urgently depends.

I understand, but deplore such behavior among such ostensibly clever persons, as among certain members of the present U.S. Congress; but, it is behavior which is not merely entirely alien to the true meaning of science, but to the bare notion of truth itself, and, is, also, an opponent of the means on which the present existence of nations and peoples of this planet now absolutely depends. The error blamed by me, here, is reliance on such self-satisfying cleverness which would lead to nothing so much as merely “clever” behavior, which is really an expression of arts of sophistry whose strategic outcome would be the hoisting of civilization globally, as “by its own petard.”

Such has been that smug confidence in the “cleverness” of a British empire, whose overly self-esteemed prowess often rules over the gulled nations of our planet, a feat which that adversary accomplishes by destroying the very foundations on which the continued existence of civilization as a whole presently depends. In the presently known history of mankind, European history in particular, such self-esteemed “cleverness” in “getting my own way,” becomes, from time to time, the recipe for another new dark age of, this present time, all mankind. That is exactly the direction in which current European sophistry is leading itself, and also the cultures of the planet, presently.

Such sophistry as that which, like the doctrine of those priests of Delphi who led the culture of the ancient Greece, who had acquired the potentials of the highest degree of cleverness of the civilization of their time, potentials by means of which they led their nation to its destruction under the influence of the self-deluding faith in the sophistical, self-esteemed cleverness at cheating, as by the professional poisoner, Aristotle. Such are the fellows who, in perennial fashion, repeatedly outwit no one, in the end, as much as they do themselves.

Truth always lies in the higher order of processes which can be expressed in terms of that which is immediately experienced. “The clock has a maker,” one whose expression is the yearning for a higher order of existence than what we experience in our sense-perceptions of ourselves.

We, in the degree that we know ourselves as reflections of sense-impressions, present outselves with what are merely shadows of the powers which are expressed as the creative powers assigned to mankind. We name the substance which has cast the shadow, as our sense-perception of our selves. We too quickly forget that the origin of our practical capabilities as a species, expresses a shadow of what the human species is, a shadow which reflects an ontologically higher order of existence than the shadow which reality casts upon the domain of mere sense-perception.

There is one additional, most crucial point to be added at this juncture:

The creative powers of mankind are specific to the sovereign individual personality. These powers can not be conveyed simply by a “connecting medium;” but, such discoveries can, nonetheless, be replicated as echoed within the creative processes of other individuals. Shadows thus appear to admire shadows. This is done by a means fairly identified as “provocation,” as the successful development of insight into Classical poetry, or the work of Johann Sebastian Bach, or the role of Classical irony in Classical poetry and drama, illustrates the appropriate types of means to be employed.

Thus, the rightness of opinion is not a secretion of some number of individual persons, such as a majority; rather, the development of the majority’s acceptance of the experience of discovering true and higher principles, is the only likely source of the relative fitness of a culture or a nation to survive. Concurrence in some leading opinion, merely because it has been regarded as leading opinion, has often been, as in the case of the Hitler rally, the very worst standard of authority in ideas of policy in any society.

True sovereignty lies not in popular opinion, and usually popular opinion has been dangerously wrong; true sovereignty lies in the creative powers of the individual human mind. Only the irony of truthful individual science and Classical poetry, are to be regarded as the paragons of the shaping of nations’ policy.

These considerations just emphasized in that manner, are key for our understanding of the varieties of great follies to which mankind has shown itself to be prone. To wit:

“I Sense an Evil Empire!”

From time to time, as presently, the lusts of empire, such as those of that actual British empire which recently rules over the political systems of such as the present government of our United States up to this time, express their belief in the kind of sophistry which has brought the British empire and its dupes, especially the inhabitants of the trans-Atlantic region as a whole, to the presently ongoing plunge into a new planet-wide “new dark age,” unless we suddenly, and radically, change from our presently wicked, British-led ways.

In the end, the infamous, Eighteenth-century Lord Shelburne had been shown, in today’s dark light, as having been, in the end, Edward Gibbon’s dupe. The British empire’s past role as crafted in service of the intention to become a new world Roman empire has, so, now entered its own end-phase, meaning a presently, immediately threatened, very deep and much prolonged dark age for any civilization based on Gibbon’s suggested model to Lord Shelburne, “Julian the Apostate,” for a future Rome.7Cf. biographical references to the family of Jacques Necker, and the family’s relationship to Edward Gibbon in J. Christopher Herold, Mistress To An Age (1958). Cf. Gibbon’s ironical treatment of “Julian the Pagan.” Contrary to Gibbon’s advice, Julian is the proposed model for the present arrival at the end-phase of the British empire, not its hope of virtual immortality.

The current, revised form of that British Empire was established in 1971, when it was projected as being the immediate replacement for the fixed-exchange-rate system which had been established by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt at the time of the 1944 Bretton Woods conference. That Franklin Roosevelt design had been wrecked under the nominal authority of President Richard Nixon, in 1971, at the same time that the British empire had created the opening for Lord Jacob Rothschild’s launching of the supranational swindle known since as the presently crashing Inter-Alpha Group.

This latter group, launched at that time, had later reached the stage of controlling what my associates and I have estimated as reaching the level of about 70% of the world’s hyper-inflationary expansion of its monetarist efflux. That world empire, sometimes referred to, ironically, as “The BRIC,” is now crashing down upon itself, because of the present world British Empire’s own fatal instincts for self-extinction, as if the British were like the desperately hungry races of monetarist Dinosaurs who, in an eruption of monetarist greed, might have eaten the last of one another’s formerly fertile eggs.

The peculiar relevance of both the existence and the present doom of that Inter-Alpha Group, to the subject which I have posed with this present report so far, is that the well-being of the nations and peoples of this planet, that more or less absolutely, presently hangs on the hope of a relatively immediate termination of what is termed an implicitly Nietzschean (e.g., fascist) “Post-Westphalian System,” a “post-Westphalian system” like the fascist system of Dick Armey or of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose mere continued existence would, unless uprooted now, foredoom all of the decent human life of this planet, the trans-Atlantic region first, and the subsequent collapse of the world market, that to such a degree that the leading Asian nations would be pulled down, too.

Such a catastrophic development as that presently, already ongoing breakdown of the presently hegemonic world system, demands attention to the matter of defining a choice of relatively immediate means which would, by inherent design, provoke an urgently needed, physical-economic recovery of the greater part of the world’s present national economies.

What is presently wanted, and that most urgently, is a launching of a general recovery of leading national economies according to certain physical-economic designs for economic recovery rates sufficient both to halt the collapse, and, also, to initiate an accelerating general, physical-economic recovery.

