This is the completed, edited and corrected version. Posted: 9:42am Eastern, 11/08/11
It must be fairly presumed, that the action by some leading Democratic Party Senators, their action to support what is, actually, the current “World War III” policy of President Barack Obama, is an example of “party loyalty” gone mad. We must, of course, agree, that certain among the Republican candidates, those who are of a frankly fascist bent, must also be rebuffed; but, we already have an important set of those cases of Democratic representatives’ practice, which is, apparently, little better.
In any case, for certain exceptional reasons, there is no credible selection of a Presidential candidate for this time. The fact is, that unless, and until we terminate the Barack Obama Presidency, there will be, in one way or another, no sighting of a reasonable, immediate opportunity for selecting a next Presidential election at this time. The problem is, that Queen Elizabeth II’s puppet, Barack Obama, has already brought the world to the sulphurous verge of a thermonuclear “World War III.” The urgent issue for properly witting U.S. Patriots, is to get Obama dumped from the Presidency immediately, while we still have an actually surviving republic to defend. Then, once Obama were properly dumped, new options, including perhaps a new Democratic one, will doubtless appear.
Now, a set of leading U.S. Democratic Party Senators, has openly pledged itself, already, to continue the “World War III” policy of President Barack Obama, although there may remain some doubt concerning what those Senators actually believe that they are doing by their actions. Despite all else, the fact persists, and that without reasonable doubt, that the indicated action by those Senators, has been a piece of pathetically crude, opportunist folly. It has been, and remains, so far, an action which expresses a quality of depravity in their schemes which is almost beyond belief.
The folly perpetrated by those Senators (among others), may be summarized as having been equivalent to committing the Democratic Party’s vote in the next scheduled U.S. Federal election to come about a year later than the outbreak of a global, thermonuclear World War III which an incumbent Obama were likely to bring about within that lapse of time. That means, that all that is being done under President Obama, would turn the current United States Presidency into something like, either the worst dictatorship since the Roman Emperor Nero, or, possibly, no existence of the United States at all.
Of course, that folly by such Democrats as those, should not be regarded as spoiling the dismal track-record of many in both leading U.S. political parties (or, also, the ruling parties of western and central Europe) since, for example, September 2007. Since September 2007, the build-up to “bail out” has meant sinking the American financial boat, by flooding it with ever more worthless, speculators’ fictitious, nominal purchasing power—“fake money”!
One might rightly demand that those Democratic Party Senators to whom I have referred above, might explain their intentions at this time, and do this before the date that Obama Presidency may have launched the presently looming, implicitly thermonuclear, “World War III.”
Therefore, for as long as President Obama remains in office, “World War III” is still on the British brink of actually happening, all as if in a replay of the “Guns of August” of 1914 and 1939, and worse. At such a point in Obama’s policy-shaping, it will have become too late for those Democratic Senators, and others, including Democrats like them, to change their minds concerning the next election.
Those Senators and others should review the current positioning of relevant U.S. military concentrations now in place, with respect to what I have recently identified as the positioning of major U.S. warfare capabilities—especially thermonuclear ones—with respect to the “new Balkan cockpit” in, this time, Southwest Asia. The breakdown of the physical-economic warfare capabilities of the trans-Atlantic region leaves no serious option for anything but nuclear/thermonuclear alternatives.
Consider the question: Why would interests centered in the Atlantic and Mediterranean wish to launch “World War III” against such leading nations of this planet as Russia, China, and, implicitly, also India, at this time? What, concretely, is the motive for such lunacy as that on the part of the same set of governments: Great Britain, France, and the United States, which have been similarly culpable in the war against Libya? The evidence which indicates the relevant motive is, in fact, already on the proverbial “front burner.”
Consider the situation of this planet as a whole.
Our planet is presently divided for the prospective, early, next “World War,” that principally among the set based in the trans-Atlantic half of the planet, as represented by such powers as the combination of Britain, France, and the United States, on the one side, and on the designated opposing, trans-Pacific side, versus China, India, Russia and the remaining Asian nations.
Meanwhile, the presently still surviving, pivotal target, against which the “western” triad of concentrated attacking force is now focused immediately for immediate, direct action, is the combination of the immediately targeted nations of Syria and Iran. In this, the reason is shown for what had been the original, recent, British motive for the destruction of Libya, and for the combination of actions which included the war-criminal form of mass-murder which was executed for expedience’s sake, against Muammar Qaddafi and his party, as done by a leading role by French and U.S.A. forces of Sarkozy and Barack Obama.
The sheer mass of the concentration of U.S. military and related forces concentrated in the naval forces of the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, under, and on the sea, and in the air, is focused for concerted action, not only against Syria and Iran; it is also targetted, implicitly, and immediately, and almost certainly—unless there is a sudden, and profound change in current trends, against Russia, China, and also, India. The sheer mass and configuration of the cumulative build-up of the Barack Obama deployment of accumulated U.S.A. forces there, alone, are sufficient to accurately predefine the recognized target, and the actual Anglo-American motive so expressed. The clearly implied, present targets, are not only Syria and Iran; the targets include Russia, China, and, implicitly, also Pakistan’s relevant neighbor, India.1Do not overlook the option of an attack from nearby space, which consistency might have prompted a consistently deranged President Obama to have overlooked.
Some, reading that same roster of U.S. and related military forces engaged in the targetting of chosen adversaries, might presume, mistakenly, that the U.S.A. and allied forces assembled are, in large, merely precautionary back-up for an assault on a limited number of targets. That is not possible; this new war, if it actually comes, will be nuclear/thermonuclear “World War Three.”
“So,” as the late Bertrand Russell might have begun his remarks for such an occasion, “What of it?” Since the avowed leading policy expressed by the British monarchy and its confederates, is to reduce the world’s human population, rapidly, to less than one billion persons, why should Asia balk at the thought of the throwing of up to a billion Indians into the pit, while also targetting more than another billion from China, and also from Russia, while Syria and Iran are already marked out for the “rush job” of the immediate mass-extermination of their relatively modest populations, too?
