Final, edited version posted: 11/28/2011 3:39pm EST.

A world at its wits’ end:

THE END OF THE WORLD’S WARS!

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 22, 2011


A crucial reflection:

The end of the nations’ wars, or the end of man? “That,” dear Shakespeare, “is the question!”

The operation which the British are setting into motion at this time, is not only “a new Seven Years War”! It is the intention to launch a virtually global thermonuclear war in the immediate time ahead. How many silly fools are going to fall for this criminal scheme of Britain and its puppet, President Barack Obama? It probably would be the immediate unleashing of a thermonuclear “Armageddon,” a thermonuclear world war set off in what is called “The Holy Land.”

In 1983, when the Soviet Union’s Yuri Andropov had foolishly rejected U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s proffer of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), I warned, that if Moscow continued to reject the SDI proffer, the Soviet system would collapse in “about five years.” It did, exactly as I had warned repeatedly in a message by me, as presented by U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and that not once, but twice.

So about five years after Andropov’s rejection of the SDI, the Soviet system’s East Germany partner, the German Democratic Republic (DDR), collapsed, and, immediately following that, the Soviet-linked eastern European partners, fell, too. Then, promptly, came the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

On the record, in fact, since Summer 1956, I am not given to uttering forecasts which are not proven to be true, and that in a timely fashion.

Amid those current developments then in progress, there was a deadly threat against Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl, from an array led by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s London, joined by France’s President François Mitterrand, and U.S. President George H.W. Bush. The terms were, that all of the nations of western and central continental Europe must agree to give up their national sovereignties, to become colonies of London’s hellish British Empire.

Those threats delivered against Germany’s Chancellor Kohl succeeded. The nations of western and central Europe have now lost their former sovereignties (at least temporarily), and almost the entirety of the trans-Atlantic world, excepting a few nations there, are in a threatened state, and have been on the verge of toppling into the deepest and widest collapse since Europe’s Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age.”

Actually, that virtual threat of war against the Germany of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, was the threat which was attributed to the regime of Britain’s “puppet on money strings,” President François Mitterrand, a threat which misled Europe into the choice of either the end of Europe’s “world wars,” or, the end of Europe, or, as we should recognize today, a combination of both. The effects of what would be the only kind of general warfare which remained possible after the rejection of U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s proffer of a thermonuclear defense option, were to become the end of civilization. Should we call it “Armageddon”?

Think back! Had the proposed action by President Ronald Reagan not been blocked, as that was done through London’s accomplices sitting in Moscow offices at that time, the problems which so much of the world has suffered for so long, since that time, would have been already buried in the past. Instead, certain ruinous developments have taken over the world’s current affairs, especially so in the trans-Atlantic regions. So far, the U.S.A., in particular, has never recovered from the effects of the sudden and deep 1987 recession. At the same time, a virtually dying continental western and central Europe, have given up their sovereignties for the sake of becoming a set of puppet colonies of the British empire under a system of internal chaos called “governance.”

So, ever since 1989-1991, the price of peace in continental western and central Europe, has remained submission to the imposition of a doomed arrangement which was to become known as the presently inherently bankrupt “Euro” scheme of what has been named “governance.” That aspect of European developments, when combined with the blocking of my July-August 2007 launching of my proposed U.S. Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, had turned out, in the end, to have been the presently onrushing, hyperinflationary threat of the doom of nations on both sides of the Atlantic. The resulting, endlessly hyper-inflationary pile-up of worthless, U.S. self-hyper-inflated debts, is one which neither would, nor could be paid for as long as the British empire’s maddened, current puppet, President Barack Obama, remained in power.

A Threat of World War

These issues had already been the set of options which I had foreseen and forecast since Summer and Autumn 1977, onward, options which had been the basis for my personal role in initiating a design for “a strategic nuclear defense” option. From that time through 1983, and implicitly beyond, any warfare involving the U.S.A. and Soviet Union, or Russia now, would be implicitly premised on a thermonuclear option. Such a war, if it came to that, would be the end of civilization as we had known it. That remains the essential background for the menacing state of world affairs presently.

