What happened to us?:
What Is Our Constitution?
By Lyndon LaRouche
27 May 2011
The history of our Federal Constitution dates to the processes both leading into, and as a result of the Fifteenth-century Great Ecumenical Council of Florence. That was the Council from which Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa emerged to become the most significant figure for modern European science and law. It was Cusa who launched that commitment to development of new civilizations across the great oceans on which Christopher Columbus premised his famous voyages.
However, for reasons chiefly located in the Habsburg dynasty’s apparently inherent disposition for corruption of the Spanish and Portuguese systems, the realization of the essentials of Cusa’s intentions first appeared in the founding of Massachusetts by the combined actions of the Mayflower party, and of the Massachusetts Bay Colony under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers. It was here, that the future United States emerged as a form of nation-state which has been unmatched in its quality of political-economy, since the revival of that Massachusetts colony’s actual intention as the original Constitution of our United States.
WHO ARE WE, REALLY?
... when science and law are both considered?
Nicholas of Cusa’s expressed motivation, in his proposal that the representatives of the new civilization which had been launched as the Great Ecumenical Council of Florence, should venture across the great oceans, was to build the cultures which might rescue the achievements of that Council from the calamity caused by a Venice-directed decadence’s regaining its hold over Europe. That New England settlement thus became the actual root of what was to be the seed from which sprang the establishment, if only for a few decades, then, of the intention expressed in what would become the crafting of our U.S. Federal Constitution.
European civilization of the Fifteenth-century Renaissance had made important steps of progress in important contributions, but Europe had then failed, all too soon, to escape the long reach of the imperial system of monetarism, a monetarism which had repeatedly asserted the claims of an oligarchical interest, one which still retained the continued influence of a ruling oligarchical legacy, a legacy modelled upon that of the original Roman empire. Today, the evil hand of empire, now in British guise, still rapes and ravages Europe, and beyond.
So, what became our U.S. Constitution was the outgrowth of a great victory over a new, fourth Roman Empire, that of the British Empire which had been launched as a takeover of the British Isles by William of Orange, who acted on behalf of what had been the Netherlands-based branch of the New Venetian Party.1 The subsequent victory by our young republic’s defense against the British empire, had been secured through help from nations which had been the victims of the Anglo-Dutch imperialist scheme of empire-building known as the 1756-1763 Seven Years War.
However, there soon came severe threats to the continued existence of our young constitutional republic.
That American victory over the forces of the British empire at that time, had been gained against that new Roman Empire centered in Lord Shelburne’s Liberal form of an imperialist scheme built up around the British East India Company. Shelburne’s personal collection of modern Liberalism’s lackeys had emerged as crucial factors in the rise of the British empire from the success of Britain’s luring continental Europe into the trap set as what came to be named “The Seven Years War.”
That Empire had been established then, but its power was not yet consolidated.
Although the British success in luring its European continental rivals into the trap of what was named that “Seven Years War,” is the event which actually established the British empire, that British victory in the Seven Years War, had drawn the wrath which had incurred such a well-deserved enmity among leading powers of the abused continental Europe, that a bold American struggle for liberty was enabled, with the help of our European allies against Britain, to bring about the establishment of what became the installation of the original Federal constitutional form of government of our United States.
However, that American triumph itself was soon menaced, permanently, to this present day, and that repeatedly, through to the present day under Queen Elizabeth II. Already, by the time that the U.S. Federal Constitution would be put into place, a corrosive decade’s experience of our loss of former American allies, had presented our young republic with increasing peril, a peril which had begun to overtake, confuse, and sometimes corrupt, many of those among even our own patriots who had once shared the patriotic passions on which that Constitution had been premised. These were troubled times which, for some demoralized Americans, bitterness had made sweet.
Thus, throughout the ebbs and flows of morality in the successively reigning governments of our United States, a certain net corrosion seemed to take over our leading institutions, a persistently recurring corrosion brought about, chiefly, by the influence of the British monetarist system’s Europe-based imperialist power. That latter form of power was also built up in such British-controlled monetarist bastions as those located in the British East India Company’s political cesspools in Boston, New York, and elsewhere.
This latter font of monetarist corruption by the British East India Company and its offshoots, was expressed in the moral rot spread into our republic by the British-created system of slavery introduced, with aid of the Nineteenth-century royal Spanish lackeys of an imperialist London, and as by such instrumentations as the slaughter of the Cherokee nation, into, chiefly, the southern region of the United States itself.
So, for such a typical example of recurring corruptions of our own institutions, as that expressed by Andrew Jackson and his financial controller and author of the 1837 Panic, Martin van Buren. That pair of treasonously inclined scoundrels, were typical of the corruption otherwise centered, originally, in Boston and New York City, in the legacy of the pro-slavery tradition of later Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Klannist Woodrow Wilson, and as of the Anglophile varieties of political trash known as Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama.
Over the course of such sundry forms of evolution which occurred over the interval since the formation of the Federal Constitution, the meanings of words bearing upon the reading of the U.S. Federal Constitution’s intentions, have changed, and, often, not for the better, up through the present time. In this process, the predilection for types of “stand alone” legislation whose effect was to undermine the principle of the U.S. Federal Constitution, has become a piece-mealing process which dilutes the subsequently practiced meaning of that Federal Constitution, degrading it into an increasingly British-like direction of drift, and even into actual hostility to the principles of a coherently unified set of principles of a true Federal Constitution, as through aid of such treasonous evils as the “signing statements” associated with Presidents George W. Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama.2
So, it is, usually, that we must judge even those among the lawyers who have gained the authority to have misjudged the principled intention of the Federal Constitution, whose criteria have sometimes been employed in misjudging the intention of that Constitution. Take, for example, the fraudulent concoction, introduced, as since that scoundrel known as President Theodore Roosevelt, by the rabidly treasonous hoaxes known as an “Impact Assessment Statement,” as under that, or any comparable name.