Think again! Thus, the British empire, now including, in fact, the Bush-Obama faction inside the United States’ establishment as a principal tool, is now, already, proximate to the economic goal of destroying most among the economies of the nations of the trans-Atlantic sector of our planet. Now, some persons of powerful political influence, apparently consider the successful use of hyperinflation as the means to destroy the principal nations of the trans-Atlantic region, as a region under U.S. puppet-Presidents (Republican) George W. Bush, Jr., and including (Democrat) Barack Obama. So, presently, the process of economic destruction of the trans-Atlantic sector of the world has already reached the point of an almost certain, willfully induced, hyper-inflationary ruin of those trans-Atlantic regions toward the west of Western Europe, and, thence across the Atlantic, and, then, including across the Pacific, into Asia.
As the British Royal family circles have made explicitly clear, with their intended “radical environmentalist” demand to reduce the world’s population generally from seven billions, to one billion persons allowed to live on this planet, the radical destruction of the economies and populations of this planet, is the demonstrated immediate, mass-murderous, “environmentalist” policy-intention of the British imperial monarchy and its trans-Atlantic accomplices now led by such figures as British puppet, U.S. President Barack Obama.
The recent experience of the succession of the rather sudden recent turn-about in policies toward Libya by British, French, and U.S.A. forces, toward the destruction of Libya, combined with the willful crime of mass murder against humanity perpetrated by the supporters of the crime against the already defeated, retreating party of Muammar Qaddafi, is an action which is now to be clearly understood for what it had actually been. The threat of a relatively immediate, similar criminal sort of warfare, has been clearly stated as now directed against Syria and Iran.
However, the present process of destroying Western Europe and the Americas, too, would leave the Asia-Pacific side of the world in the present relative advantage at the time the trans-Atlantic sector of the world were being plunged into a “new dark age.” The British empire could never have intended such a result. Hence, the presently, manifestly obvious intention of the British empire to take the United States and the world at large, into an immediate lunge into global thermonuclear warfare.
Is that not insane? Of course it is! That was the same kind of British imperial intention behind “World Wars I and II,” only far worse.
At the present time, neither Russia, nor China, has any substantial reason to doubt that they are now the principal targets of the military and related forces currently focused against them, a targetting done by the British Empire and its accomplices.
Now, in the aftermath of the pre-calculated murder of Muammar al-Qaddafi and his companions, this is no longer a threat of a war of actually controllable dimensions; the present, British-led attack on Asia, has become the present replacement for the status of what had once been the recently calmed, Balkan region. The former “Balkans” has now been superseded by the new pivot, a “new Balkans” in Southwest Asia, a pivot for a new and bigger world war than that we have seen before this time. The opening target for that new world warfare, is now resettled in the “new Balkan cockpit of general war,” those war-zones of Southwest Asia, which presently include Pakistan.
The principal targets of this new warfare presently under way, are to be pinpointed as including most prominently Russia, China, and, also implicitly, India. The British monarchy’s implicitly avowed current intention, is to reduce the world’s population to not more than one billion persons. That, after all, is according to British spokesman in all this, Britain’s Hans Joachim Schellnhuber’s goal of “no more than one billion living on this planet,” which is also the stated goal of a frankly and publicly stated British royal-imperial doctrinal goal, a genocidal intention whose public expression leaves essentially nothing remaining as to be actually left in doubt.
Clearly, one might say, “What is covering the faces of the aforementioned, misfortunate Democratic Senators whom I have referenced, is not ‘ice cream.’” Hopefully, their political image could be considerably improved, should they still possess the “provable wit and guts” to do so.
There is nothing much about such a now clearly intended, global, thermonuclear warfare, by some, which were not intended by the mass-murderous authors of this intended “new world war.” This is a war which certain among those authors are clearly committed by their current actions, to support with general warfare, including emphasis on nuclear and thermonuclear warfare, during the relatively immediate time ahead. Implicitly, only the immediate ouster of President Obama from active control over his status as President, could save civilization (as under Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution). Only remedial actions tantamount to the expulsion of that President from office, that done now, could enable the world to escape from virtually assured destruction by the concert of military power represented by the same set of nations which murdered a defeated, but still living captive, Muammar al-Qaddafi. This is a fact of the matter which is what makes the errant folly of what I have referenced here as the relevant Democratic Senators, far worse than merely disgusting at this present moment.
Admittedly, there is very little which is sane, or otherwise serious in the intentions of the momentarily deranged Senators and their political likenesses. The very content and the circumstances of those Senators’ referenced accord, demonstrate that there has been no seriously considered intention for their behavior in that matter; they were acting essentially as nothing better than loose-lipped political opportunists, babbling away to the tunes of some silly, imagined, short-term, local advantage. Their disgusting action and related postures; make it obvious, as this was expressed in the matter of their joint statement, that they had considered absolutely nothing of importance, or even merely simple sensibility, in a serious manner; they appear to have taken into account, nothing of more consequence than collecting funds for another short season’s campaign-war-chests, probably, a futile, silly, Democratic Party campaign at that.
Later, as is the disgusting custom in political behavior of that kind of politician, that, after a probably lost election, if they were still able, those same, or similar Senators would fabricate some explanation, in the effort to quickly bury their political shame, cat-like, as by night. It had been proven, thus, that there had been no political victory, no treasure, nor political honor, in what they had done.
In the meantime, amid such silliness of some Senators such as those (from either Party), the target of a lumbering great, world-wide intent upon thermonuclear war, is presently moving toward the doom of the self-inflicted, British empire—and, unfortunately, others, such as our United States, too. Fate is moving remorselessly, moving like a juggernaut, like a lumbering “new dark age,” like a Trojan Horse launched against a self-imperilled civilization.
