Highlights | Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | Poetry | Maps
Dialogue of Cultures
Leibniz From Riemanns Standpoint
Vol 3, No 2
There can be no competent teaching and practice of economics, which does not reject, and that absolutely, the entirety of the doctrine of "causality," as that doctrine has been passed down from Paolo Sarpi et al., to the teaching of social theory and science, in virtually every classroom and textbook of secondary and higher education today. Physical science, as Leibniz applied this to economy,43 demolishes, absolutely, two classes of conceptions of that Venetian tradition which is hegemonic in the economics classroom today. Physical economy overturns all widely taught doctrines of "profit" and "surplus value," by showing that the only possible origin of net growth and ("macroeconomic") profitability, is the increase of the productive powers of labor, through investment in (principally) scientific and technological progress. Physical economy demolishes the ordinary notions of "causality." directly, by showing that present economic behavior is as much determined by the influence of the future upon today, as by the heritage of the recent and more remote past.44
The pivotal point of reference for addressing these two failures by omission, of virtually all taught economics today, is the general notion of the hypothesis as a good, referenced here, above. The fact that an hypothesis has the "timeless" quality referenced there, permits that hypothesis to act as the efficient agent of the future, upon the present. The difficulty is, as early as during the medium to long term, technological attrition gives us a future which is not determined by a single hypothesis, but, rather, by a series of hypotheses.45 Thus, the required hypothesis for determining the future outcome of present choices is that higher hypothesis, which subsumes the relevant sequence of hypotheses. On that account, no science of economics could be competent, were it not premised upon Leibniz's principle of universal characteristics, the which is derived from Plato's method of hypothesis.
On the same premises, Riemann's principal work, fairly described as mathematics defined from the standpoint of experimental physics, provides an indispensable service in the advancement of the science of physical economy. Given, a series of hypotheses, ordered according to the standard of mankind's increasing power over the universe, per capita and per square kilometer of the Earth's surface, we have a corresponding series of curved surfaces, each coordinate with a relevant, n-fold, physical space-time manifold. The series of such surfaces corresponds to the functional impact of the relevant higher hypothesis, serving as the yardstick by means of which the future may determine the selection of choices in the present.
As extremely relevant as Riemann's discoveries are, the present author's discoveries in economics could not have been derived from the root of Riemann's work. The impulse for increase of man's power over nature, per capita and per square kilometer, is expressed implicitly by the notion of Riemannian potential arising from the pages of the 1854 habilitation dissertation. However, for his own discoveries, the present author's debt to the prompting by Leibniz, is more or less direct.
Riemann's notion of a succession of manifolds of increasing power, implies a potential, a potential which might be expressed in terms of increasing cardinality: increasing density of discontinuities for any arbitrarily chosen interval of human action. To account for the historical actuality of mankind's increase of potential relative population-density, an additional standard of measure, an additional notion of function, must be supplied.
That additional standard of measure was supplied by this author, during the 1948-1952 interval. The discovery was provoked by the shocking absurdity of Norbert Wiener's claim, that the characteristic distinctions of living processes and human behavior could be subsumed under Ludwig Boltzmann's theorem in statistical thermodynamics, the so-called H-theorem. Although Wiener appeared to adopt the standard of some leading biologists, and others, in noting that the formal distinction of living processes, was that they defied entropy, his attempt at a radical-positivist form of mechanistic explanation for living and human behavior, was disgusting. Since, the fact is, that living and human behavior are distinguished from putatively non-living processes by "not entropy," the absurdity of Wiener's arbitrary claims for his "information theory," obliged the present writer to focus upon the problem of supplying an alternate, sane definition for "negative entropy." Although the writer had not yet encountered Leibniz's Society and Economy at that time, the starting-point of his approach to refuting Wiener was that of a Leibniz student, broadly identical to that of Leibniz's 1671 paper.
Reduced to essentials, the writer's opening argument was this. The per capita productive potential of both the member of the labor-force, as an individual, and in the work-place, is an expression of investments, by society, in the development of both that person, and his work-place. This cumulative investment can be represented in terms of per-capita, and per-square-kilometer values of "market baskets" of consumption by households and the productive workplace and its essential environment. This functional notion of a relationship between productive potential, and the market-baskets of "investment" in developing and maintaining that productive potential, may be compared with the notion of "energy of the system," in classroom thermodynamics. Thus, by comparing the outputs and inputs of the population and its productive processes, including education and health as physical costs, the distinctions of "energy of the system" and "free energy" are implied.46
However, that was only the beginning. The characteristic of modern agro-industrial society, is technological attrition. The study of what is known of the physical economy, and associated demographics, of pre-historic and historic existence of society, prior to the Fifteenth-century rise of modern European civilization, exhibits the same principle, governing the rise and collapse of societies. The essential difference, is that modern European civilization has stepped up the rate of development (and technological attrition) greatly, far exceeding all earlier human experience. This development occurs at a cost, a cost measurable in terms of market baskets. In other words, the increase of the productive powers of labor occurs at a cost. That cost is, predominantly, the increase in per-capita and per-square-kilometer absolute (physical) cost of the "energy of the system," as expressed in market-basket terms.47
This, and related considerations, leads to the following yardstick, expressed in terms of inequalities: The requirement for the successful continuation of an economy is, that the ratio of "free energy" to "energy of the system," must not decline, despite the dependency of this ratio upon continuing increases of the absolute market-basket cost of "energy of the system," per capita and per square kilometer.
Science As Art
The crucial features of the present writer's contributions to Leibniz's science of physical-economy, are four:
1. The development of the needed metric for a science of physical-economy: an appropriate conception of what should be signified, functionally, as a "not-entropic" increase of potential relative population-density;The addition of the fourth, to shape the application of the preceding three discoveries to empirical treatment of actual physical-economic processes, constitutes what has been known, since December 1978, as the LaRouche-Riemann Method.49
Although this method makes use of mathematics and physical science, it is essentially the treatment of mathematics and physical science as subsumed features of a Classical art-form, the defining, subsuming characteristic of which, is the equivalence of metaphor to the primary features of human cognitive activity. In that sense, we are obliged to speak of "art as science."
Before we proceed to focus the camera of the mind upon the argument underlying each of the four topics just listed, let us clear the scene (so to speak) of some of that distracting bric-a-brac, whose presence, today, usually prevents students, key government officials and other policy-shapers, and others, from focussing rationally upon the crisis-problems of today's planet.
To be a competent economist today, one must have a taste for Classical stylists of a Platonic disposition and wit, in the footsteps, for example, of a Fran[c]ois Rabelais, or Jonathan Swift. To clear one's mind to think with scientific rigor, one must be capable of seeing that the pompous verities of the privileged and popular of one's own time, and earlier, too, are ridiculous pretenses. Like Swift's Gulliver, one might think of one's self as some poor lout, who is nonetheless a veritable titan amid the royal, lordly, and lackey pygmies around him, or might fancy a view of early Eighteenth-century England, as a pack of witless, ever-rutting Yahoos, being herded and culled by what appears to be a lordly pack of horses' rears. We could not, in good conscience, be so tolerant as Swift was, to the economists, sociologists, psychologists, and, lowest of all, popular journalists, who pollute the prevailing sentimentality of our own times. Considering such creatures as those professionals of today, a man, beset by packs of such misanthropes, must be forgiven, if he imagines, in the odd moment, that he might be a modern Gulliver, the only man with a functioning watch on a planet full of cannibals.
Those allusions to Rabelais and Swift might be misjudged, as spoken lightly; but, they are in dead earnest, and do not exaggerate the enormity of the problem confronting the world today. Consider what man is, in contrast to what the debased opinion of today's empiricists presumes man to be. Then, it should be clear, that we have perpetrated no libel in speaking so contemptuously of those vastly overpopulated social-theoretical professions, the which have turned our universities into refuse dumps for dead minds and rotting morals.
The rise of the Enlightenment's influence, during the course of the Seventeenth through Nineteenth centuries, witnessed the spread of those mental illnesses in the forms of empiricism and Cartesianism, and, later, as Kantianism. Each nation, today, has a heritage of the most radical extremes of such axiomatic misassumptions, respecting the nature of man: For England, for example, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Bernard Mandeville; for France, the neo-Cartesian positivists and their bastard intellectual progeny, the existentialists; for Germany, the neo-Kantians and existentialists; for the U.S., our pragmatists; and, so on. Influences of that ilk are paramount in our universities, in the educational programs of public education, and, colored with pornographic, day-glo hues, as the commonplace truisms reigning within the common, back-fence variety of gossip, everywhere.
