Final, copy-edited version posted: 6/7/2012 8:28pm pdt.
(BREAKING NEWS:) In the midst of my writing of this report, on Friday evening, May 25, 2012, the long-simmering general financial breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic world (and also beyond) has now struck. In the United States itself, as elsewhere, this means that either the original Glass-Steagall law is now reinstalled, virtually immediately, or a world crisis virtually beyond belief is breaking out, probably, by Tuesday morning or soon thereafter, unless the intention to re-install the original Glass-Steagall law is installed, and that virtually immediately. Either way, the world as we have known it, is about to undergo a sudden and tremendous change.
The systemic error inherent in the formerly accustomed, but nevertheless errant view of mankind’s powers of sense-perception, has been an effect which had been rooted in the quality of the following set of presumptions: First: the presumption, that the foundation of human experience is to be located primarily in what is presumed, mistakenly, to be the act of simply presumable, “virtually self-evident” sense-perception of objects of, implicitly, particular “matter;” and, Second: the presumption that that, consequently, should be taken to be a standpoint from which we are to do the following:
1.) To derive knowledge respecting the existence of living processes, erroneously, from what is dead, as from what is typical of the standpoint of the late Bertrand Russell’s guidance to his dupe, the silly Alexander I. Oparin;
2.) To that same effect as that of Oparin’s error, we have the earlier case of Rudolf Clausius. Clausius’s error is a case from which persons have derived the errant notion of the existence of the species of human life-forms as being consistent with existences of life-forms which are not human life-forms. The case of the type of systemic failure of judgment by Clausius, as of others, is derived from the ontological error of attributing the quality of the lower forms of life to the quality of existence if the different characteristics of that which is presumed to become sensed, as if that were what is to be considered to be the quality attributed to the act of sensing the object per se, animal life, as if human and animal life were simply inter-changeable. Such is a common ontological error of mathematicians and others, including the relatively worst case of the economists of the virtual “flat Earth” dogma of the“Chicago school.”
It must be emphasized, in sharp contrast to the customary practices of the reductionists of all varieties, that the work of the celebrated musical composer and director Wilhelm Furtwängler, had correctly demonstrated the need for a view which is directly opposite to that of the cases of known “stop-watch” conductors on the podiums of concerts, or comparable reductionists:
3.) respecting both life as such in general, ordinarily,
and, also, for example:
4.) the higher expression of specifically human life, which is located in the noëtic powers specific to the human mind. These are powers which do not lie within the presumed bounds of what have been identified as the simply “mere senses.”
The same set of those four points just listed above, is appropriately restated as a principle, as follows:
That those creative (i.e., noëtic) powers which are presently known to us as being specific to the powers of the human mind, are distinct, as Wolfgang Köhler had indicated specifically, in his opposition to what had been the reductionist’s customary, failed notion of the human brain. Those noëtic powers which our reductionists1The followers of the decadents Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell, for example. deny, were, thus, to be rejected by the errant, but are to be considered as typical reflections of the highest ranking authority for human knowledge, if and when they are being expressed as being presently known as our experience of “the universe.”
What I have just proposed here, thus requires the additional, principled recognition, that there is a relationship between (a) the powers specific to the experience of the human mind, as distinct from the common presumption of the ordinary notion of the brain as such, and (b) the notion of the concept of a universal“Creator.”
To restate that same argument: we must rely upon mankind’s expressed powers to create new states of “matter” within a universe as it is presently known to us. This works to such effect, that we are enabled to identify the efficient existence of a universal principle of creativity, in its effect, as being a characteristic of our universe, in some way, and some form.
Among the most relevant features of this kind of experience, is the evidence that the evolution of life-forms, as within the terms of the evolution among the totality of those living species presently known to us, presents us with an “upward” ordering (i. e. anti-entropic) in the general, net evolution of living species, past and present: this is an ordering which is specifically, and universally anti-entropic in its characteristics as a process.2There never was actually proven evidence supporting that hoax of “a second law of thermodynamics” uttered by Rudolf Clausius. Customarily, this clearly pertains to our present knowledge of life-forms on Earth; but, the argument for both our Solar system, and which is also relevant for the case of our galaxy, is a strongly defined implication. What are called “human (over-) population crises” are not a product of the nature of man, but of the “unnatural” disease of oligarchism, a disease whose effect is an imposition of stupidity on what are often denounced as those “lower classes of society” which are nothing as much as they are the victims of the impositions of submission to be ruled by oligarchism.
For example: With respect to matters bearing on the existence of our galaxy, the periodicities of development within the range of our galaxy, are also to be considered as powerful evidence of a coherence in this just-indicated degree, as this is already located within the observed record of the periodicities of the processes of the galaxy itself. Such is the experience of a knowledgeable ordering extended within the extent of our galaxy, and reaching beyond.
The foregoing, stated conclusion begs the inference of a certain specific kind of universality, that of a truly universal, and knowledgeable principle of creativity. The empirical evidence to this effect, for music, is provided to us as by the work of Wilhelm Furtwängler, and by that work’s relevance to the preceding genius of Johann Sebastian Bach’s C=256. This has had universalizing implications for the defining of the principled characteristics of the human mind. Indeed, the rises and declines of the Classical musical principles so defined, correspond, in experience, to the ebb and flow of the moral quality of the intellectual competence of the relevant cultural current among sections of human society.
This is reflected in the function of metaphor, when metaphor is also recognized as invoking the universal physical principle of Johannes Kepler’s use of the notion of “vicarious hypothesis,” otherwise known to us as the notion of “metaphor.”
I have referred attention, above, to that experimental evidence which works to the effect, that the successfully continued existence of the human species, has depended upon the function of a trend of increase in the relative energy-flux density expressed as a correlative of the role of “fire,” or its equivalents, if and when such density is expressed in the evolution of the capabilities of the human species to relatively higher levels of cultural development. In a related way, the potential ability of the human species to maintain human life on Earth, is correlated with the qualities of society’s intellectual (i.e., noëtic) progress toward some effect of higher levels of energy-flux density, or, its equivalent, as from simple use of fire, into (or, beyond) the known range of subjects of “matter/antimatter” actions.
The “force” of that just-stated argument, was corroborated, within the scope of the contributions by such leading intellects as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. This was shown in a conclusive fashion, by the evidence that neither space-in-itself, nor time-in-itself, qualify as simply self-evident properties of what a faulty, but persisting popular convention still wishes to employ to define the existence of a known physical space-time per se.
The trend into decadence which is exemplified by the cases of certain notable adversaries of Max Planck, as in the case of such as the assaults on science by reductionists such as the Austrian Ernst Mach,3As in Berlin during “World War I,” as reported by Albert Einstein then. Mach’s influence was then superseded by the campaigns wrought by the evil Bertrand Russell during the Solvay Conferences of the 1920s. and, also, by both the utterly debased Bertrand Russell, and Russell’s own products, such as the British-created Russian puppet-figure Alexander I. Oparin. Oparin’s case typifies the implicitly lying influences, such as the oligarchism which Bertrand Russell induced in his pathetic dupe, Alexander Oparin, an oligarchical outlook which has tended to wreck scientific progress, that out of motives of hatred against competent science by such as Bertrand Russell and his lackeys.