The Old Troy which was destroyed in such a manner, was the fruit of such a mistaken pretense of victory. As Aeschylus had emphasized later, the putative victors were condemned, strictly according to the principle of Classical tragedy, to suffer the punishment of remaining actually the victims of being what they, themselves, had become with their so-called winning of the Peloponnesian War. The folly of what is called that Greek civilization from that time, proved be a victory secured by those who had richly gained the moral destruction from which the memory of Hellenic triumph has never recovered to the present day—nor the Mediterranean region, either.
Such a war as that presently intended by the Britain of Obama’s masters, and by their accomplices, could cause many entire nations to vanish from the current stage of history, that even permanently, as that had been demonstrated in the successive falls of three Roman empires up to the present date under the actually doomed British empire. We are now at the brink of a present “Roman Empire” (the British one) remaining as likely, yet, to go down to doom by its own hand. In the outcome of such an enterprise as that, the very name of “British” would produce such an hatred by any survivor against the British name, that it would also generate that hatred against that entire collection of those nations which had been accomplices in launching such a crime against humanity as a whole.
So, any one like that empire itself, could be obliterated, with never one like it to return as a nation for as long as the memory itself. For, it would have been in the name of “British” imperialism, that the nations of continental Europe would have been destroyed themselves, by aid of their own hands, and the hands of others, too: all by means of the very fact of the others’ guilty alliance with the British empire in this foray.
The matter of the most prominent scientific interest to be examined in this matter, presents a set of questions bearing on the estimable nature of the motive which would prompt the present British empire and its dupes to launch such a monstrously evil presumption as that expressed by that London-centered, present scheme for an implicitly thermonuclear-armed “World War III.” Such is the new “Great War” which is now being pre-staged in the region of the Southwest Asian cockpit, the cockpit from which an intended World War III is now in the process of being launched with the threat of full-scale, actually thermonuclear war included.
From the start of such an inquiry, it should be considered the evident, brutish (e.g., “British”) outcome of such a venture as that, that there is nothing, in this present British imperial scheme, which befits any actually natural human interest in such an enterprise in warfare as that which the British puppet, President Barack Obama, is nominally leading. In such matters, we ourselves must proceed from the vantage-point of defining the practical meaning of what is both formally identifiable as, and is, provably, “the oligarchical interest.” That is an interest which is systemically contrary to any rigorously adducible form of the intrinsic interest of the membership of the actual human species.
It must be said in fairness to the English people, that their once-noble enterprise, under the hero Henry VII, was ruined by the criminal insanity of a Nero-like Henry VIII. Henry VIII had switched sides from Spain and France, all to the effect of quickening what had become a relatively tamed European religious warfare, by unleashing a legacy of religious warfare throughout Europe, a legacy of evil which has persisted in the likeness of William Shakespeare’s image of Lady Macbeth, until the present time.
How such a principle of evil as that could have come into being, then, or now, as if it might have occurred “naturally,” is a subject-matter which need not be proven, yet once again. For the practical purposes of such considerations as ours here, on this immediate occasion, it were sufficient to define the oligarchical principle in its own terms, while recognizing, at the same time, the contrary principle of the human species in its essentially more natural characteristics. The mission we must adopt, is to define, and to eradicate the practical influence of the oligarchical principle as readily described as such.
For me, the urgently needed alternative to the Hellish concoction by the British Empire and its present accomplices, is very clear. I explain that in these following chapters.
On the evening of this just recently passed September 30, 2011, I had broadcast a national webcast address, which included the feature of my public response to three questions presented to me during the close of that presentation. The particular scientific significance of that closing series of questions-and-answers, lay in those answers which represented the rudiments of the physical-economic principle of “credit.”
This subject, “the principle of credit,” is a matter of a principle of physical science, in opposition to the popular delusion called “monetarism.” This principle of credit has a powerful moral authority, in addition to its role as a principle of physical science as such. That was understood among the admittedly very limited number of leading economists who had been qualified to respond to that fact, as some had done just that during the hours following the completion of that national webcast itself.2The principle of physical economy leads to, and requires a rejection of a Laplacean notion of “time.” In any competent practice of the branch of physical science known as “physical economy,” time is to be measured across the span of a displacement of action in the passage of physical time, rather than so-called “clock time.” It is a qualitative change in action which “measures” the time during which a principled change in relative power of economic action is to be measured, either forward, or when a decline of the physically principled degree of action to be measured has occurred. This distinction of a physical notion of “economic time” defines the manner in which the distinction of human time from animal activity is to be reckoned; this is the distinction which properly defines the meaning of “economics” on a Riemannian basis, rather than defined as being misjudged as being merely derivatives of financial accounting practices. This has been, not accidentally, the continuing basis for my repeated, remarkably exceptional successes as a forecaster, as since my first (July 1956) forecast of that severe relative crash, which erupted, as I had forecast, for late February, or about the first of March, 1957.
That process of economic progress, is defined by the measurable rates in the measurement of the practical effect of successful increases in the margin of the productive powers of labor, per capita, and in lapsed time. In other words, we must consider the rate of the increase of productivity, as this effect is properly to be measured in the equivalent of the lapsed time of a specific effect of change in the physical state of the system. This refers, in one fashion, to the rate of physical-economic decline, or rise, expressed by the lapsed time of an economy, or to the relatively lapsed time of the change in relative productivity, that within a designatable phase of the economic process considered (relatively) as a whole. No silly fraud. such as a “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” is to be permitted on these premises.
This process can be compared, and should be correlated with the required rate of increase of energy-flux density in the progressive, evolutionary development of living species. This is implicitly measurable for species other than our own, in terms of the process expressed in the effective evolution of successive species over the longer term, as that might be estimated for some parts of the evolutionary record. The difference here is, that man’s creativity is voluntarily, willfully intentional, as in the case of a creative discovery of physical principle. This is a capacity absent from the repertoires of those other living species-types presently known to us.
