This is the edited, final version. 02/10/10
Today Has a History“A dishonest man said, ‘That is what I chose to believe at that time. You must, at least, show respect for my sincerity!’”
The essential evil of the present British Royal regime’s imperial system of government, can be traced in modern history, to deep roots in a time as early as that of the process of degeneracy of King Henry VIII (b.1491- d.1547), a decadence which was orchestrated by that King’s then newly arrived (A.D. 1529) sex-counselor, the Venetian intelligence authority Francesco Zorzi (aka Giorgi) (b. 1466-d. 1540). In some respects, it is necessary to trace matters in such attention to details of the implicit cultural (Leibnizian) dynamics overlapping personal life-times, if one is to locate the background of necessary reference for understanding England’s key role in the process of modern European history from a time about A.D.1529, through the February 1763 Peace of Paris, and, the subsequent, Eighteenth-century British imperialist tradition.
That modern, A.D. 1529-1763, process, leading into the formal birth of modern British imperialism, has been the historical backdrop which must be adopted as the reference needed to situate the origins of that system of Paolo Sarpi (b.1552-d.1623) which became known by such names as “behaviorism.” This is a system which was based upon the prevalent, categorical rejection of any principled standard of truthfulness, as this rejection was argued most plainly by Adam Smith in his 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments, as what is to be recognized, most easily, as the specifically British monetarist cultural tradition, to the present day.1 The result has been, that the reigning body of so-called Liberal “popular opinion” in much of the world today, is, more often than not, a system of the sophistry imposed as a blending of induced popular stupidities and accompanying official lies.2
Thus, we have Adam Smith’s predecessor John Locke’s (b. 1632-d.1704) system of thought, a system which is still praised as “democracy” by fools or swindlers, alike, including the British promotion of the alleged right to capture and hold African captives in perpetual slavery of successive generations inside the United States. Just so, had President Barack Obama and his behaviorist retinue inserted into the Senate’s so-called “health-care” bill the decree, of the perpetual right of those evil insurance companies associated with AIG, to secure the future privilege of murdering more Americans henceforth, than those who had been killed in 1939-1945 Europe, killed by those guilty parties who were hauled before the post-1945 Nuremberg Trials for crimes against humanity for crimes of a type identical with those for which Nazi doctors were condemned and executed at Nuremberg.
Now come Obama’s proposed, so-called health-care reforms, which, if established, would murder a vastly greater percentile of the U.S. population, than Hitler had killed by similar health-care polices, back then.
Today, we need the likeness of President Abraham Lincoln’s victory over the British empire’s backers of the practice of slavery, as we did then, as, in certain respects, still today.3 This means, over the time of today’s system of predatory followers of the “health care” of Hitler’s and Tony Blair’s practices, including a Blair legacy for which Obama had been chosen to attempt to push through in the guise of what private health-care insurers have been chosen to install today.
The prominent such fact of the present moment is, that the present British monarchy’s evil intention for the Hitler-like perversion of the very name of “health care,” is a system of mass murder, one copied directly from the precedent of Adolf Hitler’s war-time system of genocide, while, in turn, President Obama has adopted the same kind of program of genocide which he has copied, more directly, from that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (N.I.C.E., “National Institutes for Health and Clinical Excellence”), who had, in turn, copied the policy of genocide in the name of medical care, which had been made infamous by the Adolf Hitler wartime regime.
To complete that picture, Hitler’s rise to power had been, originally, a result of a British, post-Versailles-treaty creation of Adolf Hitler’s role, as traced in German public affairs since 1923. From Winston Churchill’s vantage-point in 1940, the British backing for the Hitler project had become, for Churchill and others, a no longer tolerable plot of the Bank of England’s Montagu Norman and of Hitler-backing representatives of New York’s Brown Brothers Harriman, typified by such as Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, Jr.
In fact, all of those three figures known, respectively, as Adolf Hitler, a lying former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Barack Obama, and, also, Obama’s installed, behaviorist lackeys, have copied Thomas Malthus on population-control, just as Tony Blair’s promotion of N.I.C.E. had taken a rib out of the pro-genocide policies of Bertrand Russell, and, also, of Britain’s present British Royal Consort , the pro-genocide Prince Philip of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
Contrary to such evil people as those exemplary British and kindred culprits of sundry nations, such as British-controlled puppet-President Barack Obama of our United States today, our Federal government had been established on the basis of a contrary principle, one typified by the Preamble of our Federal Constitution, that of inducing the majority of our population to act, in concert, in the pursuit of truth, if it could be presumed that they possessed the will and skill to discover it. If you refuse to denounce such culprits as those wicked types to which I have just referred, and to recognize them, openly and frankly, as having been evil, you, too, are guilty of claiming the privilege of permitting an evil to proceed which should be fought, a kind of negligence on our own part which is now the root of evil consequences which you, too, will come to suffer.
It is the truth, even if the truth is in the mouth of only a minority, which must reign, rather than being merely a part of that body of corrupt opinion which must reign among Obama’s supporters. This truth must reign, rather than a narcissistic, Emperor-Nero-echoing Obama government plotting and reigning from behind closed doors. What must reign is a zeal for discovery of the true nature and needs of a sovereign body from among mankind; what must reign, is the scientific truth about mankind’s nature, needs, and rights. Contrary to the doctrine of the avowed hater of our liberties, the evil Adam Smith, the matter is not a settled decision, until that truth presented by even a tiny minority of opinion has prevailed.
The essence of evil, is insisting that popular opinion must sit in judgment on truth, for, as history has always demonstrated, it is, as in physical science, rather than as in mere mathematics, that truth, which is often a view of a tiny minority, must come to reign over what is a current majority of merely opinion. All great failures of nations have been products of a popular opinion which resisted truthfulness, such as that of President Obama’s dupes. If nothing else will change popular opinion, the fabled Erinyes are on the way.
Contrary to the systemic presumption underlying the policy of Adam Smith and today’s British monarchy, the essential truth is, that, contrary to the political doctrine of the Obama administration, mankind is not an animal to be slaughtered, or starved to death when the person is sick or old; men and women represent a higher order of creature than all of the beasts. This is a quality of that spirit of a living human individual which, only briefly, inhabits a specifically human biological form. The human mind which inhabits a mortal body, is a truly immortal being, one which, although it, ironically, occupies a living body temporarily, has a power of creativity, a power of creating ideas of that special quality which we associate with such expressions as “the human soul.”
These are expressions such as commitment to the immortal efficiency of discoveries of universal physical principles, principles of action, embodied in the living expression of Classical artistry and physical science, which live on, acting efficiently, when the body of the author of that discovery had been long deceased. Every moment of a creative living soul, is a precious expression of what is immortal in what it represents or, at least, represents potentially, as in no other kind of living creature yet known to mankind. Never relent, until the matter is made right. There is no tolerable substitute for a truthful decision in matters of principle, a lesson of a principle which many courts have yet to show that they have learned.
With the present month of January now hustling toward its closing days, the remaining time for President Barack Obama’s efforts to ruin our United States of America, is now rapidly approaching its probable end. That likely and early end of his Presidency is now coming on fast, but not because of anything that anyone else is going to do to hurt President Obama’s chances as much as Barack Obama himself continues to do. As I said that famously, and plainly, in my April 11, 2009 webcast: he is doomed for no other reason as much as because of what he, like his attributably narcissistic role-model from Roman history, the Emperor Nero, represents as a pathetic type of personality. Every pattern of Obama’s behavior, since the time of that webcast of mine, has followed a pattern consistent with the Nero-like characteristics of Obama’s own naked narcissism.
This is much more than my own personal judgment of that pattern from history. It is the already registered, resonant judgment of the fabled Erinyes from Friedrich Schiller’s famous ballad, The Cranes of Ibykus. The special quality of power of certain exceptionally gifted Classical poets, such as the poet and grand historian Schiller,4 or, Percy Bysshe Shelley later, to move entire cultures, has usually lain with a relatively very limited number of known poets and historians from, in particular, such sources as European Classical traditions. The argument in support of that conclusion is illustrated in the celebrated concluding paragraph of Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry.
That argument can be understood from the standpoint of physical science, if one reflects competently on Albert Einstein’s famous praise of the unique quality of scientific genius expressed, with particular emphasis on Johannes Kepler’s The Harmony of the Worlds, which Einstein identified as defining a finite, yet unbounded universe. The principle of the Ibykus case, which Schiller presented in the case which he had taken from the memory of ancient Corinth, is one which is located in the context of physical science under the ancient rubric of dynamis, or Gottfried Leibniz’s resurrection of that concept of dynamis in a modern European form as dynamics. The principle is the same as that which Einstein expressed by the use of “finite, but not bounded,” to define the quality of universe implicit in Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation.
There are, in short, certain apparently, temporarily bounding conditions associated with any specific state of the universe, as Bernhard Riemann defined this conception and its limited approximate application for such of Riemann’s own most notable followers as Albert Einstein, and for Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s proofs of the distinction among three phases of the universe, the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere. However, in a universe consistent with Riemann’s method, the universe itself, while finite in any momentary state of its progress, is not bounded, but is, rather, as Albert Einstein insisted, essentially anti-entropic, an essential quality often emerging in the form of successively higher qualitative, as distinct from merely quantitative states of being.
From a modern standpoint, therefore, the creative interactions, as if directed within social processes from above, are also finite, but not externally bounded in respect to the coming of higher qualitative states in a domain of creative artistic composition. So it is in a body of Classical musical composition rooted in the founding contributions of Johann Sebastian Bach, or in creative artistic and scientific thinking generally. The specific quality of such a merely apparently bounding state of composition of processes of events, corresponds to the ancient and modern notions of dynamis and dynamics.
My own exemplary, and essentially unique successes as an economic forecaster, since my Summer 1956 forecast of a February-March 1957 eruption of a deep U.S. recession, are excellent examples of this principle and its efficiency. These forecasts, which have succeeded repeatedly, where virtually all other known forecasters of relevance have failed on each comparable occasion, had produced a result which is the source of authority for my contempt for what have been consistently the inherent incompetence and failures of financial-statistical methods of forecasting. Mine is a method which I developed and adopted early in 1953, on the basis of a breakthrough in my attempted insights to the crucial distinction of the accomplishment typified by Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, which is the same basis employed by Riemann followers such as Albert Einstein and Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
Contrary to the essential incompetence of the method of the Aristoteleans and the modern empiricists, Einstein was right about Kepler’s discovery of universal gravitation. The universe, when viewed, looking backwards, as from its future, presents us with a view which expresses an essential competence in such matters, the truth that that universe is governed by existing, higher states of the system as a whole, successive states which may appear to be in the expressed form of relatively universal phase-spaces.