To define such a recovery, we must begin by defining the disease which requires the presently urgent, specific antidote.

The British Empire: A Disease

The present disease of global civilization is what is, in fact, the present, British world empire: as virtually every patriotic Irishman would presently agree. However, the existence of that Anglo-Dutch concoction better known as the British empire, has obtained its presently diseased characteristics as an heritage of its maker, which was the variety of Venetian monetarist-imperialist system cast in the likeness of a Paolo Sarpi who is typical of the would-be modern makers of evil empires presently.

Such “makers,” are exemplified, as the outcome of a potentially fatal disease which might be traced to the present time in globally extended European cultures, through the accounts in the Homeric account of the Siege of Troy, as also expressed, by the Peloponnesian War which allowed ancient Greece to destroy the Persian empire, but which has never since become a victor in the expanse of Mediterranean-centered imperial monetarist systems which were to be inherited by Mediterranean maritime venery. Greece was by-passed, again and again, like the princess who never found her prince, while such as the Anglo-Dutch monetarist, neo-Aristotelean (Sarpian) system has dominated the world as a whole, since the onset of the A.D. 1756-63 “Seven Years War” and since the victory of the Venetian principle incarnate in the Anglo-Dutch monetarist-imperialist financial system.

The only successful alternative proffered to what was becoming the British world empire of the Eighteenth Century and beyond, has been the successes achieved, from time to time, by the effect of the birth of what was to become our Federal Republic of the United States. Nations have their values, but without an alternative to the British empire’s role today, the virtue of a nation is trapped, like a legendary Malaysian monkey, by its own hope of a future on this planet.

Since that time, since approximately the 1781 defeat of the British under Cornwallis, when that the young United States had first achieved true sovereignty, all of the principal accomplishments in promotion of the general welfare of trans-Atlantic nations have been either directly, or indirectly the result of the influence which the United States inherited from the combination of the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth and the establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under its original English royal charter.

The revocation of that charter, was a radiating consequence of the folly of James II, such as the Bloody Assizes, an effect compounded by the rapacious cruelties of William of Orange. However, the achievements of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony continued their life as the seeds from which the United States’ emergence as a potent republic has emerged, even by rising like dragon’s teeth from times when it had seemed to be on its deathbed, as, most notably today, through the great achievements under such as Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

That principle of recovery exists still today, as a principle expressed most succinctly in the founding of the U.S. Federal Constitution on the basis of the genius of Alexander Hamilton in crafting the successful design of a national banking system of commercial banks, a credit system, not a monetary system, in opposition to the inherent follies represented, to the present day, by the monetarist follies which remain, so far, those of European systems not yet freed from the lure of the relics of the Venetian and still earlier feudalist designs.

Sarpi & the Modernist Error

Now, continuing this chapter’s account of the crucial role of politics in the practice of physical science, for much, even a prevalence of what passes for physical science, even in universities and comparable authorities, it should be clear to well educated circles from throughout this planet, that what is often labeled “science,” is a political football kicked more than once too often. The sundry, usually irrational, doctrines of political opportunism are, more than ever, today, allegedly “scientific” dogmas whose origin is nothing other than “pure political opportunism.”

The most notable contemporary case of political lying in the misused name of “science,” is that of the World Wildlife Fund, which was jointly launched by the consort of the British Queen, in concert with a since-deceased former Nazi and consort of the Netherlands Queen, Prince Bernhard; a truly delicious duo. The policy of the World Wildlife Fund expresses the identical intention of the Adolf Hitler regime’s mass-murderous “useless eaters” program. The actual motive of the cult to which Prince Philip adheres, is illustrated most vividly by the promotion of the inherently wasteful and destructive policy of both Hitler-like “population control” and the explicit policy which Aeschylus’ Prometheus Trilogy portrays as the denial of access to the use of “fire” by the Olympian Zeus’s class of “gods.”

This has been a policy which, in real-life fact, was the same oligarchical principle illustrated by the agreement on a world-wide “oligarchical principle” agreed upon as a proposed doctrine of world empire, by the circles of King Philip of Macedon and the Achaemenid emperor. The policy of all notable adherents of that same “oligarchical principle,” such as the doctrine of genocidal modes of population control by the Roman Empire and the so-called “green movement” today, are prime illustrations of the role of politics in a kind of pseudo-science once attributable to the cults of the Babylonian priesthood.8Typical of this was the decline of the culture of Sumer, a once notable, but later degenerated culture of what had been a non-Semitic, Indian Ocean settlement by a maritime culture of the region of lower Mesopotamia, from a “bow tenure” system of free farmers, to its descent to a system of peasantry, and, then slavery. The ruin of Sumer through the salination promoted by this cultural degeneration preceded developments of such degenerate forms as Babylon later.

Comparably, while the original development of what became the United States of America itself, had been supplied by, chiefly, English-speaking and Dutch colonists seeking to build a new culture in North America, It was assisted by an operation associated with France’s science-driving author of great projects, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, as with his role in the promotion of Gottfried Leibniz’s cause and the French colonization of what became Quebec.

Meanwhile, the great achievements of the North American colonists relative to those who remained behind in Europe, was that Europe was afflicted by the burden of the oligarchical tradition of the governing institutions over the Europeans of the same cultural origins left behind in Europe. The burden of feudal and related social-political reigning institutions in Europe, has prevented most cultures of Europe from achieving the same degree of political-economic freedom which the emigrants from the same cultures in Europe developed within North America. The history of immigration into the United States during the period of the U.S. Civil War, as in the tradition of Ellis Island until changes following World War I, demonstrates the same principle which has been demonstrated by the Massachusetts Bay Colony until the time of the British revocation of the colony’s original royal charter. Our Federal Constitution’s principle, when contrasted with the persistence of the still passionately monetarist culture of Europe, typifies the opposite side of the same pattern today. The notable cases of the English, Scottish, Irish, and German patterns of immigration into the United States proffer the clearest of the relatively simplest examples; the case of the Italian immigration proves the same point, but the legacy of the impoverished Mezzogiorno makes for an only slightly more complicated demonstration of the same principle.

It is the systems of political and scientific culture, not populist considerations otherwise, which are the principal sources of crafting of the moral, scientific, and related cultural paradigms of nations. A somewhat different case is to be found in the Argentinian blend of Spanish, German, and Italian immigration.

It was the paradigmatic impact of the expressed motivation of the original Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay developments under the exemplary leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers, which set into place the science-driver orientation fostered, first, in Massachusetts, and later Pennsylvania, as the specific case of the life of Benjamin Franklin typifies a specifically American cultural paradigm-matrix for the deep background of the culture of the United States. It is a liberating change in cultural paradigm, which is the principal source of the great advances in the original cultures of a people. It is the opportunities for the influence of a relatively small number of influentials, relative to the cultural tradition of the mass, which has always been the spark for the great achievements of a people.