The essential difference between my repeated, notable successes as an economic forecaster, relative to the stunningly consistent quality of failures of my customary, putative rivals from various leading nations, lies in the physical science of the matter of economy, that of physical economy, rather than in the measurements represented by the incompetence of methods intrinsic to the reliance on financial accounting and related methods. The concluding, question-and-answer part of my National broadcast of this recent September 30th, contains the essential germ of the matter of scientific method in economics.
The difference between the two methods, the difference of the economics method of the physical scientist from that of the monetarist, is that the monetarist accounting-specialist relies on the price expressed in the purchase and sale of money as such; the physical scientist must measure economic performance in what are fairly identified as in terms of the physical-science practice of Bernhard Riemann, as Riemann’s own achievements are to be combined with the work of Riemann’s relevant successor in closely related matters, Russia’s great scientific master-mind V.I. Vernadsky. That is to emphasize that Vernadsky transformed Riemannian physics, by elevating it to its incorporation, successively, to, first, life in general, and, then, the qualitatively higher principle of human life.
My emphasis on the inclusion of Vernadsky in my references to the subject of a science of physical economy, rather than mere financial accounting, places the needed emphasis of all truly qualified physical science on the strict meaning of the distinction of “human.”
Human beings provide the only instance of a living species presently known to us as being actually, willfully creative. “Creative” means, therefore, a form of what is termed “human behavior,” the which is typified by the action of a discovered proof of a universal physical principle of physical science. All of my original working accomplishments in the actual physical science of economics, including those of my approach to economic forecasting, are the fruit of that method of physical economy. These accomplishments, have been premised upon knowledge of the characteristics of successful approaches to human forecasting of physical trends in physical economy. This recognition by me occurred, first, since about February 1953, and, in a second, qualitatively more advanced phase, since the course of the 1970s.
Now, therefore, pause here to make clear how and why the vantage-point illustrated by the discoveries of Vernadsky, must come specifically into consideration here. A summary discussion on the matter of the subject of “sense perception” becomes crucial at this point.
To be competent, you must understand “metaphor” as being an efficiently physical principle in all of its essential features as a process in physical space-time. It is, in fact, the most essential principle of a fully competent approach to physical science.
Before entering, here, within the domain of the role of the discoveries of physical science, we must touch briefly on the crucial aspect of physical-scientific principles which pertain to the crucial function of metaphor.
Metaphor, although often considered a matter of Classical artistic composition, is not essentially that; it is the actual foundation of all competent strains of physical-scientific method within the bounds of the actual function of the human mind. To illustrate that point, I present some rather brief comment on the generality of the illustrative subject of the so-called “five senses.”
We actually have, normally, considerably more than five biological sensing mechanisms, as most among scientifically trained persons should have known very well; but, the relatively simpler illustration which I employ in this present instance, will be sufficient for our introductory pedagogical uses here.3That simplistic illustration used, only momentarily, here, will be dumped into the waste-basket, soon, hereafter.
The following point, prepares the needed introduction of the crucial principle which will come to be expressed in the completed entirety of this report as a whole.
The typical difficulty faced by the citizen in the matter of scientific method, is that the so-called “physical senses” do not show us the actually primary realities of those processes which are our sensory experience as such; they provide us, rather, with the effect of “shadows” cast to form what we experience as known either as sense-perception, or as kindred mechanisms of what are commonly recognized as both immediately sensory, but also extended-sensory experiences.
These latter cases are typified, in their illustration, by instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, as Bernhard Riemann illustrated that point in both the concluding, third section of his famous 1854 habilitation dissertation, and in the related implications of his “Theory of Abelian Functions.” For the reader’s working purposes here, we must think of sense-perceptions as “imaginary but really experienced shadows, which are cast by the impact of the powers of sense-perception,” rather than being those powers themselves. In the science of the matter, that means that we must define our object of attention as “that ‘unseen reality’ which had cast those apparent shadows.”
In other illustrations of this same point, what you read as the persons whom you see, with whom you discuss, and so forth, are real in a certain sense, as even shadows merely reflect an actual reality; “they are no better in actually efficient truth,” than as being the effect of experiencing the shadows, as metaphorical, as being of that which has caused an unseen, actually physical effect. As we reach deeper, especially much deeper, and also much more grandly into the universe which we actually inhabit, the practical implications of knowing the distinctions which I have just emphasized here, become proportionately greater in importance for the scientist, especially when considered from the standpoint of a typically Riemannian quality of non-mathematical scientific practice.4I.e., the closing sentence of the concluding Section Three of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation. Section Three in its entirety, must be taken into account for the efficient reading of that closing sentence respecting the lack of truthfulness in sense-perception as such. Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation is notably a more thorough version of the original actually experimental proof of the principle involved in that closing sentence, in what it says respecting the entirety of Section Three.
Take a highly significant aspect of the subject immediately at hand here: the subject of the physical meaning of life, with special emphasis on the additional challenge met when we put the emphasis on human life (i.e., the Noösphere), instead of that which is merely life. This brings Vernadsky’s achievements in defining the Noösphere directly into consideration.
Did you ever imagine that you might bring home a flask containing nothing but the “substance” of life? Rather a difficult object to define for observation, isn’t it?! There are very distinct differences between life and non-life, and, also, the differences between human and non-human life; but, what is either, life, or human life per se?
Now, reflect on this discussion of sense-perception thus far.
Thus far in this discussion, we have been attempting to connect what is merely a shadow of actual reality (e.g., sense-perception) with what is not of the ontological stuff which “cast those shadows” which are projected into the form of either sense-perceptions, or, into their systemically ontological likeness. What, then, we might ask, is the connection between the mere “shadow” and the reality, all gathered amid that which is not made of the imputable stuff of sense-perception per se?