This same immorality, spreading out of those cesspools which are our universities' departments of sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, philosophy, modern language, and history, is the characteristic feature of the editorial practice of our leading news and entertainment media. It is the foundation for the filthiest concoctions of gossip, used as weapons of political influence, as by both leading press and corrupt prosecutors. English and French "social science," has transformed the majority of the hegemonic currents among ostensibly educated U.S. citizens, their children, and others, into "Yahoos." It is a mark of the times, that "Yahoo" is an irony of incontestable appropriateness, to describe those citizens who profess themselves to be the "single-issue minded" Torquemadas of the public conscience.
This moral rot may be summed up, fairly, as deeply embedded, axiomatic acceptance of that notion, which the British empiricists define as "human nature." The overlapping, paradigmatic figures of common reference for this social doctrine, include Francis Bacon, John Locke, Bernard de Mandeville, Fran[c]ois Quesnay, Giammaria Ortes, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, James and John Stuart Mill, and the American pragmatists. They include the followers of Bertrand Russell; the Frankfurt School of Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al.; the German existentialists, including the proto-Nazi Friedrich Nietzsche, and Nazi official Martin Heidegger; Jean-Paul Sartre, et al.; the institutions associated with Dr. Kurt Lewin, and with such Tavistock Centre creatures as Sigmund Freud (a.k.a. "Sigmoid Fraud"), Dr. John Rawlings Rees, Melanie Klein, and that serial killer of coal miners, Dr. Eric Trist.
These varieties of nasty creatures differ only as do sundry specimens of disease-bearing lice. Their commonality is seen most clearly, in the light of physical-economy: The Malthusian economic dogmas of Quesnay, Giammaria Ortes, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and the Nineteenth-century utilitarians, reflect that commonality in the clearest terms of experimental reference. The most shameless expression, until Adolf Hitler, of the principle of evil common to all these lice, putative economists and others, is the late Friedrich von Hayek's choice, the satanic Bernard de Mandeville, he the spiritual progenitor of the fascistic Mont Pelerin Society. The essence of this evil, is expressed in the economic domain, as the Locke-Mandeville-Quesnay dogma of "free trade," or, in the original Quesnay French, laissez-faire. Throughout what is called "European culture," there is no morally abominable feature of economic doctrine, social theory, or mathematical physics, which is not rooted in the equivalence of the Mandeville-Quesnay dogma of "free trade" to that Newton-Clarke-Euler dogma of "infinite series," which Euler employed for his tautologically fallacious fraud of 1761, against Leibniz.50
Sometimes, it appears, that people accept the laissez faire dogmas of the evil Quesnay and Adam Smith, because they have been brainwashed into accepting the influence of Newton, Euler, et al. respecting axiomatics of mathematical physics. Admittedly, the substitution of the virtual reality of "infinite series" for real-world physics, prescribes that economic processes be treated from the standpoint of Thomas Hobbes' principles, which underlie the statistical gas theory of Lord Rayleigh and Ludwig Boltzmann. On the other hand, sometimes it appears, that it is empiricist social theory which prejudices the mind to accept the notions of causality and infinite series of the empiricists. Obviously, the doctrine of social behavior promulgated by Hobbes, prescribes that mankind's experience in the domain of sense-perception, be premised upon a notion of "random walk" through a kinematic manifold. One who wishes, passionately, to defend such a mechanistic world-outlook, must fear Gottfried Leibniz, must be disposed to lie ferociously about Leibniz, and to seek to discredit him in every way an hysterical gossip might contrive, even if that means going to bed with a certain bachelor, Dr. Samuel Clarke's lunatic client, Isaac Newton.51
The principle of evil inhering in Hobbes, Fran[c]ois Quesnay, and Adam Smith, is presented in its most naked terms by Bernard Mandeville.52 The form in which this principle of evil is presented, is that Hobbes model which is otherwise the general plan for statistical gas theory, and for the use of infinite series as a substitute for physics. The argument is, that unless we wish to adopt Hobbes' alternative, the Divine Right of an Absolute Monarch to do as he might will, we must be content with a form of "libertarianism," a "social contract" derived from John Locke's defense of chattel slavery: "Life, Liberty, and Property," the Locke argument against which both the American War of Independence, and the war against the Confederacy were fought. Evil is, "Anything might be allowable, if it does not interfere with the superior, unchecked right of the property-owner." From the conception of "my body," "my family rights," "my personal sensitivities," and so on, as Lockean forms of "property," any evil done in the name of libertarianism might flow. From this is derived the anti-Christian ethics professed publicly by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, that upon the "perfect democracy" of Lockean chaos, law may impose only those rules which are set, as guidelines, by the most recent caprices of majority opinion.
Every branch of social theory taught in leading unversities today, differs from every other branch as one cut of the same cloth might differ from another. All are but varieties of apologetics for this same moral and intellectual pollution exemplified by liberal economic dogma.
Under the influence of these and kindred misconceptions of "freedom" and its limits, during the past thirty-odd years, we have nearly destroyed what had been an admittedly imperfect, but successfully progressing civilization. Until changes in "cultural paradigms," induced during the mid-1960's and following, the modern sovereign nation-state republic had been premised upon promoting the benefits, implicitly to all, of investment in scientific and technological progress. During the recent thirty years, the damages which have been done to the mind, have been worse than that which has been done to their bodies. We must console the Lemuel Gulliver condemned to describing that Hell-hole which our civilization is becoming.
Potential Relative Population-Density
That cause for our recalling Swift, is typified by viewing the moral degeneracy of those who fancy real-life economy as an "n-person, zero-sum game" out of the virtual reality of Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's theory of games.53 This brings us to consider the first of the present author's four crucial contributions to Leibniz's science of physical economy, the notion of potential relative population-density.54
The distinguishing characteristic of the existence of the human species, is the increase of its population over that of any actual, or imaginably comparable type of higher ape. For the conditions which have existed on this planet during the recent two millions or so years, such a higher ape could not have exceeded a population of several millions, world wide. By the close of the medieval period of European history, circa a.d. 1439-1461,55 the world's human population had attained several hundreds millions; from that point on, the impact of the combined development, in Europe, of modern scientific progress and the emergence of the modern sovereign nation-state,56 has prompted a hyperbolic population-growth world-wide, to in excess of an estimated 5.2 billions presently [see: Figure 2].
This is not limited to an increase in raw population. There is a correlated trend for improvement in demographic characteristics of total populations and their component cohorts. The combined trends are correlated with increase of both the consumption and production of essential market-basket components of both input and output, as measured per capita, per household, and per square kilometer of relevant land-area. These components include such physical components as agricultural and manufactured products, and improvements in land, and other infrastructural development of the occupied territories of the society. These include such elements of "soft" infrastructure as education and health-care [see: Table I].
In light of the dependency of productivity upon both the development of the individual member of society, and of both the work-places and of infrastructure generally, one may readily discern a fact, which may be established with great rigor. The increase of the productive powers of labor, as measured in market-basket contents, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer of land-area, depends upon increase in the content of the relevant market-baskets of consumption. Relevant to the argument of Von Neumann, to increase the output of society, per capita, we must increase the input of society, per capita. Thus, summed up in terms of inequalities: The successful growth of potential relative population-density, requires that the ratio of "free energy" to "energy of the system" not decrease, under the condition that this can not occur without an increase of the density of "energy of the system."
Contrast this with the twofold absurdity of axiomatic presumptions, which underlie, inextricably, the foolish "zero-sum game" of Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's text. That is to say, consider, on one side, the absurdity of Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's axiomatic assumptions, as this pertains to the facts of physical economy. At the same time, consider the lunacy of Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's presumption, that prices, as treated in their games, represent functional measures of economic performance of societies considered in their entirety. Consider in that light, the sheer lunacy of the manner in which the modern economics classroom popularizes its mythical distinction between "micro-economics" and "macro-economics."
Like Wiener's statistical information theory, Von Neumann's systems analysis apotheosizes the worst banalities of radical logical positivism: Hobbes and Mandeville are taken to their radical extremes. Von Neumann, Hobbes, and Mandeville portray a linearized parody of actual man, and this in the very small; the result is elaborated, by simple extrapolation, all in an idiot-savant child's multi-dimensional parody of Euclidean space-time. There are no physical values, no physical realities in the virtual reality of Von Neumann's universe. There is only a fantastic montage: the Cheshire cat's grin of Jansci ("Johnny") Von Neumann, as an imaginary child, and the ring of the candy-store cash register.
