During the Summer of 2009, I composed a trilogy on the subject of the implications of the role of human individual creativity for a true appreciation of the nature and role of the creative powers of the human mind. I refer to that here and now, for its bearing on the essential principles of any competent science of physical economy.

The essential character of the customary human ignorance of the nature of scientific and related truth, is expressed as a still popular, but erroneous presumption, the presumption that the images of sense-perception, are to be considered as “facts,” which is to say, as, foolishly assumed to be, at their best, a simple reflection of that which our senses portray for us.

That, unfortunately commonplace error of judgment in trusting sense-perception so, points our attention to what is properly regarded as among the best of the readily identifiable issues of proofs from the Classical science of the relevant Egyptians (“Sphaerics”) and ancient Greeks, such as that of a celebrated friend of Plato, the strategist and scientist Archytas.

Archytas showed, by a crucial-experimental method of construction, as his work was emphasized, later, by the great Eratosthenes, that the duplication of the cube can not be accomplished by the incompetent methods which came to be presented later as Euclidean geometry; the methods of naive belief in sense-certainty; rather, it requires, in effect of practice, that the truth of the matter must be known only through the action of construction, as expressed within the domain of, not Euclid or similarly foolish sorts of geometries, but only as an expression in what Albert Einstein, most notably, identified as physical space-time.

This view of what we may identify as the “anti-Euclidean” stance, has been the root of what became the modern, Riemann revolution in science of such most notable followers of Riemann as Academician V.I. Vernadsky and Albert Einstein.

Already, then, in the time of Archytas and Plato, about two millennia or longer before Bernhard Riemann and Albert Einstein, the misguided presumptions of today’s modern positivists were already recognized as absurd by the actually competent scientific thinkers of their times, thinkers such as those more clear-headed folk who despised the cult of that useless creature, the utterly despicable fraud, otherwise to be known, professionally, as black-magic specialist Isaac Newton.

Yet, the majority of the world’s nominally educated populations, persist, even still today, in sharing a stubbornly false, still widespread academic belief, they, as do the so-called “behaviorists” generally. They share the delusion, that the actually scientific qualities of sense-perceptual powers of the human mind, are to be associated essentially with the biological sense-organs of the living person. Nonetheless, a naive view of that fraudulent opinion, becomes, in practice, essentially a lie, a lie expressed as a compounded fallacy of composition. It is a lie because it does not, by any means, suggest a satisfactory answer to such questions as: why should such shadows, called perceptions, which are cast as sense-perceptions upon the individual human mind, be so often presumed to be an ontologically actual (e.g., truly efficient) representation of that reality which has cast such mere shadows?

Among the numerous known examples bearing on that same question from the history of European science, as, for example, since Plato’s friend Archytas, the most crucial indicator of the truth in this matter, is that typified by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, as that principle was echoed by the great, uniquely original discovery of a general principle of gravitation, by a great student and follower of Cusa, and of Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, as by Johannes Kepler. I emphasize the historical fact, that Kepler’s discovery of a general principle of gravitation, is presented to us as a kind of sequel to Kepler’s own earlier solution for the question posed by the notion of planetary motion as measured in terms of equal (subtended) areas, equal times.

It was by juxtaposing the systemically contradictory, ontologically distinct, sensory-conceptions of vision and harmonics respectively, that Kepler located the unique point in experimental physics at which a valuation could be adduced for an encompassing principle of action, a principle known as general gravitation. It was not the measurement of sense-impressions, but, rather, the paradoxical contrast of mutually contradictory sense-certainties, which revealed the efficient presence of that principle responsible for the effect which his discovery clarified to the satisfaction of competent scientists such as, in particular, Albert Einstein.

Hence, in the general case of competent physical science, the notion of “physical” as an adumbration of sense-certainty as such, is always false, except in the case of usages which are appropriate for a certain specific kind of practice in clinical psychopathology:12 sense-perceptions and the ideas which are simply adumbrated images, e.g., “shadows cast,” of actual effects on the simply conscious individual mind. Those “shadows” are not the reality which we encounter in any competent experimental search for a principle such as what Albert Einstein identified, for his appreciation of the case of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a physical principle of gravitation, as a universe in which immediate experience is temporarily finite, but not bounded.