The alternative to the policies of the British imperial puppet-President Barack Obama’s remaining in power, is composed, largely, of the following two leading elements of an urgently needed, global strategic policy.

First, now that the British empire has brought the world as a whole onto the thermonuclear verge of World War III, the British empire, although not a sovereign United Kingdom, must be dissolved in fact, that for the benefit of all sane persons concerned. This health-giving benefit must be accomplished through an economic recovery effected through a general reorganization of what is presently, a hopeless, hyper-inflationary bankruptcy of the present configuration of most of the present trans-Atlantic region. The present, London-coordinated monetarist system must therefore be terminated, together with London’s American puppet, the Wall Street merchant-banking elements. The present, London-centered submission of the United States, must be ended abruptly, now, by two combined measures, measures which provide the indispensable reform represented by a U.S.A.-initiated credit system. The new system must replace the present, London-coordinated, implicitly imperialist’s, monetarist system.

The Remedies at Hand

There can be a prompt, relatively immediate measure for the successful attempt at a general economic recovery from the presently hopeless condition of the trans-Atlantic monetary system of collapse. The remedy for the present bankruptcy of that trans-Atlantic monetarist system, requires the establishment of a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, rather than a continuation of any kind of monetarist system. The bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic monetarist system, is now virtually absolute; that present system can not be sustained in any fashion within its present forms.

At present, the trans-Atlantic monetarist system has reached a degree of absolutely hopeless bankruptcy, such that most of the financial debt of the trans-Atlantic system must be effectively cancelled as a matter of essential, emergency pre-conditions for the possible survival of the indicated nations of the trans-Atlantic system. This corrective measure requires the following sequence of remedial actions. Those actions, if taken as prescribed here now, will be the indispensable immediate reforms without which no physical-economic recovery of those regions of the planet could survive.

FIRST: The Glass-Steagall Law introduced by former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, must be reawakened throughout the relevant nations of the trans-Atlantic region, and beyond. The total segregation of merchant banking accounts from commercial banking and kindred accounts, must eliminate the merchant banking and equivalent accounts. This measure will summarily eliminate the great mass of speculative financial “paper” from the actual obligations of the nation and its commercial banking accounts.

Unfortunately, however, the financial means left over from the purge of gambling debts from the system, will not be sufficient to maintain a recovery of the U.S. economy (for example) from its presently ruined condition. The Glass-Steagall remedy is nonetheless indispensable; but it is not sufficient.

Therefore, there must be a second measure, a measure which must be instituted promptly after the Glass-Steagall measure has been installed.

SECOND: The United States must immediately act to return the nation to the original, Federal constitutional mode of a credit system, in place of a monetarist system.

The restoration of a credit system for the U.S. dollar, comes at a time, now, that the Federal Reserve System has been bankrupted beyond hope, by the measures fostered by Alan Greenspan since the early 1980s. For this urgently needed measure to occur, the United States must return to the original intention of our Federal Constitution, by reversing the improper actions of President Jackson, by establishing the U.S. Treasury Secretary’s rescue of our young republic from an impossible condition of seemingly permanent bankruptcy, through the appropriate, actually constitutional provision, of what should be named presently as the Third National Bank of the United States.

The Third National Bank will return Federal practices to the principled, successful rules which had been established in constitutionally based practice for the First and Second National Banks. This Third National Bank will provide the mustering of Federal credit, that uttered in predetermined authorized amounts of credit provided by adopted acts of the U.S. Federal Government, a reform done according to the authorized amounts, terms, and intended use, whether as direct financing of government investment activities through the Third National Bank, or, for authorized loans to approved private enterprises.

The principles employed on behalf of that return to the original intention of the Federal Constitution, will enable us to launch a massive program of an anti-inflationary combination of greatly expanded productive employment from the start. These measures will also provide for the protection of the presently unemployed members of a standard labor-force, aided by such urgently needed environmental improvements as the indispensable launching of great projects such as the NAWAPA program, and the indispensable mass-development of efficient, very high-speed rail and magnetic-levitation states of mass transport of passengers and freight.