The state of physical-scientific practice, in any of a series of phases, is “unified” in a way which is associated with the ancient Classical notion of dynamis, and with the method which Leibniz employed in exposing the intrinsic incompetence of Descartes’ provably fraudulent method. That was an incompetence which was exposed by Leibniz’ treating physical processes as evidence used by him for a pedagogical approach to presenting the modern concept of dynamics, by demonstrating the fraud inherent in Descartes’ way of thinking about man and nature.
The same principle of dynamics, which may appear to be limited to the domain of physical scientific discoveries, actually performs a crucial role in the domain of Classical artistic composition, as the concluding paragraph of Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry illustrates the point. This demonstration occurs only in the domain of truly Classical modalities, such as the system of counterpoint established by Johann Sebastian Bach and by such among his successors as Haydn, Wolfgang Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Robert Schumann, and Johannes Brahms.
Neither of the contrary, Romantic and so-called Modernist fashions, show any grasp of this principle of dynamics at all. In Europe, for example, the influence of existentialists (dionysians) such as Nietzsche, the “Frankfurt School,” the European Congress for Cultural Freedom, and the contemporary U.S. and European “modernists” generally, (and also the New York Times style in prose) have virtually ruined any show of creative intellectual capabilities from among the ranks of their victims. This latter pattern has been a crucial factor in bringing the fatal quality of popular decadence which reigns among the increasing ration of the morally brain-dead from among today’s trans-Atlantic descendants of former European cultures.
When we consider the factors to which I have just pointed, we should recognize the fact, if we are attuned to the experience of Classical culture, that, as the referenced example of Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry illustrates, the habit of Classical poetic expression, has the effect of a virtual, temporarily transitional bounding of the states in which the interactions among individual human minds assume a merely temporarily apparent form of being approximately bounded.
We see this, which we may call an expression of “The Ibykus Principle” of Friedrich Schiller, as expressed in the mass-strike process which has continued from its original large-scale U.S. expression in the August 2009 “town hall meetings,” to its riper expression in the Massachusetts Senate election of January 19th, as it was also an echo of what Rosa Luxemburg identified, rather uniquely in her time, as “a mass-strike process.”
Today, as shown since August 2009, the mass of the people of the United States no longer wish to have Barack Obama as their President. It is just that simple; they have spoken. Admittedly, many members of the U.S. Congress and party leaders generally, have “marched, more and more, to a different drummer than that of the electorate.” So, what the procession of the current majority among elected and other officials represents for a mere passing moment, lies in a direction leading to the end of the political existences of many a once prominent political career. The voice of the people has spoken, and that majority of Federal officials who continue to violate the people’s trust, have become tomorrow’s collection of objects of public contempt, both individual persons and parties alike.
It is true, that public opinion is often wrong, usually because the relevant “spirit of the age” is wrong. But, when the people have it right, as the majority of the citizens have shown repeatedly since July 2009, the shallow-minded opportunists, such as the present supporters of President Barack Obama’s efforts, are going the way of the foolish King Louis XVI who was lured to his own and his wife’s death, by her own and her brother’s morally depraved reaction to the London-built trap known as “The Affair of the Queen’s Necklace.”
Thus, with the prospect of Obama’s departure from the Presidency now approaching, the case now before us, is that the world of mankind must now choose an entry into a Golden Age of freedom for humanity, but will succeed in doing so, only if enough among us share both the wisdom and courage needed to bring about the perpetuity of that result.
Therefore, look again at the world as a whole, today; look at the difference between the world viewed from the contrasting standpoints of the Atlantic maritime region (the mortal remains of what has already become, for the time being, a presently self-doomed past), and, then, the prospect for the future of the Pacific-Indian Oceans’ maritime region.
So, color the regions of our Earth’s surface as follows:
So, for the moment, the part of the world associated with windmills and solar collectors, is a rotting-out part of our world, a decadent, potentially doomed part of Europe and the Americas, rotting in their own stubborn adherence to perversely beloved backwardnesses and to their accompanying silly, “green” inanities.
In contrast to the decadence shown on both shores of the Atlantic, as this is to be seen in the rejection of the wicked scheme presented as the Copenhagen initiative, the India-Pacific Oceans’ regions are glowing bright-red with the role of nuclear-fission as a driver of progress, while our North America turns to the brutish color of a permanent brown or, worse, a nauseously yellow-green. Meanwhile, western Europe now rots away, as if a self-doomed, dying part of the planet, rotting under the reign of follies such as foolish windmills and solar collectors, a decadent culture waiting for the blessings of a new stone age to descend, like pieces broken from doomed windmills, upon their heads.
Yes, about eighty percent of the population of Asia is terribly poor, but, given a commitment to nuclear power, the potential for rapid rises in the conditions of life and labor, through greater power at its disposal, it is showing its promise of a possible, better future, at a time when the decadence of the once-richer, trans-Atlantic, European culture, is in a state of self-inflicted ruin and decline.
None of that awful decadence rampant in Europe and the Americas today, was inevitable. The outcome for the future is a product of willful choice, a choice which will mean either the will to prosper, or the will to rot. That is the choice which can not be postponed longer, and, therefore, will be made now, in this presently ominous moment of an accelerating, post-1968 world moral and economic crisis now become more deadly to humanity as a whole, than any other in modern history.
There are options available to mankind, but there is little time left to come to make the crucial, right, corrective choices.
The search for that truth on which survival of present generations of the world now depends, is best assisted, at present, by consideration of the principled scientific contributions presented by the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, who demonstrated the scientific truth of the distinction of the human mind and soul from the qualities of the beasts and the rocks, contrary to such reductionists as former Soviet Academician A.I. Oparin and his British co-thinker J.B.S. Haldane, who, in the spirit of the evil Bertrand Russell and his followers, rejected the scientific truth of the the distinction of the human mind and soul from the qualities of the beasts and the rocks.
The work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s development of the discovery of the principle of the Noösphere, has brought to the nations, and to their peoples, the rigorously scientific precedents through which to discover a practically more efficient principle of truthful self-government than had been known before. As a result of Vernadsky’s discovery, the purpose of government is more clearly, less imperfectly defined, as to be that option of a more perfect mission for living generations, a mission which is to discover and employ the truthful course of development of mankind and its nations, that in a way of which future generations need never be ashamed.
Therefore, we, accordingly, must quickly kill such poisonous weeds as those systems of mass murder which have been conducted on the pretext of health-care programs, programs of mass murder which are to be seen as typified by the case of Adolf Hitler, also with the imperial British Monarchy of today, and with President Barack Obama and the political supporters of Obama’s morally arch-criminal health-care and related policies, now.
Our constitutional U.S. republic’s constitutional commitment, is to be understood best, by tracing its origins, strictly, to the same mission prescribed by a Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. This was the Cusa, one of the principal founders of modern science and of peace among nations, who pointed his followers to the need for going across the oceans to find the opportunity to build up remedies for that oligarchical corruption which was ruining the performance of that great mission which had been set into motion, earlier, by the great ecumenical Council of Florence.
Consider such contrasting cases of decadence as that of the evils of “populism,” as to be judged from reviewing the history of our own republic.
Consider the lamentable transfer of power from the assassinated patriot President William McKinley, to the treasonously inclined scoundrels President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson. Consider, as we had experienced, similarly, the reign over, and ruin of our destiny of the latter two, as also of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, too, all of whom in that likeness are to be contrasted, later, from the glorious leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Or, similarly, view the trajectory of precipitous, moral descent from President Franklin Roosevelt to Harry S Truman, as echoing the earlier descent from President John Quincy Adams to those scoundrels Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren, who wickedly annulled the Second National Bank of the United States in favor of the rotten Land Bank scheme of Jackson’s patron and successor, Martin van Buren. Or, consider the similarly wicked repeal of a then-deceased President Abraham Lincoln’s greenback policy, a Constitutionally fraudulent repeal, that done at implicitly treasonous, British imperial behest, which unleashed the great domestic crises of that and the following decades.
The tendency for such malicious expressions of moral perversity as that typified by President Obama today, clearly did not end with that 1837 Panic crafted by the implicitly treasonous Presidents Andrew Jackson and Wall Street’s successor to the traitor Aaron Burr, Martin von Buren.
The lesson is, that even among American patriots, there is a certain persisting, recurring propensity for fickleness, which tends to prefer crude pleasures to the realization of the true meaning of human, as distinct from bestial entertainments of a sort often described, foolishly, as recreation.
Repeatedly, in the history of all cultures, including that of war-time Nazi Germany, or, similarly, our U.S.A. since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, there have been demonstrations of the fact that momentarily official popular opinion at election-time has often been contrary, in and of itself, to the realities which would have been in accord with a standard of truth. Truth is the weapon of choice against false, but, unfortunately, often reigning, popular opinion, as in our fight against tyranny generally, when we are able to resist that evil. Truth is better identified as being, also, the mission of mustering the majority of the adult citizenry to reject their own, often frequent, impassioned follies of belief in opportunistic varieties of intrinsically corrupt, populist opinions.
The challenge is, therefore, that of finding where the more exact truth lies.
The sea-ice is now growing off the coasts of Asia, and in other places. The fact is, “Global Warming” was always the kind of lie to be expected from like scoundrels of East Anglia, the World Wildlife Fund’s brutish people-hater Prince Philip, or the famously lying Tony Blair.
Take, for example, the case of the present onslaught of what has proven to be the reality of what competent scientists have warned would be a period of some decades of “global freezing,” which has taken over the northern hemisphere in this winter’s wake of that which followed the failure of the dionysiacal form of criminal madness which had been, fortunately, rejected at the Copenhagen conference.
Consider, thus, the awful stupidity of that part of a body of popular opinion which the health-care policies of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, then, and, those of President Barack Obama, now, have put forward in their faithful copy of the policies which generated what came to be called “the holocaust” launched by the wartime regime of Adolf Hitler. Capture the image of moral infamy expressed by some present Senate leader’s being hauled, at some future time, before a Nuremberg Trial of the future, charged with having pushed, as he has done, a virtual carbon copy of Hitler’s war-time health-care policy, and of some immortal act of mass murder prescribed by what has been decreed, jointly, by President Barack Obama and the present head of the U.S. Senate, as the immortal power in perpetuity, such as a “perpetual Medicare advisory board” modeled on the successive, identical “health care” policies of Adolf Hitler’s “T 4“ organization and the N.I.C.E. practice launched by Obama’s predecessor Tony Blair, the same population-policy of the World Wildlife Fund of the Brutish Prince Philip.
