A Doctrine Concerning Man

打印这篇文章 打印这篇文章
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
February 22, 2013

What has often been passed off to us as being our human species’ conventional view of the universe, has often been merely a literal interpretation of an experience of merely sense-perception as such. The crucially important question which that experience should have posed to mankind, is, therefore: could individual sense-perceptions be either literally true; or, to what relative degree are they merely correlatives of a quality of sensory experiences such as those associated with the distinctions of pleasure from pain? My subject-matter here, is related to the fact of the inherent error of any presumption to the effect that a particular sense-perception, as such, has an inherently “literal” meaning of “wrongness” or “rightness” on its own particular account.

The misguided popular view, which is prevalent among today’s so-called “leading popular opinions,” is to be recognized as being, so-to-speak, both “upside-down, and inside-out.” The fact is, that the appropriate proof can not be found in any collection of mere facts of sense-perception as such; but only, on the contrary rule: the validity of evidence must be derived, not from so-called “facts as such,” but only from the role of a proof of truths of relatively universal principles, such those of Max Planck and Albert Einstein in their time. Which is to say: The validity of facts depends upon the experimental demonstration of those universally proven cases which supersede the uncertainty inhering in any simple collection of facts. Such proof is typified by what is proven to be universal principles, such as Johannes Kepler’s discovery of the principle of “vicarious hypothesis,” an hypothesis which touches the greatest of the known issues currently faced by mankind.

However, there are also certain other extremely important aspects of the matter to be considered, aspects which reach far beyond hitherto conventional notions respecting the notion of “a physical economy.”

Chapter 1: The Principle of the Drama Per Se

Experience among such as human, other living. and non-living entities inhabiting what appears to be a common space, invites a special set of categories among some special ironies inhabiting what appears to occupy a common domain.

At first glance, the intention of my report here, this far, might therefore appear to some persons, to depend upon a certain variety among commonly experienced sense-perceptual effects. These include quasi-random experiences for which relatively no adequate consideration has been sustained, this far, respecting the ironies among ontologically different qualities of sense-perceptions, as for the case in which the content of such a collection is considered as a whole class in and of itself. Consider, for example, the startling irony of any attempted principled distinction of “physical science” from “Classical artistic composition,” if and when both might be usefully considered as relatively truthful by intention in some functionally related way.

This is demonstrated, most simply, by the case of what are the relative, categorical separations of the subject of Classical artistic composition from what might be described as the subject-matter of what is rightly called “merely physical science.” Whereas, the ranges and varieties of sense-perceptions for those thus contrasted categories, are manifold; the fact persists, that the entire range of the cognizable set of sense-perceptions might otherwise be treated as if implicitly united as part of an indivisible, universal fabric, as if it were one in which the combination of Classical artistic and so-called physical experiences were to be resolved by their being defined as if a single domain which must be considered as if indivisible.

For example: Classical musical composition, as typified by Johann S. Bach, and Classical drama and poetry, are essential elements of statecraft which have a uniquely essential part, in their role as preconditions, in providing such categorically essential elements of human culture as may be urgently needed, still, for the promotion of human progress and security.

This quality of ironical unity which I have just described, was implicitly noted by Bernhard Riemann and by some relevant cases among his contemporaries and followers in physical science. It is to be noted, that the unified state of what were otherwise distinguished matters, could be continued for as long as what was known as the strictly Classical tradition in both Classical-artistic and physical-scientific activity, still persisted under the common reign of a somewhat general influence, as, for example, as associated with a continuing influence associated commonly with such names as Johannes Brahms, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.[1]

When that intellectual territory within modern history is traced from the time of the influence of the related figures of Filippo Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, and is taken as a point of historical reference, and, when several stunning achievements of Cusa’s follower Johannes Kepler are included, both physical science, and Classical composition expressed as in the evolutionary progress in the Classical arts, are thus shown to be not only inherently inseparable, but also qualitatively distinct features of a general and profound quality of a single, as if seamless body of integrated physical science and Classical artistic composition combined, all of which must be conceived as a single, inseparable body of scientific practice.