In other words, the real universe, as distinct from what are merely sense-impressions, is one which has been shown to be intrinsically anti-entropic, as shown by Bernhard Riemann, and such among his followers as Academician V.I. Vernadsky and Albert Einstein. It is a universe in which space, time, and matter have no separate existence from one another; but, rather, what exists, is only physical-space-time as it must be grasped as a matter of universal principle, that done by the creative powers of the individual mind. It is those creative powers of the mind which are to be emphasized in the influence of Lejeune Dirichlet on Riemann’s work, and respecting the indispensable role of the Classical artistic imagination for a competent physical science.

Once we have taken that much, which I have just stated, competently into account, it should appear to us so, as we reflect on our own experience of what I have just summarized. This means, that one of the greatest, most stupefying errors of judgment among what are made by even some of the best informed, most experienced, and talented influential figures of society, is their mistaken presumption that the problem of human life, as also of entire nations confronting our attention, must be considered in terms of our reaction to a succession of events to which we must simply react by considering mere sense-perception as supplying the prompting motive for what is to be considered as reality.

All experimentally validated universal principles, as typified by Albert Einstein’s reading of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a subsuming principle of universal gravitation, lie outside what are merely footprints, rather than the foot, or the active footing which produced those sense-perceptual-like prints which the real action had left behind.

Considerations such as these, lead to the great challenge presented to us by the most elegant expressions of statecraft and its history; that is, the challenge of the fact that true knowledge is not the human individual’s reaction to what is considered a universe proceeding according to processes beyond man’s willful control; but, rather, is what should be man’s acceptance of the responsibility for an increasingly influential role by mankind, in shaping the development of the universe: i.e., Genesis 1’s “man and woman” made in the likeness of the Creator. On this account, Albert Einstein’s appreciation of the implications of the unique discovery of gravitation by Kepler, is a crucial point of reference. It is man, that aspect of the human individual, man’s true potential creativity, man acting thus as if the Creator’s agent, in contributing to the shaping of the future destiny of the experienced universe, which is the standpoint, the initial point of reference, from which all competent opinion on history and its shaping must proceed.

It is when man abandons that assigned function, that a mankind so misdirected has opened the doors to its own depravity; we are, then, confronted by such a phenomenon as the moral and cultural degeneration of the popular opinion of the U.S.A. population, as since the decline of the quality of leading U.S. public morality, since the successful, 1944, Allied breakthrough in Normandy, a time when the grip of what had been Wall Street’s support for Britain’s sometime champion, Adolf Hitler, had returned. This time, it was not a return to admiration of a failed Hitler, as such, but, rather, to the trans-Atlantic, Wall Street/British criminals, such as those associated with the Bank of England’s partners, such as Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers Harriman, who had created Hitler and supported Hitler over the 1923-1933 interval, and beyond.

It is how we, as like man or woman in Genesis 1, could, and must alter the principled course of events in the universe, if we were actually moral, that needed change typifies the only true morality, and the only true science. We are responsible for the progress of the endless development to higher, voluntarily created states, the states associated with the image of that garden of civilization for whose development we should consider ourselves morally responsible.

Our proper role is to refuse to submit to that popular principle of evil which is expressed by the British empire still today, and not to continue, as President Barack Obama has done thus far, to act as if one were among the children of Satan, as that unfortunate creature, Obama, has done, in his performing as a virtual carbon copy of the self-doomed Emperor Nero, in his campaign for, and occupation of the office of President, thus far. On precisely this account, Obama has sometimes acted as a child of Satan, or, to state that point precisely, as in the likeness of a creature deployed in service of the British monarchy and that monarchy’s control over its own implicitly treasonous American political agents, thus far.