Hitler was evil, but, after we have rightly pointed to the enormity of the crimes of the Adolf Hitler regime, the former British puppet Hitler was not only brutish, but, it is also a fact that Hitler was not as sophisticated as his earlier, London backers in crafting the practice of the art of crimes against humanity. The British monarchy has been equally as evil as Hitler was, but has been more cleverly evasive in avoiding appropriate penalties in such matters of practice. Hitler enjoyed the sport of killing; the British empire prefers to enlist its victims in participating in guilt for the suffering which they, like certain members of the U.S. Congress, are induced to participate in bringing upon themselves.
This fact is clearer when Hitler’s case is compared with the enormity of the accumulated crimes which had already been committed against virtually all of Africa, against China in past times, as against the people of India, first, by the British East India Company’s drug pushers, and through the continuation of Malthusian policies under the British monarchy since Queen Victoria’s coronation as Empress, through to the present day. Hitler, had he lived to be taken captive, would have been executed. For the British empire, it is the victims who are ultimately punished on the altar of imperial tyrannies for their failure to prevent the follies which they have participated in bringing down upon themselves.
Ask, then, “What is human immorality?” Is immorality anything different than behavior of U.S. Democratic Party political figures, who pretend to have despised the Adolf Hitler of the past, but, nonetheless, protest against putting the moustache on those in the Obama Administration who condone, even promote those policies which amount to far greater crimes than Hitler’s against all humanity, the offenses by the Obama Presidency which have been demanded of him by both the British monarchy itself, and by the lying former British Prime Minister Tony Blair?
What, then, is the proper intention of my expression, “Liberally Satanic?”
Was it not the character of the Norman inquisitional court which, literally, cooked Jeanne d’Arc alive, then stopping the fire to see if she were cooked, and, seeing that that had been done, then restarted the fire to extinguish all sign of her personal mortal remains. This evil was done, all for a Norman-British political lie of that time, a lie by Fifteenth-century forerunners of today’s former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Is there actually a significant difference between those Norman murderers, and either what Prime Minister Tony Blair had been, or what President Obama is continuing proposing to be done, now?
What was the charge of the Norman Inquisition against Jeanne d’Arc, in condemning her to be, literally, cooked to death alive, like some fresh lobster or crab fresh and living from the restaurant’s tank? She was, in fact, condemned on the charge that she had committed an alleged offense against God, by her alleged “choosing” to wear men’s clothes, when the Norman clergy had taken away all women’s clothes from her place of captivity, and left only men’s clothes to be assumed for her presentation for retrial and condemnation before the court. But, then, even a Fifteenth-century Norman court would have, quite justly, found that the behavior of President Obama’s so-called “health care” polices were also crudely disgusting.
Christopher Marlowe understood Mephistopheles; William Shakespeare had recognized the doom of the Roman Empire of Julius Caesar’s contending heirs, and the moral futility of the England, Scotland and Denmark of the cultures of Lear, Macbeth, and Hamlet. True history and Classical drama, are not tales of failed individual personalities, but of systemically failed cultures, such as what has often been the case among some of those leaders of our own U.S.A. since the death of Franklin Roosevelt and entry into the folly of life under Harry S Truman. It is only through insight into the principles— the controlling dynamics—which subsume the doom of the failed culture, rather than gloating over the Romantic sentiments shown by some foolish individual representative of that culture, which affords us insight into the way in which the exceptional figure, the true hero or heroine, brings remedies for the immediate ills of what had been self-doomed cultures.
Only such heroes could be truly innocent.
A dishonest man said, “That is what I chose to believe at that time. You must, at least, show respect for my sincerity!” Will he do that even in cases such as his, or her own, willfully negligent homicide? Or, expressed as the mistake of a misled citizen voting for what a President Barack Obama has already shown himself to be, an Obama who has been, avowedly, an intentional perpetrator of the mass murder of the future, innocent victims among our citizens? Was his error on this account innocent ignorance, or, was it not, in fact, purely evil? Must we “respect him,” for what? What is your own, personal standard of morality, really?
So, the specter of Richard Nixon’s threatened impeachment hovers over President Obama now.
You are each responsible, not merely for the deed you do, or, also, what you fail to do; but, rather, you are accountable for the outcome of what you have chosen to be, or not to be. You are each accountable for the consequence of what you have chosen to contribute to setting into motion, or failing to do a necessary, reasonably foreseeable act which it is within your means to promote. In the final analysis, it is the consequence which is absolutely true. “I had to believe this was true at that time,” is, ultimately, no excuse. It is not the plausible intent, but the effect of your actions, and your reflection on the consequences of such actions, for which you will be eternally, morally responsible in the eyes of future history, whatever “excuse” you might concoct as a whimpering effort to distract attention from your crimes.
Simply doing nothing, when something is possible and obligatory, is, “I have a right to my own opinion,” the commonplace expression of an essential form of common crime.5
Take the not very rare case of persons who turn against a former friend, for essentially no other reason than the fact that their association with that former friend is now considered by them to be a threat to their own security, or merely their sense of comfort. Or, it might be merely what fear of some powerful agency might do to them if they do not degrade themselves morally by turning, opportunistically, crawling before their tormentor, and, thus, against the former friend who has now become a perpetual enemy. It was a turn which would be made because association with that former associate is now seen as a threat from that enemy which they have been induced to fear.
Then, the cock crowed thrice!
Over many decades, I have become a thoroughly experienced expert in the richness of my knowledge of such unfortunate patterns of immorality which had been promoted among the corruptible as the fruits of their senses of the effects of pain and pleasure. There have been many who acted out of negligence of respect for truth, as if to say, “I had to do it,” as if “when the clock had struck thrice.”
Persons who permit themselves to be corrupted in that way, as by their show of indifference to a necessary truth, acting through anticipated considerations of pleasure or of pain, have no efficient connection to, or, ultimately, to anything which might be decently called “morality.”
What, then, is the role of truth in the utterly depraved Jeremy Bentham’s notion of “legislation and morals?” Is truth to be defined by merely what some judge, or other official had chosen actually to believe, or, merely to pretend to believe, about a certain thing in a certain place and time? Is there any actual sanctity in some mere uttering of what passes for an official opinion? Is there any actual honor in the disgusting sophistry represented by what appears to be a convenient opinion in which to be observed believing?
How many members of the Senate were willing to vote for legislation which any honest and intelligent citizen over thirty-five years of age would have been able to recognize as a Hitler health-care policy practiced by the Nazi doctors and kindred cases hung at Nuremberg? Don’t protest at my use of the image of Hitler’s moustache, when the evidence of Obama’s Hitler-echoing intentions is so frankly abundant. Don’t give me your “I had to do it, because” sophistries; what should you have known to be the direction which the consequences of your inaction would take?
Who do you think, honestly, should “go to Hell?” You, perhaps, for the tortured vote you cast for a Hitler-like policy in the Senate, a vote cast for the sake of an alleged principle of “going along to get along”?
What, therefore, is true law? It is certainly not the sickly sophistry of which the most disgusting variety is what is presented as pretending to be “my sincere opinion.”
“You, dare to question MY sincerity!?”
“Yes,” frankly, “I DESPISE your alleged sincerity,” and it has been not only quite good of me, but, more important, necessary, to see matters so.
Let us, therefore, apply the strictly Classical, scientific standard of truthfulness, that what is disgusting is typified by the attack on Cusa by the man, Francesco Zorzi, who was soon to serve as Venetian sex advisor to England’s King Henry VIII. See Zorzi’s A.D. 1525 De Harmonia Mundi, a work by Zorzi which was later attacked, ironically, by Cusa follower Johannes Kepler’s 1619 The Harmony of the Worlds. That was a Kepler work in which the uniquely original and only authentic discovery of a general principle of gravitation was first presented. That had been a discovery by Kepler which Albert Einstein was to identify, when he wrote, contrary to others’ propensity for kissing the official butt of the foolish black-magic meddler, Isaac Newton, by simply accepting the clear scientific truth of the discovery of a universe which is simultaneously, as Albert Einstein said of Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of gravitation, finite, and yet unbounded.
Truth, in science and law-making for nations and their essential relations with one another, is located in the means which are adequate for foreseeing a future which could not be competently predicted by merely deductive-statistical methods.
The required method of foresight for such purposes employs an experimental test of qualified assumptions of how a definite present might have been generated from some point in the past, and, then, testing our ability to determine a development in the future according to the standard presumed to have generated the presently experienced state of mind from a known point during the past.
That method of exploring foreknowledge of the future, is what is to be recognized as the method of crucial experimentation. The typical expression of successful methods for addressing this specific type of challenge, lies in a refined notion of a crucial-experimental test of principle.
Consider my own, many, implicitly unique, personal successes as an economic forecaster.
For example, compare the excellent leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who not only effected a recovery from the disaster which had been the legacy of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, but, by the time of President Franklin Roosevelt’s death, had brought the rate of growth and scientific advantage of the U.S. economy to a point far beyond any previous state of potential. Whereas, the combined influence of post-FDR Wall Street trends up to 1968, had brought down the mean rate of U.S. economic, net progress to a virtual zero-point, as defined by net physical-capital factors.
We unloosed the fruits of President Kennedy’s Moon-landing project at the instant, after President Nixon’s election, that the U.S. economy was already plunging into self-inflicted ruin otherwise. Then, we shut down the Moon landings, and have gone pretty much into economic Hell since.
Since the 1969 beginning of the U.S. Nixon Administration, there has been a consistent long-range trend of net physical decline of the condition of life of the typical citizen and region of the U.S.A., up to the point of the presently onrushing general breakdown-crisis of the physical potential, of, most emphatically, the trans- Atlantic and Mediterranean region as a whole.
In other words, the general trend of policy-shaping in the trans-Atlantic regions, has been stagnating, or declining, in net effect, from the time of the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to the present time of a general net decline of the principal aspects of the planet when considered as a whole, since no later than U.S. fiscal year 1967-68.
The available for potential net growth, as a trend, had depended in a crucial way on the development of the use of controlled forms of employment of nuclear and thermonuclear power had proceeded. Today, we see the obvious urgency of the fulsome development of progress in the domains related to nuclear and thermonuclear power among nations on the Pacific side of the movements from the Americas westward. Only in the continuation and acceleration of that latter approach, could the rate of increase of energy-flux density be sufficient to compensate for the extreme poverty still prevalent within the western side of the Pacific and of the Indian Oceans’ coasts.