Under the current interpretation of the body of trash, such as those “impact” statements, the original United States could never have existed. This is, for example, a virtually treasonous feature of law which serves no interest as much as those of the worst current of imperialism represented by the British Empire still today. A competent Supreme Court should have suppressed such implicitly treasonous trash for what it really is today.
Why was the trashing of such treasonous stuff not done? Why not consider the fact that Theodore Roosevelt’s relevant uncle was a traitor to the United States, a traitor who had exerted great influence over that nephew’s development? Or, Woodrow Wilson, who revived the Ku Klux Klan while President of the U.S.A. More broadly, the American branch of the British empire known as “Wall Street” is to be considered as a leading source of accomplices.
One might say, that it could not be reasonably guaranteed that something like even a relic of the Gadarene swine, might not slip into a high-ranking political position in both of our legislative and judicial systems; that, however, were no excuse for failing to repeal any treasonous trash, which might have been injected by an errant specimen in office, even up to the rank of a President of our United States, such as the monstrously corrupt, even treasonous influences which had temporarily repealed the implicitly Constitutional authority of the 1933 Glass-Steagall legislation.
Such relatively extreme cases, such as those toward which I have now pointed, not withstanding, we may say freely, in all conceivable modesty, that the decadent patterns showing poor regard for the actual intent of the original Constitution, have done great damage to the defense of the actual sovereignty of our republic, even within the realm of the proceedings of our government itself. The increasing inclination toward piece-meal fragments, instead of the notion of an actually systemic body of coherent, constitutional principle, has worked its evil so much, that, often, there is an attempt at an act of actual treason against the original, essential principles of our Constitution, such as “signing statements” by an incumbent President, a corruption which should often seem almost a superfluous affirmation of a widespread state of a treasonous disposition for evil shown among some leading circles within our republic.
So, not only brutish injustices, but kindred concoctions in crafting of law itself, have tended to supersede the place which should be occupied by true principle, as corrupted by the worse, even “Brutish,” practice of sophistry.
It is to that latter pattern of evil that my attention is turned here.
I. AFFIRMING OUR CONSTITUTION
Our Federal Constitution had been originally crafted by the initiative which was expressed as Alexander Hamilton’s focus of his attention on what had been the young republic’s apparent inability to solve the problem represented by those virtually unpayable debts of the respective states which had been incurred, chiefly, as costs of the war incurred for our freedom. The transfer of that war-debt, from the states, to what was to become a Federal government, was that lever, devised by Alexander Hamilton, which created the Federal system, and also committed the new United States, formally, to a credit system, rather than to a system of the type of some extant European, essentially imperial model of monetarist system, the monetarist system which dominates Europe, and certain other parts of the planet still today.
At the same time, the creation of the U.S. Federal system in that manner, affirmed a return to the principle of a credit system echoing the original Massachusetts Bay Colony’s system of the Pinetree shilling, the currency which had been formed under the Massachusetts Bay Company’s original charter, rather than being a European type of monetarist system.
This was an action which established the function of the commitment to what became known as “The American System of political-economy” of such paragons as Mathew and Henry C. Carey, Abraham Lincoln, and others. “Others,” includes, most notably, such exemplars as President Franklin Roosevelt, and, implicitly, also President John F. Kennedy’s motivation in leading the U.S.A. in a creative direction, away from the terrible betrayal which had been wrought by such evils as those by Wall Street and the Churchill-oriented, Truman Administration.
To understand this latter, thus-corrupted aspect of our nation’s leadership affirmed under scamps in the likeness of the cronies of Truman, we must begin the investigation of relevant facts from the view proffered by a far higher plane than that. This time, we must proceed from the standpoint of the appropriate notion of the more appropriate meaning of the notion of the existence of a body of natural law. Here, in the following pages, I view the great matters now before the world from the standpoint of the properly redefined notion of the natural law.
The American System
True natural law does not mean “common law” of “almost just anyone.” Note the language employed to the effect of appeals to a fairly defined natural law, as by such as Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Abraham Lincoln. It means, for our republic, and for others, the notion of a body of what are to be properly defined by, and as the progressive evolution of discovery of scientifically defined principles which are employed to effect the increased power of human beings not merely to survive, but to increase their numbers, and to improve the quality of the power of the human personality to prosper in every relevant respect. These must be still, today, principles defined by the adducibly natural requirements of the human species for that species’ adducibly governing principles which must govern both the mission-intention and the resort to those characteristic means available to our human species.
It means, in particular, an impassioned dedication to bring about the extermination of such bestial forms of human practice as the oligarchical principle of Roman law and outgrowths of such law. This means purging society of the evil effects of the former existence of Roman Law, as a principle of evil has been expressed by the crucifixions of Jesus and his Apostles Peter and Paul, savage murders which were committed on the direct orders of the person of the Roman Emperor himself. On that much, the founding of our U.S. republic and of its Constitution, were a readily clear intention beyond any competent sort of quibbling.
Briefly, On the Subject of Law
We should not wish to use this occasion for what would be a diversionary kind of speaking on, and on, on the subject of laws. It were desirable that the original model of our Federal Constitution be regarded as an attempted expression of the principles to be adopted and respected. However, there are certain problems of government, our own most emphatically which have been largely an expression of some party or special interest of persons, which must be resisted.