Art & Physics

Take, for an example, the case of the set of the later plays of Shakespeare, as beginning with developments associated with the presentation of Shakespeare’s Henry V as a relevant subject-matter. I have emphasized that selected case for its included, forceful attention on the function of Shakespeare’s assigned category of Chorus throughout that drama as a whole, as from the very outset. That much said in opening, now, compare the actual commonality of the method of the composition of Friedrich Schiller’s Wallenstein trilogy, with the method emphasized by Shakespeare for the function of Chorus in Henry V.

Now, compare what I have just identified as the functions performed as for Henry V and Wallenstein, for the stage, with what I shall demonstrate to have been the related cases of Johannes Kepler’s Vicarious Hypothesis and the general principle of Classical Metaphor, as, for example, the Preludes and Fugues of Johann Sebastian Bach.

Thus far, we have thus placed under consideration, the general notion of a higher reality than that of the visible drama on stage: reality is now to be located in a reality which exists only off the literal stage: which only exists within a realm of pure irony, which, in turn, can only be experienced off stage when the subject is properly situated specifically within the range of the imagination of the audience, and, hopefully, also the adopted roles assigned to each of the players on the stage, all of this as now to be more imagined than as seen and heard by the audience.

What I have already referenced here as the case of Kepler’s Vicarious Hypothesis, takes us more directly into the essence of the matter now under consideration. “Is the principle which Kepler presents by that means, a product of a substance of sense-perception of ‘matter as such,’ or, is it ‘a principle of the universe?’” From the standpoint of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, and, accordingly, the intention of Kepler on the same account, it is an expression of a principle within the present experience of what is a part of a universe.

That approach to the subject now placed immediately under consideration here, is the relatively more fruitful one for the short term ahead. What are to be distinguished, as by merely raw popular opinion as what may be identified as the respectively separate subject-matters of so-called fact and fancy, are now united under metaphor: two, nominally distinguished domains, are being as if a fusion of two domains of the imagination: the sensed versus the imagined, are now fused into the combined reality which is the actual experience of the combined powers of the human mind. Neither medium truly exists as a proper experience without the concurrence and conjunction of the other.

Take as an example of the distinctive principle, the essentially absolute difference of the musical intention of such composers as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms, as contrasted to the relatively depraved Franz Liszt and Richard Wagner, and also the latters’ continued expression in the quality of Twentieth Century clownishnesses. The crucial demonstration of the absolute difference between the two classes of sets, is located most efficiently in its essentials, with the specific sets of Preludes and Fugues of Johann Sebastian Bach.

Crude estimates fail to recognize an essentially categorical distinction between the “Classical” and the so-called “Romantic.”

Therefore, with that point now stated, return attention to the example of Shakespeare’s stage, with repeated emphasis on the implications of the “adjustment” of method encountered in the role of the Chorus in Henry V: The command to imagine! A command delivered to the players as to the audience, delivered to both by the means of the suggestion of pointing toward a directed quality of action.

The difference between sterile, if noisy clowns, and the Classical artist’s performance, is to be located, thus, “within the domain of the creative imagination.” That now said: Hold up, right now!

Is the “imagination,” so defined thus far, relatively defective when compared with the proceeds of a “so-called direct” sense-perception itself? Ask that question again! Who communicates better? The professional actor working in a Classical mode, or an ordinary participant in a conversation?

Who Is Addressing Whom?
We often hear ourselves speaking aloud, or as if to ourselves; therefore, what do we hear being said, and to whom, or to what effective end?

Or, when we are listening, what are we hearing? How does that differ from what our intention is as part of an audience? What is the efficient content of that attempted communication, either to us, or from us? What are we demanding, from whom, and to what intended effect?