That much said, we must emphasize included attention to highly relevant, other, earlier avenues of pathological thinking, such as the mental illness represented by what is often identified, as by me and others, as the Aristotelean cult of Euclid, which continues to play a significantly destructive role in the mental life of what often seems, mistakenly, to pass for “science.” The pathological trend inhering in Euclid’s system, was exposed, and condemned publicly by that friend of the Christian Apostle Peter, who was sometimes known as “Philo of Alexandria.” This also has a significance in science, for reason of that fraud of Euclid’s role as a morally degrading factor of distraction from a competent scientific method. Those ironies of the fraud of Euclid (notably, since the death of Eratosthenes) are of exemplary, historical-clinical interest for us here, on that account.
According to Philo, the still-chronic, relevant thesis of Euclid worked to the effect of asserting that the existence of mankind could not have existed until the Creator of the universe were already dead: that same thesis of “God is dead,” is associated with the radically reductionist, modern figure of Friedrich Nietzsche and consistent fascists (as also worshipers of the “tradition” of the Olympian Zeus) generally. Those chronic errors are derivatives of the so-called “oligarchical principle.”
Life is, after all, as the referenced work of Wilhelm Furtwängler attests, the essence of creativity, and of true love of the universal passion of creativity as such!
The systemic fallacy permeating that reductionist’s fallacy which I have addressed in the preceding paragraphs, is the fruit of a reductionist fallacy rooted in the elementary error, such as that both Bertrand Russell and A.I. Oparin represented by the substitution of an ill-conceived notion of sense-perception per se, for the ontological “content” of what is presumed have to been the common expression of the “living” and the “dead” alike.
That much said in the introduction of the report this far:
Before we proceed further, we must emphasize the troublesome special role of those social systems which are, categorically forces expressed as mankind’s willful habits of social self-destruction of our species, habits which are specific to those oligarchical social systems which are products of cancer-like disorders of societies such as what are identified, more or less interchangeably, by the categories of “monetarism” or “oligarchism.”
Such epidemic expressions of social-mental diseases, have been customary for many human cultures thus far. They are issues of a type which has been typified by, but not limited to oligarchical systems such as the case of the modern, approximately “world wide,” nominally “British” imperial monarchy, the monarchy that has been the imperial system which was spawned by “The New Venetian” empire, and carried, like a kind of epidemic, into the British Isles, by that incarnation of a vicious disease known as William of Orange.
Such expressions are properly identified as a wicked scheme cooked up as the typical “social expression” of “childhood cultural diseases” of entire human social systems, and must be recognized as, and treated as social diseases which are either simply chronic, “wasting diseases,” of some infectious cultures, or a characteristically fatal one.
To recognize the crucial character of the point I am presenting, consider the case of two-term U.S. President and scoundrel Andrew Jackson, who served as a puppet for the London and Wall Street speculative interests in cahoots with British and Wall Street swindlers such as Aaron Burr, Martin Van Buren and their immediately leading accomplices.
It was that trio of principal schemers and their followers, which bankrupted the United States of their time through a swindle conducted against the essential economic bulwark of the U.S.A.’s economy in that period. This was done by a fraud against the Second National Bank of the United States, thus creating the terrible financial Panic of 1837 which left a trail of blood and tears through our nation, down into Florida, up to and beyond the site of the Cherokee nation, which led into the outbreak of the Civil War. This was done through such dirties as Andrew Jackson’s part in a genocidal campaign against the Cherokee nation, which was intended to clear away that nation by means of a deliberate genocide in which Jackson was a prominently culpable figure, a campaign whose intention was to clear the territory of the Cherokee as part of the spread of the London-steered slave system into that same territory. This was done by such means, combined with the British intention of destroying the United States, to prepare the way for the U.S. Civil War launched by that British monarchy whose reign must always be remembered as the pestilence of the New Venetian Party which had spawned the British empire.
The politically illiterate U.S. citizens today, still sing the praises of Andrew Jackson, and manage to overlook the swindles against the United States also done by such swindling bankers of Boston, Wall Street, and the British monetarist empire, as by aid of the roles of Aaron Burr, Martin Van Buren, and their other London-based Wall Street leaders.
It would be most urgent to take into account the effects of the looting of not only the purse, but also the minds of so many of our citizens, still today: poor citizens, who profess themselves admirers of the scoundrels, fooled admirers who believe foolishly in the doctrines they associate with the so-called “Jacksonian tradition.”
On the basis of the two points whose types I have just emphasized, we should consider the evil effects of the show of ignorance by past and present advocates of the mixture of the evil represented by the stubborn ignorance among both leading, and other political figures of our republic. This has been the source of the sheer maliciousness and the ignorance of those who defend malicious expressions of ignorance as their pathetically misguided basis for their notions of legal authority. Such ignorance as theirs should warn us of the citizen’s obligation to condemn, more or less equally, the crimes of intentional malice and those of the kind of seemingly innocent ignorance whose practiced foolishness amounts in effect to serve as also a true crime against our nation, and relevant other nations. Thus such pitiable folk also betray themselves.
Certain qualities of ignorance, when shown by even a simple citizen, or a citizen with the qualifications of a professional, must be considered as a fault which demands relevant corrections, or those remedies against negligence, which, in principle, also require appropriately prompt and efficient remedies.
To rephrase my opening argument above:
Unfortunately: heretofore, the commonplace presumptions respecting the basis for assumptions respecting man’s knowledge of his imagined “world outside,” the citizens’ reliances on sense-perceptions per se, had been commonly tied, widely, to the often deadly, inherently deceptive notion of an “elementary, bare” human sense-certainty as such.
We might properly choose to regard the simplest illustration of this troublesome point, as typified by the case of the relationship between Bertrand Russell and what I have identified above as his notable dupe, Alexander I. Oparin. For Oparin, life had existed only as the presumed effect of a statistical freak-show of a type which was close in character to the pathetic fantasy of John von Neumann’s cult of a statistically random universe, which was also his belief as to his situation within the bounds of an infinitely increasing density of “random numbers.” Oparin’s hoax had been a virtual copy of the super-densely hollowness of the pathetic numerology of von Neumann, as both of them, like Professor Norbert Wiener, were the essentially sly, but foolish dupes of Bertrand Russell.