The essential point to be considered is that a worthy body of law must be subsumed under a humanly valid conception of a universal principle of lawfulness, as is typified by the intention of our original Federal Constitution. It is to be admitted that, speaking generally, nations today have little or no competent conception of such a form of law, and the corrosive qualities of violation of such a principle are legion.
Therefore, although it may be fairly granted, that, in British law, there may be some elements which are not in contradiction to what may be justly considered by some as fitting to be classed as a reflection of a “natural” quality of law; nonetheless, the fact persists, that the very notions of usury, which is the intrinsically incompetent, British system of economic lawfulness, and the existence of the actual British form of imperialist practices of a so-called “commonwealth” system, are intrinsically violations of anything which qualifies as a natural sort, or legislated sort of alleged “common law.” That law which is coherent with the notion of an empire, one either by name or implication, deserves little respect excepting the desire for a peaceful correction of errors of principle, where such matters may be important in respect to consequences.
These distinctions which I have just presented here, are not to be treated as a debatable proposition when kept within the kinds of limits which I have presented above. Oligarchical law, or any practices which are, in effect, tantamount to oligarchical principles, are, like the practice of chattel slavery and its offshoots, typical of an inherently unlawful expression of inhuman bestiality.
The rule of law, insofar as it does not intrude on a coherent body of truly universal principle, is obviously permitted as it is also necessary, if the method by, and principles upon which it is crafted, is fair law: up to a certain point. Otherwise, the principles of national and subordinate law must be coherent with the principles of both the defense and improvement of a form of law consistent with the implications of a general form of constitutional principle, as the notion of such a principle is typified by such as the Preamble of our Federal U.S. Constitution.
Also, we must be critical of the manner in which the term “individual freedom” is often misused. Indeed, the trend in changes of the implicit principles of law, is in the direction of violation of even simple decency.
The issue of law in such matters as that, is not that of some abstract principle of “freedom,” intended as merely a notion of “license.” The issue of “freedom” is properly defined for human law, not as the “liberty” among lower forms of individual life, but, rather, by the appropriateness of the intention of the existence of expressions of human individual freedom for the purpose of seeking, by the individual and by society generally, to improve the development, and the expression of that development in practice, which is expressed, in turn by the appropriateness of the mission-orientation implicit in the combined selection, promotion, and protection of that freedom.
Above all, there is a certain inhering principle to be recognized in those gifts which set the human society and person above the beasts. That much said, so far, consider the following.
On the Subject of Species
That much said on this matter thus far. What is the evidence which bears upon the proper selection of the mission of the existence of the human species, not only as an individual, but as a species? There are sundry proposed varieties of approaches to a “natural law” profferred as being “natural;” most among those recipes met today, even if not offensively wrong, do not actually qualify for the epithet of “natural.” In most instances, “presumed,” rather than “natural,” were the proper technical term. Despite that problem, there is, in fact, rigorous physical-scientific evidence which provides what might be considered as some authoritative insights into this matter.
The chief source of contrary, imprudent notions of law, is to be located in the ancient and modern notion of “the oligarchical principle” associated with such predecessors as the tyranny of the figure of the Olympian Zeus.
The essential issue of principle is located in the elementary distinction of a credit system from a monetarist system. The monetarist system defines money itself as the standard of economic value. A credit system, such as our own, locates value in a contrary fashion, in that for which the notion of the existence and use of credit may be defined.
The original Glass-Steagall act was installed to return our United States’ practice to that of a credit system, rather than a British Empire-imitating monetarist system. This means, implicitly, a physical system, as I shall describe the implications of that function at a relevant, later point in this report.
The use of a credit system, as opposed to a monetarist system, takes economy, and also a nation’s use of currency, essentially, out of the category of the economy of a system of money, to an expression of the principles of a body of physical science. It takes us from the reign of money, to a science which addresses those changes in the role of the department of physical science which are to be introduced by a “factor” which is to be defined as not only within the bounds of what Russian and Ukrainian Academician V.I. Vernadsky had defined as the domains of the Lithosphere and Biosphere. It must be understood to mean, also, to include, above all else, the higher domain of a physical science which is defined, as what Academician Vernadsky had come to define as being from the higher standpoint introduced by Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, as the Noösphere. This means to include the view presented, most emphatically, in the concluding third section of that dissertation.
Although neither the founders of our Federal Constitution, nor Bernhard Riemann, had known of Academician Vernadsky’s adoption of the principles of the Noösphere, Vernadsky’s Riemannian conception of the functional distinction of the three categories of Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere, defines any competent method of practice for physical science in general today.
The implication of the application of the Noösphere bto the functions of what is otherwise considered a science of physical economy, takes the human practice of so-called physical science out of the domain of physics otherwise defined, and presents physical science as a subsumed feature of what is today’s properly higher form of science, the science of physical economy. That is to say, the science of the Solar system (and beyond); it means, now, that science which the role of mankind defines as being the only truly competent general, subsuming meaning of “the practice of the science of physical economy” today.
This does not nullify any part of our original U.S. Federal Constitution; it enriches the implications of the crucial Preamble of that Constitution, that in what must be considered by today’s population, as being true in an awesome degree. It elevates that Preamble to a place above, to the rank of an expression of a reigning natural law of the Solar system—and, implicitly beyond that, as being in the universal nature of mankind’s obligatory intention and responsibility for practice.
We have thus progressed from the physical economy of fire, toward the verge of the envisaged possibility of an economy of controlled matter-antimatter reactions, toward the Biblical image of man and woman as made as mighty servants in the likeness of, and in service to a Creator.
The Noösphere: A Lesson in Morals
What I have stated here, up to this point, reflects traditional facts about our republic’s origins and history. Then, there is more, much more, not only in the sense of quantitative measure, but also universal principle.