If we can come to understand this in a degree that even few among leading scientists have done so far, we can recognize that ours is a great responsibility to mankind, which we must meet, not only while we are alive, but for the sake of that future humanity which outlives us. The present crisis of our planet forbids postponing service to that obligation of ours to actually bring about a future, as least as much as to our obligation to foresee and desire the future of present humanity.

That duty of ours must be our passion and our practice, and nothing contrary to that foremost feature of our chosen profession in life. It would be helpful, if more of us understood not only that responsibility, but the science on which a knowledgeable execution of that personal mission depends. Such is the subject set before us, here and now.

I explain.

The Science of Mind

How, then, do the healthy processes of a human mind actually perform?

It is convenient here, to point out, once more, Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, as typifying the means by which that notion of gravitation was discovered. Kepler’s unique genius in this matter, illustrates the fact, that scientific truths are not to be found in a mere sense-perception as such, but, that they must be located in a certain type of contradiction, either between, or among two or more specific types of acts of sense-perception. It was in that mode, that Kepler discovered the principle of universal gravitation. He employed the coincident contradiction between a sense of vision and a sense of harmonics in respect to the self-same set of Solar events.

There is the case of the faulty idea commonly associated with the actually pathological presumption that a sense-perception is a “self-evident” fact.

A sense-perception is, actually, merely an effect of a perception of an effect which has been prompted by what is considered to be an object of sense-perception. That sense-perception has a similar, ontological significance, as a footprint has relative to the existence of man who left that footprint. That, however, is not the identity of the acting man. Seeing only the footprints being generated, but not seeing the man who is producing those footprints, but hearing something like the sound of a man’s repeated coughing in accord with the rise and fall of the human voice’s approaching and moving into the distance, then suggests the existence of that coughing man’s suspected role in the production of those footprints.

Was that coughing coming from the voice of the man who was making those footprints, or was this merely a coincidence? We must seek out some crucial other feature of that experience, a feature which will show us whether the footprints coincident with the coughing is the man suspected as having made the footprints. Such was the challenge which the contrasted standpoints of the telescope and harmonics, when considered as the sources of two qualitatively distinct effects, presented to Kepler. It was the set of the interlocking harmonics of the observed elements of the Solar system, which provided the evidence of a principle commonly governing the visualized motions of the planets, which supplied Kepler the means for defining a principle of gravitation.

The problem so posed, is not actually a problem of merely mathematical constructions.

The problem is that of discovering something which is not included within the bounds of the ostensibly sensed relations, but something which controls the effect of those relations from a vantage-point “outside” the range of those merely sensed relations as such. This is the crucial point emphasized by Albert Einstein respecting the subsuming implications of a principle of gravitation as expressing the existence of a finite present state of the experienced universe, a universe which, while momentarily finite, remains unbounded in the ongoing progress of continued development of, and beyond the present momentary state. It is a matter of adducing the equivalent of a presumed willful, higher, creative “hand,” which is causing a specific motion not attributable to the internal appearances of the moved object as such.

This is not to imply, as foolish populists do, that there is something “supra-natural” about subject-matters which do not register with our given senses. The lack of such detection merely reflects the inherent limitations of those standard, raw, human sense-organs, limitations which a competently developed individual mind could readily surpass.

To illustrate that distinction: we have the case of those phenomena detected through instrumentation, which are fairly outside the range of the function of the human senses, but which can be detected, as effects, nonetheless, through sundry categories of our combined built-in and complementary “synthetic” instrumentation. The effects of the given human senses are such, that, veritable “symptoms” must supplement the work of the senses. We create other instruments, which can be teased into providing us shadowy, symbolic images which can, then, be, first, apprehended by our given sense-organs, and then read as if they had been a naturally born part of our repertoire of sense-perceptions.

The principle in all latter such experiences, is typified by the method employed by Johannes Kepler’s detection of the principle of a general law of gravitation in the Solar system, or, as by sub-microscopic phenomena, or by observed features of the Crab Nebula’s features which befuddle the notion of a universe in which causal relations are presumed to be limited, literally, to the “speed of light.”

In all such considerations, the principal source of popular confusion, is the systemic error of belief in sense-certainty. That is to say, the delusion that the human senses present us with selected types of shadows, as the case of the Crab Nebula illustrates the effects of such varied instrumentations.