Unfortunately, the opposite is also relevant. No better illustration of that sort of misfortune exists, than the impact of a mass-murderous lunatic of the same general type of defective personality as the Emperor Nero or an Adolf Hitler, a type which has also proven, lately, as most disastrous for a United States now suffering the burden of a sick personality, President Barack Obama, today. However, going back to Europe’s mid-Sixteenth Century, the cases of two figures, England’s Henry VIII and Venice’s Paolo Sarpi, provide the most notable sources of the influence of sheer evil in modern history today. What is fairly described as Henry VIII’s passion for “getting a head in marriage,” provides a paradigm for study of all these and comparable cases. The most notable of these cases for the purposes of historical studies of modern European civilization today, are those of the common imprint of the effects of Henry VIII and Paolo Sarpi.

I now refer to the crucial matter of the interlocking implications of the single specific case of that pair, as “the Sarpi syndrome,” otherwise experienced today as “the afterbirth of British Liberalism.”

The Origin of the Sarpi Syndrome

The civilization of medieval Europe had collapsed in the great plunge into the “new dark age” of the Fourteenth Century. The recovery of Europe from that catastrophe was centered in crucial developments such as the rise of Jeanne d’Arc and the Florentine Renaissance centered on the great ecumenical Council of Florence. From amid the latter, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa emerged to become the central intellectual figure associated with not only the great scientific, cultural, and religious reforms of that century, but as the author of the policy which sent Christopher Columbus to unleash the colonization of the Americas.9Compare the intention of Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia with that of Cusa’s Concordancia Catholica, for example.

This Renaissance, heralded by such outstanding benchmarks as the figures of Jeanne d’Arc, by the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and by the rise of the leadership of France’s Louis XI, constituted an awesome threat to the search for the resumption of ancient power by the essentially evil, monetarist powers of Venice. Compare the inspiring case of Louis XI’s reforms with the policies of his follower, England’s Henry VII. The resurgence of a contrary, Venetian power, which passed through two distinct, successive phases over the course of the Fifteenth Century, assumed the initial form of the rise of the power of the Venetian oligarchy’s Habsburg tools, which included the Habsburg occupation of the marriage beds of the Spanish monarchy. The Inquisition and its progeny, the launching of what would become the great European religious warfare of 1492-1648, was set into motion, thus.

The sheer horror of an already ongoing religious warfare passed into a worse phase with the successive stages of the Venetian orchestration of the lunacy of England’s King Henry VIII, which set the pattern for what would be transformed by the role of a new factor in the ongoing escalation of a pattern of Europe-wide religious warfare, the role of the “New Venetian” factor of Paolo Sarpi and his follower and professional charlatan Galileo, the Sarpi who was the father (legitimate, or not) of both modern British Liberalism and the infamous “Thirty Years War” whose earlier phase was treated by Friedrich Schiller’s Wallenstein Trilogy.

It was not quite that simple. Some highlights of the history of the 1492-1648 developments, are indispensable for even as much as a fair insight into that entire interval of history and its echoes in the history of civilization on our planet since that time, still today.

The phenomenon of pure evil which came to be represented by Henry VIII, had already begun with the arrival of a leading Venetian spy-master, Francesco Zorzi, in England for service to Henry in the capacity of the king’s marriage counsellor. Heads soon began to roll in England itself; the decapitation of Sir Thomas More was a fatal blow against all hope of a European peace at that time. A cabal which included a Venetian agent, and pretender to the British throne, Cardinal Pole, Thomas Cromwell, and other Venice-controlled scamps, turned the divorce of Henry from his Spanish Habsburg wife, into a general escalation of the religious warfare throughout Europe. A single madman, Henry VIII, not much dissimilar in pathological qualities of personality from the pathetic cases of the Roman Emperor Nero or President Barack Obama today, triggered the greatest bloody horror in European history of that time.

However, there was a highly significant, later added development in that modern period: the reaction to the rising importance of the genius of Niccolo Machiavelli.

Machiavelli vs. Aristotle

The troubles of that time included the war of the Papacy against the sovereignty of the Republic of Florence. Out of this, an important, but not top-ranking Florentine official of credentials related to those of such heirs of Nicholas of Cusa as Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolo Machiavelli, emerged to become the leading strategic thinker of Sixteenth-century Europe. Machiavelli’s influence as the virtual founder of modern military strategy, fostered the design of forms of resistance to the Habsburg tyranny which obstructed and drained the efforts of the Habsburgs, a frustration leading into the stubborn, but, speaking practically, failed Council of Trent.

The influence of the Aristotelean dogma on the Habsburg party, created the relative strategic stalemate which emerged as the opportunity for takeover of some degree of the continuing religious warfare of Europe by the nominally Protestant side: the shift of the center of imperial leadership from the region of Europe’s Mediterranean, to the Anglo-Dutch Liberal north. From the accession of England’s James I, as successor to the Tudor regime, Sarpi, operating largely through his modern sophist protégé, Galileo, the enemy of Johannes Kepler, and Galileo accessories such as Thomas Hobbes, set the evolving pattern which has been continued under the English and British monarchies, and later empire, to the present day.

The characteristic of that imperial legacy, still today, is the ideology of Paolo Sarpi, as encapsulated in its expression as the British Liberalism associated, still today, with the 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments of the Adam Smith who was that quirky version of an “Old Adam” who must still be considered as qualified to be counted among any real-life Satan’s notably Liberal offspring, still today.

On the account of a deeply underlying background, there was nothing essentially original in the content of the dogma of Adam Smith’s prescription for modern British and related Liberalism, which persists today as the echo of the code of Paolo Sarpi. Below the surface, the inherent nastiness of British Liberalism is Aristotelean, as Bertrand Russell is emphatic on this point. That said, Adam Smith, like the Physiocrats who preceded him and whom he liberally plagiarized, was, in all essential features, a devotee of the dogma of Sarpi.10Adam Smith, who was assigned by Lord Shelburne to spy against French and North American English-speaking targets, lifted entire sections of the Physiocrat A.R.J. Turgot’s yet to be published manuscript for his own published writings. The British Museum’s Karl Marx, for example, had been trained, as if in the fashion of a captive within a zoo, who virtually worshiped Adam Smith and copied the Physiocrat François Quesnay’s Tableau Economique as a central feature of British spy Frederick Engels’ shaping of Marx’s own appreciation of Adam Smith.11The true Frederick Engels came to the fore during his late years of the 1890s, when Fabian Society circles relied upon Engels to recruit Alexander Helphand (aka “Parvus”) of “Permanent War, Permanent Revolution” notoriety, to the British intelligence service. Marx himself had served as a controlled asset of the head of the British intelligence services Lord Palmerston under the sponsorship of the Young Europe organization. There are numerous “delicious” and also pitiable ironies in that neck of the woods. Lacking any true principles, the Liberal doctrinaires relied on “connectos” for their rhetoric, where access to principles was denied such foolish Sarpians as themselves.