Consequently, we are presently confronted by other facts, new facts not as much from past history, as concerning the future existence of our species. This must never put aside the implications of past history; however, it adds a set of actually long-existing factors which had either been previously unknown to most, or have been chiefly overlooked, even if sometimes, and somewhat known, until now.
Nevertheless, it is the key to a more appropriate expression of the truly physical meaning of a credit system, rather than a monetarist system. The constitutional principles on which our republic was founded persist; but, certain considerations which now confront this planet of ours, suddenly appear to be changed, that, perhaps, drastically.
The changes to which I have just referred above, thus, here, concern a plausible, early threat to what our planet’s European governments have usually considered, heretofore, as the monetarist traditions of modern, and, also, earlier forms of government on this planet, such as the Roman empire and its three principal successors: the Byzantine empire, the Venetian system associated with the crusaders’ reign, and, third, that empire of the New Venetian Party known otherwise as the British empire. Among those, now, either certain, or plausible forms of threats, there are chiefly two:
First: certain influential governments within, most emphatically, the trans-Atlantic region, certain very influential, political and social-theoretical elements within the orbit of the British empire, in particular, have fostered a monstrously evil scheme for plunging the planet into a deep, and prolonged “dark age,” a threat which would wipe out most of the human population of this planet, and, possibly bringing on the plausibility of the extinction of the human species, all in the abused name of “environmentalism.” The great genocidal schemes associated with that of Bertrand Russell and the World Wildlife Fund of Prince Philip and the late Prince Bernhard, are also typical. The even more radically evil schemes associated with Hans Joachim Schellnhuber’s current efforts, are to be added to the same tradition of proposed sheer evil on a massive scale far beyond that of the late Adolf Hitler.
Second: a presently, scientifically plausible set of threats of the type whose origin is apparently a long-standing one within that galaxy of “The Milky Way,” of which the existence of our Solar system is a relatively young part. To restate that crucial point: the evidence points our attention to those recurring patterns of mass-extinctions of life on Earth which are traced among archeologists, to the effects of periodic, relatively very long cycles in the galaxy of which our Solar system is very much a subsumed, relatively young part. The much admired mass-extinction of the “dinosaurs” is merely one typical case of this.
The first of those two threats, is a matter of principles of already known types of man-made law. The second brings certain currently menacing problems of science to our current attention. The first of these is located within the bounds of my scientific speciality, the science of physical economy, the science on which the recent decades’ pattern of my relatively unique successes as a long-range economic forecaster have been premised. The second should turn our attention to what has proven to have been the systemic effects of the ruinous influence of the cult of positivism in the politically motivated corruption of science which had become increasingly influential since the ouster of Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck, and, also, the growing, politically-motivated expressions of decadence in the teaching of the principles of science which can be reasonably placed as being since the beginning of the now just-concluded century.
The Political Issue as Such
What I have presented thus far, is a matter of science. It is also, as I have clearly implied so far, an implicitly political issue consistent with the frontiers of physical-scientific progress. Consider the latter of those two aspects now.
That corruption imposed, politically, on physical science, has been centered, chiefly, in the British empire; but the problem has not been specifically British at its root. The root is to be identified as what is known as the ancient “oligarchical principle” associated with such institutions as the Delphi cult of Apollo-Dionysus, and such outgrowths of that cult’s influence as the succession of the Roman, Byzantine, and Venetian systems, an influence commonly inhering in what is the British empire still presently. The name of the issue so posed is also known as the issue of “Promethean fire.”
The typical name for that traditional authority attributed to what had been Mediterranean-centered oligarchical tyrannies, such as the original Roman empire and its offshoots, had been “the gods,” the social class of what had been named “gods” by some ancient oligarchical systems, as those “gods” are distinguished from the imputed category of “cattle” which had been assigned, as still today, by today’s “Wall Street” and comparable finance-centered oligarchies, at least in actual practice, to the lower social classes. This distinction among the classes is also typified by the modern oligarchical schemes for deep-going practices of genocide, as advocated by such associates of the British monarchy’s adopted notables as Bertrand Russell, Joseph Schumpeter, Prince Philip, and by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber recently.
However, that politically-motivated issue, the issue of that which is called “the oligarchical principle,” invades not only the political-social system as such, but also the kind of management exerted against progress in physical science. The Nineteenth-century introduction of a factually fraudulent “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” is typical of this latter factor, a factor of moral corruption of often taught science whose origin is not modern science, but the ancient tradition of the oligarchical principle, the oligarchical principle that the human species shall not be freed from the overlordship of the “gods” as defined by the oligarchical principle.
The present form of the strategic issues in science posed so, is typified by a turning-point identified in time as the collaboration between Max Planck and Albert Einstein, in their challenges to the oligarchical principle which is associated with the successive appearances of the followers of Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell over the period bridging the 1890 fall of Bismarck and the 1920s Solvay Conferences.
Since those times, the progress of science has been handicapped by the role of what some scientists have identified as “Babylonian priesthoods”—“hoods” indeed—sitting atop the institutions which shape and more or less effectively control that which is accepted as “peer-reviewed” standards of “science.” Those “standards” are customarily defined in recent times, as by certain highly political periodicals which supply “certified” standards for even that which is curiously called “science,” standards which usually correspond to modern positivist ideology’s radically reductionist expressions of what are properly termed empiricism or positivism.