All of the arguments, to the effect that a money-price ought to represent the action of a competitive market to arrive, asymptotically, at a level corresponding to the dogmatics of "marginal utility," are patently absurd, both by definition, and in light of facts of economic history of price movements. The "free trader's" argument is essentially that of Hobbes, Mandeville, Quesnay, et al.: That, it is the random interaction of the microeconomic events, aggregately under the statistical governance of the "Invisible Hand"might one say, "ergodic process," which reveals what Adam Smith's "great Director of nature intended to produce" by these relatively blind, statistical interactions. That is, with some qualifications on tertiary points, the argument of Von Neumann and all among those who follow him in this matter.
In reality, throughout economic history, relative values of money prices are rigged. In some instances, the prices are set by decree; usually, prices are rigged by the action of monopolistic or oligopolistic financial powers; in the optimal circumstances, movements in relative price-levels among commodities are controlled indirectly, through the setting of the rules of the market-game, as by governments, or agreements among governments; in worse times, these powers are usurped by private financier cabals, such as those centered around the U.S. Federal Reserve System, which preempt powers which should be reserved to representative agencies of sovereign nation-state republics. The assertion, that a "market" process tends to produce a statistically appropriate money-price, is the babbling of either an economics illiterate, or an outright liar.
The leading political issue, respecting how prices of money and other commodities should be rigged, whether by representative agencies of sovereign republics, or by supranational cabals of financier oligarchical interests, is the strategic question: Which shall reign, sovereign nation-state republics, or "private" financier oligarchies which esteem themselves supranational potencies above governments?
Under present realities, during which the global system of financier-oligarchy-ruled "free trade," is so visibly in the process of its self-induced disintegration, the proposition before us is clearly nothing other than this: Except for economics illiterates, and liars, the central issue of money- prices is: How should representative agencies of sovereign nation-state republics "rig markets"?
This question requires a two-part answer. First, and foremost, the issue is political, and strategic: How shall we set the conditions determining relative price-movements, to ensure that the republican interest is not weakened to the advantage of humanity's ancient and continuing strategic adversary, the oligarchical interest? The second leading question is economic: How shall we regulate the flow of money and credit, to such effect that the "ratio of 'free energy' to 'energy of the system' " does not decline, while promoting scientific and technological progress in the productive powers of labor, through increasing the capital intensity of 'energy of the system,' per capita, per household, and per square kilometer of relevant land-area? How do we regulate price movements, and credit streams, to ensure that the appropriate physical-economic function is observed in practice? Both questions may then be combined into one: How is the national economic security (of the perfectly sovereign nation-state republic) best immunized against the two principal epidemics most often fatal to the institutions of human freedom: the diseases of economic devolution, and growth of financier-oligarchical influences?
The national economic security, is defined, in turn, as the required, not-entropic increase of potential relative population-density, and improved demographic characteristics and standard of living for each and all age and other cohorts of the total population.
The general objective in price policy, is to cheapen relative prices while increasing the productivity, physical income, and demographic characteristics of every part of the labor force, excepting parasitical and redundant functions of administration and finance. (A man as wise as Jonathan Swift might recommend, that the latter economic categories should be culled regularly, and the culls reassigned to honest labor. A modern Rabelais might recommend regular sweeps of Manhattan's Wall Street, and similar gathering-places of both the parasite and Paris-ite classes in every country, to this same salutary purpose.) This accords with such measures as providing a Humboldt grade of universal public education to every child and adolescent, and, increasingly, a comparable higher education of the same quality. It requires a health policy of prolonging life, in defiance of every category of life-impairing affliction, constantly pushing back the boundaries which constrict human life. It requires persisting increase in the capital-intensity and power-intensity, of a productive process driven by investment focussed upon increase of productivity and product types and quality, through priority assigned to investment in scientific and technological progress.
This requires a policy of more abundant and cheaper credit, and more favorable tax-treatment, for those undertakings which accord with this notion of national economic security, and relatively less generous treatment for matters which lie outside these high-priority aspects of the economy. It requires an emphasis upon long-term investment, over short-term, using the same "weapons" of monetary, credit, trade, tariff, and tax policy, to obtain the desired relative movements in prices and credit-flows.
It requires fostering trends in international trade which work to these same goals in relations among sovereign nation-state republics. Relatively fixed parities among national currencies, and low prices of long-term trade, infrastructure-building, and productive-investment credit, over the medium and long term cycles. National food security assured to all nations, and promotion of growth in physical productivity, rather than cheapening of the average price of labor in international trade.
In all, movements in money prices must be orchestrated in such a way as to bring trade, investment, production, and consumption, into patterns of flow which accord with the indicated general metric: not-entropic increase of the potential relative population-density of sovereign nation-state republics, most notably our own. The wise government, when it is able to do so, will rely upon defining the axioms of the economic hypothesis, more, and desire less the direct administration of prices of individual commodities.
Economics: The Subjective Science
A consistent policy of what we today might term "zero technological growth," was the recurring cause for the "dynastic" collapses of all societies organized according to that oligarchical principle typified by the "oligarchical model," the so-called "Babylonian," or "Persian" model of Rome, Byzantium, Venice, and the landed and financier aristocracies of feudal Europe.57 The "zero technological-growth" policies of the Diocletian Code, were a continuing influence of Byzantium on the reigning internal policies of feudal Europe, until the virtual elimination of the landed aristocracy as a ruling institution, during World War I. It was this same policy, of "zero technological progress," as embedded axiomatically in Diocletian's Code, which brought about the internal, cultural, economic, demographic, and political self-destruction of Byzantine rule, through a.d. 1453, and beyond, to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Any civilization which adopted such a policy of "zero technological progress" (such as today's neo-Malthusian "environmentalism"), was destroyed internally by that policy, and stands, like the poet's fabled Ozymandias, a pitiable relic upon the sands of dead history, today.
Why do oligarchical forms of society insist, like a lunatic set upon his self-destruction, on the interrelated policies of "zero technological growth" and "population control," by means of which every great empire of the past destroyed itself from within? Are our modern oligarchs such "lemmings" of the sociologists' animal-experiments laboratories, that they cannot escape their recurring dynastic nightmare, even after so many thousands years? Today, this mass-murderous, but also suicidal species of pervert, insists upon repeating the kind of policies which we may recognize today as the policies of the 1961-founded World Wildlife Fund, created by the arch-oligarchs of the late-Twentieth century, the British Empire's Prince Philip, and Nazi-SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands? History, and Prince Philip's own utterances on the matter, like those of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, and kindred institutions, coincide.
There are two, inseparably connected motives.
First, the global oligarchical class which Princes Philip and Bernhard represent in the post-World War II process, have a perverted, totally pagan misconception of human nature, which Prince Philip expresses publicly, repeatedly. He insists on standing out in public, his naked face shamelessly displayed, insisting that he is not a man as Genesis and Christianity define man and woman, but something more like a monkey; he insists that he is a "higher ape." He insists that mankind is no better than just another species, whose herds and flocks must be culled, as murderously as might be necessary, to yield managed herds which are more manageable, both in numbers and in down-breeding's selected traits of docility58: like selected Hollywood actresses, selected like races of dogs, for breeding-stock, not for brains and character of the progeny ("Zeus save us!"), but for the down-bred qualities of fancied pulchritude, as preferred by the current crop of judges at the eugenics breeding marathons.
Second, it has penetrated even the sun-drenched, Gila-Monster-like, sluggish wits of these oligarchs, that the mere existence of the modern sovereign nation-state republic, is a menace to future world-rule by the oligarchical species. It has occurred to even these high-ranking spokesmen of the Brutish Empire, that the uplifting of the ninety-five percent of humanity, from their imperial status as virtual human cattle, to persons enjoying a universal cognitive quality of education, and the opportunity to participate in the benefits of generalized scientific and technological progress, produces a quality of individual, economically and in every other way, which is vastly superior to the typical member of a society ruled by "free trade" and pro-Malthusian ideologies of practice. It is also apparent to, and explicitly desired by, a well-tanned specimen like Prince Philip, that without that design of modern nation-state republic set into motion by Dante Alighieri, Nicolaus of Cusa, the a.d. 1439-1440 sessions of the Council of Florence, and the a.d. 1461-1483 establishment of the first such state by France's Louis XI, the condition of approximately ninety-five percent of humanity will fall back, without visible hope of repair, to the status of human cattle. Witness the persisting pattern, since the 1960's, of the degeneration of children of formerly human subjects of Her Majesty, once capable, in pre-Harold Wilson days, of the cognitive functions of modern industrial labor, to such pathetic "Yahoos" as England's homicidal, beast-like football fanatics of the 1970's, and, worse, today.