The present, trans-Atlantic system of “bail-outs” must be simply obliterated as worthless trash. The proper remedies would be, as I will indicate here, relatively simple, and potentially very effective.

In other words, any attempt to continue the present trans-Atlantic set of monetary systems, such as those of the present International Monetary Fund (IMF), would have entailed the doom of civilization among the nations of that trans-Atlantic region—and, probably, beyond. In fact, so far, it has.

One of the most urgent of the sundry questions which that historical record poses still today, is: “Why did that history, since that time, persist up through the present day?” Or, we might pose a slightly different, but yet to have been adequately stated question: Why and how did the Soviet Union collapse under, in particular, the leaderships of Yuri Andropov and Mikhail Gorbachov?


I. THE ROLE OF EMPIRE


Partly as a fruit of known evidence, mostly out of respect for a reading of the footprints left in the sands of history: we are, if we wish, enabled to know that our planet has been dominated, since societies of ancient times, by a pathological form of organization of human society known as an “oligarchical system.” That oligarchical system has been a dominant expression of a tyranny over most of the past, and still present parts of the history of mankind, over mankind as a whole still today. The evidence, as from various parts of the planet since ancient times, is as clear as if these cases were frozen footprints in the sands of time: exactly when, or how that came to be the case, is clouded over with mystery, at least in a large degree; however, the effect is absolutely demonstrated beyond doubt.

The following pages of this report should prove to present us sufficient evidence to make the point clear.

For us today, the most useful indications of the nature of the origins of this despicable arrangement, are presented in the ancient Grecian classic, most emphatically that of the histories presented to us as the legends of Homer and the insights of Aeschylus. The legends associated with the images of the evil Olympian Zeus and the heroic figure of the humanist Prometheus, are of special importance for historians, scientists and scholars of today.

Such subjects are not a matter of the mere facts of our past, as such. They provide us with the clues essential to our best attempts at a successful pre-determination of our future, and, at the least, insight into the possible pathways for discovering freedom from simple repetition of the sorrowful habits of our past.

Two contrasted subjects point us in a useful direction in our search for the actual causes of the contrasted failures and successes of sundry varieties of historically known cultures of human society thus far. To open such a discussion: for what reason did some human cultures appear to prosper, and others fail? Why did the same culture appear to advance in one stage of its existence, and fail, even catastrophically, in another, such as the greater part of the trans-Atlantic cultures presently? Any serious attempt to prove either case, rise or fall, usually leads the questioners to a hopeless state of confusion. In the end, it should have been made clear, that the fault of the questions lies in the designs of the questioners themselves.

For that purpose, let us introduce the notion of God’s viewpoint in this matter, rather than the human population’s, especially that according to the viewpoint of a ruling social stratum. Take the case of the British oligarchy for example; reflect on the following evidence.

Since the immediate aftermath of what has been named “World War II,” the British monarchy has leaned toward a reduction of the human population as a measure of national, and even global progress. Yet, the oligarchs’ efforts to maintain control over the so-called “lower classes,” requires a tendency for both reduction of productivity per capita and of the population as a whole, tendencies which impose decadence upon the productivity of national populations, except during periods during which population-size is built up as a temporary objective promoted in the interest of expending that built-up population on behalf of the purposes of killing off large portions of the forces assembled for the practice of warfare intended to check the rates of increased productivity of that population per capita and per square kilometer.

The production of usable wealth, per capita and per square kilometer of territory must increase, yet the net intention of the oligarchical rule is to hold down the quality, and actual net productivity of the subject population. Where more advanced education would mean a higher rate of productivity, the reigning oligarchy often prefers a contrary trend.