Those types of oligarchically determined, politically-directed reductionist influences, have brought certain crucial aspects of scientific practice into the domain of what has been, in effect of practice, an outright fraud. So, in this way, the qualities of scientific competence associated with the tradition of the Monge-led Ecole Polytechnique and the followers of Alexander von Humboldt, Carl F. Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein, had been brought virtually to a halt, and then into retreat, by political, not scientific means, all in a fashion typified by, and consistent with the trend to be associated with the Obama Administration’s virtually criminal insanity in both stated intention and in practice, today.
The extent of the resulting politically motivated, traditionally oligarchical fraud against science, is typified, most widely, by two prominent features of the role of a wicked priesthood’s reign over science, as such is expressed typically by the continued defense of three of the most significant among the worst hoaxsters of European science: the putative follower of Aristotle, Euclid, Paolo Sarpi, and that follower of Sarpi, Isaac Newton, who actually made not even a single, truthful discovery of scientific principle. The ritually avowed “true believers” in the avowed sanctity of that set of scamps, typify the effects typical of the imperial reign of a high priesthood in the oligarchical tradition of the cult of Delphi still today.
When we consider the effects of such Delphic pseudo-science as expressed in the rise or decline in political-economic systems, we are thus confronted with the practical effect of such mere ideology on the practice of economy, as in this present scientific report respecting matters of constitutional law treated by me here.
The Oligarchical Principle’s Effect
The underlying practical, and also intended effect of the oligarchical principle, is to maintain the reign of the oligarchical social system of distinction between the fictitious categories of reigning “gods” and those treated by either name, or effect, as “mere mortals.” The policy of what Britain’s Prince Philip and the Netherlands’ Prince Bernhard had founded as the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF’s) explicitly genocidal intention, and the more radically vicious, more mass-murderous, and more fraudulent, British intention expressed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, are typical as expressions of the explicitly genocidal intention of oligarchical methods of population-control over even the entirety of the human species, as if wherever that species might be found.
Those wicked policies are the same policies adopted from, chiefly, the influence of British imperial sources, by Adolf Hitler’s war-time regime. The essential difference between then and now is that that which is now pushed by Schellnhuber is far more radical, and thus much more profoundly criminal in its openly declared statements of intentions.
II. TIME TO BECOME CREATIVE
The most decisively significant of the scientific revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, has been, up to the present time, the fruit of the combined pioneering by Bernhard Riemann and his successor-in-fact, V.I. Vernadsky. No longer can we situate economy as a subject of simply physics as such; all hope of continued existence of the human species now resides in a department of a notion of a science of physical economy as itself subsumed by the creative powers which the Creator has entrusted to mankind. In turn, the continued existence of man depends upon the progress of that mission, chiefly what we should recognize as the realization of the inspiration of a great Academician, V.I. Vernadsky.
Just a few days ago, one among my associates responded to the circulation of a statement by me, by pointing to the publication of a discussion which included stated intentions of Max Planck and Albert Einstein on the subject of the implications of the notion of physical time, rather than clock time.3 Those statements by them, had a certain crucial importance which was significant for my purposes here, as my source for this referenced material had recognized, in prompting my attention to that particular publication.
That point, which had become known in a wide variety of related discussions from that same period during the turn into the Twentieth Century, has fresh, and much more urgent practical implications for mankind now, than then. It represents an issue of scientific method which has become almost forgotten in subsequent decades, but had lost none of its crucial significance bearing on the presently visible challenge to the existence of all mankind now.
From the standpoint of the leading quality of certain of my crucial contributions to a science of physical economy, the root of the general problems of physical science and economy presently, has been the change, largely for the worse, even possibly the worst, in direction of what has come to pass for scientific thinking, a worsening which has occurred under the increasing influence of what has become an increasingly depraved direction, as this has been expressed by trends toward ever more radical schemes in statistical trends in reductionist mathematics, mathematical schemes which have been used increasingly as a substitute for an actually physical science generally, as, more viciously, in the domain of what is named “economics.”
Thus, since the time of the referenced point made by both Planck and Einstein, the principal alternatives to that ruinous trend, have come to reside in the leading role performed by two scientific revolutions. The first of these two, has been what has been centered in the discoveries of Bernhard Riemann; the second, has been the consequent role of certain developments which can be dated from advances made as arguments by Academician V.I. Vernadsky as early as the mid-1930s, developments both in Vernadsky’s role as explicitly a follower of Riemann’s revolution in scientific method, and in his adoption of that Riemannian foundation which has persisted as a sweeping revolution in physical science and its appropriate methods which came to be explicitly embodied in the keystone role of a set of discoveries by Vernadsky, which had been given crystallized expressions in his work dated from about that time.
That is to say, that the key for understanding the proper Riemannian basis for the discoveries of Vernadsky, is now to be attributed largely to Vernadsky’s recognition, as experienced by him no later than the middle of the 1930s, that the needed integration of his own original achievements must be accomplished through the understanding and application of fundamental principles of the work of Riemann which are typified by the discoveries introduced in Riemann’s own 1854 habilitation dissertation, the third section of that dissertation, most notably.
Once Vernadsky had recognized that the full realization of the scientific competence of his own methods required their adaptation to a Riemannian method, it was evident that the most crucial among the discoveries of a general understructure for contemporary challenges of physical science, required Vernadsky’s situating his own, ongoing, and uniquely original discoveries, within the context of Riemann’s own, earlier revolution.
This earlier revolution had occurred in Riemannn’s own pursuit, in concert with Lejeune Dirichlet, in both the subject of Abelian functions, and, even more, in the definitions of that revolution in physical science summarized in effect by Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation.
Exactly How Smart Was Riemann?
As should be evident in the process of any careful reflection on the process leading from Gottfried Leibniz, through Carl F. Gauss, to Riemann, and, then, the work of such as Max Plank and Albert Einstein, the most significant fact about the historically significant discoveries in the progress of both science and economy, has been the quality of personal intellectual courage to act expressed by those discoverers whose role in history has proven to be crucial.