It is notable, that the doctrine of such dupes of Bertrand Russell, had no actual principle of physical science; their belief, at the bottom of the matters before them, was entirely negative: the denial of any actually universal principle in favor of mere social conventions among the members of oligarchies. It must be noted that the root of that substitute for any actual physical principle, was essentially the same denial of the existence of efficiently existing physical principles which had been put forward by Rudolf Clausius’ launching of the oligarchical hoax which came to be known as the “Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
If only in a curiously malicious sense, there is no physical principle within the dogma of Clausius and its like. The so-called “Second Law” is, as the British empire’s oligarchy insists, a denial of the actual existence of any actually physical law. The social, not physical law, professed by the British imperialist monarchy’s reign over Africa, among other victims, is the tradition of the same “oligarchical principle” associated with the Roman Empire and with such among its still famous predecessors as the triumphant predators of the Trojan War. It is the typified expression of the legendary tradition of oligarchical tyrannies’ intended denial of the right of the victims to use “fire.” It is the commitment of the British empire of today, to reduce the human population of this planet by means of methods of systemic mass murder known as the “oligarchical principle,” and also known as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics,” which repeatedly unleashes, as, again, today, and as Bertrand Russell had prescribed as a permanent form of practice, the means of genocide common to the Roman empire and to the British empire, as to Adolf Hitler, Britain’s Tony Blair, and Blair’s Brutish President Barack Obama, and their like, throughout so much of the world, then as now.
For my own purposes, as in this present report, reality is presumed to be in correspondence with the system associated with the expanding map of the history of “life” developed thus far within the range of the work on the history of life by our team’s Cody Jones et al., as to be found among “the Basement” studies up through the present update of our team’s, and related references. The “translation” of the content of those studies, is to be referenced to the work presented under the category of my developments in physical-economic science, developments which I trace from the work of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia and the consequent function of vicarious hypothesis (i.e. metaphor) which was crafted by Cusa’s follower Johannes Kepler.
For such cases as the opposing, pathological policies and conceptions of Bertrand Russell and his foolish puppet, Oparin, their selected subject is only asserted to be a living quality of personality in the arbitrarily adopted intention of each of them; in fact, what might be termed as “the conventional opinion,” provides no evidence of the type which we might consider as self-evidently “sense-perception.” Their dogma represents a shadow of something to be considered more or less precisely as likenesses of the aprioristically numerological presumptions of Bertrand Russell dupes Alexander I. Oparin and John von Neumann.
We must properly discredit the frauds of the so-called “applied mathematics” of Russell, Oparin, Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and their like. However, for this occasion, we have a far better choice of subject available to us: therefore, we turn our attention here to the crucial physical-scientific discoveries which deeply underlie those relative certainties already well established by the discoveries of one certainly among the greatest musical directors of the recent century, Wilhelm Furtwängler. Furtwängler’s proofs are not musico-mathematical; they are, as I shall emphasize that point in the course of this present report, ontologically human in the deepest and fullest, scientific sense of that choice of terminology.
Therefore, it will be shown in the following pages, that the statements which I have just presented are neither wrongful, nor unduly emphasized. Quite the contrary, what we shall have claimed on such account, will have only begun to treat what we can claim on that account, here; it only scratches the surface of what wiser persons than we might not properly dare to consider as being entirely their own. What the best among them have created, has been, in each instance, chiefly their nourishment of a precious inheritance which they have adopted as their own, as the case of Wilhelm Furtwängler should make that point of universal principles clear.
For contrary cases, such as the intimately related, but contrary and pathological policies and conceptions of Bertrand Russell and his virtual puppet, Oparin, the subject-matter as that pair define it, was merely asserted to be the creation of a living creature, or personality. It was adopted as the fruit of the arbitrarily selected intention of each of them. Each of them is to be treated as if he, or she, (or, “it”) were self-conceived to perform a function akin to that of a “wind-up toy running down.” In this matter, the fact of the defects inhering in a reliance on “facts” attributed to from-the-bottom-up opinions respecting sense-perception per se, has been much more evaded than it had been avoided, despite the relevant, warning words of caution on this account to be found in such locations as the relevant, concluding section (i.e.,“Application to Space”) of Bernhard Riemann’s celebrated 1854 habilitation dissertation,4Bernhard Riemann, Über die Hypothesen, Welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen. Werke, B.G. Teubner, Teubner, Stuttgart,1902, “III. Anwendung auf den Raum,” pp.283-287. or the later discoveries of Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
From that standpoint of the several references thus presented here thus far, what is already customarily regarded as physical evidence is, merely, in fact, a shadow cast by reality, rather than the relevant reality as such. To restate this same point: from an alternate standpoint: what is often taken for facts in “hard” evidence, even about a century or more earlier, is merely a shadow cast by what has remained, so far, customarily, unknown.
Therefore, on that subject, the history of leading physical-scientific practice since the crucially important contributions of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, begs, more and more, that we consider the fundamental problems of scientific practice by considering the universe as if “from the top-down approach”: from the galaxy as a system, as this is implicit in the work of Riemann, and, emphatically, the standpoints of such among his revolutionary followers as the highly relevant cases of Planck and Einstein, as in the latter pair’s considering the universe from its mega-galactic vantage-point as a whole (rather than the currently “bottom-up” vantage-point of the particular as located, as if generated from within the extremely small).5The interlinked work of Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann has common qualities directly linked to the consequent work of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, in their characteristics.
On that account, consider certain crucially relevant discoveries by that great modern scientist in the field of the physical principles of musical practice, Wilhelm Furtwängler. Furtwängler had done a great amount to free the full range of a valid physical science from the inherent fallacies of the search for the futile pursuit of alleged origins in the domain of the infinitesimally small. He had done so, by opening the proverbial “gates” to the needed matters of physical science, when science is considered from the relevant standpoint of that which is the universal domain of the seemingly tremendous.
In an essentially related aspect, we must deal with the troublesome issues of the fact of the ostensibly paradoxical existence of an ontological distinction of living processes from the non-living; this must be done, provided that we are being very careful not to fall into the wicked sophistries of such as Bertrand Russell and Russell’s silly dupe, the self-described, poor, wind-up toy among similarly self-defined wind-up toys, such as the relevant case of Alexander I. Oparin.
We shall put the case of Russell and his dupes to one side for a certain amount of time, after we have examined the notion of a universal (but not bounded) universal reality, a reality which we shall locate in the principles which we must more than fairly consider as discovered and developed by Wilhelm Furtwängler.
Therefore, I now proceed as follows.
To attain the insight into the work of Furtwängler which later considerations now bring into view, we must look into the work which a relative contemporary of Furtwängler’s, Vladimir I. Vernadsky, brings to bear on these same matters.
Since the work of V.I. Vernadsky, the essential elements of what is named “matter,” are identified ontologically, respectively, as: (1) non-living; (2) the living; and, (3) the noëtic as specifically the principle of human life. The common distinction of the latter two categories, which is locatable in the qualitative distinction of living from non-living processes, is that the qualification of “life” depends upon an anticipation of life as if existing both “prior to”, and, “later than” the moment that the “whispered” prescience of life’s existence, is experienced. It must be experienced in a distinguishable, foretasted moment, prior to, and also following the apprehension of the association of a life-form per se. Use the respective terms “foresight” and “hindsight” to denote those such special qualities of the relevant subject-matters. Those, and closely related distinctions, as Wilhelm Furtwängler demonstrated and emphasized the importance of that aspect of the matter, are to be treated by us here, as being ontologically, crucially significant experiences.