That, in a capsule, is what the row is all about. All of the other topics of European history since the Fifteenth century, and all of world history since the Eighteenth century, are merely incidental matters of secondary or much less importance, than this one conflict, between republicanism and oligarchism, humanist Renaissance versus financier-oligarchical Enlightenment. This row is the single, overriding issue of all history, all national policy, of every nation, today. Who does not acknowledge that fact, knows nothing of real politics anywhere today.
The capital penalties prescribed for offenses against the Malthusian features of Diocletian's code, illustrate the point. The characteristic of an oligarchical model of society, is the condemnation of approximately ninety-five percent of the population to what is sometimes identified as a "traditional society," in which each is prescribed as doing now what his, or her father or mother did before. The fact is, that today's so-called "environmental" codes are largely outright hoaxes, like the fraudulent banning of DDT by Ruckelshaus, the multi-layered fraud of F. Sherwood Rowland's argument for banning of CFC's, "Global Warming," and so on. The fact that most of the policies associated with the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, and so forth, are anti-scientific frauds, is neither unknown, nor of concern to the financier oligarchy circles which deploy these organizations top-down.
It is really simple to understand why the oligarchs do this: To manage minds, as much as sizes of human populations, by Bertrand Russell's methods, which oligarchs deem "necessary, even if they are disgusting." Dupe credulous, ignorant graduates of today's "politically correct" universities and secondary schools, to put on their shackles and lock themselves into their pens each night, by luring them to believe what the oligarchs since time immemorial have always demanded that the duped human cattle of society believe, even on pain of death for the non-believer, death administered to the accompanying approbation, and Malthusian baas and bellows, of the credulous cattle themselves.
The environmentalist's technologically fixed mode of human behavior, is itself the mental condition natural to beasts, not human beings. It is the mentality imposed upon the slave, and serf, and wrought upon the tens of thousands of victims of living human sacrifice by the worse-than-Nazi Aztecs. It is the mentality which prompts that victim to make himself a slave or serf, or a man helplessly awaiting his own sacrifice upon the Aztec altar, until some event, such as a Cortez, might come to lead the victims to triumph over the bestial oppressors. It is the imprisonment of the human mind within illiteracy, which defines the slave, that slave-like mentality which knows no better that to preserve a "traditional society," a society based upon a technologically fixed theorem-lattice of human knowledge and behavior.
It is in this light, that one must understand the "why" of the essential incompetence of virtually every accepted doctrine of economics taught in any university of this planet today, the bestiality of John Von Neumann's "n-person, zero-sum game" of economy, included most emphatically in this roster of academic charlatanry. There is no mankind in that economics. Where in what passes for a functional principle in their scheme, do we find the principle of valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discovery of natural principle as a "causal" factor in determining the outcome of policies of economic practice? Perhaps it is because the economics taught in our universities and textbooks is so obscenely absurd, that a blushing Lemuel Gulliver preferred to protect tender minds from knowing that such depraved doctrines were practised among the academicians of Laputa. "That stuff," to give it its strictly proper scientific name, was never intended ("Zeus forbid!") to be scientific, even rational. It was never intended to be other than a superstitution, to be induced among the credulous. It was never intended to be other than a lunatic ideology, like that which John Maynard Keynes encountered, when he opened the chest of papers from Isaac Newton's laboratory.
Bat's wing, and eye of newt, with a bit of the cabala thrown into the recipe; ("Samiel be adored!") There, in that fabulously stinking witch's pot, is all there is to be learned of economics from the devotees of Faust, Mandeville, Smith, and Johnny Von Neumann.
Once we have situated the problem of taught economics as being the control which the oligarchical class exerts over our markets and our universities, once we know what the row is all about, we have isolated the internal problem of formalities to the degree it then may be addressed as a scientific matter.
Where in the formal mathematics of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Euler, Helmholtz, or Bertrand Russell, is the place where the action of valid discovery of principle may be placed, to define the characteristic feature of economy? Nowhere? The place exists, but that crack has been bulldozed over, hidden for a moment by the malicious intent of the "sliding rule," Euler's referenced tautological fallacy. The principle, is Leibniz's monad; the place, is the mathematical discontinuities in the fabric of the formalist's physical space-time. The key, is Leibniz's attack on the efforts of Clarke and poor Newton to defend the fraudulent claim, that the calculus could be represented by means of the kind of infinite series derived from an Aristotelean, Cartesian misreading of Euclid's Elements. The answer is supplied by study of those densely packed mathematical discontinuities, which riddle, like sea-worms, the pillars of Euler's vitual-reality edifice. Thus, for the present author, the Monadology, with the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, supplied the pivot, on which the refutation of Wiener's statistical absurdity turned.59
Repeated successes, in validating axiomatic-revolutionary qualities of discovery of physical principle, prove conclusively, that cognition, whose knowable existence Aristotle, empiricism, and Immanuel Kant deny, exists. The increase in man's power over nature, per capita, demonstrates that that cognitive act is efficient. The presence of cognition, as something not captured by any mathematical schema, can be demonstrated. The efficiency of cognition is also demonstrable. The remaining challenge becomes, "How can the act of cognition itself be known, in a sense comparable to knowledge of a sense-perception?" Here, Classical art-forms take over the highest prominences of scientific method.
There are two preconditions to be satisfied, before a Platonic idea can be realized with that quality of immediacy less literate folk associate with "sense certainty." First, immediacy relies upon emotion, erotic or agapic. Without the arousal of the agapic sense of passion for truth, there is no verisimilitude to that Platonic idea of principle, even though the experimental proof of the principle's existence is complete. This sense of verisimilitude is evoked in science in the same manner it is aroused by well-composed examples of Classical art-forms. That arousal can occur only in the same way that the relevant ancient Greek literature, from the Homeric epics, through the dialogues of Plato evoke the presence of agape.
As we have touched upon this matter here, as in earlier locations. Now, the present author takes the liberty of "plagiarizing himself," excerpting a passage of several pages duration from a document which he produced earlier this year. It is a portion of that earlier document which addresses the specific matter immediately before us here. In the following excerpt, the author elicits the relevant, common features of three types of ancient Greek literature: Homeric epic, Classical tragedy of Athens' "Golden Age," and Plato's Socratic dialogues.
The excerpt begins:
Look at the three, identified types of Classical-Greek literature from the vantage-point of these observations on the subject of theorem-lattices. Treat each of these types of literature from the vantage-point of that Classical-Greek notion of hypothesis adopted by Riemann.
The type of subject-matter to which the Homeric epics are devoted, is the interconnected relationships among gods, the human individual, and nature. The themes of these epicsthe interconnected struggles among gods, man, and nature, are the most frequent points of reference for the later tragedies of Greece's "Golden Age" authors. In turn, the method of the Classical tragedies is the point of reference for Plato's development of the method of his Socratic dialogues, the same method of hypothesis employed by Riemann for the physics of his 1854 habilitation dissertation. The problem posed by the negotiations of a new world monetary order among the four world powers, is of a type already implicit in the problem of differing hypotheses, as between gods and man, in the Homeric epics.
For this comparison, the relevant case is the instance in which the fabled gods and some mortals, from the epics, experience the self-same event, but react differently to it.60 This type of case appears again in the tragedies, and, in a slightly different, but derived form, in Plato's Socratic dialogues.61
This kind of difference in reaction, is not to be regarded as simply a difference in the interpretation of an event shared in common. We must read these differences in the sense of an efficient (e.g., physical) interaction between two mutually inconsistent processes, two incompatible physical geometries.
The oneman, or godsharing the same event, does not merely generate a different sense-perception of the common event; the physical acts he makes in response to the stimulus of that event, will be different in its effect on man and nature than the reaction of the other. As we shall see, this notion of variability of practical, willful responses to the same events, is the essence of the science of physical economy.
The difference between the mortal man and the god, as this occurs in Homeric epic or Classical tragedy, is premised upon differences in the underlying, axiomatic quality of assumptions of each, with respect to the other. As a pedagogical ruse here, examine the sequences of developments in a simplified, schematic way.
The man reacts to the event, by attempting to formulate a proposition which is consistent with his axiomatic notions respecting the character of the relations among gods, mortals, and nature. The god reacts analogously, excepting the fact that his axiomatic assumptions differ from those of the man. Each, then tends to refine his tentative propositions to the effect of eliminating inconsistencies with the relevant underlying set of axioms and postulates. The resulting proposition, in each case, then constitutes either a theorem of that theorem-lattice, or an approximation of such a theorem.