This is illustrated by the case of Gauss and Riemann. There is much in the most significant discoveries by Gauss which was harvested by Riemann. Gauss had risen to great influence from the nightmare of the evil of France’s revolutionary terror, the Bonaparte pandemic, and the satanic spirit of the orchestration of the Congress of Vienna by the Venetian creations known as the British Empire and Prince Metternich. Gauss, for example, hid crucial elements of the method by which he had accomplished leading discoveries, including that of the Orbit of Ceres. Gauss then sat in the place where Riemann delivered his 1854 habilitation dissertation, with Gauss’ own experience of hearing an heir make the scientific revolution toward which Gauss himself, and others, had contributed to that outcome.
The fact is, that Lejeune Dirichlet and Riemann dared! The credit for the great revolutions in science and Classical artistic composition, alike, reposes in the spirit of the human personality who dares to make them, as in science, even against the most tyrannical and brutish ruling bodies of opinion.
It is man and woman which were made in the likeness of a creator. It is shown, by those who examine the deep root and progress since billions of years deep in the “history” of our galaxy, from which came mankind’s existence on Earth, which has existed as a unique living species within our mere Solar System for merely a few millions of years. It is the willfully creative quality embedded so deeply as it has been, of the development of mankind during such a meagre span of a mere few millions of years, which is the expression of that value which makes the development and continued existence of our Solar system important.
It is the mission which human beings, individually, and otherwise, contribute to the implied mission of mankind which is so important, within this Solar system, and, to a still unknown degree, our home galaxy.
Now, we may turn our attention, that in good conscience, even against all bitter and cruel opposition, to that which follows here.
Passing in review:
There are, of course, many breakthroughs in physical science which have appeared since the first appearance of that work typified by what I have referenced here as “the Lejeune Dirichlet/Bernhard Riemann revolution.” This had been the revolution which had occurred in a setting which had been created by Alexander von Humboldt, in particular;4 but, the most significant consequence of Riemann’s own discoveries for our purposes in my report here, is that breakthrough which emerged in the Twentieth Century, as a breakthrough derived from converging effects of work in many fields. What I consider the most relevant of these considerations known to me, respecting the future of mankind today, the knowledge to be sought on this and kindred occasions, is to be found in the basis provided for a general system of physical science in the provocations inherent in a Riemannian physics as the basis for the treatment of the principles of life and human creativity which have arisen through a central role of a Riemannian science of Vernadsky, the physical chemistry of both life, and of the physical-creative powers specific to the human mind.
From that modern scientific vantage-point located, in its functional center, in the Riemannian physics of V.I. Vernadsky, concerns of mankind which are properly considered as unique to mankind now, are to be recognized, properly as the accumulations which are centered, in practice, in the present outgrowths of a Riemannian basis for the physical-scientific contributions to the physical meaning of living processes which is centered in the outgrowths of the achievements of Vernadsky and his network of collaborators.
The fuller implications of such distinctively crucial, modern advances during the Nineteenth Century and beyond, are to be recognized as centered in the problems and their prospective solutions associated with such outstanding pioneers as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and their relevant associates and followers. The crucial thing, however, lies with the role of life, human life above all else, as Vernadsky has implicitly defined the role of life in our universe. That, to sum up the immediate point at hand, is the Twenty-First Century destiny of man and his physical science for mankind’s future.
It is the issues posed to a related quality of the physical science of economy, which have defined the advantages of the success which my point of view has brought to my role within the nominal department of physical science. For my part, it has been notable, and remains so, that it is my good fortune never to have believed in the Aristotelean system of geometry expressed by Euclid and the Euclideans, nor in linear apriorism respecting the notions of space and time, or the follies of a rampant “modernism.”
That much said on those matters thus far, in the concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s habilitation dissertation, he launched what is, in effect, a rejection of the a-priorism of what would have usually passed for the set of a-priorist concoctions represented by what have been the hitherto generally accepted notions of “matter, space, and time.” He argues for precisely that rejection of those terms, as if such terms were actually ontological existences; but, he presents that in a written form which, in presenting exactly what he intends to report, blunts the impact in the process.
I do not blunt anything about this; times have changed, most frequently much for the worse, but also somewhat, if only somewhat, for the better. What needs to be said on that, will be said here by me. These three, worn-out ontological “war horses,” which I shall identity here and now are my suggested “other way” of stating those issues.
The Most Problematic Issues
It has been my rather long-standing judgment, that the ostensibly accepted notions of sense-perception, those reflected in the notion of “matter, space, and time,” is not a direct representation of what should be considered as reality. Rather, man’s presumed-to-be-given notions of sense-perception are merely “instruments, which had been delivered as part of the package of the “apparatus as a whole.” Riemann says as much, but in a different choice of language, within the concluding section of his habilitation dissertation.
Indeed, the virtual religious worship of the notion of a standard five senses, has already been proven to be absurd to any qualified scientists who are capable of recognizing the currently accelerating number of varieties of instruments which a modern technology has assimilated as man-made instruments of sense-perception.
This is precisely a crucial point of fact which Riemann emphasizes in the concluding section of his habilitation dissertation, as for the case of presumed objects which are either too large, or small in scaling to be given meaningful values equivalent to our “native” sense-perceptions. It is true, of course, that only by exception are these “artificial senses” exactly like sense-perceptions in the way they function as a complementary biological feature of the central nervous system. In the typical case, the “other,” synthetic perceptors and preceptions, alike, are attached as auxiliary means, to enhance, qualitatively, the native functions of the central, human-biological means of sense-perception.