As I have emphasized in sundry published locations, Smith’s copying of the specific dogma of Paolo Sarpi, is to be located in Smith’s own 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, rather than the more frequently referenced 1776 anti-American tract of hatred against the United States, his Wealth of Nations. The exact doctrine of Sarpi is more clearly evident in Smith’s earlier, 1759 work, which drew him into Lord Shelburne’s active sponsorship.

The essential point to be underscored here, is that all Anglo-Dutch Liberalism is derived from the same Sarpian matrix which is presented with lurid transparency in Smith’s own advocacy of what became the modern British imperialist ideology associated with Lord Shelburne’s role in crafting the British empire. Smith’s own argument in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, presents us with the innermost core of the belief-system of British imperialism’s place in the imperialist’s human zoo, through to the present day.

Marx as Myth

When one takes into account, the actual role of Karl Marx and Marxism, Marx had become a creation of the Foreign Office of Britain’s Lord Palmerston and Palmerston’s Giuseppe Mazzini-led “Young Europe” operations. Notably, there is the case of the so-called “First International” which was organized under Mazzini’s personal direction in a London meeting at which Mazzini appointed the Karl Marx attending that event as the designated leader of what would become known as “The First Communist International” division of Lord Palmerston’s political “zoo.”

That fact forces sane minds to recognize that such so-called social movements have two aspects. The first such, is the management of the specimens in each category of the inmates of the collective political “zoo,” and the second aspect lies in the motives of the inmates relegated to the care of the relevant set of captives in Palmerston’s zoo-like arrangements among putatively adversarial sets of captivated specimens. The actually fascist variety of explicitly “creative-destructionist” ideology deployed under the nominally anarchoid auspices of what many observers regard as a “Dirty Dick” Armey, presently, illustrates the existence of a wider variety of victims of such so-called “ideologies” traceable to such precedents as “Palmerston’s Zoo.”

Just like the animals in a well-organized real-life zoo, the captives of each nominal socio-political variety of contending “species,” have a residue of their native impulses, but, there is also the matter of “feeding time.”

There are two, interlocked, but contrasting aspects of each variety of specimens assembled to play the stage-like role of one among a contending variety of such inmates of that particular labeled species of the zoo’s politically captive specimens. The most crucial irony is, that the inmates of each category of politically captive inmates of such a “political-intelligence” category of dupes, have, at the same time, a character which does not necessarily coincide with the outlook assigned to them by the zoo’s keepers, just as the captive types of a real-life zoological garden have an also underlying impulse corresponding to root impulses of each group’s own species. There is usually a set of contrary impulses between the behavior of the zoo “animals” as induced by the captors, and the behavioral impulses of the same “animals” left to roam as if in the wild.12Yet, even then, the acquired habits of captivity often linger, like habituated chains of servitude, over the course of generations yet to come. The current crop of the ideological captives of Dick Armey is only typical of the “zoo-animal like,” even seemingly robotic behavior induced by the keepers of that present division of the political zoo.

Often, the chains of slavery are willingly borne, even generations later, as “our culture,” or, according to a related kind of tradition in servitude, “our heritage.”

There could be no competent view of the attributable inmates of the nominally “socialist” quarter of Palmerston’s Zoo, which does not take into account the distinction of “biological” types from an induced behavior comparable to that assigned by the circus management to the actions of the performing acts in a circus.

The differences between the nominal Aristoteleans and the nominally modern Liberal followers of Paolo Sarpi, are of this specific general type. The appropriate name of the category of zoo-likeness in ancient through modern society, is “imperialism,” a deeply embedded habit of virtual captivity by imperialist supra-national organizations, such as proposals for a seemingly de-nationalized “European Union” today. Each category of inmate of the imperial, or imperial-like, political zoo, bears its assigned specific “colors” into the mutual fray which provides the relevant amusement and profit to the managers of “the league” which is a cage-like “empire” of captive nationalities. The folly of sportsman-like team-spirit, has induced each among the teams to give away their natural sovereignties. I, as an old man, have “been there,” repeatedly, in those past times when such realities tended to be more readily understood among the well-educated, than among today’s younger generations.

What are called “imperialist wars” belong to this category of sociological studies in mass behavioral traits.

Mankind is free of the grip of such zoo-like forms of human bestiality only when the idea of patriotic national self-interest is tempered by regard for the common interests and common concerns of all mankind. That was recognized as by a system of organized common interest, as had been intended for the post-World War II times, by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The American system, typified by President Franklin Roosevelt’s dedication, that instead of that revival of the old, evil British imperialism which, still today, holds those keys to our own republic, which, on the occasion of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the disgusting Wall Street asset and President Harry S Truman had handed to the otherwise rendered almost harmless, if surly, old imperialist, Winston Churchill.

It is not our cause which is the issue, but those who hold the keys to the old imperialist tradition typified by the present captivity of the currently installed U.S. government, the keys to the slave-system of the world rule by British imperialism over the money-worshiping, intellectually enslaved nations of the planet, today. Today’s world empire, is Sarpi’s world system.

Today’s British Imperialist System

The specific characteristic of today’s present, 1971-2010 phase of British imperialism, is the expression of the Sarpian, post-Aristotelean Liberalism, which is typified, in turn, by the lust to install a so-called “post-Westphalian” world system, a virtual Sarpian system, now. Thus, we have today’s awful reality of a vast, cancerously booming mass of worthless, hyper-inflationary debt, a system of debt whose only notable precedent is the 1923 collapse of the captive Weimar, Germany economy. That legacy has now, for the moment, taken over the United States, the American hemisphere generally, and most of the Eurasian world outside China, India and a few other Asian states. Even the latter are sorely afflicted by the lunacy which, since September 2007, has dominated the generality of the system world-wide.

Without the virtually treasonous abortion, which had occurred under President Harry S Truman, which was the abortion of what had been President Franklin Roosevelt’s post-war intentions, the long journey of decades during which the British empire was brought back into world power, would not have been possible.