Therefore, in respect to formalities, the respective theorems of the god and the mortal will be mutually inconsistent. In respect to physics, the impact of the resulting action upon the physical universe by the man, will be of a correspondingly different character than the impact of the action by the god.
Thus, the dramatic appreciation of a Classical Greek epic, or tragedy, presents to us combinations of characters, or clusters of characters, which are each of a distinct type. That is to say, they are each representative of a distinct hypothesis.
One might illustrate the same point respecting Greek art, by imagining the case of three characters from ancient Greece: one from Sparta (of the type of Lycurgus' tradition), another from Athens (of the type of Solon's tradition),62 and a third, mutually detested by all three, from Thebes. Each represents a different hypothesis; in the case of a commonly experienced event, each formulates propositions differently than the other two, and the efficient actions taken in response to each of the respective propositions, will have a different physical effect than the actions of each of the remaining two.
The notion of hypothesis pertains not merely to differences among hypotheses; that elaboration of the principled notion of hypothesis, which we have acquired from Plato, demands that we define a fixed hypotheses in respect to the manner in which the hypothesis of the individual type may be changed. The existence of an efficient science of physical economy depends absolutely upon this notion of change.
Modern science thus begins with those later Plato dialogues which his Parmenides implicitly serves as prologue; that "ontological paradox" which Plato identifies as the proof of the fallacy of the Eleatics' (e.g., Parmenides') reductionist-formalist method, is located in the Eleatics' refusal to consider those implications of the notion of change, by means of which the proof of the notion of hypothesis may be accessed.63 Plato's solution, in his sundry later dialogues, for that "ontological paradox" exposed by the Parmenides, is the notion of hypothesis employed by Riemann.
To wit: As Riemann's habilitation dissertation exemplifies this argument, the principle upon which modern experimental physics and analogous science depends, is the presumption that there exists an implicitly measurable demonstration, that each valid, revolutionary discovery of new physical principle, increases the power of the human species over nature, per capita and per square kilometer of relevant land-area of our planet. That argument is the empirical principle under which the notions of the rational human individual, and of science, are subsumed. To wit: the notion that reason may resolve differences in hypothesis, presumes that all normal human beings are born with the potential for assimilating ideas corresponding to an orderable sequence of progress in increase of the potential productive powers of labor, per capita, per family household, and per square kilometer of relevant land-area employed. On this basis, and no other basis, there exists a quality of knowable truth, the which is independent of, and superior to any set of extant opinions.64
Knowledge of such a science of history, did not end with the Greeks. This is the subject of Friedrich Schiller's discussion of the relationship between his own stage tragedies and those of William Shakespeare. To illustrate the point respecting change, witness the most celebrated passage from Hamlet: the following excerpt from Hamlet's soliloquy near the beginning of Act III.
"Rather bear those ills we have," our presently adopted hypothesis, rather "than fly to others," a new hypothesis, "that we know not of." A persisting refusal to effect that change in hypothesis, by means of which latter we might survive the assured doom of clinging to our old hypothesis, is the essence of the way in which great empires expire through dynastic catastrophe; they are doomed not so much by their palpable adversaries, as by their own fatal devotion to "our traditions." Exactly so, did that swaggering butcher, Hamlet, bring himself to the doom, over which carnage Shakespeare's Horatio said:
Doom falls often upon those who suffer the special cowardice common among history's bloody-bladed soldiers. One speaks of bold men, like the swashbuckling Hamlet, "the good old boy," who was struck down, bloodily, by nothing so much as his own terror in face of an idea contrary to his accustomed beliefs. One may speak, so, of the cowardice of the football hero (like Zeus, that bullying, doomed wretch of Prometheus Bound), who, away from his accustomed play, finds himself cursed by a world whose reality now defies his infantile rules of sport. Like the contemptible Zeus, the Hamlets of real life may blame Fate, but, the truth of the matter is, that each of these swaggering victims has doomed himself to a mewling end; the instrument of his self-undoing is his peculiar terror in face of ideas which, to him, are strange. In the end, history always cheats such blockheaded bully-boys; to such effect, history, time and time again, changes abruptly the rules of play. So, Hamlet and his kind, like the Eleatics, sophists, and rhetoricians after Parmenides, would rather die than accept the principle of Heraclitus and Plato, that nothing within this mortal's world is fundamental, but change itself.
That attribution of change, is not a plaything of artistic elegance; it is the cornerstone of all scientific truth. To the point: If the three crucial world powers, the U.S.A., Russia, and China, were to reject an effective basis for common agreement on a new, just world economic order established jointly by means of their leadership, this planet would, like Hamlet, be plunged quickly into the worst dark age in history. Specifically, were they, like the tragic Hamlet, to allow themselves to fall back into defending "our traditions," rather than find a new, common, scientific solution, the implosive collapse of the world monetary-financial system could not be averted longer than the short-term; then, the collapse of a now highly interdependent system of world economy would unleash the worst, accelerating, downward spiral of famine, disease, and related homicidal strife throughout the planet as a whole.
If those world powers retreated, each like the self-doomed Hamlet, into clinging to the argument of "our traditions""rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of," all existing nations, including those powers, would soon become politically extinct in the demographic holocaust into which their stubborn false pride had lured them. In this "dynastic crisis," this virtual "Twilight of the Gods," not only would most of today's existing lesser powers evaporate from the political map; many would become also biologically extinct, as the world's potential population-density were driven, rapidly, down toward levels not exceeding the approximate three hundred millions individuals populating this planet during the time of Europe's Fourteenth century. That is not fantasy, not conjecture; it is a straightforward scientific calculation.
For today's nations to live, theyespecially the indicated three world powersmust have the courage and wisdom to change, to depart the Hamlet-like "traditions" which presently augur their doom.
The excerpt ends there.
In all Classical art-forms, as in this indicated connection among epic, tragedy, and Socratic dialogue, the same active principle operates. Around a subject, which has a sensuous component attracting some interest, a problem is defined. The problem's solution is shown to center in the needed resolution of a conflict among several hypotheses. In the Classical Greek epic, tragedy, and Socratic dialogue, the relevant hypotheses are represented by characters, or groups of characters. In all cases, any prospective hero's solution to the problem, such as the Ulysses of the Odyssey, or Zeus, the anti-hero of Aeschylos' Prometheus Bound, must solve something akin to a riddle. The solution requires insight, not into the mere opinions of the other characters, but, rather, perception of the hypotheses which underlie the generation of their respective theorem-lattices of opinion. Usually the character which might pass for prospective hero, or anti-hero, can solve the riddle only by changing his own hypothesis, as key to mastering the effects of the hypotheses of the others.
It is not so difficult to recognize the carry-over of the same principle, from Classical poetry and drama, into the Classical lied of Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, et al. The counterpoint of that motivic thorough-composed form of song, might help to open up the more general principles of Classical vocal polyphony, and, hence, to adduce more readily the Socratic dialogue of Classical thorough-composition in general. Understanding the Classical principle of artistic composition, so, in epic, drama, dialogue, poetry, and music, trains the mind's eye to seek the same principle of Socratic dialogue at the core of the plastic art-form.
The characteristic features of the Classical artistic experience are centered in two aspects of the matter.
First, the method of the Socratic dialogue, focuses attention upon the process of thinking, rather than the thought-product, focuses upon the hypothesis, rather than the mere theorem. There is more. The hypothesis must be considered as a subject of change; it is the prospect of changing an hypothesis, as a method of solving a problem otherwise insoluble, which is key to the function of the Socratic dialogue. Thus, the monad comes to the fore; it is change which is the quality of the indivisible monad, change from nothing less than from one hypothesis to another. Thus, the substance of the monad is the quality of higher hypothesis. This, the ontological quality of the higher hypothesis, is the quality of the singularity which resolves a competently defined formal discontinuity in a mathematical-physical process, for example.
Second, the method of the Socratic dialogue, is the only means by which a person might render his own mental processes the subject of efficient consciousness. By looking deeply enough into the mind of others, by focussing upon the hypotheses underlying their thinking processes, one is enabled to cause them, if only in one's own imagination, to become conscious of one's own thinking processes. Through that feat of the imagination, employed as a mirror, one may render one's own conscious processes the subject of a sense of immediacy, and willful attention.
That precisely, is the essential function of all Classical art. To see, through media typified by the common features of Homeric epic, Classical tragedy, and Socratic dialogue, how the thinking processes of men and women are transformed to the effect of solving problems which could not be solved if each clung, like some race of dog, to his or her own, as if hereditarily predetermined hypothesis. Above all, to employ art so contrived to enable one to become efficiently conscious of the power to change one's own hypothesis willfully, to this purpose.