This coincidental feature of the work of both Furtwängler and Vernadsky, is crucial for the purpose of the commonly shared ontological basis, and I shall treat that matter so at the appropriate moment in this present report.
However, there are some additional common roots to be considered here. My own expertise, for example, lies within the domain of what has remained the little-known branch of science properly named as that “science of physical economy,” in which I have been uniquely successful since my first such professional ventures as a long-ranging economic forecaster, since my professional appearance in the instance of a remarkably successful forecast which I had presented in 1956-57.
The notable difference which my discoveries have represented, lies essentially in the fact that the generally taught methods of what is usually, mistakenly, considered as professional forecasting, have been, predominantly, essentially, merely statistical extrapolations of the past, and are therefore intrinsically incompetent; whereas, my own are based on what usually remains as my relatively unique practice of physical-economic considerations as such. The crucial point to be emphasized in that context, is: “To foresee the future, one must have actually physical knowledge of that future,” as this continues beyond mere “economics” into the history of the present and future life within the Solar system and its subsuming galaxy.
The principle of true success, as in economic forecasting, is usually not popularity, but service to the needed intentions of mankind, especially when and where those services are rarely found.
At this point, let us examine the argument for what I have actually done successfully in this matter.
The “statistical method” commonly used (or, merely pretended to have been used) as an asserted basis for “economic forecasting,” precludes, by its very nature, the most essential requirement for an actual forecast: the existence of a certain future, may, or might not be a new development. The fact of that matter has been subjected to a crucial test by the fact of the role of the original “Glass-Steagall Act” from its 1933 installation by Franklin Roosevelt, until the tragic cancellation of that same Glass-Steagall Act in the closing months of the Administration of President Bill Clinton. In effect, the cancellation of Glass-Steagall had been demonstrated to have been an act of virtually criminal insanity, as recent suggestions for a “modified” version of Glass-Steagall would also be a willful act of virtually criminal sanity.
A team of my associates has mapped the known existence of forms of life on Earth with excellent approximation in use of the best standard sources. The outcome, using galactical, as also Solar and other measurements, is that the existence of life within those known spans has been regulated by a principle directly contrary to the intrinsically fraudulent “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Life on Earth, and as considered otherwise, has been governed by progress to more successful forms of life, as this may be measured in thermodynamic terms as evolutionary progress with respect to increases not only in what is recognizable as the effects of ordered increases in relative energy-flux density, but also in willful choices of practices and effects of such changes on existing expressions of life.
The complementary consideration is, that lowering the rate of increase of energy-flux density tends to the effects of cultural, or even human-species extinction.
This latter consideration has what some might consider to be an interesting parallel consideration. In the domain of military policy, the general trend has been that military success requires increase of the effective equivalent of “energy-flux density applied,” as “the principle of the flank” only illustrates the point. Now, with the advent of thermonuclear capabilities, war has entered a terminal stage in practice. When the effective equivalent of applied energy-flux density reaches a thermonuclear weapons phase, the attempt at warfare approaches the virtual certainty of human self-extinction, as is presently the case. War must then submit to the principle of reason. In brief, that means that a fixed system of economy, must now submit to scientific principles of reason. Similarly, economic practice, and the principled ordering of such practice, is no longer a matter of an available choice of modes; war and economy must now submit to reason, rather than arbitrary means of political power.
It is notable that that does not mean “world government” as those words might be considered in the sense of what those words would signify today. Quite the contrary. “World government” in the sense of the meaning of those terms today, must be banned as signifying the evil most to be despised and feared. “World government” means, in fact of practice a form of tyranny known as the tyranny of a Roman-style empire over the world. The sovereign form of separate nation-state has proven itself to be the mandatory guardianship against the oligarchical tyranny which the presently reigning British monarchy represents in fact, and by inherent intention.
It is “world government” in the sense intended by such a scoundrel as a Tony Blair, which is disqualified from control over the practice of government. It signifies that figures which do not meet the intellectual and moral standard implicitly specified by our original Federal Constitution, or “populist” figures in general, such as the properly considered Andrew Jackson, are not qualified to enter our Federal Government, for example. The retreat to the intrinsic bestiality of repealing the Peace of Westphalia remains, thus, a crime against humanity: reason, not tradition or incumbency must rule.
That just stated fact has been defined, from the work presented by relevant professional sources during recent decades. The principle of life, as known to us presently, is expressed through evolutionary processes which are characteristically directed by the effect of anti-entropic trends in the evolutionary processes which are, in their general expression processes in a system of anti-entropic processes.
In human behavior, as counterposed to other forms of life, the essential distinctions are specifically voluntary choices of either adoption of, or negligence of the requirement of “upward-directed” human changes in the potential productive powers of human labor, as measurable per capita and per unit of increase of physical productivity. The relevant unit of measurement for this function is “increase of the energy-flux density” per capita and per unit of volume. These elementary considerations are willfully disregarded by the general practice of economic policy-shaping in respect to long-terms trends in policy-shaping through most of the Americas and western Europe since those bench-mark times, as we have experienced exactly this downward trend in physical fact, in net results since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
There is a crucial intersection between my methods of forecasting and the results secured by Furtwängler’s discovery of musical principle.
Compare the heydays of Vernadsky and Furtwängler, to the history of the leading physical-scientific practice under the crucially important contributions of Max Planck and Albert Einstein. This presents a history which begs, more and more, still today, the important contributions of the outlook provided by considering the fundamental problems posed by considering the universe “as if from the top, down”: emphatically from the galaxy as a system, as implicitly foreseen in Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation.
Now consider the physical principle on which Furtwängler’s unique discovery in music was based, a great physical giant step apparently beyond the work of Johann Sebastian Bach, but, at the same time, a realization of what was implicit in what Bach had defined. Not replacing Bach, but as one great giant step beyond, as if into a new physical dimension of our universe. The new giant step which Bach had made possible.
For reasons which I shall clarify later in this report, let us imagine that the experience of a musical note might be described as like a “bubble” within which the bare idea of the note-as-such is contained. In the preferred case, as by Furtwängler, the actual hearing of the note may be sometimes anticipated immediately prior to being heard, but without actually being heard, and, in some cases, after the core of the tone has been heard. Furtwängler elaborated the relevant phenomena for his readers under the descriptive term of “Between the Notes.”6During the late, post-“World War II” interval, I concentrated my attention frequently on the profound difference between the performance of Schubert’s Ninth Symphony by Furtwängler and Bruno Walter, respectively. Although Furtwängler defended Bruno Walter personally, against Hitler’s gang, the, later, post-war Schubert performance by Bruno Walter was musical disaster—it was really bad; while the famous, post-war performance by Furtwängler was among the greatest accomplishments of his time, reaching specific qualities which are to be fairly characterized as among the few greatest performances on record. The recorded performance by Furtwängler has the special importance of illustrating the specific scientific principle which is my subject in this present report.