The appropriate answer to such questions was supplied, thus, in a certain meaningful sense, by one of the greatest scientific minds in modern history, Johannes Kepler. One of his salient points of relevant importance for our purposes here, is the exhaustive and meticulous care with which he executed the only known to be original discovery of a principle of gravitation.
Two of his discoveries are of the utmost relevance for our immediate subject here. First, is his uniquely original discovery of a universal principle of gravitation. Kepler was the only original discoverer of that principle known to modern science. However, to track the origins of his discovery of gravitation, we must add consideration of his earlier presentation of the notion of a “vicarious hypothesis,” from “outside deduction,” which was the “organic [ontologically principled] basis” for the work leading into the undertaking of the discovery of the principle of gravitation.
That is the simplest acceptable identification of that case, but, which, however, had its traceable origins in certain leading aspects of the work of Filippo Brunelleschi5The role of the catenary in the feasibility of the crafting of the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore. and, more emphatically and more broadly, that of Nicholas of Cusa, as exemplified in Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia.6The general conception of the basis for modern physical science.
The particular significance of those presented scientific references for our purposes here, is that they provide us access to insight into what might appear to be the “bridges” which are the connections, respectively, to our practical relationship to the real universe, and, also, to interpreting the shadow-land of sense-perception and the latter’s own derivatives. For our immediate purposes here, it is the matter of the “nature” of life, and, qualitatively more important, human life, which is our leading concern at this moment. Only human life’s consciously scientific and kindred practices, present us with access to the knowledge of an actual physical principle, as Bernhard Riemann introduced this conception in the concluding, third section of his 1854 Habilitation Dissertation, and the 1857 Theory of Abelian Functions.
The crucial issue posed to us in this fashion, is the subject of humanly willful mental action. It is that action which is the essential target of our inquiry into the matter of physical economy. The proper meaning of the term will suddenly seems to mean everything worthy to be known. However, to address what might appear to be the mysteries bestirred in treating that matter thus far, we must carry our inquiry thus far, and beyond, into a related consideration: the concept of metaphor.
The essence of the source of the specific power of the human mind, is expressed in the form of metaphor: it is the recognition of the unseen object which defines, in its simplest expression, the lack of a missing quality of efficient relationship among two, or more, otherwise unstated, objects. Kepler’s discovery of the principle of gravitation was, for the purposes of the development of modern physical science, an expression of the application of that point of principle thus illustrated here. All competently defined Classical poetry, for example, is premised upon that principle of metaphor, so conceived; reciprocally, all creativity is expressed in a mode which is classically poetic.
Thus, intrinsically, competent scientific practice can not be also competently defined as being essentially deductive.
However, the additional point which is urgently to be considered, is that there has been a widespread error made on exactly this account. This has been an error which has often been, even chiefly, a relic of the effect of a controlling role customarily played by practices inherent in what is termed “the oligarchical principle.” It is exactly here, at this point, that the principle of metaphor and the notion of human creativity coincide as a matter of method. Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a principle of universal gravitation, like a related, crucial sort of irony, “the fine-structure constant,” is the most typical case of scientific irony on this account.7I.e., the popular, fun-loving scientific conundrum is: “How much is actually ‘constant’ about a ‘fine-structure constant’ when it is located within our evolving universe, if the latter is regarded as contained within a higher ordering of our universe?”
It is fortunate, that we need not stretch that fascinating irony of the fine-structure constant here, in today’s location, to seek out certain clearly validatable conclusions respecting the more limited subject-matter which I have limited myself to clarifying within this immediate setting. The subject thus posed may be regarded as being susceptible of becoming “settled” for as far as can be reached within the bounds of the principle which I have addressed directly within the bounds of this present chapter.
That much said bearing on future chapters’ references, and the like, I shall now return to a fuller focus on the urgency of a correct understanding of the nature and function of metaphor.
Almost no putative experts on that latter subject have been known to me as actually having stated a relevant understanding of the principle involved. This fact should not be considered surprising, when the facts which I had already presented above were considered. The case of Kepler’s unique discovery of the principle of gravitation, provides an excellent key to understanding the point to be made. Kepler’s place in the history of science, as an avowed student of Nicholas of Cusa, suggests that the essence of this subject was already known to relevant predecessors of Kepler, although not always explicitly presented on the known record.
Kepler had considered two categories of relevant clues, neither of which was real evidence in itself, but not to be considered real simply because it had been discovered as an explicit expression of sense perceptions. The ironical juxtapositions of those categories of sense-perception, such as sight and harmonics of hearing, etc., create a systemic contradiction; it was the contradiction between the two which prompted the discovery of a true principle, the principle of gravitation, which was not a simple product of sense-perception as such. This represents an example of the role of metaphor in defining access to knowledge of what are actually discovered universal principles.
The concluding, third, section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, is implicitly rich in its suggestions of that type. In fact, his argument, as rooted in the argument he made in that location, typifies the principle which separates the pitiable naiveté of sense-perception, from actual scientific discovery. The reality of scientifically defined physical-space-time, as this is represented by Riemann’s argument in that location, has no direct correspondence with the asserted sense-certainty expressed in the form of simple-minded algebraic, or comparable class-room or “common sense” functions. One need but consider, once more, the set of explicit statements proffered in the concluding, intrinsically metaphorical section of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation. One need merely add the higher expression of the same quality of distinction represented by both Vernadsky’s view of living processes, generally, and, most emphatically, the creative powers specific to the human mind, but lacking explicit manifestation in the actions of other living creatures.
The universe is not organized deductively. Truth relies upon the notion of metaphor, when that conception is recognized as the distinct nature of the expression of creativity. Creativity is to be recognized, in this case, as this is also expressed by Classical poetry, and, similarly, by strictly Classical modes in musical composition and performance. However, it is, essentially, the relevant model of that which sets mankind apart from other forms of life, the model which, thus, implicitly, defines the distinction of Creator and man, in common, from all of the lower forms of life.8Hence, man in the likeness of the Creator.