Thus, the planet is presently in the condition in which the Atlantic Ocean defines the inhabited regions of the planet which are presently in continuing physical-economic decline, an accelerated rate of decline, which is now approaching a general state of physical collapse, a collapse typified by the means being employed not only to reach increasingly primitive standards of physical productivity per capita, but a catastrophic rate of increase of collapse of the standard of living, and, soon, of the size of population, and productivity of the inhabitants of the relevant regions.
The trans-Atlantic regions of the world have become a physical, and also a moral catastrophe, while the trans-Pacific region now struggles, using the power of nuclear fission and fusion, to halt the rate of net physical collapse of the net productivity of the world as a whole.
Essentially, to understand me, you must take prominently into account, the fact that, looking back to my own past, I was raised, implicitly, and almost instinctively, to have become a physical economist. Some have suggested, as my mother did repeatedly, that it was a reaction to my father’s left-handedness that had this kind of effect. She was mistaken. It was my deep, if duly respectful, disagreement with both of them, on matters of principle, which was actually responsible.
All knowledge which is truthful is, necessarily, autobiographical. That is to emphasize, that what we actually know, is inseparable from the experience through which we came to know it.
Therefore, to understand the actual meaning of “principles of a science of economy,” join with Albert Einstein, in insisting that matter, space, and time, have never actually existed as respectively “separate factors” in the real universe of our experience; but, rather, that, only the single notion of physical space-time, is a competent standard of reference. It is not mathematical statistics which should define economy; it is the specifically human principles of physical economy, which reveal what is humanly wrong about what is often taught to the credulous as a magically axiomatic sort of classroom mathematics per se.
So, pity those who claim to be scientists, but who, nonetheless, offer apologies in defense of Isaac Newton. If you do not react instinctively against any apologies for Isaac Newton, you are missing something very important, and fundamental about science. This is especially true of that field of specifically human practice, which I define as my demonstrated, rather unique competence in economics.
To come directly to the related point which is at hand here and now, I restate the point, thus: pity the fools who believe in Euclid, for the truth about economy lies within the bounds of the way in which we followers of Bernhard Riemann’s famous 1854 argument define our witting relationship, neither to space, nor time, but, rather, to the physical-space-time which we inhabit.6
This brings us to the matter of the two great principles of a science of physical economy, upon which all among my accumulated, relatively unique successes as an economic forecaster have depended.
First, is the principle of human creativity as such, a principle of willful action which is unique to the human species, among all known living species, and which was unknown to the followers of the silly dogma of Rene Descartes, and of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries’ neo-Cartesians, such as Abbe Antonio S. Conti, Voltaire, Abraham de Moivre, Jean le Rond D’Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Joseph Lagrange, P-S. Laplace, and Laplace’s accomplice, the plagiarist of Niels Abel, Augustin Cauchy.
Second, is the way in which we must define, and organize the physical-economic notions of physical space-time, notions which are expressed, most essentially, in terms of the human capacity to move upwards qualitatively, while making changes such as advancing the powers of productivity through the discovery and use of new principles, principles within the domain of physical space-time, rather than a formal classroom mathematics, such as that of the followers of Aristotle and Euclid as such. Until our astronauts’ visits to the Moon, the notion of a physical science of economy, had been competently defined, historically, only by the role of mankind’s movements, first on the seas, second, along large rivers and canal-systems, and, third, national and international railway (and magnetic levitation) systems.
However, there is now much more to be said on that subject. So that I may lead the way into the crucial matters of this report as a whole, in this and the following chapter, I will now present the relevant background, respecting those discoveries and their relevance for the subject at hand, as follows. We shall now peek inside the true workings of the human mind.
In the subject of science, as it should be considered today, we are now passing through the course of this present, young century, into the higher orders of future creative action in physical-space-time of decades beyond. The outcome of that presently unfolding process should be such that we must now see ourselves as already moving through the presently strained extension of what had become systems of air-travel, toward the point, a few decades ahead, into a time when representatives of Earth shall be traveling beyond the limits of our planet, first to the Moon, and, a few decades later, into the broader domain of mankind’s activities within Solar and larger space.
My implied complaint against most of today’s self-styled economists, is, that, on account of considerations such as those to which I have just referred broadly, here, is that their minds travel merely from the implicitly Euclidean small, into such pathologically reductionist misconceptions of the large, as if the future of mankind were simply expanded from the very small, as belief in Euclidean geometry typifies what are both scientific and moral incompetencies. Their methods are faulty. They are methods which represent nothing much better than attempts, such as those of the foolish worshippers of an Aristotelean (e.g., Euclidean) geometry, who wish to stretch the realm of the tiny, by simplistic extrapolations, into the merely big. Such is the delusion of those pathetic creatures known as “statisticians,” who usually think of “the big” in the terms of that silliness known as an infinitely outstretched, zero-growth, Euclidean geometry of the pathetically small.
That is to say, that too many among those graduates in physical science whom I have known, have treated the notion of physical principles as being derived from an idealized, mere mathematics, whereas, in reality, a discovery of a true universal principle, exists as a special kind of transitional boundary which might be imagined as existing within a domain of what are merely mathematical representations, rather than physical science. What they believe is the arbitrary, axiomatic, infinitely stretched presumptions of the empty space inhabited by the intentions of the empiricists. The discovery and continued existence of any efficient physical principle itself, such as Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of a general principle of Solar gravitation, resides “outside” the nitty-gritty formalities of merely deductive mathematics.
The progress of the successful student, is not from mathematics to physics, but from physical chemistry, to the important, but subordinate role of the shadow-land called mathematics. Such are the requirements for identifying correct choices typified by the cases of both Johannes Kepler’s uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, and Albert Einstein’s restatement of Kepler’s discovery as defining a universe which is finite in each momentary interval, but, nonetheless, unbounded in its continuity as a continuing principle of development within the universe.
The deficiency of many contemporary mathematical physicists, has lain in the fact that they have been conditioned (e.g., “brainwashed”) in the way of thinking associated with the reductionist, so-called “ivory tower” mathematicians. For that reason, they tend to avoid any efficiently systemic insight into the distinction between the abstract formalities of mathematical extension and the true principles of an efficiently physical extension. It is the latter, physically efficient extension, which exists as if superimposed, for the sake of sanity, upon the mathematical domain, as if from outside the domain of mathematics.
The proof of this point which I have just emphasized in these opening remarks of this present chapter, is elementary.
These immediately preceding remarks of mine, here, point, thus, with fresh emphasis, to the commonplace fault of the typical modern mathematician, especially the positivists, both the Nineteenth-century varieties, and the sheer lunacy which has been widely inherited among Twenty-first century professionals such as the dupes of Bertrand Russell. So, today’s decadence in mathematics often flows from the successive influences of both Aristotle-Euclid, and the varieties of virtually sexual perversions of modern followers of Paolo Sarpi’s “liberalism.”
Rather than attempting the lunatic, foolishly mathematical journey of such pathetically positivist followers of the evil Bertrand Russell as Professor Norbert Wiener or John von Neumann, mathematics must learn science at the feet of the principles of physical economy.
So, the approach typical of the classroom still today, fails, in a particular way, to permit the victim of such doctrinal teachings to access a true picture of physical-economic realities, by their seeking a substitute for a science of physical economy, in mere statistical methods. That is shown in a particular, very important way, by considering the particular form of consistent failure of the performance of the U.S.A. in its incarnation as a decadent form of physical economy, beginning the 1966-1967 phase of the post-John F. Kennedy interval.
For example: take what I have already emphasized here as the exemplary case of that failed science of that follower of Aristotle known as Euclid. Recognize the essential fraud intrinsic to Euclidean geometry and kindred forms found among modern mathematicians, even ones still prominent today. These are also like those found among such as the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries’ positivists generally; they are typified most emphatically, by what I have pointed out as being the followers of the infamous hoaxster Bertrand Russell and the members of his personal mathematical following such as Professor Norbert Wiener and the virtual idiot-savant John von Neumann.
The ancient, seminal fault of Aristotle and his followers is elementary: ostensibly, it is the fact that there was nothing that was both new, truthful and important about any alleged principle attributed to the study of geometry by the dupes of Euclid’s teachings. As the case of the collaboration between Plato and the Archytas of the constructive doubling of the cube attests, the leading edge of original Classical Greek science, prior to such as Aristotle, was associated with the work of such as the Pythagoreans, and as the physical science known as Sphaerics.
As a matter of fact, all that which shows some semblance of superficially apparent validity in Euclid’s Elements, is limited to what is attributable to earlier geometers’ discoveries made, from a physical-scientific, rather than a-priorist standpoint, in the domain of physical geometry (e.g., Sphaerics), up through the life-time of Plato (or, later followers such as the great Eratosthenes who gave a fair, experimentally defined measure of the size of the Earth from two points of observation, north and south, from within Egypt).
It is necessary that I repeat here a point which I have made repeatedly in the past. One of the important features of scientifically valid discoveries, which one must never fail to repeat when presenting essential points of principle in an essential way, is typified by my repetition of a relevant case from my own experience, to which I now refer, at this juncture, here.
The commonplace error of most among the more serious of the would-be critics of my work as an economist, has been the result of their mistaken assumption, that the direction of the development of my strategic outlook on these matters should coincide with statistical financial trend-analyses. No assumption could be further from the scientific truth.
As I have noted in various published locations, the root of my present discussion of this subject-matter goes back, clearly, to circumstances of my childhood in Rochester, New Hampshire, or soon after that, to a time no later than the years between the age of twelve and fourteen. The extended discussion of that matter from my childhood and adolescence, as during a few mere years there, in Rochester, and, in Massachusetts later, should remain largely assigned to a different location than this present publication; but, the bare fact of that matter should be duly noted at this point, rather than left in doubt. Therefore, I insert it with a few words of caution, now, to those who might wish to interpret the grounds of my adopted outlook.