Admittedly, in all cases of humanly built-in or synthetic sensing of phenomena, “something is out there;” but, “it” is rarely what the naive observer considers as equivalent to a self-evident factor. What is to be called into question on this account, as the Apostle Paul warned, is the presumption that what we believe that what we see, as if in a mirror, actually expresses a kind of limit to the nature which might be presumed to “contain” “us,” “ontologically.” An “us” whose personal, individual will could be, in and of itself, a conscious cause of efficient changes in the behavior of the universe which we inhabit.13

For the work of science, we must begin our investigation of such matters by focussing attention on the assumption that the relevant “presumed hand” of action is the human mind of the experimental scientist, as systemically distinct from what we might attribute to the pitiably naive, perceptual powers of some naked species of beast.

You do not actually “see” the really existing object. Rather, you attribute the existence of the object to an experienced effect on the human sense-perceptual apparatus, or its qualified surrogate. Your senses do not show you the cause of the relevant sense-perception; but, there must be some transcendental quality of coherence between the mental image of the sensed experience and the cognitive process employed to define that relevant phenomenon presented to us in what is actually the virtually symbolic form of a sense-perception.

However, that is not the end of the matter. The mind must craft a notion of a universe which is not actually one of those shadows known as sense-perceptions as such, but of an idea whose relationship to the experience is congruent with the idea of the relevant, subsuming, real universe. Such is the case of Albert Einstein’s conception of the universe implicitly defined by that unique discovery of a universal principle of gravitation by no one other than Johannes Kepler: the universe is immediately finite, but, in respect to the measure of universal physical principles, is infinitely unbounded. The universe is bounded only by that conception of “finite and yet unbounded,” itself.

Thus, the competent human mind creates a mental image of the universe which is an experimentally valid correlative of action in the real universe, but is an image which exists only in some efficient quality of the cognitive notion whose existence is superior to that of the mistaken notion of the existing mind as of the sense-certainty’s notion of quality of a merely biological phenomenon. That is the notion of categorical distinctions which Academician V.I. Vernadsky expressed by his notion of the respective Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere, as being categorically different, although interacting states of existence.

To supplement that description of the matter, we must emphasize, that the creative powers unique to the individual member of the human species, are uniquely different than the attributable “mental” life of other living processes, as life itself is distinct from the opinion of Vernadsky’s indicated Soviet opponent in this matter, A.I. Oparin. The different between the “Marxist” standpoint of Oparin and Oparin’s British admirers, and that of Oparin’s devout adversary Vernadsky, is coherent with Albert Einstein’s Riemannian standpoint, a standpoint in a notion of scientific method, which Einstein shared, essentially, with Vernadsky, as with Johannes Kepler’s discovery of a general principle of gravitation as coherent with a finite, yet unbounded universe.

The “Type B” Mind

In the treatment of the subject of the human mind which I developed, in The Science of Physical Economy, during the Summer and Autumn of 2009, I defined the separation of the experience of perception, as being a mere shadow of reality, as distinct from the experience which the creative powers of the human mind generate as a mental, rather than perceptual estimate of the sensed reality.

Think as follows:

Think of the experience of a world external to the human mind as divided between two stages: on one, an outer one (perception), and, on the other, an inner one (conception). The existence of the person is located not in sense-perception, but something inner, something implicitly immortal in its function, its conception.

For example, to the domain of mere perception, the Solar system, as seen by such means as aid of a naked eye, or the telescope, is composed of objects moving in what we imagine, mistakenly, as relatively “empty” space. In modern physical science, we know there is no truly empty space out there, but, rather, a fully filled-out sort of physical space, as one defined by aid of such knowledge as Albert Einstein’s conception of relativistic physical space-time. For convenience here, let us identify the first, superficial, experience as that of perception, and the knowledge of relativistic physics as conception. The latter is what the mind encounters as we act on the universe, as contrasted to a passive view of a merely shadowy, sensed experience.