It is, admittedly, not so simple as this might appear to be, as is typified by the case of the migratory flights of birds, or in the migrations of natural dwellers in an aquatic domain. Or, as professionally competent forecasters of such types of phenomena as weather, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, demonstrate the point. The human processes of perception are systemically, qualitatively different than this.
Moreover, the human ability to craft and efficiently employ “artificial perceptors” willfully, rather than merely biologically, is a crucial distinction of mankind from the character of other living creatures, a distinction which is to be strictly set apart from the sense-perceptual use of synthetic perceptors defined as subsumed features of specifically human functions of designing instruments as supplementary sense-functions of lower forms of life.
The crucial quality of functional difference for the human individual, is our species’ ability to effect, willfully, the design of the quality and use of added instruments of perception through which we emerge, in effect, as mankind in qualitatively higher forms of our functional, existential relationship to the universe we inhabit. Mankind has the built-in potential to become a species of the universe, in effect. It is a “trip” which any really loving human beings should be delighted to experience, as being the fruit of specifically human creativity.
“Mere tools” and higher orders of human instrumentation, are not in the same ontological category!
Those points which I have just stated here and now, are no different, in effect, than the essential features of the argument made by Riemann in the concluding section of his habilitation dissertation.
There is no margin to be allowed for doubt in what I have stated as claims presented here thus far. The crucial experiment has been deployed and tested as “crucial.” The self-development of our human species has received the blessing of the history of the self-development of our species on these accounts.5
Now, that preliminary conclusion stated thus, it is now necessary that I restate what has just been written here.
What is the distinction of the concept of the design expressed by the actions of the “the human mind,” from the biology of the human brain and nervous system generally? What is the tested generality of the matter, thus far in the human experience? Call it the definition of the principle which is the human mind, as distinct from the brain considered only in and of itself.
Let us not “try, here, for final answers” to that question. I have some hypotheses which I have good reason to believe are valid, but let us rather relish the momentary sense of accessible certainties, that within the comfort of what can be asserted within the margins separating certainty from the realm of reasonable uncertainties. Certainties are important, but “climbing the next, higher peak,” is the natural motion of human progress; mountain-climbing, whether among the peaks, or respecting the higher goals of the mind; this is a business which must always be done with a certain degree of careful preparation, including choice of, or invention of needed instruments for the journey.
What is certain now, is that the popularized notions of “matter, space, and time,” are essentially mistaken when they are mistakenly considered as ontological certainties: just as Planck and Einstein had concurred in the doubts which they brought to bear respecting such presumed topics.
There is already sufficient evidence for certainties in this subject-matter that our minds can be sufficiently occupied by the matters which either are, or should become recognizable by qualified professionals as certainties within reach presently.
Here, earlier in this present chapter of the report, I have emphasized the problematic quality of the currently popular fictions named “matter, space, and time.” Let us consider “space and time” first, to turn later to “matter.”
Once we take into account the evidence of existent cosmic radiation, as being extended within the scope of Albert Einstein’s “finite,” but unbounded, Riemannian universe,” “empty space” ceases to exist for science. Then, what might have been considered as “particles” earlier, now register as the singularities of a universality of cosmic radiation. The effect of that correction is, speaking ontologically, like “getting out of jail” after serving a long sentence.
Then, it might be sensed, that the universe begins with a jolt, like that of the birth of an individual human soul. The “jolt,” is the moment of the realization of the fact, that sense-perceptions are in the nature of “mere shadows” cast by an unsensed, but powerfully superior reality. This is the actuality of the “sensible” difference between the reactions which are expressed by the respective species of migratory birds and human individuals.
What is most notable, respecting the conscious effects produced by habituated belief in the mistaken notion that sense-perceptions are the primarily efficient “reality” in conscious mental life, is that mind has most often abandoned any notion consistent with the reality of the efficient existence of the “unseen” human mind in the person.
The prevalent lack of conscious appreciation of the matter of making that distinction, accounts for the prevalent systemic incompetence, respecting urgently required notions of the principles of physical science, which remains prevalent even among those who are credibly scientists, otherwise, presently. It is mind, not the brain and its habituated, credulous relationship to sense-perception, which, as mind per se, is actually the species to be recognized as “the objective state of matter,” which is the primary capability required for overcoming the crippling effects of the customary illusions respecting, first, time and human sense-perception today. However, the emphasis must be placed on the subjects of “time” and “space,” first, that for reasons which should soon become relatively obvious.
It is of crucial importance, ontologically, that we consider “time” first.
“Time” & “The Idea of Causality”
In my “When Governments Crumble,” I had presented a crucial, paradoxical form of error in what remains today as the customary notion of “time.” It goes as follows.
Consider a sequence in time, which were ordered as A, B, C. The illustration used here is crude, but the mission here requires a general hint as to nature of the subject-matter being referenced in this manner.
In the naive, customary presumptions, that sequence is the ordinary, “street-wise” presumption, that this corresponds to some variety of a notion of “clock time.” In actuality, using the notion of that sequence as reflecting a physical action, consider the possibility that the order of B produces a relative reaction as the movement to value Á, and, not only does what is similar to be considered, optionally for the sequence BC; but, then, composes all three, as one. Another, optional way of describing such an effect would that A is changed by the existence of B, to generate a modified Á, which, also, might change B to effect B́. In short, the notion of simply “percussive” ordering of the part within the whole, is wrong, as Leibniz had already illustrated, and as Kepler had approached what became, for him, the principle of gravitation.