Thus, the point which must be emphasized here, in the context which I have defined in opening this present report, is that the physical-economic processes of this entire planet are shaped by the imposition of a dominant expression of the human political and related will. It is not the economic system as such, which more or less “magically” reigns in the market-place. It is the imposition of expressions of a sometimes cancerous, governing-as-lawful authority which delimits the political availability of the choices which a truly self-interested national government would desire.

There is no economic “magic of the market-place.” There must be, instead, an understanding of those principles of a science of physical economy which properly regulate the effects of a process of economy as a physical science, if the political will of nations is to be brought into accord with the adducible principles of a healthy form of physical economy, rather than the present monetarist system.

That sets before us here a principle which is typified by the decision of the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt to launch the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and to unleash the potential of the power of nuclear fission, not only for war, but to increase the available rises in energy-flux density of sources of power on which the survival of civilization for future generations already, then, had begun to depend.

Therefore, there can be no physical science of economy, nor any present practice of economy, today, without mass projects such as that typified by the NAWAPA design needed to reverse the presently accelerating general breakdown-crisis of the United States itself.

Science—real science—after all, is the informing of the human will with the advances in knowledgeable practice whose benefits are measurable in terms of upward leaps in the usable energy-flux density of the powers supplied to the business of not only progress, but for the very survival of mankind.

Hence, now that we have met that political obligation in this present chapter, we are freed to return now to competent physical science as such, in that political, cultural light.


II. On the Subject of Cosmic Radiation


In my earlier publications on the subject of sense-perception, I had warned that sense-perceptions were not reality, but are no better than the shadows experienced as if they had been cast by reality. When we apply that particular wisdom to our awareness of the distinction of shadows from the reality which casts those shadows, the presumption of a simple correspondence between sense-perceptions and a search for an appropriate sense-certainty, ceases to exist. The most significant fact about such paradoxes, is the fact that, actually, universal principles of nature are not expressed by the mere shadows we recognize as sense-perceptions.

That distinction was clarified by, first, Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the universal physical principle of gravitation, as in his chapter on “The Harmonies of the Worlds,” as that discovery, by Kepler, was clarified in an important step further by Albert Einstein’s reading of Kepler’s accomplishment as defining a finite, but not bounded, universe.

With the recognition of those implications of that Kepler-Einstein view of the universe, we are no longer obliged to burden ourselves with a naive, and intrinsically groundless presumption, the presumption that the images cast as sense-perceptions are something other than the shadow imposed upon the attempted reading of reality by the light of the mere sense-perceptual apparatus employed. This same issue is most powerfully represented by the third section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, where science sheds the encumbrance of mere mathematics, for the sake of a competent physics. In the very large, as the very small, the metrics of sense-perception can no longer claim authority over the principles which reside, essentially, in what Riemann points to as those extremes of our universe.

Indeed, it is in nothing as much as those same extremes, in which the crucial determination of the principles of the universe at large must be sought, if the notion of universal laws is to be fulfilled.

I have already, repeatedly emphasized the evidence, that there is a crucial distinction between knowledge of a literal reading of what are generally classified as sense-perceptions, and the reality which underlies the experiences of our agencies of sense-perception.

I have emphasized, on this account, that if we treat experiences of sense-perception as being shadows cast by some unseen reality, as a now rich harvest of “scientific instruments” suggests, our attention is turned to the evidence of cases such as that of the celebrated Helen Keller, which warn us that a realm of five attributed human senses, is not the essential means on which the human mind should rely to steer efficient interventions into whatever the real world might be, that apart from a presumed direct and unique reality linking the world around us into the fruits of sense-perception as such. For example, could a person blind from birth, gain knowledge of the real world which can be, ultimately, as reliable, in effect, as an idea of the real world around us had been by one with ordinary use of the five preferred senses?

More precisely, our manifest ability, as in physical science, to intervene efficiently to such effect as to be able to discover previously unrecognized, but available, efficient means for producing qualitative types of indirectly steered effects, as by means of that unseen agency controlled by our will, should prompt us to regard the powers of sense-perception as more limited in their authority respecting our efficient knowledge of the order of matters in the real world, than the authority of the person relying, as Riemann did, on knowledge of the “invisible” principles which science is able to employ to produce those powerful effects on our experience which are not accessible by means of any other, earlier recognized forms of intent.

Reflections on the generality of this evidence from such sources as experimental effects generated willfully through the agency of discovered physical principles, as Kepler did, urge us to regard sense-impressions as the shadows which an unseen cause in the domain of reality has cast as our manifest power to change experienced “nature.” Our given senses are essentially instruments, like other laboratory instruments, by means of which a higher agency, called “mind,” adduces the needed interpretation of the experimental evidence secured through the equivalent of laboratory instruments.

Further reflections in that same general direction, show us that sense-certainty and the efficient functioning of an actual individual’s human mind offer no actual embodiment of a common identity. There is no common identity between the action and the identity of the shadow which the action had apparently cast.

From the primitive roots of such relatively raw reflections, we are well advised to proceed directly, from there, to the notions which Bernhard Riemann pointed out in the third section of his celebrated, June 19, 1854, Göttingen habilitation dissertation. From that moment onwards, a competent physical-scientific practice premises the notion of a proof of physical principle on those domains of the extremely large and extremely small, the which are to be secured through relevant such proofs of the nature of a general physical principle.

Unfortunately, the fact is, that the notion of the ontology of a provable universal physical principle has been widely ignored among the modern reductionist followers of the respective cults of Ernst Mach, earlier, as also its successor, the Cambridge School of systems analysis of Bertrand Russell’s which is echoed by the quirky Laxenberg, Austria International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), or, in one alternative, by the milder error of Göttingen’s manifoldly frustrated mathematician, David Hilbert. Belief in the nonsense of such as that of Bertrand Russell has been the most vicious among the modern enemies of actual scientific progress on mankind’s behalf.

All of these and related considerations must be referenced to the domain of a science of physical economy, where the ultimate practical test of the notions of physical science, is to be found. First, there is God, then, there is mankind, and then, on a lower rank of experimental authority, lies everything else.

So, it has been said, that, “Nothing is constant, but change.” “We never pass through the same water of the stream twice.” The commonplace, literal rendering of Heraclitus’ apparent aphorism, as known to us presently, may not be as rigorous a formulation as could be desired; but, the gist of the expressed intention rendered is true enough. Plato’s Parmenides makes the cited excerpt from Heraclitus clearer, as if to spite the rascally reductionist G.W.F. Hegel, who did not understand the matter at all. All of the worthy treatments in this topical area of discussions, most clearly that of Plato, among the ancients, locate the essential feature of universal realities within the domain of a principle of change tantamount to a principle of universal creativity. That principle, reflects the only ontological reality underlying a competent science of our universe.