In the instance of a Bach fugue, the utterances are governed by a principle which permits no margin for careless direction. The same confronts us with a play of Shakespeare, with a Classical poetical composition, and so on. The order so directed is compelled by the relevance of its circumstances; even the composer is properly compelled by the rules which the composition’s order compels. It is the composition which compels; but, it is the ordering of the design of the composition, which also compels; hence, a certain lawfulness demands a compensating, correlated ordering in both our intentions and actions respectively.

I have a surprise here for some of you. Consider a case of that quality to be found in the instance of the policy of General Douglas MacArthur in the prospect of the Inchon landing in Korea. Had General MacArthur not secured the command decision he had made, it must be said, still today, that a relatively horrid disaster would have been added to the strategic situation at that juncture.

The Legacy of Inchon!

Even after the success at Inchon, even relatively later than the Inchon victory, when the case had been proven, the stubborn critics refused to accept the clearly demonstrated need, not only to win at Inchon, but to prevent the British wish to bring on a nuclear conflict there. Fortunately, while the British intention for an expanded war was continued, the U.S.A.’s Dwight Eisenhower acted to the effect to bring the situation there under strategic control. The later assassination of President John F. Kennedy, cleared the way for that long war in Indo-China whose consequences prepared the way for what British imperial interests demanded as a long moral decline in the U.S.A. and its economy up through the presently disastrous situation in the trans-Atlantic region and the lurking threat of thermonuclear war beyond today.

Worse, through the agency of the present British Queen of England, she has now secured, through the assistance she had secured from two successive U.S. Presidents, George W. Bush, Jr., and, now, Barack Obama, that the world is presently gripped by a criminally insane combination of measures of global genocide aimed to bring about a general collapse of the population of the planet from seven billions human beings, to little more than the vicinity of one billion. That intention is a currently accelerated target which has been publicly decreed, and that repeatedly, by the current British Queen Elizabeth and her former Prime Minister, the same mass-murderously-inclined Tony Blair who participates in steering the policies of the leading world “food-killers,” President Barack Obama and the current Queen of England; theirs are policies intended for an accelerating rate of mass-death in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, policies of mass-death currently intended throughout the planet, an intention which is now a policy presently very much in accelerating practice, globally.

The properly most shocking fact about all this, is that the government of the U.S.A. itself, as of other nations, is currently posing a wild state of hyperinflation throughout the trans-Atlantic regions and beyond, which is already the gravest threat to the continued existence of the human species ever yet actually posed to modern human knowledge.

However, for myself at this moment, my subject here, in this present report, has a particular aspect, an aspect which addresses that most shocking evidence just referenced, but in a relevant, but nonetheless indirect way. Obviously, I do not share command over the policies of the current U.S. Presidency, nor the present, very-much-imperial, British Empire. My personal abilities are far more limited, but, nonetheless, must be addressed as a subject of scientific and related strategic considerations best suited for the information of our relevant patriotic agencies.

Chapter 2: Who Are We?

The fact told to us from putatively credible sources, has been that the continued existence of our Sun can not be expected to continue beyond two billions years. More saddening than that, is the likelihood that our species will not be able to continue the habitation of this Solar system for anything near to two billions years. The only significant presently known source of consolations, is that the noëtic characteristics of our human species provide us, if we are willing, with the potential of an accelerating rate of human power for self-development which would put into the proverbial hands of mankind rates of increase of forms of higher energy-flux density which might provide our species with new options to be delivered in a timely fashion. That presumes that we have a reasonable expectation of new places of residence in a relatively timely fashion.

We have good reason to be optimistic about the potential which may lie before our species. I point to the foolishness of empires and similar tragedies in the known past of our species to date. The greatest degree of avoidable losses of options are attributable to the reigns of oligarchical systems such as those from the Roman Empire through to its present descendent, the British empire of the present moment. Indeed, there is virtually no systemic difference in performance between the collapsed Roman Empire of its time, and the British world empire under Queen Elizabeth II presently.