What actually happens may not be in that form, excepting the form of a notion to the effect that the ostensible action of A on B changes A, in addition to generating state B. Think of that sample as corresponding to the action of ontological change within a finite but unbounded universe. In other words, the idea of “clock time” as being equivalent to “physical time,” is rejected as being a foolish presumption. This notion corresponds to Einstein’s notion of a finite, but unbounded universe, rather than a universe premised on “clock time.”
The crucial fact to be borne in mind throughout this discussion, is the notion of the reality of the mind, and those shadows cast by the mind, which we experience as our awareness of the brain and the sense-perceptual process as such.
On that much, so far, Einstein’s, and also Planck’s notion, is clear. The notion of “an event,” is defined in a way now conforming to that type of view.
I am not begging anyone to embrace that hypothetical view as being actual; I am merely emphasizing the way in which to examine the meaning of the notion of “development.” What I am emphasizing, is not claiming to know the right result, but only to express a recognition of the suspected nature we might attribute to a wrong presumption.
The lifeboat is only a lifeboat, but it were better that it not sink.
The Enemies of Mankind
The view which I have just suggested, above, has another, crucial sort of implied notion. That notion is, that we must think as if from “the top, down,” rather than the small to the large: “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt.”6 [“The main thing is the effect.”] Anti-entropy is that effect.
Restated: the principle of the whole determines the changes in the small, which means that the creative principle itself is primary, while localized processes are secondary.
Take the case which we have recently considered, of the raging accumulation of exceptionally high incidence of the current experience of the increase of the scope and intensity of patterns of tornadoes. The effect is motivated by a system in the planet which has been motivated by the development of the process of life, as in the rise of the oceans, and of the system of powerfully destructive manifestations of “weather.” Then, consider what mankind means for this system, in its effect as a whole system, if and when we reconsider the implications to be adduced in light of considering the lesson expressed as the emergence of superior species, as pointing toward the net effects of the great destruction of extant leading major species, as viewed from the coincident beginnings of the generations of higher orders of living species.
For example: there are “macro” principles in the universe, as expressed in the fact of principle that the universe as a whole is “anti-entropic” from the “top,” “down,” as in the evolution of life in a direction of anti-entropic development. That, taken as evidence of a principle in the universe as we know it from the experience the Basement crew has adduced from their study of the “history” of the life forms of Earth, that, not only is the universe anti-entropic, insofar as we know it thus far; but, that the process affecting the net development of the universe, in its local smallnesses as a system, is coherent, as a whole, with its development in the large.
Then, take into account that mankind, which has been around for what has been a pathetically small number of millions of years, exhibits, as a species, the anti-entropically cognitive potential of the human species. So, consider the evidence that it is human societies which submit to the so-called “oligarchical principle,” which are a typical expression of the benefits implicit in the doom inherent in the oligarchical principle of such as the World Wildlife Fund’s Prince Philip today.
All such speculative and other manifestations of some principle underlying our impressions of the experience of our Earth, Solar system, and relevant intimations of our galaxy, is that a human society morally fit to live, embodies an appropriate species of hatred of the Nietzschean and kindred notions of the oligarchical principle associated with the image of the Olympian Zeus: an image of the doomed dinosaurs finishing the task of their own extinction, by eating one another.
There are, obviously, things which must be urgently and promptly changed, not only to end vile oppression, but to unleash the greatness which is the potential for our species. Let us do it quickly; it has become, presently, a task for which little time now remains.
1It had been the old Venetian faction agents led by Zorzi, Thomas Cromwell, and Cardinal Pole, who had taken over Henry VIII earlier. The pattern set by the precedent of the Henry VIII affair, was echoed in the New Venetian Party’s launching of William of Orange’s takeover of the British Isles.
2Bearing on the matter of the subversive stunt called “signing statements, it is highly relevant that “9-11“ was an operation jointly backed, according to conclusive evidence, by British and Saudi Royal interests. The elements of evidence are precise. So, who was actually doing what to whom in the horrid events of that day? Under what President was the relevant “cover-up” arranged?
3The specific reference was from Time to Think: Epilogue: A Socratic Dialogue. This from Max Planck’s Where Is Science Going (1933). This reference contains those relevant statements by Max Planck and Albert Einstein. The location referenced had not been known to me, although from other records to the same effect, had been first made familiar to as early as seventy years ago, that from among the fruits of my frequent visits to the reading room of the Boston Public Library. The relevant arguments, which were on the subject of relativistic physical time, had been made by me prior to my receipt of the particular source referenced here, within my just recently published “When Governments Crumble,” on the subject of “physical time.” “When Governments Crumble” (EIR,May 20, 2010; LaRouche PAC, http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18204), “The Mind In Brief” (EIR, May 17; LaRouche PAC, http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18196), and “Real History’s Clock” (EIR, May 27; LaRouche PAC, http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18214).
4This goes back to a time much earlier than the famous von Humboldt brothers. The “begats” of that current in modern physical science, actually begin with Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia (1440), and continue in such a seemingly “benchmark”-like series of followers of Cusa as Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Christian Huyghens, Gottfried Leibniz, the mathematician and polymath Abraham Kästner, the Ecole Polytechnique of Gaspard Monge and Sadi Carnot, and Carl F. Gauss.
5The point of principle which is to be emphasized from here, on, in this report, is the fact that the generally accepted view of the human mind is, in a certain respect, functionally insane. I have addressed this earlier in this report, and in earlier published locations. As I have emphasized elsewhere in this report, the human mind is not located in a reductionist’s view of brain functions; human sense-perceptions are merely patterns as if on a motion-picture screen; science requires that we shift emphasis from the organs of sense-perception as such, to a higher ranking entity, the human mind which employs the brain as a fragile tool for the mind’s use.