That much said, to tease thoughts into a certain direction: go now to the core of the particular subject of this present chapter.

On the Subject of the Mind as Such

In my earlier published writings of this series on the subject of human creativity, I have emphasized the evidence that the actual human mind, is not an expression of a system of sense-perceptual notions, but, rather that the actual human mind exists, ontologically, as if “outside” the domain of sense-perception as such. Valid ontological ideas respecting our universe, are found only from outside the domain of mere sense-perception. In mere sense perception, we see the shadows cast upon the wall, as the Apostle Paul writes in the celebrated Chapter, I Corinthians 13:

For, now, we see as in a mirror, darkly; but, then, face to face; now I know in part ...

When we read modern renderings of that Testament, we today are inclined to attribute the relative stupidity in the use of popular language-habits today, wrongly. That is to be said in respect to the use of language of the ancient Classical Greek among the speakers of a far more literate language influenced by the Classical Greek whose influence was still persisting, even if in somewhat tattered condition, among the scholarly minds of the users of Classical Greek at that time.

To precisely that latter point, consider the damnation of Aristotle decreed by the great scholar and friend of the Apostle Peter in that time, the Philo identified as “of Alexandria,” or identified otherwise as Philo Judaeus, who composed a devastatingly perfect indictment of the absurd theology of Aristotle. That was the Aristotle of the “God is dead” notion, a notion faithfully copied from Aristotle by the modern fascist-in-fact Friedrich Nietzsche, progenitor of the Delphic Habsburg school of fascist “creative destruction” of Werner Sombart and Peter Schumpeter, and of the present-day continuation of that tradition in the lunatic contemporary policies and practice of the inner circles of both U.S. President Barack Obama and the current rash of “Dick Armey Ants” of contemporary post-November 2010 American fascism.

Contrary to the pathetic theology of “the beyond,” which is spread among many professed religious folk presently, the quality of creativity which is specific to the efficient immortality of the mortal human personality, is not something relegated to “another universe,” but is an expression of the essential immortality specific to once-living human personalities, as dwelling within a real universe of the Creator. A universe which subsumes our perception of the potential immortality of those creative powers and created true conceptions, which exist only in the human mind, from among all known living species.

That quality of immortality which is specific to the human personality, is what is experienced as typified in its expression as true discoveries of universal physical principles, and as the ontological root of scientific creativity in the domain of imagination known as Classical artistic metaphor. This is demonstrated, for any competent scientific mind, by the immortality of those kinds of ideas which correspond to the discovery of a true universal principle of physical science, and of that quality of a true Classical artistic metaphor which supplies the substance of the medium of Classical artistic modes of scientific discovery of universal physical principles. These are principles which live on as efficient principles of the organization of mankind’s advances even long after the mortal husk of the discoverer were long gone. So spoke the Apostle Paul.

That same line of thought is met in such ancient locations as the Prometheus Trilogy of Aeschylus.

There, within that Trilogy, Aeschylus continues the manner of the Homeric epics, in defining social processes described in terms of a contrast between the so-called “gods” of Olympus and the “mere mortals” over which the Olympians pretended to reign. Such foul manners of those Olympians were characteristic of the doctrines of those Delphic swine, the apologists for the cults of Apollo and Dionysus, for whose dogma the idea of human immortality lies in the rubbish-bin of dead souls. Hence, Philo’s just denunciation of the swindler known as Aristotle.

Yet, given that much said here this far, I am not preaching theology, but presenting a summation of the evidence of the role of the distinctively human creative powers existing as the potential unique to the human mind among all presently known living creatures. It is called “the human soul,” as expressed in fine fashion by the greatest Classical composers and scientists known to our civilization. The image of “God” is not a theological fiction; it is the essence of our knowledge of that ordering of Creation in the universe which is actually knowable, as least potentially, for mankind.

That much said on this matter thus far, the essential fact to be considered on that matter, is that mankind has a mission, which is best known to us as the implicit equivalent of the practice of great Classical art and physical-scientific progress, as in the progress by the most able minds, minds whose best fruits are those harvested from the fields of humanity. Exactly where that pathway of progress may ultimately lead us, in terms of concrete results of changes, is not yet certain; but, the fact of that direction is a clear fact, and there is, for now, no better tool to employ. As the Apostle Paul emphasizes in that referenced location, some important matters have yet to be made known to us; but, we have access to sufficient knowledge of truth to be guided into the direction in which we must proceed.

“On Cosmic Radiation”

These immediately foregoing considerations lead our discussion directly into the subject of “cosmic radiation.” The following argument is crucial.

The notion of the existence of space, as a notion derived from blind faith in the presumed ontological certainties of blind sense-perception, is a production of the assumption that what are actually the mere shadows cast as sense-perception, might be the actuality of physical reality. On this account, one of the most persistent sources of ontological crisis within physical science still today, is the fallacy of every attempt to impose a notion of “space” which is a notion peculiar to the mere shadow-land of sense-perception, a notion which depends, in turn, on such expressions of physical-scientific progress as the notion of the existence of “empty space” lying within the distance separating points on an hypothetical line connecting any pair of attributably sensed objects.

That, in and of itself, poses the question: “What if that which is not sensed for itself, so-called ‘empty space,’ does not actually exist, after all?” The relevant actual evidence is, that the known universe is richly saturated with a wide and wild range of multifarious radiations, some of relatively local origin within the immediate vicinity of Earth, some specific to the galaxy whose fringe our Solar system inhabits, some of ostensibly inter-galactic specificity. There are also expressions of a universe of cosmic radiation which are, variously, hostile to life-forms, others not directly tolerable among known living processes, and others specific to life-forms as such. All of this, insofar as notable authorities have reported on such matters, is focused on the experience of life on Earth, and on what we know presently of mankind’s historically increasing trend of impact on shaping the cosmos we inhabit.

There is no known authority for the presumption, that there is any presently conceivable part of the universe which this rich plethora of cosmic radiation does not densely inhabit. What then, of “empty space”? Aspects of cosmic radiation reported up to the most recent of available reporting, define what are estimated to be singularities of universally extended cosmic effects, evidence which impels us to regard the universe we inhabit accordingly.

This matter of present concern touches immediately on the ontological paradoxes rather famously referenced by Albert Einstein, as also by the provocative notion of a fine-structure constant as frequently referenced, most notably, by our esteemed colleague of the Fusion Energy Foundation, the late Professor Robert J. Moon of Chicago University. These considerations coincide with the implications of paradoxes associated with the achievements of Albert Einstein which mark out the notion of a physical space-time, rather than space and time. To sum up this matter in broad-brush terms, the implication of these considerations is the growing inclination among relevant circles to a view of the periodic table of chemistry as situated in the singularities of cosmic radiation in physical space-time, rather than a physics of space and time.