It would not be impossible, but next to impossible, to attain any competent insight into the nature of the systemically ontological distinction between “sense-perception” of non-living processes and actually living processes, unless we relied to a large degree on discovering Wilhelm Furtwängler’s insight into those ontological implications which separate putatively “merely spoken,” from “Classical musical” utterances. The same problem appears otherwise in the distinction of Classical prosody from what is relatively a mechanistic quality of prose, as this distinction is to be made for the case of Johannes Kepler’s notion of what is otherwise named “metaphor,” or, by Kepler, “vicarious hypothesis” (as a relevant example).
We have now reached a point of interpolation from which the body of this present report will now proceed toward the deep implications of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s profound scientific discoveries in music (and much more).7It has been my intention to bring as much of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s discoveries into play here as needed to bring the specific physical principles of his great, and unique, musical discoveries into focus.
Illustrate the point being made on this account. For example, look to the following background with the immediately following comment:
Ludwig Beethoven once received a tutor known as the piano teacher Carl Czerny, who came accompanied by that tutor’s pupil, the young Franz Liszt. After Czerny and young Liszt had departed, Beethoven declared that “the boy has great talent,” but added that “that criminal, Czerny will ruin him!”
That incident is typical of the process which produced the corrupted simulation of Classical artistic poetry and music which came to be identified as Nineteenth-century “Romanticism” as experienced in the setting of the notorious salon of the ill-fated Queen Marie Antoinette’s sometime resident parasite, the notorious Madame de Staël. The split between the legacy of J.S. Bach and the Nineteenth-century trend in Romanticism, was a precursory phase for the entry into Twentieth-century Modernism, which, in turn, led into the post-World War II depravity known then, and later, as that collectivist set of performing soulless puppets known as “The Congress for Cultural Freedom.”
To illustrate the crucial point to be emphasized in this immediate location, among leading modern directors of symphony orchestras, Wilhelm Furtwängler is unique for his achievements in bringing the great talent of notable directors of Classical orchestral performances to an explicit state of literally physical-scientific insight, although a significant number, such as my late dear friend Norbert Brainin, the Principal of the Amadeus Quartet, remain notable for their impassioned scientific rigor in the scientific matter of Classical tuning. Arturo Toscanini and Bruno Walter, were typical of a different matter. However, it was the plunge into “elevated pitch,” as promoted by the post-World War II Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) which has led into the actually criminal intentions and practice which has tended to take over, and destroy Classical musical composition and performance since that time.
The downward cultural trends have worsened at an accelerating rate since the modernist-tending trend of the Twentieth and, now, Twenty-first centuries. As I have just emphasized, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded in June 1950, as typified, according to my personal experience back on December 2, 1971, by the case of the now-deceased Sidney Hook, represented one tier of a continuing series of successively deeper plunges into moral and related degeneracy, whereas President Barack Obama’s crony and evil-man-of-the-dark-chamber, Cass Sunstein, now typifies those lower “White House” depths of what has been a currently aspiring form modelled on the precedent of what has been, literally, “the frankly fascism” of the Hitler-era type encountered today.
Now, henceforth, our preferred subject in this report is human creativity as the working principle on which all categories presently, conditionally depend. To that purpose, let us now proceed to consider the principle of “fire.”
The key which opens the doors of everything pertaining to almost everything, is that only mankind chooses to use “fire” intentionally. On that same account, the evolution of the living processes which have emerged on Earth has been directed by a chronic increase of what is identified as a general increase of energy-flux density in the evolution of living processes, as from the simple use of fire by “primitive mankind,” to mankind’s presently willful command in mankind’s willful use of thermonuclear fusion.8Hence, the intrinsically, intrinsically fraudulent character of Rudolf Clausius’ “Universal Principle” of Entropy.
The essential, practical question which this present line of reporting intersects, is expressed by the words: “What is the shadow cast, as distinct from what is actually the ostensibly unseen, ‘but actually efficient’ substance? What is the unseen reality which appears to our sense-perception as the pseudo-substance, ‘the mere shadow’ of experienced sense-perception?” The implication of the line of discussion to which I have steered us here this far, is, thus, the crucial question to be addressed now. Are human sense-perceptions real? Are they, essentially, “real shadows” of the unseen? The common curse of mankind thus far, is to be located in the attribution of certainty to falsehood, such as that of Cass Sunstein which is properly sensed as being merely another evil shadow cast by the horrid stench of an unseen substance.
To illustrate the direction of progress being emphasized here, consider: What is the state of affairs in Solar space produced by the successive stages of optimal acceleration-deceleration of flight, at optimal thermonuclear velocities, from Moon to Mars, and in return flight, each within about a week’s flight, each way? Suddenly, then, what had been accepted as space and time, respectively, no longer exist as “standard values” within the relevant, matter/anti-matter domain of the human species’ experimental realities. Mankind no longer exists within the imagined confines of the sense-perceptual domain of the beasts.
Such considerations are forced upon our imagination by the implications of the notion that the continued existence of the Solar System might be expected to become extinct within the coming two billions years, and mankind excluded from existence in that domain much sooner. Would our human species become extinct in the course of such time? Consider the existential implications of such a question as that. Could the conquest of a threatened extinction warrant a triumphant shout!?
With the presently existing knowledge of the inherent error of the belief in the simple certainties of sense-perceptions, it is no longer “self-evident” that the existence of the human species is defined by the parameters of human sense-perceptions. The notion of a week’s thermonuclear flight from Moon to Mars, helps to bring the reign of the familiar old delusion toward its close. We are now compelled to discover radically new kinds of parameters for human existence, an existence within bounds which, so to speak, lie outside what we tend to consider presently as “natural.”
Therefore, pause to consider the Classical standards of music which are intrinsic to the natural potentials of the human mind. But, also, look more closely at what has been discovered by V.I. Vernadsky. With Furtwängler’s discovery of the principle of Classical composition, and with the implication of that discovery, now respecting music, which was experienced from Nicholas of Cusa’s acquaintance with Filippo Brunelleschi’s process of construction of the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, a change in society’s view of the universe had occurred. The marvelous expression of genius which Wilhelm Furtwängler had adduced from the higher principles of Classical musical composition, has presented us with access to something which is presently much overlooked, but which, when considered aptly, presents mankind with a reality which is, otherwise, intrinsically superior, by orders of magnitude, to mankind’s estimate of his reality otherwise.
Admittedly, the experience of Furtwängler’s treatments give us something qualitatively superior to those of his putative “rivals” in every respect. The quality of the mental-life performance associated with that change, represents, “objectively,” a qualitatively superior state of mental life, to that of “the formerly conventional system,” in every relevant, practical respect. This was to have been noted in respect to the uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation by Johannes Kepler, still today. The relationship of this to the impact of Bach, is clearly definable, as the cases of the physicists Max Planck and Albert Einstein also illustrate the point.