It is the same quality of distinctions which defines the principle of creativity presently known to us as pervading in the universe.
Creativity, as I have defined it, thus, implicitly, here, as the principle of the universe as we know it, is this which defines mankind as a universal being, but not lower forms of life. That point is available to be made clearer, through the notion of creativity which I presented in the concluding replies to the questions presented to me in my September 30 National broadcast, as follows.
Our universe is an expression of a universal principle of creation, and mankind is the specific creature which transcends the death of the human individual through man’s uniquely specific role as a means of the witting fostering of creation per se from one generation to a next. It is in the principle of creativity which is the immortal transition from the person’s past and present to the future, through creativity, that mankind’s knowable behavior, as a species, partakes of the quality of the individual representation of what should be, otherwise, the representation of our quality of function of an immortal, creative species.
The practical point to be emphasized on that account, is our need to discover the reality of our existence in the universe, as a universal being, through that function of human creativity which I illustrated, in a typical way, in my simple replies to questions in that September 30th National broadcast proceeding.
That principle, so indicated, is the immortal expression of human creativity as such, the expression of creativity which imbues a tie to immortality in the individual’s participation which is to be sensed through the fostering of that quality of an habituated sense of usual creativity, an experience which partakes, thus, of the immortality within which the human individual may participate as within the continuity of a seamless process of human creativity. It is the unfolding of creativity within our experience, which, by linking successive generations as linked together by an immortal process of the progress of creativity, such as scientific creativity, and the creative actions of metaphor more broadly, defines the sense of participation in an immortal, creative personal soul, and, truthfully, in no other way.
Not to experience such creativity in one’s self, lends a sense of a moral depression, a sensing which is tantamount to the feeling of an onset of death, an onset which has been experienced by many still-living human individuals, not necessarily due to age, but as the psychological warning signs of oncoming mortality are expressed.
That much stated this far. There remains a crucial distinction between the experiencing of the notion that our sense-experiences are sometimes merely a shadow cast by an “unseen reality,” as in the case of the experience of something which corresponds to the scientific formulation of the description of an actual experience, and a direct awareness of that which has been merely described, as if merely mathematically. The experience of an intellectual “nearness” of such a continuing prescience, is not the same intellectual experience as knowing the sensory experience as if of a shadow as being “sensed” as being “only a shadow.”
During my own young adulthood, I had come to share an awareness that the actual experience of human knowledge occurs as a form of “Classical artistic composition,” rather than a mathematical-physical model as such. In some cases, this distinction has been associated with the distinction between dreaming in color, and in the sense of a likeness to dreaming in “black and white.” This were more likely to be experienced by actually creative scientific personalities, who are also imbued with a more or less professional quality of Classical musical-artistic composition and its performances, and who tend, consequently to dream in “color.”
This phenomenon should not be considered odd, when it occurs, if and when we take into account the fuller implications of an intimacy with the Classical-artistic modes of intellectual experience. Thus, the mathematician tends to dream in Euclidean black-and-white, whereas the greatest scientific and artistic minds both tend toward color, and to music consistent with the creative outlook which tends to be typified by Classical musical composition, rather than other varieties.
The relevant distinctions are those between the mind which experiences itself, and the mind which is controlled by virtually blind faith in a notion of sense-perception as if in itself. Thus, currently popular “music” is symptomatic of the perversity of a decadence in the condition of today’s popular sort of individual human mind. The so-called “practical mind” expresses, thus, a relatively decadent quality of personal world-outlook.
To illustrate the point, take a page from astronomy.
We actually dwell in a universe which envelops the individual experience of outlook on a galaxy of billions of stellar objects, and a super-galaxy of billions of galaxies. In matters of science, we must recognize that that which encompasses us, is the reigning reality on which we human beings must, ultimately, premise the outcome of our passing experience of existence. So, the ancient mariners who sailed across the oceans, read the stars and the motions of the planets to discover the destiny of our species’ experienced process of living. So, we had veteran nuclear-physical scientist Professor Robert J. Moon’s repeated emphasis on the needed, critical outlook on the “fine structure constant.” He had insisted, repeatedly, on the irony of this to the fellow-members of Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), during my experience with him in the 1970s and 1980s. It was only a necessary coincidence, that man’s practical commitment to reaching a manned Moon-landing, since the 1920s, turned out to be the greatest impetus for astronomical progress in universal scientific achievements since that time to the present date. It is thus, that we come to master aspects of the universal, and that we might do this, in this way, to the end that we might achieve the cognitive development of the power to affect the “universe” within which our existence occurs.
We discover the patterns of the weather as we see our galaxy as the habitat of our Solar system, and that Solar system as the habitat of Earth, and so on. We dwell in a universe composed of universalizing processes, rather than the habitual reductionist’s discrete objects. We are not objects as such, but that which contains and defines our higher power to act upon our objective with efficient intellectuality, thus to act upon the universality which contains us, and that by means of which we act on that universe. We are, thus, something greater than that which the hide of the ignorant person might believe were containing him, viewing him as contained as a being which exists essentially as a discrete object. It is as our mind recognizes the reality, that we are enabled to escape the bonds of a mere likeness to bestiality, a feat accomplished by being a radiant expression of the universe which we inhabit. Our limits are often those which a brutish sense of ego imposes upon us, rather than being something universal, something beyond the formal boundaries of our carcass.
To place what I have written thus far, within its most relevant, practical terms, probably our best approach would be to examine the matter of cures for this planet’s presently most deadly follies, by placing matters under the following four, component, topical headings:
Why is the Democratic Party’s leadership presently insane? (Not to mention the Republican Party.)