As I have emphasized, repeatedly, during the course of recent decades, including much published work by me, one of principal sources of my own crucial margin of advantage as an economist, over that of my putative professional rivals, is the fruit of what became known to me, initially, as a benefit already gained during my adolescent rejection of Euclidean geometry at my first encounter with it in a classroom. This was, on my part, at that time, almost a virtually instinctive rejection, which occurred during my first encounters with it, even before experiencing any formal instruction, in schools, in that nominal subject itself.7
As I have noted in locations published earlier, this particular accomplishment of mine had occurred, even prior to my first exposure to so-called Euclidean geometry, through my transition from my naive, pre-adolescent experience, into an early-adolescent study of physical constructions at the local, Boston area’s Charlestown U.S. Navy Yard. This physical-experimental evidence unfolding before my eyes then, was the evidence that a functional optimization of combined mass, form and materials of structure in the physical geometry of physical space, should be considered as a single, unified process, rather than matter considered as located within mere space or time by itself, but, rather, a process which exists as a function in real (i.e., physical) space; this has turned out to have been, in fact, the early-adolescence point of origin, the germ of what were to develop as my later, unique achievements, about two decades later, as a practicing professional economist.
A common error among those professionals, and others, who have sought to comment on my work as an economist, has been their mistaken presumption, the presumption that I had borrowed something learned, or not learned, from mathematical physics for the purpose of presenting a notion of economics. The fact of the matter is quite the contrary; I learned the relevant physical principles of applicable mathematical forms in science, from the adduced physical principles of economics, rather than the other way around. Everything of relevance which I learned was rooted in the ontology of those creative-mental processes which account for the increase of the physical-productive powers of labor, as to be seen through focus on the human creative process as the primary source of relevant knowledge respecting the increase of the productive powers of labor, physically, per capita, and per square kilometer of territory.
For example, every serious error of method which I have encountered among even some of my own associates, has been the stubbornly misguided tendency, like that of most among their relevant contemporaries, to substitute the nominalism of a mere mathematics, such as the scientifically depraved derivatives of a mathematics as such, for the processes of money as such, thus substituting a reductionist mathematical scheme for what are ontologically unique characteristics of knowledge which is specific to the human mental-creative processes.
It was for reason of my recognition of that error, beginning my adolescence, that I was never tainted in any systemic war, by Euclidean ideology and its derivatives; it is for this reason, that I was drawn, naturally, into the direction of what became my successes as a forecaster, successes which, to the best of my present knowledge, have been relatively unique, world wide.
My fascination with the work of Leibniz, was of crucial importance for this outcome; but, without my access to the perfected view provided, uniquely, by certain followers in an anti-Aristotelean, anti-empiricist science of physical geometry, of Alexander von Humboldt, Carl F. Gauss, and by Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann, none of what has turned out to have been my repeated, relatively unique successes in fact as an economic forecaster, as since 1956-57, could have occurred. Anyone might have accomplished what I have succeeded in doing, had they taken and adhered to the same intellectual road to the relative successes which I have enjoyed, as a forecaster, repeatedly, and relatively uniquely, over the interval since Summer 1956.
It was also at a point in my adolescent years, that I first encountered the notion of the role of changes in physical space-time, as a notion associated with that which underlies any general technological progress in the productive powers of labor “at the point of production.” It was from such references as those, that I found myself prompted to recognize the essential, empirical non-linearity of time, as in such specific cases in which time is considered as a function of the advances in quality of action on the productive process of society, per capita and per square kilometer; that my later, knowledgeable sort of attraction to Albert Einstein as a follower of Riemann was first prompted by this scent of a coincidence supplied to me chiefly in admiration of Leibniz and Riemann successively.
At that point, in my teens, and a bit later, my father would have, once again, often raised his voice in protest: “Theories!” This persisting disagreement of mine with my father, from no later than the onset of adolescence, led me further, in turn, to the notion of the function of physical capital in physical space-time, and, so, on, and, thus, to the notion of the crucial role of what I, and relevant others, would come to adopt, step by step, as the notion of the general principle known as a function of energy-flux density, some decades later, during the middle to late 1970s.
The curse, for me, in secondary school mathematics, and the repetition of that set of assumptions in Freshman and Sophomore years in university, was not only that I could never believe in the axiomatic presumptions on which those and related courses depended, and that I also knew, then as more clearly later, that my resentment was scientifically well grounded, against the foolish sorts of axiomatic presumptions of an ontological character, on which those courses of instruction were premised.
For me, the crime of the reductionist presumptions, on which these courses were premised, was simply not based on principles of human action, whereas the principle of action on which economic processes depend, is human indeed. That latter consideration had attracted me to the subject of principles of construction of structures, as implicit in what I had considered in visits to the Charlestown Navy Yard. That had been my later adolescent preoccupation in critical self-examination of the variable factor in productive processes in factory production. It was not the rewards of production, such as pay rates, which occupied my attention in study of production processes, but, rather, human activity as such, itself.
Against that background, all of my relevant, repeatedly rather unique successes in the field of a science of physical economy, have been situated within the bounds of principles of increases in those productive powers of labor which have been associated with mankind’s willful changes in those specific kinds of increases of the productive powers of labor which are associated with the combined effects of scientific discoveries and the increase of the physical-capital intensity of the modes of development responsible for relative gains in the physically defined productive powers of labor per capita and per square kilometer of the territory inhabited by mankind as physical space-time.
From the time since January 1953 onward, when my attachment to the anti-Euclidean physical geometry of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation was clearly established with me, this has been the kernel of my approach to every feature of the physical-economic process. For me, as I make that point, repeatedly, here, economics was not, and is not an offshoot of something as intrinsically inhuman as formal mathematics; it is, rather, competent mathematics of economy which was itself properly derived from insight into the elementarily ontological characteristics of the process of a successful increase of the physical, rather than financial productive powers of labor.
My earlier and subsequent personal roles in such nominally academic matters, prior to January 1953, had been admittedly, but also inevitably awkward. I felt like an ugly duckling, tortured by being assigned to the habits of some alien species: a recurring image throughout my youth. I was cursed by subjection to types and forms of instruction in which I could not believe, and, that, as experience has shown, quite justly so.
Nonetheless; what had been already clear to me amid a kaleidoscopic flurry of doubts and questions, was that I could never accept what was taught as the fruit of such sources as Euclid, Descartes, and the 18th-Century adversaries of Leibniz principles of mathematical physics, such as Abbe Antonio Conti’s followers Voltaire, Abraham de Moivre, Jean le Rond d’Alembert, Leonhard Euler, and J.L. Lagrange. My classmates managed to believe what I would never do; they appeared to be relatively successful in the near term, I only in the longer term.
So it came to be, despite all that, that, despite such hoaxsters to whose instruction I was subjected, such as Euclid, or Pierre-Simon Laplace and Augustin Cauchy, once my professional’s career as a management consultant, especially my related role as a successful economic forecaster, was already clearly established in matters of bare essentials, as during the mid-1950s, my confidence, competence, and rich enjoyment of my obligations as a forecaster of developments in national and world economy, progressed through not only repeated successes, but through the gripping devotion to being obliged to meet the quality of truly, intrinsically human satisfaction of the new scientific challenges presented to me in the course of my work.
Thus, as I have said at the outset of this chapter, it would appear that I was destined to be an economist.
This much said on background, thus far, however, let me turn our attention to something much more ordinary, but, nonetheless, something crucial, something to be located within the context just outlined above.
The most important aspect of the development of scientific competence, lies in the principled changes in assumptions which are experienced by any competent candidate in scientific or Classical-artistic progress. Leibniz’s implicit debt to ancient Classical Greek sources, and to predecessors such as Nicholas of Cusa, to Cusa’s followers such as Leonardo da Vinci and Johannes Kepler, and to the French circles of the mid-Seventeenth-century circles of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, such as Christian Huyghens, is aptly illustrative of this point.
Let us review, summarily, the context in that relevant work of Leibniz which was to prepare the ground for the work of Riemann and such among Riemann’s followers as the anti-positivist, anti-reductionists Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
I think it not possible to follow Gottfried Leibniz’s actual development without tracing its essentials implicitly from Nicholas of Cusa and Cusa’s follower Leonardo da Vinci, and from the discoveries of their follower Johannes Kepler. These were the influences expressed significantly in Leibniz’s close association with Christian Huyghens during the latter half of the Seventeenth Century, and with the work of Pierre de Fermat and Blaise Pascal, during Leibniz’s activity during that time, largely under the patronage of Jean-Baptiste Colbert. It did not end there, but that was a crucially important phase in Leibniz’s crucial, leading contributions to any valid form of physical science thereafter.
For example: Leibniz’ own, uniquely original discovery of the calculus, was essentially a response to the proposal for such a discovery presented by Johannes Kepler as a by-product of his uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation. This was a Kepler who had also proposed that development of that physical concept of elliptical functions which was later developed around the contemporaries of Carl F. Gauss. Both of these proposed sets of discoveries which had been proposed by Kepler, the calculus and those principles of elliptical physical functions, both of which had been presented to “future mathematicians” by Kepler, provided the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries’ foundations for the work of such prominent historical figures as leading Eighteenth-century exponent of Leibniz, Abraham Kästner (1719-1800), Alexander von Humboldt (1759-1859), Carl F. Gauss (1777-1855), and the principles of the Classical artistic imagination presented by the work of Lejeune Dirichlet (1805-1859) , Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866), et al.
Thus, the first phase of Leibniz’s development of the calculus, was that which had been prescribed as a requirement, by Johannes Kepler. So, Leibniz’s arrival in Paris, where he became associated with Christian Huyghens under the protection of the great science project of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, had provided the conditions in which Leibniz developed the original design of a calculus, approximately 1675-76, by about the time he was to depart Paris.
In the same setting, there had been the work of Christian Huyghens (1629-1695) on a subject which became known as the subject of “the pendulum clock,”8 intended as a needed aid to safer trans-oceanic navigation. Out of this work, came Huyghens’ leading part in the development of what turned out to have been only a preliminary intimation of a physical principle of least action, a preliminary intimation presented to Leibniz by Huyghens et al., which Leibniz announced to the world during the 1690s.
So, during the mid-1690s, Leibniz presented the case for the second phase of his treatment of a calculus in the course of a denunciation of the sheer fraud of Rene Descartes’ attempt to define a scientific method, when Leibniz announced his intention, to Jean Bernouilli and others, to supersede that notion of least action associated with his own earlier collaboration with Huyghens. Out of this new phase of that development, came Leibniz’s development of that concept of universal least action, a conception which was to be crucial in the subsequent work of France’s Ecole Polytechnique and related circles, and which led, through the inspiration of Carl F. Gauss, into the great discoveries of the scientific principles of the creative imagination, as typified by Lejeune Dirichlet and Bernhard Riemann.