The same physical principle, of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as echoed by the great principle of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, was echoed, intentionally, by Johannes Kepler’s notion of the great principle of “vicarious hypothesis”—i.e., metaphor, on which the discovery, by Kepler, of the universal principle of gravitation had depended. It was the same principle which underlies Albert Einstein’s emphasis on a domain of “the finite, but unbounded,” the domain of “metaphor,” and the notion of “matter/anti-matter.”
The correlative of physical scientific progress and Classical musical composition, represents a more broadly defined notion of “type,” one which applies efficiently to both scientific, and the other Classical artistic modes of progress generally.
What I shall now indicate as having been the great physical-scientific discovery made by Wilhelm Furtwängler, will serve to carry this present view of mankind into the promising beauty of a previously undiscovered dimension, as I shall demonstrate that bare fact of the matter, by the means of what I shall have written within the completion of this present report.
That dimension already existed in fact, and that is exactly what Furtwängler demonstrated. Admittedly, few musicians, even among the leading artists, fully grasped what Furtwängler had accomplished, even while they might have admired the result, even greatly. (It were easier to admire effects than to create them.) The actual performances we have known, as both our experiences and what we might expect to experience, have often demonstrated that much, or more; but, this recognition was achieved within the reach and bounds of a presently retrospective standpoint.
Thus, within the limits of what I, for one, came to recognize, the best of all of the relevant musicians and scientists tended to recognize, that there was something very precious, still to be recognized there. The difference was, first of all, that Furtwängler made the fact of his discovery explicit in his practice.
Some among my circles, here in the United States, and abroad, had become devoted to the work of both the great, and, also, not so great composers and performers. All of the best of such experiences, still lead toward something even more than the exceptionally wonderful experience of Furtwängler’s conducting.9Another, precious case in this connection has been the late Norbert Brainin, who remains a a genius on this same account, in his own right. I have spoken, thus, of music. My intention here, is also to present the implications of something more profound than music itself, and, then, next, something now to be added from me, personally, here. That means something to be added from my experience of the work of Furtwängler, something which is to be added, now, from the subject of the great advances in contemporary physical science, including the domain, most emphatically, of V.I. Vernadsky, and certain others. The resulting two sets of contemporaries converge in a very special way, in a manner and degree which I shall present here.
I identify the most crucial conception as follows.
What I had come to recognize, since early 1946, from outside Calcutta, as the most crucial quality of the accomplishments of Wilhelm Furtwängler, is that his accomplishments as a scientist encompass both a transcendental state of what is fairly identified as the quality of his performance of musical composition, and what, as I shall emphasize here, are still, today, and have been not only great music, but, implicitly, reflections of the deepest aspects of presently knowable, far frontiers of physical science. It is the living connection of his approach to music which has supplied that great achievement for physical science, which I point out, here and now, as leading toward his greatest achievements as a personality. It can, and must also be said on that account, that his magnificent discoveries in music, express the very soul of physical science. That is a crucial fact which I must emphasize here, at this point.
Those discoveries express the great principle of metaphor which an avowed follower of Nicholas of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, identified in the notion of a vicarious hypothesis, and which the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley presented in the closing paragraph for his In Defence of Poetry. It is a connection of the kind which both Max Planck and Albert Einstein understood, at least implicitly, and that very well. They, both of the latter, each as master-musician and scientist alike, were, in fact, Furtwängler’s necessary forerunners.
The crucial point of those concerns of mine which have arisen from as much as I have written here thus far, is locatable in the fact of the inherent tendency for error arising from the belief in reliance on sense-perception as such. What we must seek here, as in related settings and intentions, is a shared understanding; that means the distinction of the intention which Furtwängler’s work expressed as its apparent literal, heard intention in performance, from the substance of that work. The notable point to be emphasized at this present instance, is attention to the role of Furtwängler’s two essential added elements of communicable effects in the hearing of appropriately composed, and also appropriately performed, “ghostly” elements of the communicable performance. In my own life’s repeated experiences on this account, Wilhelm Furtwängler’s post-World War II conducting of Schubert’s Ninth Symphony, became, in my experience, most prominent among the compelling achievements in orchestral performances. This virtue is specific to the true substance functionally sensed as of the metaphorical elements implicitly “heard” in the performance: the true “effect” experienced by the performer and audience alike.
What is contrary to the sentiment of “die Hauptsache ist der Effekt” of Das Spukschloss im Spessart [1960 German satirical comedy film] in this is that the “effect” remains, in principle, as merely the shadow cast by the substance. Such is the essential nature of the entirety of this report.
Once that warning is set into place, we are freed to proceed to the specifically physical-scientific significance of this experience, as this is to be related to developments respecting the extraordinary importance of the role of the principle of “insight” in the exchanges between Wolfgang Köhler and Max Planck on the subject of defining the substance of the human mind. This connection of “insight,” also pertains to Kepler’s vicarious hypothesis (again: to “metaphor”). I shall return to that fact at an appropriate point here below.
All the subject matters which I have enumerated just now, are of profound importance for me; however, there is one among these subjects which lies the most within the reach of my competence and also the bounds of my concern in this present report. That case is the following.
The most fundamental of the issues of physical science which I presently know, is the frequency of an apparent lack of any mode of access to the deeper matters of physical science in what is provided by the currently still prevalent definitions of “physical” science. The essential fact of that indicated difficulty, is the habituated dependency of human beings respecting the bare belief in the faculties of sense-perception. In short, how often, and where may we discover a proof that sense-perception were not entirely an act of sense-deception, were not simply “axiomatic” in the worst sense of that term? Sense-certainty were, in that respect, the greatest of all follies, that of being left dumb.
It is time to be specific! The answer to that question lies in Furtwängler’s notions of the “near” and “far,” the very small, and the very large: two qualities which envelop, and, thus, consume the reductionist’s notion of “sense perceptions,” and which, therefore, escape the perversion of what was virtually that “Euclidean self-evidence,” which is the ontological folly of the notion of “sense-certainty” as such. My thought on that subject can be read, still today, as the thematic “bending stars like reeds” from my lyrical poem of nearly sixty years ago.
My intention, nearly five decades past, and today, represents the self-same implication. The essence of mankind’s existence lies not in words, but, rather the physically efficient power which seems to lie behind them. It is the Classical poet’s intention which casts mere sense-perception’s intention as in the guise of shadows. Words are merely footprints; the words are merely the ghosts of the intention which moves them; it is the passion which is the reality; the words are footprints.
Now, towards the present mission:
First, next, we must bring the subject-matter into proper order. The commonplace, “elementary” folly, is the presumption that “non-living matter” envelops the universe, which, in turn, surrounds living processes, within which human mentality is wrongly presumed to be confined. How silly that presumption is! The fact of the matter is, that the most powerful and inclusive aspect of the universe known to us, creativity, contains the possibility of our existence. Whereas, the most powerful force which we encounter within the bounds of life on Earth, is human creativity as such. The creative power of the human mind reaches outward, seeking to reign over us, as a creature in the likeness of the Creator, whereas, we, the living “see ourselves as if in a mirror, but that in a darkened space,” as the Apostle Paul had stated.