A hint of the proper answers to such questions has lately confronted us with the effects of a shift of the position of the Solar system with respect to its position within the galaxy’s arms, or like types of considerations. What is the purpose of man in this Solar system or galaxy? What is the purpose of the existence of mankind? This is of special significance for us today, when we consider the evolutionary development of life on Earth. The situation is demonstrated with far greater force when we consider the role of mankind on Earth and, implicitly, within the Solar system: the uniquely willful quality of mankind’s characteristics as contrasted to that of qualitatively inferior qualities of life.

What is the adducible optimum, especially so when we note the willful creativity of the human mind, when compared with the lack of such willfully motivated forms of creativity encountered in the animal species?

The general conclusion which erupts in response to the set of questions whose components are typified uniquely by the human species, is that all questions listed above, appear to end up as absurdities. Yet, the included behavior by sections of the human species suggests most strongly, that the failures among human cultures have been, chiefly, willfully chosen causes for catastrophic failures within sections and periods of human cultures known from experience on Earth.

There is a known factor which fits the outlines of an answer to such questions respecting the role of humanity on Earth, and, implicitly, in light of today’s knowledge of this matter, which is that mankind’s characteristics point toward a growing tendency for successful survival of our species.

Now, since I have teased you this far into the discussion, let us probe for the hinted answers.


II. THE PRINCIPLE OF PHYSICAL TIME


On the surface of the evidence at hand, it would still appear to most persons, even most of those with advanced scientific training presently, that the lapse of time, is as simple as watching the ticking of the hands of a common clock. In fact, there is no actual basis for such beliefs today, other than the false belief in either the notion of “clock-time,” or the like; Pierre-Simon Laplace’s measure of time, has been a fraud from the start. Contrary to most popular opinion, even among otherwise qualified scientists today, the still popular notions of “space” and “time” are actually, scientifically, absurd.

Not only are notions of time such as that of Laplace, absurdities in fact; that absurdity has been the proverbial, cheap and lying fraud which has been an indispensable feature of the general incompetence of the customary practice of “economics” up to the present time. All of the most terrible failures among economists and the like, can be traced, in one way or another, to belief in the use of “clock time” as a measurement to be embedded in economic measurements.

It is fairly said, that the intrinsic form of scientific incompetence among economists and related kinds of specialists, lies in the arbitrary presumption that the notions of “space” and of “clock time” are to be regarded as “self-evident” notions of basic physical measurements for their use in both political economy and physical science generally, contrary, for example, to Albert Einstein and those who fit the category of like-minded geniuses of Twentieth-century physical science. Only a swindler such as the dupes of Bertrand Russell could regard both “space” and “clock time” as admissible elements of an actually physical science. The relevant proofs of my argument on this account, are featured aspects of two of my most recent scientific publications: the Principle or Party and Obama’s Armageddon End-Game.1Dumb Democrats!: Principle or Party? EIR No. 44, Nov. 11, 2011; or LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20133), The Fall of the British Empire: Obama’s Armageddon End-Game, EIR No. 46, Nov. 25, 2011; or LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20429). And, also, the prelude to those both, Glass-Steagall & beyond: Our Credit System, EIR, No. 43, Nov.4, 2011; or LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19981).

Although I have referred to aspects of the same, needed correction of related popular errors in what had been often wrongly presumed to be a scientific doctrine, the awful error of prevailing, presumed scientific practice respecting physical time (and space), reigns still in leading, presumed scientific opinion today, despite the warnings delivered by such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. While my own principles, such as those presented in my publications identified above, have been prompted, largely, by that pair and their predecessors back to such as Heraclitus and Plato, the crux of those subject-matters had not been presented in a suitable systemic expression by anyone known to me, until that series of those three publications of mine identified above.

Actually, the first published statement of this principle was uttered by me in replies to two of the questions posed to me coming at the close of my September 30th National Broadcast2Although, I had presented some preliminary, published elements of this work to Sky Shields, months earlier. My beliefs in this matter had been referenced in some of my published work years earlier in some comments of mine on the ontological implications of Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s work on chemistry. Working through the anticipated defense of a discovered principle usually does take a significant number of years of playing with the implications of an hypothetical breakthrough. Indeed, my advantage in these aspects of physical science can be traced to the middle to late 1950s on the subject of a Riemannian approach met in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, the third and concluding section of that dissertation most emphatically.. The support for my thesis presented in reply to those two questions, from valued leading colleagues in a science of economy had been the prompting of my authorship of the three published works to which this chapter of the present report refers.