When one has learned great discoveries from the past, by the method of reenacting the act of original discovery in one's own mind, a corresponding moment of the mental life of the original discoverer comes to reside in one's own mind. In this fashion, the properly educated student not only populates his, or her mind with the living personalities of important original discoverers; the student acquires the habit of developing such relations with others, living and deceased alike, throughout later life. The mind of the properly educated person comes alive with a great dialogue of the type suggested by Raphael Sanzio's famous mural, The School of Athens. In moments seized by a relevant topic, that person's mind comes alive with a dialogue among the assembled, remembered minds of the discoverers who have come to take up residence there. In reading Riemann's habilitation dissertation, one can almost hear their voices, as Riemann summons them to the foreground of his argument. When Riemann writes on the topic of Geistesmassen, in his posthumously published Zur Psychologie und Metaphysik, one can sense the nearby presence of Leibniz speaking on the subject of the monad, or anticipate the present author's writing on the subject of metaphor to kindred effect. The dialogue is science, but it is a science ruled by the Classical art-form of Homeric epic, Aeschylean tragedy, and Socratic dialogue, as all true science must be.
It is the ability to develop an agapic functional sense of immediacy respecting the Leibniz monad, the act of higher hypothesis, which is the essential difference between the scientifically impotent follower of Aristotle, and the fruitful scientific worker. It is in the special, agapic passions which the methods of dialogue underlying great Classical art arouse, that Classical art functions as the precondition for effective science, that art reveals itself as the highest expression of science. It is through such art, and that alone, that the immediacy of what Leibniz identifies as the monad is rendered efficiently intelligible.
Finally: Man Rules The Universe, By Pre-Design
By the nature of the accomplishment, that mankind's successful increase of its potential relative population-density, occurs through valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle, acts of discovery which lie outside the domain of any formal mathematics, there is no formal mathematical proof, or disproof of the mental activity by means of which a succession of such valid discoveries is ordered. Rather, that a measurable advancement is ordered by this means, shows that the principle expressed by such a succession of discoveries, is itself in harmony with a deep principle of design of the universe as a whole. Human existence, taken as a whole, is "the great experiment," upon which certainty of scientific principles ultimately depends.
In Plato's argument, what we have just stated, as we had announced this earlier, here, points to the interaction between the monad identifiable as hypothesizing the higher hypothesis and the highest monad, the ultimate Good. The Good, the "alpha and omega" of the universe's existence, does not change, but, rather changes that which acts upon it. From moment to moment, the higher hypothesis acts as a relative "alpha and omega" to the changes in hypothesis which it orders, as a simple hypothesis is the relative "alpha and omega" to the theorem-lattice it subsumes. So, the act of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis subsumes the succession of changes in higher hypothesis. Thus, we have man revealed as made in the image of the Creator, by virtue of this power for valid changes in hypothesis, for that measurably efficient principle of change which lies outside, and above any possible mathematical schema. This all sorts itself out, once we learn to look at the matter from the appropriate perspective.
The key is the notion of "universal characteristics."
For example, the characteristic of all valid axiomatic-revolutionary discovery of principle, is an ordering of human existence which satisfies the not-entropic metric, which was expressed in approximation here, as the requirement that the ratio of "free energy" to "energy of the system" not decline, although the "energy of system" per capita, per household, and per square kilometer must increase in absolute physical terms of measure. All successful discovery of changes in economic and related policy satisfy that requirement. That that requirement has been satisfied to the degree history demonstrates, shows that the creative principle of the individual human mind, the principle of higher hypothesis, generates an interaction with the universe which has the effect of "not-entropy." Thus, the principle of not-entropy, so expressed, is the most fundamental principle of our knowledge of the universe as a whole.
The subsidiary point, derived from that same argument, is that "not-entropy" is the universal characteristic of the power of higher hypothesis (and hypothesizing the higher hypothesis). This is a characteristic of the relationship between that individual power of hypothesis and the universe.
That relationship also expresses, in the sense of "alpha and omega," the relationship of the individual person's existence to the universe, and to all past and future mankind.
We are each, in our brief mortal existence, the repository of that which is given to us, life, and culture, above all the rest. Because we are human, we are creatures of ideas, rather than mere biological heredity. The ideas we acquire, are products of those principles which we have assimilated from our society by reenacting the relevant act of discovery within our mental processes. We are thus joined immediately to discoverers who lived millennia and centuries before us, more closely than most of our next-door neighors. If we preserve that talent afforded to us, and seek to improve the gift of life and knowledge which we pass on to others, we may conclude an unquestionably necessary individual life, which will have been, in its fashion, a boon to society centuries and millennia after we have died.
Then, in that distant future time, the hypotheses we have known will be as an earlier century's long fallen dead leaves. Yet, the process of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, the process to which we have contributed our part in our time, lives on, as a monad should, and our work thus within it. By recognizing that, we may allow even the distant future to flow into our judgment, and let it shape our choice of present action, today. Whereas the man who but reacts to the present moment, and its pains and satisfactions, is as one who never lived, before or after that ephemeral present moment, with which his existence, like the mayfly's, is scarcely born and already dead.
The transmission of ideas does not occur through a literal reading of words, as if according to their dictionary meanings, nor by means of any other deductive extraction from the composition of sentences and paragraphs. It occurs only "between the cracks" of the literal utterance, as the emergence of ideas is reflected only in those discontinuities in the mathematical-physics fabric which Euler fraudulently denied to exist, as did Immanuel Kant after him. It occurs only through irony. No idea of principle can be communicated by spoken or written language, except by metaphor. Singularities arising in the locus of discontinuities of the mathematical-physics fabric, are the form in which metaphors appear in the language of mathematics.
The communication of ideas of principlePlatonic ideas, can occur only within the sovereign precincts of the individual mind's cognitive processes, and never within the channels of communication as such. It is in the "decoding" of the metaphors appearing in the channels of communication, that a metaphor uttered by one person is decoded, to extract its Platonic ideas, by another. Exemplary is the replication of the act of original, valid, axiomatic-revolutionary principle of nature. This decoding takes the form of a change of hypothesis (i.e., a monad), and also the discernment of a "universal characteristic" associated with that changed hypothesis.
Thus, are the ideas produced by the cognitive processes of one from even the distant past, become an integral part of the knowledge of a person in the present. So, do those from the present, transmit the heritage of human knowledge, from both present and past, into the individual cognitive processes of those of future generations. So, in this, and in no other possible way, are the generations of mankind, past, present, and future, bound together as one.
In this same way, we know the future. We have efficient knowledge of the future, to the degree we know those characteristics of the future implicit in the choices of hypothesis upon which we choose to act in the present. It is by choosing among the characteristics represented by choice of hypothesis, that that predetermination is made efficient, and that we become accountable for the future consequences of the commissions and omissions of choice we make today.
If we recognize the universal characteristic of that skein of human progress to which we are committed, we have, in that, the guidance we require, to reach the future, through the efficient reflection of the future upon the present. Conclude with the savor of that thought, as the present author presents, once again, that picture of productive economy which he used to show, in his one-semester classes, under the rubric, "The world-wide cup of coffee."
Every local act of production, today, has efficient antecedents in the past. Materials and products formerly produced, development of land-area and work-place, and relevant basic economic infrastructure previously developed and maintained, and development of persons and their ideas, are all present requirements embodied, from the past, in the present act of production. Similarly, the decision to produce tomorrow, is made in significant degree today. Investments in plant and equipment, for example, have an estimatable "half life" reaching five, seven, or more years into the future: thus, what we decide and do today, mortgages future possibilities.
For example, if we trace out the succession of antecedent bills of materials of every stage of origin of the components of a simple cup of coffee served in a restaurant, taking into account the investment in the facilities employed there, the support of the persons who prepare and serve that coffee, and the materials of the cup and saucer, milk, spoon, sugar, napkin, table, and chair, and also the means by which we were conveyed to that place, that simple cup of coffee reaches around the planet, many times, into the distant past. Look again, at that cup of coffee; think, then, what it means to be human.
The Greek Prometheus, "Foresight," must triumph over the wicked oligarchical families who rule Zeus's Olympus. Ideas, and the foresight inhering in the metaphorical process by means of which ideas are developed and transmitted into practice of present and future generations, are the essence of that which distinguishes man, as Genesis and the New Testament define man and woman. That is, in larger degree than from anyone else in modern times, our heritage from Leibniz. That is the heritage of the science of physical economy.