We live, hopefully, as being the children who inhabit the inner bounds of the decaying century which we presently occupy; but, our mission is to create the coming centuries which we inhabit, as if surrounded with the consequences of our deeds. Whether I live to actually reach the range of a century, or not, our intention must be to change the age which we inhabit, such that the consequences of our willful business of living, shall, indeed, be the goodness of what we shall have been.
Not to do good is a terrible thing!
We must, as I have written and spoken, each practice the art of my “bending stars like reeds,” or it will be as if we had never lived.
So, we reach out, literally, as to the stars, and that which exists beyond. We live as children of the stars, learning to reach out to seek control over what we had thought ourselves powerless to control, as if only yesterday. We are the child-like apprentices of our universe, destined always to reach to higher missions and higher destinies. If we do not accept this mission, we were already as much as dead by one’s own silly choice.
This is a thought—a choice of decision—which has efficient consequences.
As those associated with my intention have seen, we are aware that long before two more billions years have lapsed, our Solar system should have been destroyed. In as much of that lapse of time’s duration as mankind might inhabit, we shall be confronted, as a species, by many missions to complete, if our species were to have become enabled to surpass the Solar system, even, perhaps, the galaxy which we presently inhabit. That must be the practice of our species’ profession.
It can be said, frankly, that that to which all that is leading, is not yet known; yet, we have no appropriate different mission than that intention. In that, we must be content with our unquenchable commitment to our work, the work which the universe has set before us. That is the true nature of mankind’s work, insofar as we are presently enabled to know it.
On reflection, and, perhaps, it comes only as a matter of reflection, that the idea of life does not actually exist as what ordinary sense-impression could conceivably know as a real force in the universe. We do experience the effects of life, that among things we identify as “living.” Similarly, we experience the effect of mind, but we know no sensed object as mind-as-such.
That same issue arises in the realm of assessing that quality of “intention” which distinguishes the great performance of a great musical composition from those mere shadows which the performance of mere notes leaves like footprints-in-the-mud in the course of their performance. I could speak of forceful performances which leave behind the sense of a well-embalmed corpse, or a mere puppet-like construction which leaves behind the effect of being as a synthesized embalming. The qualities of life and mind are qualities whose essential existence dwells outside the reach of mere matter, sculpted or in motion. Such is the difference between what A.I. Oparin’s or Bertrand Russell’s mere opinions represented, as compared to actually living processes. The same irony confronts us in the attempt to evoke sincere qualities of belief from mere words; great Classical works, even less impressive communications have real intentions and related effects, but those forces do not reside within mere words, or other sorts of symbols.
The Classical achievements in composition, gained by drama, poetry, and kindred beautiful compositions, like song, bespeak real forces which can not be properly mummified as mere words or other symbols. Such real achievements are actually experienced only in the immediacy of experience of the process of Classical artistic creation, which actual life lives inhabits, and shadow of life’s passing may be interred. The challenge to mankind, is to recognize that difference between the reality which creates the poetry, and leaves the footprints, perhaps only briefly, behind.
Substance exists; the problem is that of choosing where to find it.
“The forces which do not reside within mere words, or...”
Just as a reminder, as we now enter the concluding chapter of this report, the governing intention in this composition’s entirety, presents a solution for overcoming what has been the stubborn error of relying on sense-perception as a standard of evidence bearing on the role of any actual physical principle. As I have already indicated in the preceding chapter, the actual effect of what has often been considered “elementary” reliance on sense-perception, creates the fatal folly of mistaking a man’s mere shadow for his actual self. As I have already indicated, here, above, the indicated remedy for that error has been implicitly provided by the combined role of respectively “the nearly heard” and “the distant heard” of the great argument by Wilhelm Furtwängler. That argument, by Furtwängler, had depended on crucial, related arguments by both Max Planck and Wolfgang Köhler, all considered in the light of Köhler’s correction made to Planck on the correct principle of the human mind. This requires that we also take into account the important contribution of principle by Albert Einstein on the subject of matter/anti-matter. Furtwängler’s final treatment of the performance of Franz Schubert’s Ninth Symphony has presented us with a relevant demonstration of Furtwängler’s discovered principle of “nearly” and “distant” heard, just as Köhler’s argument on mind persuaded Max Planck.
The array of illustrations which I have just summarized, must be subsumed by J.S. Bach’s principle of the fugue, which is the essence of all competent composition of music, inasmuch as the principle of the Bach fugue is the principle of employing the future to define the present. Furtwängler’s use of “near” and “far” hearing, expresses the principle of the concept permeating the Bach fugue. The music which does not serve that same Bach/Furtwängler principle of the future, including the case of the inherent failure of so-called “popular music,” is to be considered as seriously defective. Just so, the argument of the so-called Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), introduced in 1950, not only imposed a worsening trend toward cultural trash on Europe (and elsewhere); the effect of the influence of the CCF had manifestly lowered the cultural/intelligence-level of the trans-Atlantic world in a disastrous succession of accelerated “steps” since that time.
Unfortunately, the expulsion of Germany’s great Chancellor Bismarck, had turned out to be the crucial first actual step of the world into a virtual simultaneity of the first “world-wide war” launched by the British empire. From that moment on, there were steps virtually into Hell, such as ominous effects, in France, of the assassination of France’s President Sadi Carnot, the Dreyfus case, and the British Prince of Wales’ alliance with Japan’s Mikado to launch the first major outbreak of the first of a series of World Wars, a series which actually never ended since the series began (actually) with that 1890 ouster of Chancellor Bismarck which actually unleashed the first “World War.” The assassination of U.S. President William McKinley on a globally ominous Sept. 6, 1901 enabled its unfolding to proceed.
It is of crucial importance that that aspect of modern history be treated exactly as I have done here: it is not events which make history, but the process of human history which creates the important events which actually shape that history in a truly meaningful sense in such matters. We, as individual nations, or peoples, are often, indeed, enabled to play important roles in the shaping of some of that history’s events. Admittedly, often those who play such roles have no competent insight into what they do, or why they do it, but, with rare exceptions, it is not the event itself which actually shapes the unfolding course of the history of a process in history. Considering the view on this matter by Wolfgang Köhler, is a useful approach to insight into this aspect of historical processes.
It is therefore important that the crucial argument presented here, be restated as follows.
During the course of the few recent years, the so-called “Basement Team” of my associates, had succeeded in bringing about an important leap in their knowledgeable proof and understanding of the role of creativity as a “mandatory” rule of the experimental evolution of life in the known universe. The demonstrated principle of what are to be classified as “world wars,” is that the array of successive advances in the ordering of species is not merely successive, but that the succession is systemically self-ordered. This applies, as broadly, and safely said, as being inherent to human intellectual progress, and so to manifest “choices” of human extinction, and so to biological extinction generally, as it is to mere biological ordering otherwise.