That correction is forced upon us most prominently, now, by the impact of the role of cosmic radiation in the ranges of living processes, and in the modes in which living processes may be protected in some organized way from hostile radiation. The Russian school of the late V.I. Vernadsky and its associates in the matters specific to the domain of living processes, is a matter of special relevance on this account. Yet, the very special aspects of that latter domain only excite our interest in broader matters all the more.

One of the most notable sets of implications which this subject of cosmic radiation provokes for us today, is the relevant role of expressions of cosmic radiation which must be properly appreciated as enlarging the repertoire of human sense-perception to a degree far beyond the customary, relatively arbitrary presumption of a virtually sacred “five senses.”

One expression of this specific irony appears in the concluding paragraphs of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry.

Whereas, there are numerous functions of cosmic radiation, such as the use of tuned radiation as the means by which migratory birds may be efficiently oriented for arrival at their seasonal destinations, in which electro-magnetic cosmic radiation is a category of sense-perception by animals; there are mass effects of kindred characteristics in human behavior, as Shelley emphasizes the evidence of such powers of communication in the conclusion of his A Defence of Poetry.

Similarly, beyond the role of cosmic radiation as a form of a function of effectively witting, or unwitting communication among animal species, as among plants, too, such aspects of the spectrum of such radiations do have the effect of behavior-shaping communications among persons, that under various specific circumstances. It appears, that what may rightly pass for a seemingly silent form of communication in society, are expressions of what can only be “channels” of the spectra of cosmic radiation which are functioning, in effect, as channels of ostensibly “silent communication” among persons.13The digitalization of the performance, transmission and recording of Classical-musical performances, is typical of the ruses by which the higher faculties of the human mind have been eliminated from essential media of human communication. The policies and practices promoted by means such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, are typical of the virtually Satanic practices deployed to degrade the mind and morals of the post-World War II generations.

Such communications play a known part in the developed experience of capable psychoanalysts and related specialists in human behavioral sciences. All among us who have found themselves with exceptionally well developed forms of fairly reliable skills, at special moments, in sensing this domain, are strongly affected by awareness of such influences in certain kinds of settings, especially when the psychological setting is especially sensed as “tense” in a relevant fashion, just as Shelley responded to such actualities in his A Defence of Poetry, and as John Keats expressed this function most vividly in his famous Ode respecting his experience of the viewing of a Grecian Urn. All great Classical drama, when competently composed and performed, falls into the same general category of special implications.

Without some access to that broader medium, competent psychoanalysis were scarcely possible. In the meanwhile, the eerie experience of “mass effects” reflecting a similar kind of “communication” which is ostensibly radiated through media other than ordinary notions of sense-perception, is a significant aspect of human behavior generally.

Often, what are esteemed as mysterious powers of insight in respect to experience of social processes of the type which I have just referenced, are less a reflection of what may be classed as “I.Q.,” but, are the effect of the development of an expanded quality of sensorium expressed by a medium of cosmic radiation external to the so-called “ordinary” sensorium, as in such cases as Classical artistic composition.

My general observations respecting the scope of the extended domain of communications which I have described in this chapter thus far, bear upon the broader implications of the general category of cosmic radiation. The proper effect of attention to such broader considerations, is to shift the emphasis from the tendency to locate personal identity within the bounds of sense-perception, toward the act of locating one’s personal identity in the awareness of oneself as being the observer of those aspects of human behavior which free the mind and its intentions from the boisterous demands of a shrieking pseudo-creature embodied in the pain and pleasure of what are merely personal sense-perceptual passions, instead of formation of the conception of efficiently universal principles.


III. The Human Identity: Two Types of Mind


The distinction which I have just stressed, in the closing section of the preceding chapter, is a distinction between one person’s trusting belief in sense-certainty, and, on the other hand, the creative personality’s emphasis on the higher authority of those forms of ironical composition centered upon the Classical principle of artistic irony, as for the case of Classical modes of expression of metaphor. Whatever criticism might be attempted against the authority of the late William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity, the implications of his argument are aimed in a direction which is true not only for Classical artistic modes of artistic composition, but are, wittingly so valued as either intended or not, a reflection of the same principle of the human mind expressed in the validated discoveries of physical-scientific principle of the greatest of our scientists.

This connection was worked through virtually to exhaustion, by the two successive sections of Kepler’s pedagogy leading into his stated discovery of the universal principle of gravitation. The detailed presentation of the details of Kepler’s latter discovery by my associates remains unique for its precision and related authority among available treatments of the matter known so far, today.

Kepler was remorseless in the exhaustive examination of the peculiarities of human sense-perception, prior to his explicit presentation of his uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. The outcome of that carefulness in the course of the discovery, was a principle of gravitation which is defined, not by a mathematical measurement according to a single category of sense-perception, but, rather, the demonstration of an ironical contrast of two opposing notions of sense-perception in approaching the phenomena measured. Hence, Albert Einstein’s reference to Kepler’s unique quality of genius on this account, stating that Kepler’s discovery echoed the fact that the universe is finite, but not externally bounded.

Thus, the most significantly systemic importance of the Kepler-Einstein treatment of a universal principle of gravitation, is the demonstration that sense-perceptions as such do not represent the actual principles of universal lawfulness in the universe. This means that sense-perceptions are no better than shadows of the actual principles of action in the universe. This, in turn, defines an ontological contrast of sense-impressions between the related principled phenomena and the universe as knowable to the human mind.

The significance of that ontological distinction’s expression by the mechanical recitation of a spoken stanza of English poetry, and the setting of the same organized set of words as uttered in a bel-canto defined expression of the meaning of the same stanza, tends to illustrate the kind of qualitative distinction to be borne in mind. The difference is, essentially, letting one’s typewriter do the talking, and the use of the human voice to convey the irony embodied within the poetic statement.

To mark that thought, consider the differences to be considered between, on the one side:

 
“To be, or not to be?”

And on the other, the correction:

 
“To be?
“Or,
“Not
“To be?”
“That”
“Is
“The question.”

Then, after completing the list of options:

 
“... And,
“Thus,
“conscience doth make cowards of us all ...”

and, in closing:

 
“With this regard, their currents turn awry.”

Does that not remind us of the behavior of the next session of the U.S. House of Representatives, following the most recent general biannual election?