It is important to emphasize, that this progress, led by Leibniz, steered the later developments by Riemann; but, these were not a matter of a simple leap, certainly not for my own experience. From Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, to the succession of discoveries of relevant matters of principle which I represent as a leading example of a successful economist of the world today, there is a clear continuity; at least, this is so once one has worked his, or her way through a sometimes tortured ascent to what had turned out to have been my goal all along, but a goal which became clear to me, retrospectively, only after I had finally accomplished the ascent.
Thus, the progress from my acceptance of the essential argument of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, in early 1953, and my Summer 1956 forecast of the February-March outbreak of the deep recession of 1957, is a most appropriate example of my initial good work in applying my adopted Riemannian standpoint to the evidence at hand. The discoveries which I was to make in 1977 and later, led to that deeper insight into the relevant, ontological characteristics of the human cognitive processes which I addressed in relevant published work in 2009.
The same process of discovery which I have just highlighted above, must be reviewed from the vantage-point of living and breathing historical processes of development of the society in which the subject-matter of a science of physical economy was actually situated.
The principal source to be blamed for the intrinsic incompetence of virtually all widely taught doctrines of a systemic national economy, still today, is situated historically within the actual development of the distinctly maritime-culture-based form of monetarist systems, monetarist conceptions associated with the Delphi Apollo cult, which were both the cause and consequence of what has been, for Greece, the disastrous Peloponnesian War.9
The root of that incompetence, still today, as in the fatal incompetence of the economic policies of globally extended European economy since February-March 1968, is the presumption of the British behaviorists such as London-trained Karl Marx, that the equivalent of a monetary form of “economic value” is the controlling feature of systems of national and world economy.10
The most naked form of such imperialism is what is expressed as the notion of “free trade:” the idea of “free trade” is nothing other than the assumption than there is an imperial, virtually sacred form of virtually religious, monetarist practice, which is to be worshiped, and that most devoutly, as if it were the true determinant of the value of money, standing outside and above all sovereign national government, and governments.
Admittedly, monetary systems’ actions have a significant effect on economies; but, monetary values as such have no intrinsic, functional relationship to what can be shown, by physical standards, to be efficiently real expressions of economic value. That is to emphasize, that there is no intrinsically systematic relationship between money-price and physical-economic value; there are only a few, almost accidental, and popular, even clinically insane notions of coincidences such as the notions of the followers of Bertrand Russell, such as John von Neumann and the devotees of the Russell-created, Wiener-von Neuman cult.
Take the case of the U.S. economy’s consistent decline in net investment in the nation’s basic physical economic infrastructure since 1966-1967. Or, compare that with the silly doctrine of the Austrian convert to the Pantheon of British lunacy, the Joseph Schumpeter of “creative destruction” notoriety. Schumpeter’s recipe was the basis for the suicidally ruinous economic policy of the rather notorious Prime Minister Harold Wilson, the British sterling devaluation policy which led into the U.S. dollar crisis of January-February 1968.11
All of this may be recognized as expressing the fact, that there is no competent practice of national economy which is not premised on the principle of physical-economic progress, rather than monetarist doctrines. This is shown most conveniently by translating the notion of relative economic value into the terms of Academician V.I. Vernadsky’s notion of the characteristic function among the processes of the Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere, as follows.
Excepting what is dumped upon our planet by either the Sun, the Solar system otherwise, or broader galactic sources, the processes which compose those portions of the familiar processes of our planet, are broadly subject to such inherently noëtic processes as the predominantly upward-evolutionary development of the elementary materials of our Solar system, as from the dominant feature of our Solar landscape, the Sun itself. So, on Earth, the upward development of living processes, presents us with a qualitatively expanding repertoire of both what we distinguish as abiotic and living materials; the development of the noëtic powers of the human beings, are expressed as distinct from non-human, as being a willfully determined, voluntary process of upward development of those noetic processes specific to human willful creativity.
Thus, the planet as a whole is an ongoing process of simultaneously entropic and anti-entropic processes, which are subsumed by the progress of human willful development of the increased power of the human species, per capita and per unit of physical space-time.
Since the existence of mankind depends upon anti-entropic advances in the condition of mankind and mankind’s habitat, the proper notion of economic value, as physical-economic value, is expressed in an essential mode, as an anti-entropic gain in the living organization of mankind and mankind’s habitat, combined. There is nothing about money or monetary valuations as such, which has any independent place in the estimate of economic value. The proper use of money is as a practiced social convention of a society, or societies, not as a monetary value, but a value implied in that credit uttered by governments, and employed in that way to indebt society for the purpose of making those capital and related, physical improvements in economic institutions and practice which increase the sustainable, net potential relative population-density of the human species.
Such is the core of the concept of a practiced science of physical economy.
For convenience, a decently composed modern society, such as a sovereign nation-state, divides the credit-values assigned to aspects of the economic process among not only basic economic infrastructure, agriculture, and industry, but includes that physically relevant intellectual development of the population and its relevant institutions, a development which is necessary to increase the relative anti-entropy of the society as an on-going process. What distinguishes the increase of the margin of gain from the costs of maintaining what has been already accomplished as the generation of potential, is usefully identified as the credit available for the purpose of generating future net gains, per capita and per square kilometer.
It is the development and utilization of the creative (noëtic) powers of the individual minds of a society, as measured to this specific effect, which is the only competent notion of the idea of economy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Specifically, it must become your foremost consideration, that the greatest concentration of nominal values of monetary assets as such, is centered in what is in fact the nominal monetary assets of what is, in fact, the British nominal empire, including such features of the British empire-in-fact as the curiously British-based, if merely nominal assets of Banco Santander and the network of financial predators in which it occupies its central position as the hub of the present, global British empire. That empire is presently teetering at the edge of what threatens to become the greatest, global financial collapse in all modern world history, and that very soon during the months coming on presently. Any nation which is enjoying the delusion that partnership with such London-centered monetary interests gives hope, ranks among the greatest fools on the planet today.
The primary fact for you to consider, first, is that all true economic assets are physical assets, not monetary ones. The world is, at this present instant, on the verge of the greatest and deepest, physical, not merely financial collapse, since Europe’s plunge into a Fourteenth-century “New Dark Age.”
All currently popular notions of the nature of economic values are not merely a matter of existing physical assets, but, rather, a threat to the ability and will to effect the relevant rate of increase of physical, rather than merely financial-monetary assets per capita and per square kilometer of territory.
Anyone who counts on nominal monetary assets, as such, as the fictitious financier interests of the circles associated with, for example, the Banco Santander now, is now to be registered as among the greatest fools on the planet today. The great fools who would reject my warning here, premised their silly imperialistic arrogance on the presumption that they have the global political power to impose their actually fraudulent claims to monetary wealth. Perhaps they should have recognized that God is more powerful than they are. They can not win, since their victory could only assure that global civilization itself is now coming to an early end for them. The triumph they seek might actually be found among the inhabitants of Dante Alighieri’s fabled Inferno.
We are, globally, in a critical state of world affairs, at which a presently threatened collapse of the value of the U.S. dollar, for example, could quickly send every part of the planet into a new dark age. Nominal values of currency would virtually vanish overnight, and, given the state of planetary affairs at the present instant, are likely to plunge so, more or less immediately, unless certain relevant and radical changes in policy are introduced very soon. That is the immediately potential state of affairs, especially for what passes for the current British empire and its presumed accomplices at the present moment.
As for the British system itself: it is clinically insane, and therefore not to be consulted by sane men and women on matters of adoption of policy. Under such present conditions, value lies only in what nations are willing and able to produce which is useful, physically, per capita and per square kilometer, to maintain the present scale, and also the future of the world population, and that now.
This indicates a presently perilous state of the entire economy of the planet.
In the main part, despite rises in population totals, the collapse of the planet has been ongoing, for the planet considered as a whole, as measured in net rates of physical-economic growth since no later than the mid-1960s. The world has been drawing down the physical-economic potential on which the ability to maintain even the existing population, depends. The “unpaid debts” defined by a “globalization”-driven depletion of net physical potential per capita, in food supplies, and in other crucial features, represent a current margin of shortfall in potential, in the order of the physical requirements of some net billions of persons, a shortfall largely due to effects of what has been so-called “globalization.”
This presently accelerating rate of global shortfall, is not expressed merely in simple quantities per capita, but as a lack of increase of generated and utilized productive power per capita, a lack of increase of energy-flux density of power throughput, and as accelerating rates of attrition expressing a decline caused by failure to invest in modes of production based on both increased capital-intensity and productivity per capita world-wide. The worst rates of collapse are presently centered on the Atlantic Ocean, in the collapse in the Americas as a whole, and western and central Europe.
The worst feature of this situation is the influence of the delusion associated with the attribution of vast masses of nominal financial claims, falsely considered as economic assets, attributed to fraudulent, and wildly accelerating masses of the likeness of “financial derivatives.” Without the eradication of nominal assets attributed to financial derivatives and kindred trash, no continuation of civilized life on this planet were feasible presently.
Under present conditions, the world, as I have referred to this fact above, is, as I have said, now at the edge of a general monetary-financial collapse comparable to that of Germany of Autumn 1923. Under present world policies, without an urgently needed return to a system of perfectly sovereign nation-state republics, such a global collapse were presently imminent, and would be, unless now promptly corrected, the presently, virtually inevitable fate of every part of this planet as a whole.
Unless the world is put through a reorganization in bankruptcy which rids the world of the greatest part of all such nominal financial assets, the world will soon be plunged, soon and quickly, into a vastly genocidal, world-wide, new dark age of all mankind, for the duration of several generations immediately ahead.
As one might say in New York City, the possibility of saving the world from Hell, is an early interment of the already rotting corpses called “Wall” and “Threadneedle” Streets, a cleansing sometimes implied by the outburst: “Goldman Sucks.”
Most present monetarist calculations of relevant wealth, represent, simply, a global bubble ready to be popped very soon, even already yesterday. The case of the nominally Spanish, but, actually, largely British holdings of Banco Santander, which is also sucking upon the body of South America generally, is outstanding as conspicuously typical of a hidden bomb now ripe to be imploded by the effect of the present Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain sinkhole, especially the nominally Iberian part of the British financial world empire, such as the cases of Spain and Brazil today. The detonator of such a presently threatened collapse, is the present British ties to the presently ruling “post-sovereigns” of the present so-called European system. The artificially induced collapse of the U.S. economy under Presidents George W, Bush, Jr., and Barack Obama, is a close second to the implosive potential of the world’s principal empire, the rotten-ripe British system.