It is fairly said, that the universe is governed by a principle of universal anti-entropy: progress, or extinction, are each notably available options.
Sit here for a moment in contemplation, that we might reflect on a few important conceptions.
Actual progress is not statistical; it is systemic, even implicitly “organic.” Hence, the sudden collapse of progress, which had been imposed willfully (not statistically), in the immediate post-war economy, and, once again, in the aftermath of the succession of assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and his brother and Presidential pre-nominee, Robert Kennedy.
In the U.S. and most of Europe today, for example, progress is not generally systemic, but only statistical, and has been downward most of the time since the assassinations of John F. and Robert Kennedy. That is to emphasize, that, when physical economic growth is the standard employed, the net physical growth of the U.S. economy has been consistently negative in direction since approximately the immediate aftermath of the launching of both the “Warren Commission” and the U.S. war in Indo-China.10The fraudulent trick used, is that of a practice or product is “considered popular,” the promotion of that product is treated as proof of progress, even if the result is disastrous, in fact.
Consider the most disgusting of all popularized hoaxes. The usual economists, or lunatics of that category, consider the gain of money itself as “an intrinsic advantage.” Thus, we have the great hyper-inflation which has just destroyed both the U.S. and western and central European economies. Why was such accumulation of nominal money counted as growth, when the Glass-Steagall law enacted under President Franklin Roosevelt was required by all actually intelligent people? How, and why, could the repeal of Glass-Steagall have been considered a sane behavior of a government and its people?
Or take the case of the popular commodity, drugs-for-addiction? Popular opinion has been recently, speaking clinically, insane. The evidence is that the U.S. government has been predominantly insane most of the time since the election of President Richard Nixon, and that the preferences of most citizens have been, predominately, worse than disgusting. How can “better” be helpful, when we consider the public, and also public standards of what have come to be considered as “useful prospects”?
If we were so awfully-smart, how did it happen that we have destroyed the U.S. economy, more and more, each time our citizens had voted since the close of 2001?
The essential point indicated by all this, and much more besides, is that the standard measures for progress are clinically insane when measured by the popular preferences for effects. Wealth is being measured today in the acquisition of public satisfaction secured by the consumption of loathsome pleasures and, usually, the pleasure sought from the enjoyment of painful diseases of various kinds.
It is fairly, truly, and usefully emphasized, that it is almost never the individual, qua individual, who actually determines the effective course of history. Admittedly, the individual’s behavior often does act to what appears to be such an effect; but, the individual who views his or her intervention as an individual in the course of the history of nations, is intrinsically a fool. The fault here is rooted, essentially, in the error of an a-prioristic belief in the categorically autonomous “sovereignty” of the human individual. You must view your role as that of an agent of the making and shaping of history; you must, in effect, treat the mortal self as an agent of an essentially immortal process. If you are truly wise, you view yourself as obliged to participate, as if immortally, in shaping the history which you must participate in pre-shaping from generation to generation. “The rugged individual” is often the silliest of fools to be found on precisely that account.
I explain that point: you are sovereign only when you assume responsibility for the outcome of that future course of history in which you are participating as an initiator of progress. In real history, “the notorious rugged individual” is a fool virtually born from the depths of foolishness. In real economic science, success is located in the improvements which the present generation forges as the accomplishments of one’s progeny.
I explain that crucially important point, as follows.
I had emphasized earlier, in referring to the characteristic of upward trends in evolution of human achievements, that your successors from future generations must be developed to effect a net increase in the ability of mankind to increase its power to exist in the universe. Not what you do, as much as what you are prompted to shape your descendants to achieve, as a succession of actual net increases in the human species’ power to exist in the universe.
“You say that you do your part for mankind? How dare you propose such a fraud!?
“You are responsible for the needed degree of improvement in the productivity of each of your several generations of progeny. You are morally obliged to make your successful contribution to that net effect on the future of mankind.” You are obliged to ensure that the several successive generations of mankind will be committed to bring about fundamental physical-economic progress during coming generations. To argue that: “Each of us can only be held responsible for what we do personally,” is not only a fraud, but a very wicked one. You are your children’s and grandchildren’s keepers.
That is the principle of, for example, the proper design of the Bach fugue, as Wilhelm Furtwängler’s principle of counterpoint demands. Your absolute obligation as a human being is not to repeat the past, but to create the basis for the production of the future. This is as if to say, that you must live in that future, rather than your own past. That is the principle of creativity in our universe; that is the essentially underlying distinction of the actual existential identity of man from those men and women thinking and acting as beasts, thinking and acting in their past, as beasts also do. Animal and related life can exist through biological evolution and related ways. The difference for man is the human mind, the ontology of living within the future, rather than the mere present; that is the true essence of the actual meaning of human creativity, and, also, even the meaning of humanity itself.
The characteristics which I have just employed, above, to distinguish the essential quality of the human being from the beasts, must be recognized as the essential characteristics of a person fit to be judged as an expression of the uniquely distinct quality of what the individual citizen must be, that done in the process of rising to a quality of species of higher order than what each has recently achieved since yesterday, and, then, into tomorrow. In other words, this is the moral principle which distinguishes the properly developing human individual personality from both the beasts and the bestialized humans. You must become what you must become since yesterday, or you are in danger of becoming nothing after all.
This is my presentation, here, of what I (and, you) must become in our self-improvement to become the higher quality of human species than you were today. True human creativity is the activity of becoming a higher quality of human species than you were, hopefully, yesterday.
What does that mean in actual practice?
This means emphasis on human creativity per se. Take two examples of this notion of creativity as such into consideration.
The power of man on this account lies in part with man’s creation of instruments which supply the human prototype with devices which increase the quality of the productive powers of labor in principle of design of the combination of mankind and mankind’s power to act creatively in the universe. This power just identified points to the role of both the development of the human mind and the tools which it creates, to the effect of recreating the human phenotype into becoming, in practice, a species more powerful, more highly developed in its own quality of species-in-action in nature, than anything earlier.
What we are enabled, and devoted to accomplishing, according to this perspective takes man out of the domain of a specific type of a fixed image, into a truly creative being, a being which absorbs and uses what had been, earlier, powers of actions reflecting states of the universe which had previously not been included in our human nature; but absorbing elements of a higher state of the processes which have acted upon us, we create in the practiced imagination powers as of mankind, which we have seemed to have absorbed into our own being, and made, thus, an efficient expression of our will to develop what the universe must be intended to become. As we absorb higher states of organization within our universe into our own nature, as through absorbing powers taken from outside the ontology of things presently “in our nature,” we expand those powers of our person, and become, thus, beings of a higher state of nature than we had been before. Creative mankind is not simply using means previously beyond the means of our willful control, but thus changing our own nature in the universe accordingly. We can only be what we are willfully committed to become.