The proof of truth is not what we experience, as if by mere sense-perceptions; knowledge of actual truth lies only in those actions by which we are enabled, knowingly, to change the universe which we inhabit. That is the essential principle of a science of physical economy.

The simpler implication of such distinctions, is that presented by Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a general physical principle of gravitation, and as Albert Einstein qualified the implications of that discovery by Kepler. Two distinct kinds of perception, since they are mutually contradictory from the contrasted standpoints of perception of the two objects, the one of sense perception, and the second, of harmonics. Thus, contrast Kepler’s actual discovery of a general principle of gravitation, to the fraudulent re-interpretation of that perceptual space-time which had been known, scientifically, by Kepler, to the foolish British early Eighteenth-century fops’ plagiarism of Kepler’s published report, a fraud put into the silly mouth of the foolish Isaac Newton by the dabbling fops of the British court, the Eighteenth-century Newtonians’ fraudulent efforts, as by Abbé Antonio Conti and the silly Voltaire and their lackeys, to explain away the results actually discovered by Kepler.

It is the contradictions arising in the results among differing types of processes of perception, which lead us to define the common principle of action expressed by two contrary modes of perception versus conception. Such is the root of the scientific distinction to be made between mere perceptions, and truly principled conceptions of our experience of the universe.

The model of that kind of discovery of principle which was made successfully by Kepler, is then to be extended to new kinds of modern instruments, this time including the ironies presented by the synthetic kinds of instruments crafted by physical science. The contrast of the astronomical to the microphysical, through the use of instruments which provide new options for representing the effects of experimental work, when combined with driving the range of experimental experience beyond previously established precedent, defines a notion of a universal experimental principle specific to the functions of the human mind, rather than of mere sense-perceptions.

Such is the modern view of the qualitatively expanding nature of human knowledge of the principled characteristics of our universe, as distinct from the silly doctrine presented by Adam Smith in his behaviorist’s Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Therefore, Who, or What Is Using Which?

Among the most important delusions spread among nations today, is the belief in an intrinsic value of money. This has been true in all presently known recent centuries, at least essentially so. Presently, the risk incurred by such a delusion of “self-evident sense-perception,” is now an immediately far greater risk for all humanity, than it has been during a recent lapse of time which was longer than a recently past century. The entire world is presently teetering, and that immediately, at the edge of a general monetary breakdown-crisis of the planet as a whole.

When we consider those combined effects on our inhabited planet as a whole, effects which express the contributing influence of each part upon the whole, the collapse of the physical economy of the United States would be sufficient cause, for reason of its effects on the pluses and minuses of that planet as a whole, to warn us that the subtraction of the margin contributed by the U.S.A. itself, would be a sufficient weakening of the self-stability of the planet as a whole, to detonate an immediate, chain-reaction disintegration of each and all nations on this planet, now. Even merely continuing the current U.S. Presidency of the incurable Barack Obama, would be sufficient triggering action to bring such a general breakdown-crisis of the entire planet about very soon. What we are experiencing, globally, at the present time, is an economic development with a startling resemblance to the Autumn 1923 breakdown-crisis of Weimar Germany, but this time on a global, planetary “new dark age” scale, rather than a single nation.

The world in its entirety is now in the grip of such an oncoming, early event, unless the influence of the present British empire and its dupes in various governments, is wiped from the world’s agenda, and that very soon. The planet, insofar as it remains under the present form of British imperial financier hegemony, with its reign of so-called “financial derivatives,” is already sliding over the brink, into a generation’s immediately threatened long plunge into a planetary new dark age, far worse than what Europe experienced in the Fourteenth Century “New Dark Age.”

You may stubbornly deny what I have just said, but, if you are successful in making that denial of present reality, you are already dooming yourself to watch yourself and your fellow-humans die and rot in fruits of your own ideological follies. There is a cure; embrace it, or be doomed by your own foolish beliefs.

I offer you a peek into the alternative. Before we return to the principal subject of this present chapter, the delusions of sense-perception, situate the implications of that discussion in the framework of the subject of the present form of the British Empire.