The hysterical folly of the Democratic Party at this time, is exhibited in the presumption, that since the worse than fascist President of the United States, Barack Obama, is nominally a Democrat, that that Party itself is obliged to support that President for the next electoral round of voting, in November 2012. (In fact, the characteristic of President Obama has been shown to be, certainly, that of the infamous Roman Emperor, and mass-murderer, Nero.)
Moreover, that incumbent President has already increased the trend of death-rates among the majority of our citizens, and has imposed policies which, themselves, intentionally increase the death-rates among our citizens. He has insisted on additional actions which will increase that death-rate still more. In fact, that President has been essentially a mere tool of a British monarchy whose avowed doctrines are intended to reduce the world’s human population from a present level of seven billions souls, to one billion, or less. The currently avowed practice of the British monarchy, and of President Obama and his administration, are already occupied with accelerated ratesof exactly such currently avowed policies of genocide in practice.
At the same time, the current policies of many among the Republican pre-candidates for President are as bad, or sometimes worse than those of Obama. The conclusion to which these indisputable facts must lead, is that the Democratic Party should dump the mass-murderous Obama (and his like), and run its candidacies against both Obama and the apparent trend among the likely candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination.
The most stupid, and even worst sort of candidacy for U.S. President this round, would be to back a President whose policies emulate those of both Adolf Hitler and the Emperor Nero (as Obama and his leading supporters have done this). The sane conclusion is that the Democratic Party must now, immediately, and urgently, commit itself to throwing President Barack Obama, out of office immediately, as must be done under both Section 4 of the Federal 25th Amendment and his own impeachable offenses. The current trend in Democratic Party candidate for President in 2012, is, therefore, that he must be clinically sane in conduct and expressed intention, and must become an effectively anti-Obama representative. Obama himself must be promptly impeached on the basis of clear evidence at hand.
The Democratic Party must, therefore, terminate President Obama’s candidacy now, and declare itself against the leading, offending policies and practices of the Obama Presidency now. In sum, we must defend our republic by throwing Obama out of office on compelling premises, and that immediately!
The basis of the current argument for murderous practices on behalf of the policies of both the British monarchy and the avowedly murderous Obama U.S. Presidency now, is the British’s monarchy’s stated presumption, that the size of the human population must be greatly reduced, that on the scale of a vast and sudden surge of reduction in what had been not only the available improvements in the productive powers of human labor, but a savage reduction of the existing population through aid of aversive physical-economic and related practices.
Notably, the collapse of the levels of the human population in the trans-Atlantic regions (in particular) has been greatly extended in both breadth and depth through the combination of deliberately hyper-inflationary monetarist policies and systemic destruction of the technologies which would have prevented a current trend toward those pro-genocidal policies of practice which had been explicitly intended to force a combined collapse of the standard of living of the world’s human population, and to promote even genocidal methods intended to induce radical, and, hence, murderous degrees of rapid population reduction.
The leading instrument of policy which has been used to effect a forced genocide among nations and their people, since the launching of that insane U.S. warfare in Indo-China which President John F. Kennedy and General Douglas MacArthur had denounced in advance, has been the combined efforts of the Anglophiliac, oligarchical currents of the current British empire and its accomplices: to bring down the levels of productivity of the human population generally, all that carried out through policies associated with the likeness of that person who had been, probably, the most evil man of the Twentieth Century, Bertrand Russell with his kind. Russell and his kind proceeded toward such ends by promotion of general warfare and related means, as since the close of the Nineteenth Century and the beginning decades of the Twentieth Century.
The fact is that the world has now entered fully into a condition in which general warfare among nations is no longer a feasibly sustainable option. With such developments as current advances in the destructive forces required to win a war, there can be no winner in warfare, but only the ruin of civilization and accelerated death-rates among the population.
Such things as those represent a state of world affairs which has always been implicit in that oligarchical principle which has been, in turn, illustrated by not only the Peloponnesian War, but even during earlier times under the reign of the oligarchical system. The root of the conflict of general warfare among nations and people, was inherent in that oligarchical principle of perpetual conflict between the reigning class of “the gods” and the alleged human form of “cattle.” The oligarchical principle of keeping the “human cattle” relatively “dumbed down” to the levels of crude and relatively low “energy-flux densities” of technologies, has been a great, most evil curse, to which mankind has been subjected through what recorded history has known, mostly, as oligarchical subjugation, that since ancient through modern history, always under the influence of the oligarchical principle.
Thus, what has been known in history as the reign of an oligarchical culture and its classes, has now come to the point that oligarchism and the principle of humanity could no longer safely inhabit the same planet, even, perhaps, the same galaxy. It is the present condition of this planet, that reign over nations by the selected means of warfare, is, therefore, no longer a feasible option. The power of not only thermonuclear weapons, but means such as biological warfare, or simple impoverishment, and the like, can now no longer be tolerated as a policy of practice among nations.
What is wrong with today’s military policies?
As I have emphasized under the preceding topic, and conformably to all serious forms of relevant evidence, the allowable practice of major warfare by governments ended at about the same time that I had taken a leading position in what came to be proposed as a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Indeed, the intention of what had become SDI had been placed on the mooted agenda, by me, in late 1977, as a result of my initiative. This policy had gained increasingly active support among relevant leaders among a number of important nations, over the course of the 1977-1983 interval, and had been repeatedly proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the course of the 1980s.
Since that latter time, the use of the option of general warfare among leading nations, and, indeed, now, virtually all nations, has ceased to exist as a feasible solution for the pains and perils of mankind.
Nonetheless, what I, and other prominent spokesmen from around much of the world, had believed and supported, then, has now reached the point, that any voluntary attempt at general warfare, even on a limited scale, is an expression of what is to be denoted, in its aftermath, as clinical insanity. War has always been a sickness of peoples and their governments, the so-called oligarchical sickness; but, also, as presently, often an option which relevant nations had often found themselves with no apparent option to resist.
This now requires some discussion.