43. Gottfried W. Leibniz, "Society and Economy" (1671), trans. by John Chambless, Fidelio), Vol. 1, No. 3, Fall 1992. This is Leibniz's original work in physical economy, in which some among the most crucial principles of hiw own later work, and those of such American System followers as Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and Friedrich List, are already affirmed.
44. This issue of the manner in which the future acts efficiently upon the present, has been an included topic of the present writer in a number of locations, in which the implications of musician Ramon Llull's use (Ars Magna) of Plato's principle of memory, has been addressed. Senior Operations Researcher Kenneth Arrow contributed remarks on this subject, to Pragmatic Gradualism: Reform Strategy for Russia, Valery Makarov, project director (Moscow: Economic Transition Group, Aug. 1995): "... No doubt many factors operate, but the one which I want to stress, the role of time, is intimately linked with a deeper understanding of the price system and markets. There is a future as well as a present in economic life... . What I mean by the role of time can be stated paradoxically: the future influences the present. This seems like a violation of our ordinary laws of causality, but what is really meant is that our expectactions of the future will affect what we do in the present." (p. 42) See, also, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Kenneth Arrow Runs Out of Idea, But Not Words," op. cit., "How Hobbes' Mathematics Misshaped Modern History," Fidelio, Vol. V, No. 1, Spring 1996. The same topic, directly referencing Arrow's referenced remarks cited here, was an included feature of a memorandum of May 4, 1996, on the work of U.S. contribitors to Pragmatic Gradualism, submitted to relevant Russian academicians: More 'Nobel Lies.'
45. This is illustrated most forcefully by the history of the function of technological attrition in modern warfare. The case of development in deployed combat aircraft, during the 1939-1945 interval, is exemplary.
46. On this and the following paragraphs, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics?, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C: EIR News Service, 1995). Relevant statistics and other relevant supplementary material are to be found in To Save The Nation (Leesburg, Va.: LaRouche Exploratory Committee, 1995).
47. As a matter of accounting for the point of reference from which the author's work on this subject began: The observations identified in this, and the preceding paragraph, were the adopted starting-point, during 1948, for the author's rebuttal of Wiener's statistical dogma. The features of that starting-point bearing on the subjects of "negative entropy" and scientific method, were products of study, including the philosophical studies of the 1930's. The notions of what constituted "energy of the system" for a modern industrial economy, were premised largely on a combination of the personal experience, being apprenticed to factory work, and related activities, as preparation for a management consulting career, during non-school-time periods of his adolescence, and relevant experiences in Bengal during the early months of 1946. The notion of putting aside nominal prices, to regard the entirety of a national, or an international economy, as a network, in terms of the standpoint of bills of materials and process-sheets, was the basis for his training and practice in management consulting. The special distinctions of his approach to defining bills of materials and process sheets, was the including of technological progress, education, and health-care, as an integral part of the national cost of the local process of production.
48. This use of the term "design," respecting the disposition which our universe has acquired by design, is congruent with the notions of Leibniz's Monadology: op. cit., 51-60, pp. 156-157. The highest Good, the ultimate hypothesis, the ultimate Monad, is the "alpha and omega" of all of the existence of the universe. Thus, the characteristic imbued in every theorem of the theorem-lattice defined by that hypothesis, reflects the future as hypothesis reflects all possible future states of its own theorem-lattice. Hence, the characteristic of the universe's response to relatively valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle, is the increase in man's relative power of dominion in the universe as a whole. The fright which explodes in the Aristotelean or empiricist, when any conception of this is presented, is illustrated, as Leibniz notes this fact, by the so-called "mortalist" doctrine of the soul, transmitted into the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries by the students of Pomponazzi. The argument of these "mortalists" is congruent with the tautological fallacy which Euler employs to attack Leibniz: the root, is the popularization of that absurd representation of "infinity" inhering in the method of Aristotle. A wag might say, on this account, that "all followers of Aristotle are schlemiels." See, forthcoming publication of work by Webster G. Tarpley, respecting the roots of Bonapartism and the Grand Orient freemasonry in France, including treatment of the subject of the "mortalist" currents in Seventeenth-century France.
49. In consequence of an argument, between this writer's circles, and some of Dr. Edward Teller's talented friends at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, on the matter of isentropic compression in ignition of fusion processes, the writer proposed to show that Riemann's principle of isentropic compression, as typified by Riemann's Fortpflanzung paper, had a general application, including its role in presenting the best economic forecasting tool for computer-assisted forecasts. The author reduced the principled features of his work in economics to the relevant sets of inequalities and constraints required for a computer "modelling," treating the Riemann-like, technology-driven phase-shifts in economic processes as the basis for showing the characteristics of current economic trends. This produced a series of quarterly forecasts for the U.S. economy, which were continued by the weekly Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) into the close of 1983. These, described since late 1978 as "The LaRouche-Riemann Method," were the only successful forecasts of the 1979-1983 interval. They were discontinued only when EIR caught the U.S. government and Federal Reserve System introducing, abruptly, such wild fakery of reported data, during the closing months of 1983, that no rational forecast dependent on official data was possible any longer.
50. The sociological root of the doctrine of "linearization in the very small."
51. Isaac Newton's apotheosis as the "English Descartes," was arranged by the Paris-based control agent of Venice's intelligence service, the Abbot Antonio Conti (1677-1749). Dr. Samuel Clarke was a leader in an English circle run by Conti, and was Conti's controller of Newton during the period of the Leibniz-Clarke-Newton correspondence. The setting for Conti's apotheosis of the unfortunate Newton, was the implications of England's 1701 Act of Settlement, which, for a time, designated Leibniz's patroness, Electress Sophie of Hanover, as heir to the throne. Leibniz, then the most powerful intellect in Europe, with a powerful, international network under his leadership, and the most deadly enemy of the Venice's special interest, loomed, until Sophie's death in 1714, as the prospective Prime Minister of England. Conti picked up poor looney Isaac Newton to serve as a cat's paw, in Venice's desperate concern to discredit that Leibniz, who soon emerged as the philosophical progenitor of the American Revolution, its Declaration of Independence, and the Preamble of its Federal Constitution. [Cf. H. Graham Lowry, How The Nation Was Won, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987).] On the subject of Newton's scientific work, the following, as reported in "How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man," Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 3, Fall 1994, Note 234, p. 59. The monetary theorist John Maynard Keynes was entrusted with the assessment of a chest of Isaac Newton's private scientific papers. Keynes, opening the chest, was shocked to find the scribblings of a superstitious lunatic, a Newton whom he described, in his report, as "the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians ... wholly devoid of scientific value"; see "Newton the Man," in Newton Tercentenary Celebration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947). pp. 27-34.
52. Adam Smith was, beginning no later than 1763, an agent of the notorious William Petty (Fitzmaurice), Second Earl of Shelburne, best known as "Lord Shelburne," one-time Prime Minister of Britain, key representative of the British East India Company interest, and of Barings bank, and paymaster for the bribes employed to control the British Parliament of William Pitt the Younger. Shelburne was, also, the patron of the Jeremy Bentham who headed up the British foreign service, from 1782 on, and of the pack of creatures who passed for economists at the British East India Company's Haileybury School. Smith was assigned, in 1763, to assist a Shelburne project aimed both at undermining the economy of France, and destroying the independence of the English colonies in North America. To the latter end, Shelburne dispatched Smith to France, where he studied the works of Quesnay and other Physiocrats, whom he parodied and plagiarized for the production of his own anti-American tract, his 1776 Wealth of Nations. The evil in Smith may have resonated with that of Quesnay, but was firmly established earlier, in his 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments, the core of which is pure Mandeville. The relevant passage of the latter work most often cited by the present author, runs as follows. "... To man is allotted a much humbler department ... more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and the narrowness of his comprehension; the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country. ... [T]hough we are ... endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has been entrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason to find out the proper means of bringing them about. Nature has directed us to the greater part of these by original and immediate instincts. Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them. [emphasis addedLHL] The libertarian's immorality of Mandeville is clearly reflected in that passage from Smith, just as Smith's plagiarizing Quesnay's laissez faire is the basis for his own "free trade," and "Invisible Hand." Mandeville insists that even evil impulses of individuals are part of the process of interactions which leads to ultimate good, just as the evil Professor Milton Friedman argued in such locations as his April 16, 1980 TV interview on the Phil Donahue Show. On Mandeville, see H. Graham Lowry, op. cit., passim. Also, "The Mandeville Model," Fidelio, Vol. V, No. 1, Spring 1996.