Without regaining European nations’ sovereign power to generate the credit needed for development of the increased physical productive powers of labor, Europe at large is already implicitly dead.
In my international webcast of January 30, 2010, I have summarized the most essential feature of the present world economic situation, by dividing the total body of the planet’s nations among those, first, which are now committed to accelerated development of nuclear and thermonuclear power, principally in Asia; second, those such as western and central Europe generally today, whose reigning powers are presently committed to bringing doom upon their own nations and their populations, as fast as possible; and, third, those nations which have a presently mixed present direction in policy of practice, such as the United States prior to the inauguration of the self-doomed, Nero-like figure of President Barack Obama.
It is now time for U.S. President Barack Obama to step down, whether by resignation, or impeachment. The safety of the peoples of the world now demands that urgently needed remedy.
According to careless opinions, a post-Soviet Russia, a China, and an India, each typify nations which should be considered as being naturally laggards when compared with the levels of progress formerly enjoyed, according to reputation, if not facts, by leading economies of the trans-Atlantic world. Actually, at the present moment, the opposite trend appears to be true.
Admittedly, the conditions of life of between seventy and eighty percent of the populations of India and China, and the Russia suffering still the effects of the looting it suffered already during the periods of the leadership of Gorbachov and Yeltsin, are not in the best condition. Yet, those three, essentially Eurasian or Asian nations, are, at the present moment, the presently outstanding leaders of visible, potential, future progress in the world at large.
The urgent thing to be added to the list of these conditions, is to bring the United States back to supporting the direction of development which those three nations are seeking now.
To understand those facts, and they are solid facts supporting my view of that bit of historical irony, throw into the rubbish-bin the allegedly conventional economic opinions, opinions which are presently encountered in both western and central Europe, and also among what are the relatively the most complacent, largely drug-trafficking nations of South and Central America today. Otherwise, meanwhile, for as long as Barack Obama remains President of the U.S.A., the U.S. would be well on the way to be doomed, and probably the present nations of the planet, too, that very soon.
Consider three reasons for the, apparently, relatively good, likely, upward prospects for Russia, China, and India—provided a U.S. collapse does not drag them down, too.
First, there is the apparently advantageous situation of the latter three nations, which is, ironically, because most of the nations of the trans-Atlantic complex are presently engaged in a self-inflicted cultural plunge into physical-economic doom. Meanwhile, by any objective standard, India and China seem brilliantly successful, and even a greatly crippled Russia shares in the present upsurge of the leading nations along the Pacific and Indian oceans’ coasts.
More significant, is the advantage of the commitment of those relatively largest nations of today’s world, in one sense or another, to the relative advantage of either a large territory, such as that of Russia, or the size of their population, as for India and China. Each of these operating now through a paradigmatic commitment to achievement through emphasis on capital-intensive investment in grand orders of magnitude of science-driven improvements in such basic economic infrastructure as a modernized return to rail transport, and a massively accelerating commitment to the role of nuclear-fission, more advanced space exploration, and related very-high-energy-flux-density modes in power.
To understand this effect, simply consider the amounts and rates of growth of basic economic infrastructure and of power, per capita and per square kilometer in these keystone Eurasian nations, an advantage gained through factors related to the world’s presently most modernized mass transport and the forced-draft rates of spread of the most powerful systems of high-energy-flux-density modes of generation of physical power existing in public practice of the economies of today.
The physical effects, on this account, of the difference between the nations rimming the western coasts of the Pacific and Indian oceans, and the increasingly ultra-decadent nations of the trans-Atlantic regions of the world, are stunning. However, if we understand the principled features of actual world history, especially modern world history, the ironies of the situation I have described are clearly lawful ones. Remedies exist, if we are wise enough to adopt them.
Two sets of considerations must be brought into play to account for the ironies of the present situation so described for the nations of China and India. The Russian case must be treated somewhat differently, but, the distinction of Russia’s case taken into account, all three benefit from special, converging circumstances of the present moment.
It could be fairly said, although that is not terribly useful, that the trans-Atlantic region of the planet has been on a continuing decline since about the middle of the 1960s, since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy; whereas, China and India, and, in a different sense, Russia, represent a part of the world which is currently on a track of strongly suggested relative ascendancy. It is far more useful than that, to say, that the British empire has devoted much of its attention since April 1945, to destroying, by subversion and other means, what had been the relative power of the United States and western Europe, whereas imperialist currents centered in the globally extended British financial oligarchy, have thought that destroying continental western and central Europe, and also the United States, would enable the oligarchy to secure a degree of advantage needed to bring down Asia as a whole, as well as Africa and South America, later.
Such has been long-term British imperial policy since the April 13, 1945 day after President Franklin Roosevelt had died. The current aspect of the problem features the included fact, that Russia today is, unfortunately, influenced by the potentially fatal presumption among some Russians, that the British empire is not the world empire which threatens them, a view from some in Russia which reflects a traditional failure of certain leading circles there to understand the true nature and extent of the present British, virtually world monetarist form of empire.
Look back. From the Empress Catherine of Russia, through the Nineteenth Century, and even in the respectively early days of the Soviet government under V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin’s view of President Franklin Roosevelt, Russia’s traditional view was a desire for friendship with the United States in common opposition to an evil British Empire. This was a view which could be found as a deep element until the time of Andropov and Gorbachov, a view which remained influential even despite U.S. President George H.W. Bush, and, to a certain degree George W. Bush, Jr., until the aftermath of Kennebunkport. There were other times for Russia, when the evil old British witch came out of the weather clock, when the results were generally, very bad for Russia itself.
Summed up, the history of imperialism since the period of the Peloponnesian War, has been shaped by the relative supremacy of a form of empire premised on the monetarist system of maritime rule of a globalized system in the world at large, a watery sort of Tower of Babel.
Since the February 1763 Peace of Paris, the evolving European monetarist imperialism which had persisted in one form or another since the Peloponnesian War, has been that based on the form of imperial maritime monetarist system of the so-called British Empire, the imperialist form of monetarist system which continues to dominate the world as a whole today.
Meanwhile, until the defeat, by the United States of President Abraham Lincoln, of the British empire’s attempt to destroy the United States, and the American precedent of developing transcontinental railway systems, Britain had been able to maintain its empire through orchestrating wars among, chiefly, the nations of continental Eurasia. Beginning 1890, this British intention had come to include what former German Chancellor Bismarck identified as new “Seven Years Wars,” such as that, including so-called “world wars” I and II, and the later so-called “Cold War,” all of which were set into motion by the British Empire from the time of the assassination of France’s President Sadi Carnot, and of U.S. President William McKinley, through the time of the presently foolish war ongoing in the cockpit of Afghanistan.
The crucial change, which began with the British monarchy’s ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, in 1890, was a first concrete step toward a new world order dominated by something much more evil than merely two “world wars,” a continuing imperial practice including a long, unwarranted, Anglo-American conflict with the Soviet Union and China, among other targets. All the major wars, and threats of great wars on this planet since 1890 have been the result of nothing so much as a just plain British imperialism, an imperialism which has induced foolish nations, including the United States at some times, as by the lying former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to kill one another for the purpose of gratifying the imperialist lustings of Buckingham Palace and associated nesting places.
That is the imperial monetarist system which has ruled over European civilization since the time of role of the cult of Delphi in launching the Peloponnesian War, up through the death of the traditionally lying, Delphic high priest Plutarch, who steered much within the Roman empire up to the time of his death, the imperialist system of maritime-based monetarist power had supplied a system which had not only orchestrated the so-called Peloponnesian War, but which has ruined Greece more or less consistently up to the present day, an imperialist tyranny which has always been essentially an implicitly global maritime system of monetarism. Nations have existed within this imperialist system, but the imperial power above those nations has remained as an ultimately reigning, imperialist expression of the European monetarists’ hatred of the kind of anti-monetarist credit system intrinsic to the U.S. Federal Constitution.
To understand the British Empire as it actually exists still today, we must emphasize its crucial distinction from the American political-constitutional system, which has been based, off and on, on the concept of an anti-imperialist, anti-monetarist credit system, rather than a monetarist system, that since the development of that system within the Seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay Colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers.
What has been known among competent historians such as today’s dwindling, almost extinct residue of the American System’s competent academic historians, has always been shaped by the break between imperial England and the emerging United States since the Seventeenth-century colonization of Massachusetts, and, more emphatically, since the break between the patriotic and imperialist factions inside North America since the time of that 1763 Peace of Paris which established both the British empire led by Lord Shelburne at that time, and the party of treason in America led by such British East India Company figures as Judge Lowell of the slave and opium-trafficking factions of what has been known as Wall Street since the days of that utter scoundrel known, since the founding of the U.S. republic, as the British agent and traitor Aaron Burr. In short: the American System and the British System have always been enemies joined together by the shared abuse of a common language.
It is relevant to emphasize here, that a significant part of the difficulties which Russians have experienced in defining imperialism, originated with the systemic blunders of the type made by Karl Marx and, later, V.I. Lenin, as contrasted with the relatively superior wisdom of comprehension of the nature of British imperialism (a monetarist system of international financial loans) shown by Rosa Luxemburg and the U.S. State Department’s Herbert Feis.14
Marx, and the Twentieth-century German Social-Democrats, adopted the incompetent doctrine of the evil Adam Smith, where Luxemburg and Feis accepted the facts: that imperialism was essentially, and remains today, a system of an essentially predatory, monetarist system of international loans. That error of the British influenced circles, continues to be the role of a strategic orientation among some leading Russian political circles still today, as the case of the system of financial derivatives which is the habitat of the presently doomed, London imperialist agent, Banco Santander, illustrates the point now.
What I have reported in this present chapter of this report, thus far, had outlined essential facts of the present world situation. That much said, thus far, now address the question, why is the trans-Atlantic system, which is dominated by the seemingly more powerful, imperialist, monetarist economic system of British imperialism, now collapsing, as it has nearly done already, while great nations of the presently poorer, Asian populations of the world are now on the road toward prospering—provided we can manage to get through the presently onrushing, global breakdown-crisis, alive, as, for example, without an outbreak of nuclear war?
For me, there are two principal aspects to long-term economic forecasting. One, in which I have been more or less a master since 1956-57, is economic forecasting as such. The other, complementary side of forecasting is what is treated in relevant Russian circles, but not only Russian circles, as symbolic. For example of symbolic forecasting, there is the notorious case of associating economic trends with the rise and fall of ladies’ skirt-hems. Much of the latter is as unreliable as sheer mysticism usually is, but there is an underlying feature of such seeming mysticism, which was emphasized in what I have often emphasized, since the 1940s, as the concluding thesis of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry, or by related themes found in the related, Classical themes of the work of Shelley’s predecessor Friedrich Schiller.