War is not a natural consequence of an alleged inherent human propensity for violence. Warfare is either an expression of the blinding stupidity of some backwards people, as, specifically most significantly, a product of what is called the same “oligarchical principle” whose expression was typified by the Peloponnesian War, and, more deeply, the principle of the legendary, maritime cult of the Olympian Zeus, or his echo, which has also been expressed by such models as the bestialized, mass-murderous Aztec cult. War has been imposed, by some by oligarchical motives, or as imposed on those who are seeking to resist the oligarchy’s initiatives for warfare.
The continuation of the reign of oligarchical interests, kept the fires of warfare stoked against a true civilization of mankind. “We knew it was wrong, but ‘we had to learn to defend ourselves’ even if it worked against our own, acquired interests.” The time has now arrived, with the arrival of not only nuclear, but also thermonuclear capabilities, that war is no longer an efficient defense of anyone’s national interest.
The present root of such problems as might be described as those, does not lie even in the attributable degree of violence of what has recently emerged as the specific violence of today’s strategic weaponry. It lies, essentially, in the likeness of the policies of Barack Obama’s incumbency. It lies in the failure to accept mankind’s present destiny: “the extra-terrestrial principle” of our “space age,” the principle which the British imperial puppet, President Barack Obama, has attempted, desperately, to prevent.
Therefore! Study the principle of what has been named as the “Fine-structure Constant,” which was drilled into many among us who had been associated with leading nuclear scientist Professor Moon’s leading role in the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF). That “Constant” implied a relationship within a great part of the galactical system which contains both our immediate galaxy, and the higher, super-galactic order. Some among us, I think wisely, suspect that that “Constant” is not exactly a fixed “constant,” but, only apparently fixed, relatively fixed in the sense of the effect on our perceptual powers of the vast extent of the implied scale of the apparently, perpetually self-creating universe. (Otherwise, it could not be actually a universe.)
From the study of life over so brief an interval as a half-billion years within our immediate galaxy, the history of the thus-observed, proximate universality, begs that we humans reach mankind’s true adulthood, to take a hand in the creative management of that region of a still-developing universe proximate to us. We who think and search in such terms of reference, will tend to agree, that mankind can not limit our species to the inherent vulnerability of our planet Earth. From such vantage-points as the closing, third section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, our partial successes in the domain of thermonuclear power thus far, do not attract us to the prospect of thermonuclear weapons of war; but, neither can we presume that such military technologies are in some way the natural consequence of the discovery of either such technologies, or of future “matter-antimatter” capabilities. Man’s destiny, as a creature manifestly in the potential which appears to us as the likeness of a Creator, could not have intended mankind to have been limited to squabbles among life on Earth forever.
I recall from my immediate post-World War II days, my poem [“My Lyre”] in which I acclaimed man’s destiny to be that of “bending stars like reeds.” The memory has haunted me, currently, and increasingly, across more than a half-century of my immediate, post-World War II life. I know that that is the right perspective, still, for today, and will be ever more so.
What is rotten-wrong with monetarist policies?
The relatively simplest identification of the powers inherent in the human species is our species’ capacity to increase the attributable increase of the “energy-flux density” of mankind’s power to exist, per capita, and per cubic mass of power expressed.
Earlier in this report, I had emphasized the role of those powers of creativity which are unique to mankind: Man’s voluntary creation of the discovery of a universal creation of the universal principles associated with human creativity’s role in the qualitative (and also quantitative) advances of mankind and mankind’s society. This power, which is unique to us among known living species, coincides with the same notion of creativity which is also specific to the known universe in general, and also to the creative powers of the human mind.9That is a point which bears on the matter of interpretation of a “fine-structure constant.” If the universe is creative, the value of the “fine structure constant” is subject to change. The exploration of that kind of consequence is expressed by the upward process of development of evolution of living species, as in the subject of the evolution of known living species during the recent half-billion years. This is to be examined in light of strong evidence suggesting that the human species has lived only during a few millions of years. All of this points to the uniqueness of the human species, with respect to other cases of known living species.
What is wrong about the way we treat, or simply ignore the importance of human life within our galaxy?
The uniqueness of the specifically creative function of the human mind, distinguishes the human species, and the human individual, from all other known living creatures. Only the human species, among all others known, has the specific attribute of willful creativity’s effect on the universe. In this respect, all other species are functionally subordinate-in-principle to the human species, and the human species is subsumed only by the power of a living quality of eternity as such. Man, thus, is made in the likeness of the Creator.
The evidence in support and clarification of that role of the human species, indicates that mankind is responsible for fulfilling that function of true creativity. It is mankind which must develop itself to influence the direction and quality of the Solar system which inhabits our galaxy, and, thus, influences the development of that galaxy, in turn.
We are, in that manner and degree, responsible for mankind’s progressive improvement of the Solar system and its role in contributing a certain development within the galaxy.
That is not to insist that man can exert such influence in the manner of a species indigenous to Mars, or some other planet. It signifies that we are equipped, by the development of our creative potential, to create means by which we can bring about certain needed changes in our Solar system, and certain wonderful effects within our galaxy. Before leaving this report, something important must now be added.
Our duty is to set into motion crafted instruments and their effects, by means of which we are enabled to shape developments within our Solar system through the means of an extraterrestrial outreach. That is the outreach through which we can exert control over processes which we, in our own incarnate species-form, could not touch directly with our own, attributable bodily form. It is on the account of that latter, stated role and capability, that the mind of mankind can exert power over that which the incarnate human body could not touch. Man is the incarnate power of the self-development of that powerful agency which is the appropriately developed human mind. Mankind is, thus, a super-species, which lives not in the flesh, but is the implied incarnation of the innately creative powers of the human mind.
Mankind, therefore, is not a mere “Earthling.” The human mind is the necessary instrument by means of whose development of the role of mankind in the universe, it can reach to the galaxies and super-galaxies above: all in good time.