It is not the words which contain the relevant meaning; it is the paradoxical features of the entirety of that soliloquy, which defines it as a single unit of a literally physical sensation of an actual thought, a thought which represents, within the expression of its bounds, not a flow of words, but a self-bounded unit of action, an action which shapes, remorselessly, step, by step, what must be experienced by the audience, not as words, but the experience within each of them of a physical action within each member of that audience, has experienced as the binary form of sequences, come, come as like an unceasing beating of funeral drums, one beat following another, to form a physical sensation, each a single beat of a death-march of physical transformation of the speaker, throughout, from beginning to close. It is a rehearsal for his grave.

Thence, the awful consequence flows, drum-beat, by drum-beat, like a death march. A rhythmic sense of horror which flows from that soliloquy as a unit of action, a unit of action which unleashes the fate which will be reached in the closing awful moments of that drama in its entirety. Denmark is no more, and a woeful Norway shall now relive Denmark’s error. For either, death was not an error; it was the life which had been lived, which would be, yet again, the waste.

What more remains to be said? For those who hear playwright Shakespeare’s voice across the space since, it is a foretaste of the doom of the house of Stuart, and, unless we and our nations are suddenly wiser now than they have been of late, it is the death-march of us all. That drama is not Shakespeare’s folly, but like Friedrich Schiller’s warning against those fools who heed not the Peace of Westphalia, Friedrich Schiller’s forewarning in Wallenstein, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, of what might become the folly which might become your own.

The tragic error is never a mistake as such, but, rather the wont to continue the folly which a nation, or set of nations was bequeathed before the moment the drama was put on the stage. The tragedy was never the action of any individual figure, but what that society had done to doom itself, before it had been brought on stage. The tragedy of the United States, was, that the Democratic Party’s 1944 convention, like a whore, had brought the Wall Street disease called Truman on its Presidential stage.

What, then, can be said of those who would not put the moustache on Barack Obama, now?

The folly which earns the name of “tragedy” is never the consequence of a single act, in and of itself. This species of development belongs to those actions, even an individual action whose crucial content is located in either the effect of choosing the wrong turn in the highway, or the failure to recognize the need to turn back to the junction, to find the proper way. It was not the choice of Obama which has doomed our United States to its terrible suffering now; what doomed us to suffer all this, was the failure to put the moustache on that President, when it might have been done. The evidence, and it was conclusive evidence, as I presented it in fact, and in detail, and I was never shown to have been wrong on this account at any time since April 11, 2009. Many, many have already died on that account, and vastly many more are threatened so now. Indeed, our nation might soon cease to exist.

The real issue always lies in a choice of a state of mind.

Footnotes

1EIR, Dec. 3, 2010 (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2010/3747fall_windsor.html) or LaRouchePAC (http://larouchepac.com/node/16619).
2I.e. a domain of cosmic radiation whose existence requires attention to a realm of what is efficiently sensed as effects, but have a comparable function, for the human mind itself, as distinct from the merely ordinary notions of the range of functions of sense-experience coincident with merely animal-like behavior apparently included often within human behavior. This includes the effects considered below, as produced by relevant domains of what may be now classed as cosmic radiation. Kepler’s emphasis on the sensed experiences which define methods of crucial scientific experiment, as expressed by his uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation, is typical. Einstein’s notion of the universe as “finite, but not bounded,” expresses this general notion. See further treatment of this topic, below.
3Just as man is superior to the lower species of existence, so man must find his own existence as an expression of that superior agency which has generated a mankind distinctively superior to that of the beasts. “The clockmaker has a maker.”
4These considerations bring into play the ontological implications associated by Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann with the revolutionary quality of ontological implications for physics of the contributions of Niels H. Abel, as contrasted to the views of the Augustin Cauchy who plagiarized and corrupted the work of Abel in a most shameless fashion. After the attention to Abel’s work by Dirichlet and Riemann, there was no competent argument for a formally mathematical physics, rather than the mathematics subsumed by attention to the universal principles expressed by a competent physics. I refer to the frauds associated with the followers of Ernst Mach and, then, the associates of Bertrand Russell, as within Russell’s part, apart from Whitehead, in the Principia Mathematica, and in Russell’s frauds against science during the 1920s and beyond. Actual modern science lies essentially within the principled terms of such followers of Leibniz, the leading mathematician of the late 17th and 18th Centuries, as Abraham Kästner, Gauss, Dirichlet, Riemann and Weber, and of followers of Riemann such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky.
5A 1960 German comedy film.
6See a companion piece being prepared by Nancy Spannaus, on Hamilton’s role. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2010/3748hamilton_constitution.html
7Cf. biographical references to the family of Jacques Necker, and the family’s relationship to Edward Gibbon in J. Christopher Herold, Mistress To An Age (1958). Cf. Gibbon’s ironical treatment of “Julian the Pagan.” Contrary to Gibbon’s advice, Julian is the proposed model for the present arrival at the end-phase of the British empire, not its hope of virtual immortality.
8Typical of this was the decline of the culture of Sumer, a once notable, but later degenerated culture of what had been a non-Semitic, Indian Ocean settlement by a maritime culture of the region of lower Mesopotamia, from a “bow tenure” system of free farmers, to its descent to a system of peasantry, and, then slavery. The ruin of Sumer through the salination promoted by this cultural degeneration preceded developments of such degenerate forms as Babylon later.
9Compare the intention of Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia with that of Cusa’s Concordancia Catholica, for example.
10Adam Smith, who was assigned by Lord Shelburne to spy against French and North American English-speaking targets, lifted entire sections of the Physiocrat A.R.J. Turgot’s yet to be published manuscript for his own published writings.
11The true Frederick Engels came to the fore during his late years of the 1890s, when Fabian Society circles relied upon Engels to recruit Alexander Helphand (aka “Parvus”) of “Permanent War, Permanent Revolution” notoriety, to the British intelligence service. Marx himself had served as a controlled asset of the head of the British intelligence services Lord Palmerston under the sponsorship of the Young Europe organization. There are numerous “delicious” and also pitiable ironies in that neck of the woods. Lacking any true principles, the Liberal doctrinaires relied on “connectos” for their rhetoric, where access to principles was denied such foolish Sarpians as themselves.
12Yet, even then, the acquired habits of captivity often linger, like habituated chains of servitude, over the course of generations yet to come.
13The digitalization of the performance, transmission and recording of Classical-musical performances, is typical of the ruses by which the higher faculties of the human mind have been eliminated from essential media of human communication. The policies and practices promoted by means such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, are typical of the virtually Satanic practices deployed to degrade the mind and morals of the post-World War II generations.