The seemingly more exotic, “symbolic” aspect of economic forecasting, is no superstition; it has a scientific basis, but a basis which is rarely identified competently, even among those who have a smell of the matter.
I proceed now, accordingly.
Insofar as known relevant facts have been available, the concept of science, with the associated names for what we call “the universe,” has come down to the society which emerged from the onset of the melt of the previous great reign of glaciation, as an expression of transoceanic navigation guided according to the planets and star-systems, conducted among ocean-going maritime cultures. The great cycle of the planetary system which is associated with the name of Plato, as this was referenced by the great Bal Gangadhar Tilak who understood British imperialism the best in his time, expresses this way of thinking.
We have a closer view of this matter through the origins of European physical science which must be traced through a better informed current view of the construction of the great pyramid of Egypt, and through the teaching of Sphaerics and the work of the great Pythagorean and friend of Plato, Archytas.
As I have emphasized earlier in this present report, for European civilization, in particular, to be competently understood, it is to be traced through cultures which are characteristically maritime, until Charlemagne’s initial launching of the great network of rivers and canals in western and into central Europe, and the later great leap in that kind of development of the economic organization of society launched as the building of the system of transcontinental railway networks in the United States, as this was echoed in Europe, most emphatically, by Bismarck’s Germany, by Russia, and according to the plan of a great enemy of the British empire, China’s Sun Yat-Sen. The latter was the transcontinental form of railway building which set the British Empire into the frenzy of warfare and subversions which has characterized the global history of European civilization’s imperialism since the relevant, 1890 ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck at the behest of the British monarchy.
These foregoing historical and related facts, merely illustrate the point, that mankind is not organized around a rudimentary structure of interpersonal relations, but, rather, is properly to be seen as organized, as a system, top-down, but that in a certain fashion, a fashion illustrated to crucially beneficial effect, by Percy Shelley in his A Defence of Poetry. Shelley’s principle is what was identified by Leibniz as dynamics.
With the work of Gottfried Leibniz, writing against such hoaxsters as Rene Descartes, during the 1690s, the work of modern European science had been upgraded by Leibniz’s revival of the great Classical Greek concept of dynamis, which Leibniz presented under the heading of dynamics. This concept of dynamics was advanced in a great leap, for the work of physical science, through the great revolutionary leap upwards of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, a work strongly influenced, in crucial respects, on the principle of human creativity, by Riemann’s Berlin patron, and Alexander von Humboldt protégé, Lejeune Dirichlet. In the meantime, between the work of Leibniz and that of Riemann, and, also, following the influence of Friedrich Schiller in respect to Classical drama and poetry, the notion of dynamics was stated, more broadly than in mathematical physics terms, and that with remarkably effective force, by Percy Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry.
Unfortunately, this notion of dynamics is systemically excluded, still today, by the pillars of modern European liberalism, the followers of the empiricism (e.g., “behaviorism”) of the virtually pro-satanic Paolo Sarpi and Sarpi’s lying lackey Galileo. A notable expression of the same principle of dynamics, as met in the usages of Leibniz, is to be recognized in Albert Einstein’s treatment of the subject of the uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation by Johannes Kepler: Einstein’s notion of a finite, but unbounded universe.
That is to say, that all particular notions of the discovery of universal physical principles, are defined by a positive notion of the anti-entropic form of existence of the universe itself. However, there are certain, important, conflicting views on the nature of that universality.
The solution to the conflicts arising from debates over the notion of universality as such, lies within the bounds of a proper conception of human nature. This means the power of man within the universe, on the one side, and the way in which that power of mankind is bounded by a universal, higher principle of boundless universal creativity. In between, there is the matter of what, on the one hand, mankind is able to impose as principled changes in the organization of his universe, and what limits that universe, in turn, imposes on those changes. Hence, Einstein’s view of the work of Kepler.
The extremely poor quality of insight shown by most attempts at political and related forecasting today, since about April 13, 1945, has been the result of that particular phase of corruption in European culture set into motion by the influence of radical empiricism, such as that of the so-called “Frankfurt School” and the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) on the generation which passed from birth to adolescence during the 1945-1968 interval of trans-Atlantic culture. The specific aspect of that particular cultural degeneration, which is of special significance for understanding the corruption of trans-Atlantic culture today, is the suppression of the creative powers of the mind of the generation which we have come to associate with the name of “the sixty-eighters.”
The specific significance of this social fact, is located in the actuality that it is the Classical culture in European civilization which has been the “mother” of the development of the creative powers of the individual there, that to such effect that the counter-culture which shaped the character of the “sixty-eighter” has had the popular effect of destruction of the creative powers of reason among those whose character-development it influences. The point to be emphasized about that here, is that competent qualities of scientific creativity depend upon the development of creative powers of the mind which are specific to Classical modes of artistic and scientific culture, rather than mathematics, especially not the reductionist mathematics of the modern positivists such as Bertrand Russell and his followers.
Thus, the creative powers of the individual human mind are subsumed, equally, by experimental physical science and the effects of Classical artistic composition in the domain of painting, Classical music in the tradition of J.S. Bach, Classical drama, and Classical poetry. These qualities of development of the creative potential of the citizens are thus, equally and similarly expressed in the domains of physical scientific and Classical artistic creativity.
It is most notable, on this account, that all true human creativity is located in this aspect of the Classical tradition. The categorical expression of this principle is equally present in Leibniz’s principle of dynamics, and the work typified by such cases as those of J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schiller and Shelley.
Looking at this same subject-matter of both Classical artistic creativity and scientific creativity, viewed from the vantage-points of the crucial contributions by such as Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, and Albert Einstein, or what Shelley sums up in the closing paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry, or in John Keats’ famous Ode on a Grecian Urn: We must recognize that creativity itself is a principle which embraces the universe in the fashion of a specific principle of that categorical significance. This is what Shelley emphasizes, clearly enough, in the concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry.
Consider that nature of things from the vantage-point of Albert Einstein’s summation of the discovery of a finite, but not bounded universe. Call what I am about to describe here as dynamics, in a broader sense of the usage specified by Gottfried Leibniz.
The principle which bounds an unbounded universe is nothing other than creativity per se, a quality also expressed as human creativity per se.
That is the same notion of Albert Einstein’s finite but not bounded. That is the true connotation of Leibniz’s dynamics, and of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. It is also the principle referenced by Percy Bysshe Shelley in the closing paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry. It is also the great principle of human creative optimism expressed, uniquely, by the first chapter of Genesis, and by the optimism expressed by Philo of Alexandria’s ruthless attack on Aristotle’s scheme.
The essential distinction of civilized man from the beasts is, that man is no animal, but is an expression in the likeness of a universal Creator, a human being who must express his or her existence by creativity per se. We do not live within the universe, but upon it. All things and creatures express creativity in their essential nature, but mankind is obliged to express creativity consciously, not as an underling, but as a mission which embodies the very meaning of his or her existence, whether as a living creature, or a force within the universe even after his or her demise.
The will to be creative, is the essential moral nature and practice of society and of the human individual within it, past, present, and future.
There are conditions of a human culture, as Shelley points to the praiseworthy state in the closing paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry, in which a more or less large portion of a people of a certain period of time, when what can best be seen when the love of humanity for its own sake acts as a great, morally uplifted power gripping the impulses of a certain people. Poetry, as Shelley emphasizes this, is an example of this.
However, underlying great Classical art or a period of pervasive passion expressed as scientific discovery, are but an expression of a more general principle, a principle corresponding to what Leibniz defined as dynamics, and Albert Einstein identified in Kepler’s discovery as the nature of a universe which is immediately finite, but, since creative, is also unbounded.
So, just as physical systems are similarly defined by Leibniz as bounded by a universal creativity, so man echoes the power of human creativity in general, not only in the domain of physical science, but in those Classical modes of artistic creativity which are expressed as the passion for the fruits of human creativity per se, and for the forms of principle and composition of society which cohere with that great intention of all mankind.
As I have already emphasized:
The crisis of the European system, which, nominally, erupted around the current Greek debt situation, was never a Greek crisis as such; it was, rather, a crisis of the entire current European system since the time of Socrates and Plato, a modern crisis whose expression is currently centered, at this present moment, on the Iberian peninsula, not Greece, and a crisis of the international operations of the only nominally Spanish, actually British bank of Santander. As long as current European system and U.S. Obama Administration policies persist, the fuse of a global breakdown-crisis must be considered as lit for the immediate period ahead.
That crisis could hit Europe as a whole tomorrow, or some months ahead. If delayed until a few months ahead, it will be vastly worse when it hits than were it to erupt with full explosive force on tomorrow morning.
For this and related reasons, I have just launched the proposal for an immediate resignation, or impeachment of U.S. President Barack Obama. The pattern of his most recent pranks, leaves us no permissible margin for any less drastic course of action if the United States itself is to be saved, but, also, civilization as a whole.
It happened that my very special knowledge of certain circumstances of the last years of Brezhnev’s life, presents the Soviet system of the late through the close of the 1970s and early 1980s as that of what may be described as an interim period of government of the Soviet system, during which I was involved, part of that time, with some extremely interesting efforts towards “swords into ploughshares” cooperation in crucially positive steps toward constructive relations between the U.S.A. and Soviet Union. When Andropov rejected my own and President Reagan’s public proposal flat, the Soviet Union was plunged into what became quickly an accelerating rate of decline in its economy, which turned into a state of virtual wreckage under Gorbachov’s posting as Soviet leader. Since I am a relatively rare surviving participant in certain crucially relevant insider developments among the U.S.A., certain European nations, and some others, during Brezhnev’s last years, it is of presently crucial importance for present and future generations, that I speak of the developments in which I played a somewhat key role in history during the 1977-1983 interval.
It was those misfortunate aspects of post-1982 developments associated with the rather different figures of Andropov and Gorbachov, which shaped not only the decline, but the disgrace of the Karl Marx as an economist who had been trained in the British school of Adam Smith and of Lord Palmerston’s fame, such as Giuseppe Mazzini’s master and Jeremy Bentham’s protégé and successor. It was that successor, Lord Palmerston, acting through his agent Mazzini, who had, personally and publicly, appointed Karl Marx to lead what became the international Marxist movement. Sometimes, truth, when it has no other voice with which to speak, writes its message among the footprints of future history.