We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy (part 2)

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Foreword: 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!' "

********************************************
Part 1 here:
http://www.hiddenmysteries.net/gltest/article.php?story=20100211194844984

*********************************************
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.

Huyghens' Influence on Leibniz
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.

A Science of Physical Economy
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]

But, Presently ...
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Brutish 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.

III. The Genius of China & India
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.

The Root of an Irony
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?

Percy Shelley's Principle
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.


Continue to Part 3:
http://www.hiddenmysteries.net/gltest/article.php?story=20100211195428844


http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=18056


http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=18054