The crucial feature of those three reports from the October-November interval, was presented there as a more fulsome expression of the fact that human sense-perception is, as I emphasized in those reports, not a direct reflection of anything of actually existing substance, but more in the character of a mere shadow. In fact, to date, mankind has never had a direct perception of what qualifies as physical reality. Indeed, the most convenient approach to the actuality of the import of sense-perception requires a carefully crafted insight into the implications of Abelian functions as that latter notion was introduced by Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann. The putative subject-matters of sense-perception are essentially merely shadows cast, as perceptions, by an unsensed reality, from which we are enabled, through relevant scientific method, to adduce the ironical approach to subject-matters of the concluding, third section of Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.3E.g., “This leads us into the domain of another science, into the domain of physics, which the nature of today’s event (i.e., mathematics), forbids us to enter.

The fact that the intimations of merely presumed sense-perceptions provide no explicit evidence of that which has cast the shadow, is not a weakness of the powers of the human mind; but, quite the contrary, is an essential provision in service of a principle of truthful knowledge, rather than mere estimated approximations, which will be readily superseded by the next important round of progress in science.

On that specific account, consider such cases as the attempt to measure the principles of, respectively, life, and human creativity as such, as V.I. Vernadsky treats the respectively distinct principles of the Biosphere and the Noösphere. How could such “magnitudes” as those be measured as inherently substances of direct sense-perception per se? They exist for sense-perception only as expressing something akin to a notion of “actions,” but often rather potently expressed notions of actions, rather than even hypothetical objects as such.

We are therefore, properly obliged, to treat the experienced sense of something akin to an hypothesis of action as a shadow from which we might seek to adduce a notion of what might be assumed had been that which had cast the adduced shadow.

The additional complication to be considered on this account, is the adduced effect of action in modifying what our imagination suspects might be a changed nature of the experienced universe. To state the point in another fashion: we do not rightly seek to adduce the universe in the large from an experiencing of imagined qualities of sense-perceptions in the “extremely small” or “extremely large,” as Riemann makes that point in the concluding portion of his 1854 dissertation; it is the change in the small, especially the very small, when considered as being predicated upon the very large.

To restate the point with suitable approximation, the proper task of the human mind is to adduce the changes in the indicated principles of working design of the universe, which determine the very small (and, hence, the principles of physical time as such), rather than the suggested experience of the very small, and hence the determination of the action introduced as an hypothesis from both that very small and also the very large.

The foregoing descriptions are necessary for acquisition of the ability to practice actual science, including the discovery of the changes in experienced, apparently “physical” principle which might be generated by a sense of action of change of the composition of order in the adduced notion of a “universe.” Here, my particular discovery, my notion of a universal principle of physical time, comes into play. That conclusory judgment was demonstrated in essence, in my replies to the two relevant questions presented in the September 30th National Broadcast. The actual implications of that conclusion are the crucial, added matter for consideration here.

All that which I have just presented within this present chapter thus far, has been necessary preparation for the more conclusive, practical considerations which were already embedded in my replies to the two concluding questions of that September 30th occasion.

The Principle of “Action”

Insofar as practice permits us to know, the distinction of what passes, plausibly, for the individual human mind, is the non-linear reality of the human individual’s experiencing of the discovery of a principle of action as shown in experience of the experienced universe. The crucial point to be emphasized on that account, is located most clearly for our purposes here, as what are, in effect of practice, changes in the physical-principle-determined willful action by the human individual which have the effect of a qualitative change in the principle of action expressed as a change induced willfully to the effect of increasing society’s power to act upon the human environment being experienced.