Moreover, the rate of development of successively higher orders of the prospective increase of energy-flux density, from nuclear fission through thermonuclear fusion and matter/antimatter fluxes, provides encouragement for mankind’s prospects within this galaxy or beyond. The principal obstacle to such progress is met in oligarchical phenomena such as those from the original Roman empire to the British empire of the present time.

That is not the end of the subjects for immediate discussion on that account presently.

We are now, despite the British-controlled puppet-President Barack Obama, impelled to accelerate mankind’s practiced ability to bring menacing features of regions internal to the inner planetary circles of our Solar system under human management. It is clear that the greatest threat immediately before us, has been the fruit of our own damned foolishness in tolerating oligarchical follies such as those of the British Queen and her present American puppet-President, Barack Obama.

Note, for example, scientist Edward Teller’s earlier efforts on behalf of defense of Earth against both asteroids and the much more than merely deadly hazards threatening mankind, such as nuclear warfare. The virtual shutting down, by President Barack Obama, of the full program of NASA, has greatly increased the risk to the continued human habitation of planet Earth.

The increasing difficulties in efforts to supply effective defense of life on Earth, difficulties which were already increasing during the 1970s, but had entered a threatened collapse-phase with the retirement of President Ronald Reagan, now pose a monstrous threat to continued human existence. We have gone backwards in net physical-economic capabilities since the close of the 1960s.

The most severe loss of potential came with the collapse of the Soviet Union, not only because of the Soviet collapse in and of itself, but also through the continuing, systemic dissolution of the array of both the formerly or still nominally sovereign nation states in the central and western states of Europe.
However, that much said this far, the situation immediately before us, is dominated, in one degree or another, by the increasingly challenging circumstances which now confront us increasingly from relatively nearby Solar regions. Some relatively radical options must be introduced in relatively nearby regions of the Solar system. The time for such achievements is already more than overdue, and, correspondingly urgent.

It is already past time that we take correspondingly urgent measures done in the name of “defense of Earth.” The options available are, fortunately, better than present economic circumstances might imagine.

Cleansing the System

On the surface of economic matters presently, the U.S.A., western and central Europe, and beyond, are presently gripped by the worst hyper-inflation in known world history. The first remedy to be secured, must be the obliteration of the monstrous and utterly fraudulent hyperinflation of the present financial markets of the trans-Atlantic regions. The hyperinflation must be simply annulled, thus wiping out virtually entirely the greatest mass of fraudulent financial claims ever conceived by mankind. My associate, Dennis Small, has summarized the causes and nature of that fraudulent debt.

The elementary features of the required measures include the simple cancellation of the essentially merely speculative and fraudulent debt of the trans-Atlantic and other merely speculative financial indebtedness. The essential reform required is accomplished by two typical measures required for the United States itself, but also suitable models for the urgent reforms of economies of the Americas and Europe, for example. First, a renewal of the original Glass-Steagall reform instituted under U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, as augmented by the addition of a Federal credit-system used to fund a continuing upsurge of physical-economic expansion per capita and per square kilometer of territory.

The other elements of debt are simply to be annulled as being fraudulent in their essential nature. A monetarist system must be replaced promptly by a credit system, with strong emphasis on increase of energy-flux density per capita and per square kilometer.

Without those measures’ introduction presently, the greatest mass-death rates ever known will bring on the sudden mass-death rates, if not even the extinction of the human species. We are already, presently, on the brink of such a wave of mass-extinctions of the peoples of the nations. The corrective actions must be taken now. You have already run virtually out of time. My associate Dennis Small has already supplied the most crucial evidence needed for such an emergency action.

[1]. Bernhard Riemann, On the Subject of the Hypotheses which Underlie Geometry: “This would lead into the domain of another science, the domain of physics, which the nature of today’s proceedings do not permit us to enter.”