The simplest form of expression useful for outlining such an adduced-as-physical process, is a relative increase of the power of human action per capita, as this is typified by the effect of an increase (or reversal) of energy-flux-density of effective action per capita. This model of such an effect, entails the notion of a transformation in the effective power of action for change in quality of a standard unit of action, preferably upward, per capita and per cubic meter of action per capita. This action, when treated as a rate of increase of relative energy-flux-density, that per capita and per square meter of action, defines an implied notion of physical time.

It is convenient to treat such willful changes in human behavior of action in its anti-entropic modes. That provides us with a convenient “first approximation” of human anti-entropy.

Man or Beast

Therefore, the appropriate distinction to be applied to the subject of man versus beast, is the willful expression of creativity which is demonstrably known as the absolute physical-principled distinction of man from beast, and both from plant-life, or the latter equivalent. For convenience, let us define this distinction as lying within the notion of the inherent uniqueness of human qualities of willfully-driven creativity.

The aforesaid prescriptions presented here this far, have now brought us to a crucial next step of our subject of further inquiry here. Here, at this point, it is both convenient and essentially truthful, to bring in the contrasted notions of entropy and anti-entropy, as measuring-rods for the opposing notions of anti-creative and creative human behavior. It is notable that no animal is capable of principled forms of anti-entropic inventions of behavior. To make the point with actual precision, the creative potentials of the human species are expressed as action on a future quality of higher-principled action, rather than a stagnant or entropic effect.

Once we have brought this view of entropy versus anti-entropy into consideration, we are obliged to recognize the nature of the effectively degenerate trends in modes of economic behavior in the United States since the effect of the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and Democratic pre-candidate for President, his brother, Robert Kennedy. In fact, there has been a generally entropic decay in the trans-Atlantic regions of Europe and North America since the interval from the onset of the post-John F. Kennedy war in Indo-China, up to the rapidly accelerated collapse of the physical economies of western Europe and North America since the Indo-China War-driven assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy, which is to say: during that standard model of interval for measuring the effective change in relative energy-flux density of an economy.

All of those considerations which I have outlined within this chapter this far, when taken together, define the measure of relative productivity, or decline of an economy.

The essential action of any human being, or of his or her society in general, is to be located in the relative entropy or anti-entropy as I have summarized those needed definitions here. All different approaches to measuring human productivity and/or intellectual quality of performance, are not only errors, but characteristically decadent, both physically and morally.


III. THE MORAL ISSUE


The most useful among the relevant responses to the questions implied in the unfolding of this report thus far, is indicated by examining the principal varieties of opposing types within the category of “human.” The most significant factor in defining those varieties, is both the common feature of the two types, “ordinary” versus “oligarchical.” That common feature is the potential embodied in specifically human characteristics. The essential distinction is the oligarchy’s struggle to keep the under classes suppressed by the upper classes, especially by the highest classes. The complementary distinction, is the predominant disposition by the upper classes, to herd the lower social classes as more or less bestialized lower classes, a bestialization which is more often self-imposed by the lower classes, than the upper classes needing to be fearful that the underclasses might be disposed to seek a relative intellectual freedom for itself.

Our attention in such matters should be focussed on the fact that the oligarchical models most typical of our knowledge of relatively ancient cultures have gained access to their privileged status through trans-oceanic qualities of maritime cultures. The mortal conflict between the model of the Olympian Zeus and the loving, but perpetually tormented Prometheus, is a model which appears rather consistently throughout the implicitly stellar system of trans-oceanic navigation. An interesting clue to all this comes from a study of the stellar and solar models of trans-oceanic navigation.

From that vantage-point, the voluntary creativity which is unique to the human species, defines what may be regarded as a “natural,” or should we say “native” potential of the human species as contrasted to all other known species. The net result of the implied contradictory features of human behavior, favors the notion of Prometheus as the natural form of human species behavior, and the oligarchical and relatively bestialized case of human-species types as defective, or, fairly said, depraved human-cultural types, such as a President Barack Obama or kindred varieties of depraved specimens.

On that level, the most interesting reading of such evidence has two most compelling features. There is, however, a qualitatively higher level, called “functional human immortality.” Consider the illustrative case of the Christian Apostle Paul’s I Corinthians 13. Consider the ostensibly enigmatical, twelfth verse:

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am also known.”4From the King James version.

There is nothing properly mysterious in that, if the obvious intention is taken into account. To that purpose, we must consider the special characteristics of the human personality, as follows.

In the crude, and mistaken view of the human personality, man is essentially a “talking beast,” who knows only what a beast might have known from the combined range of present and past experience. The natural distinction of the human species, is foreknowledge of what is to occur which is new to the relevant human experience. This distinction is typified by the discovery of an anticipated physical principle which had not yet been actually experienced as practically tested knowledge. That, for example, has been, long since, a familiar experience newly experienced by me before I had actually experienced the certainty of that discovery in action as a properly defined principle of human action. Such is the exact meaning of human creativity in the expressed form of “foreknowledge.”

For a person who not only enjoys such an experience as just that, especially when that is not a rare experience of a discovery of a principle of such forecastable distinctions, this is the ruling distinction of that personality, as distinct from those whose beliefs of principle are all but most rarely post hoc.

That bare distinction does not yet reach the point corresponding to the Apostle Paul’s “now, I know in part.” The person who has discovered, then adds: “but then I shall know even as I am known.” This is not a matter of interpretation of the meanings of words; it is explicitly a definition of a transition from one state of existence to a superior state of existence.

I do not tease in writing the foregoing lines. To get to the actual point, insert the apparently paradoxical notion of human personal creativity as a state of existence of the individual. In this view, the ontological essence of the human personality lies in the act of creation expressed as an ontologically efficient quality of a discovered universal principle as such. That which expresses this act of creation serves then as that which is distinct in the personality of the creative personality who has died. His, or her creativity is inherently immortal ontologically.

There is much more which could be spoken on this stated account. However, it were a more useful expression of the notion of the ontological implications of such immortality, to consider another aspect of the self-same conception. Call this, then, thus, the potential for the immortality of the deed, a notion which is in accord with the designated Gospel of the Apostle Paul’s “but then I shall know even as also I am known.”

In the act of discovery of a physically efficient principle, the notion of deduction is excluded from the intellectual vision of the relevant personality. Such a person as that is like an animal with pretensions of human qualities of foreknowledge. The person who actually generates a discovered principle, creates a state of being beyond what he, or she had known before that time. A newly created niche within the universe is a location of his or her developed identity; his creative action now exists for him, or her: a quality in absolute opposition to a depraved creature such as a frankly Satanic, late Bertrand Russell or his kind. It is the expression of love associated with the sharing of aspects of true discoveries of relevant principle which becomes the eternal tie between that true discoverer and those of his likeness in creative action who had preceded him. We are, thus, the true immortals, as Paul proposes. It is our action, while we have lived, which has become embedded in the society from which our mortal self has departed.

Footnotes

1Dumb Democrats!: Principle or Party? EIR No. 44, Nov. 11, 2011; or LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20133), The Fall of the British Empire: Obama’s Armageddon End-Game, EIR No. 46, Nov. 25, 2011; or LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20429). And, also, the prelude to those both, Glass-Steagall & beyond: Our Credit System, EIR, No. 43, Nov.4, 2011; or LaRouche PAC (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19981).
2Although, I had presented some preliminary, published elements of this work to Sky Shields, months earlier. My beliefs in this matter had been referenced in some of my published work years earlier in some comments of mine on the ontological implications of Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s work on chemistry. Working through the anticipated defense of a discovered principle usually does take a significant number of years of playing with the implications of an hypothetical breakthrough. Indeed, my advantage in these aspects of physical science can be traced to the middle to late 1950s on the subject of a Riemannian approach met in his 1854 habilitation dissertation, the third and concluding section of that dissertation most emphatically.
3E.g., “This leads us into the domain of another science, into the domain of physics, which the nature of today’s event (i.e., mathematics), forbids us to enter.
4From the King James version.