53. John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953). As those authors note [Note 1, page 1], the genesis of their book is found in a 1928 paper of Von Neumann, Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. By 1938, Bertrand Russell devotee Von Neumann had committed himself publicly to the lunatic doctrine, that economic processes could be reduced to solutions to a set of linear inequalities. Together with another Bertrand Russell clone, Norbert Wiener, the modern dogmas of "cybernetics" and "systems analysis" were hewn into the form, as policies, they have dominated post-World War II practice.
54. On the practical representation of potential relative population-density, see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?, op. cit. There are also editions in Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Armenian, and Georgian and Chinese editions in progress to print.
55. The interval, from the opening of the great ecumenical Council at Florence, to the accession of France's King Louis XI to establish the first modern sovreign nation-state republic. This period corresponds to the core of what is called the "Renaissance," e.g., the Golden Renaissance, as opposed to the Sixteenth-century emergence of the Venice-orchestrated anti-Renaissance, which came to be known as the Enlightenment. The conflict within European culture, to which we have been referring throughout this present paper, is efficiently, and accurately identified as the irreconcilable conflict of principle between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
56. Under feudalism, there was the notion of "nationality," but there were no nation-states. Rather, from the bowels of Babylon until the middle of the Fourteenth century, the civilization of the Mediterranean littoral, and immediately adjacent territories, was under the rule of imperial law. [See, Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, Die Geburtsstunde des Souveraenen Staates (Regensburg: Josef Habbel, 1952).] The land and the people were the property of an emperor, under which overlords, lords, and others, ruled over those territories and persons which had been parcelled out to them. From Babylon, through Rome and Byzantium, through Venice-dominated Fourteenth-century Europe, over ninety-five percent of the population of this planet, in every quarter, lived as virtual human cattle, or worse, under the rule of a form of rule by quasi-immortal oligarchical families, an oligarchy apotheosized as the pagan gods of Olympus. The idea of a modern European sovereign nation-state, belonging to its people, rather than according to a feudal system, was the outgrowth of a long process, growing out of the infusion of the Greek Classical idea of Solon, Plato, et al. with the principles of Christian universality of mankind. The proximate general precedents for the founding of the first modern state, France, were the program of Dante Alighieri, as amended by Nicolaus of Cusa's Concordancia Catholica and De Docta Ignorantia. The conflict between Renaissance and Enlightenment, has been the struggle of the former, to establish, defend, and develop the modern sovreign nation-state, against the determination of the oligarchical interest to turn back the clock to "global economy" and "world government," under the rule of a Venice-style aggregation of financier-oligarchical families.
57. The following note is supplied here, as a matter of facts relevant to, and influential today, for the reader's deeper understanding of the present times in which we live today. The term "oligarchical model," as interchangeable with "Persian model," was the currency of mid-Fourth-century b.c. Classical Greece. These usages arose for modern scrutiny, in the negotiations by (the enemies of Socrates and Plato,) the Persian Magi caste, with King Philip of Macedon. This occurred during the time of Aristotle's teacher and controller, the Isocrates who headed the leading school of sophistry in Athens of that time, Isocrates' School of Rhetoric, the same Isocrates who played a conspicuous role in the policy-discussions surrounding the mooted East-West "detente" of that time. As was famously proposed by the Persian Emperor, to King Philip's son and political adversary, Alexander "the Great," this was the "one world" project of that place in history: A "detente" whose intent was to end the centuries-long war between the Persian Empire and the intellectually and militarily superior Greeks, by establishing a division of the Persian Empire, between "West" (west, approximately, of the Halys and Eurphrates rivers), and "East." The Macedonian monarchy was repeatedly offered the hereditary imperial rule over the West, on condition that Macedonia subdue those stubborn Greeks whom the Persians had never developed the wit and military skill to conquer. The added condition was, that the social model of the western empire conform to the oliagrchical model of the Achaemenids. Actually, the "Persian Empire" was nothing but the old Babylonian Empire revitalized under the "hired new management" selected by the ruling families of Babylon, the hereditary priest-caste, akin to the priesthood of the Delphi Cult of Apollo. The model of Mediterranean-wide East-West Empire, was revived, first, during the wars of the First century b.c. , in which the Capri agreement between Octavian (Augustus) and the Magi priests of Mithra, established Rome as the capital of a "world empire," and the second phase, under Diocletian, in which the Empire was divided between an eastern and western division, the religious-cultural "balance of power" division of Europe, from the Code of Diocletian, to the present day. It was from these precedents, that the modern British Empire designed the orchestration of the "geopolitical" balance of power between eastern and western Europe, since the beginning of this century, and still attempts to do so, in two World Wars, one Cold War, and the present Anglo-French Entente Cordiale manipulation of internal Moscow strategic perceptions and policies, today.
58. In his 1923 The Prospects of Industrial Civilization, the Hitler-like Bertrand Russell supplied an utterance typical of him, and the "Jenny" of Bertolt Brecht's Three-Penny Opera script: "... the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence. ... Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary." Russell's is the same mentality exhibited by the later Averell Harriman and President George Bush's father, Prescott, in their leading role in supporting Hitler's London-orchestrated, 1933 accession to power in Germany. This is the oligarchical culture of Sparta in the Delphi Apollo-cult tradition of Lycurgus, and the tradition of the pagan empires of Babylon, and Rome. Bertrand Russell, Averell Harriman, Prescott Bush, et al., are merely typical of the bloody face of oligarchism. These are representatives, by enculturation, of a sub-human, predatory species, against which civilization must defend itself, by methods which are necessary, but by no means "disgusting."
59. References are supplied in footnote 1.
60. E.g., Aeschylos' Prometheus Bound. In this tragedy, the false presumption of Zeus and his Olympus cronies, is that torture dictates it to be in Prometheus' self-interest to reveal to Zeus the deadly secret of Zeus' doom. Prometheus is operating on different axioms than Zeus et al.; his concern is to save his own life's work, the protection and development of mankind; Zeus is committed to the elimination of the human species. Thus, Prometheus' self-interest dictates that he must not provide Zeus any information which might result in Zeus' escaping the common doom of the gods of Olympus; the good Prometheus, by keeping the secret, even at the price of prolonged torment, will triumph over the evil Zeus. Similarly, shallow-minded commentators assume that the Prometheus of this play is a tragic figure, when the subject of the drama is, most plainly, the tragic doom of Zeus! Zeus' Olympians, the archetypes of oligarchical evil deploying capricious whims against mankind, are doomed because they insist on remaining the oligarchy they are: not a conception willingly received by the decadent dons of Oxbridge.
61. The approach we are employing here, illustrates the importance of the adolescent student's familiarity with the art and science of Classical Greece, in preparing the student to become qualified as a statesman, scientist, or even as a true citizen. If we are alert to what we are studying, we find embedded in the seemingly homely entertainments from Classical Greek tradition, the distinct notions to which the highest forms of artistic and scientific thought today owe much. Often, the modern translator has buried these crucial subtleties from sight, by means of a gloss which is either simply slovenly, or an ideologically motivated misrepresentation. These Classical works must be studied with regard for what is not to be overlooked, that which appears in the corner of one's mind's eye.
62. The allusion here, is to Friedrich Schiller's treatment of the contrast between the legislation of Solon and Lycurgus.
63. This argument is illustrated by the case of Riemann's ridiculing of Isaac Newton's "et hypotheses non fingo...": "Das Trägheitgesetz ist die Hypothese: Wenn ein materieller Punkt allein in der Welt vorhanden wäre und sich in Raum mit einer bestimmten Geschwindigkeit bewegte, so würde er diese Geschwingdigkeit beständig behalten." Werke, pp. 524-525. Compare the comment on Newton with the opening argument of Riemann's habilitation dissertation (subtitled Plan der Untersuchung), op cit., pp. 272-273. Only by considering the changes in the axiomatic notions of space-time which are imposed by introducing the matter of the empirical relations, is the conditional (e.g., hypothetical) nature of our assumptions respecting space-time forced to our attention. The general principle to be adduced, is not found merely by considering objects of naive sense-perception; it demands treating as objects of thought, those kinds of relations in physical space-time which are shown to be measurably efficient, principled forms of relations, but relations of a type which do not exist for us as independently perceptible objects of the senses. [Cf. Riemann, "I. Zur Psychologie und Metaphysik," Werke, pp. 509-520. See, also, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. on Riemann's use of Geistesmassen as a technical term, in LaRouche, "On The Subject of Metaphor," Fidelio, Vol. 1, No. 3, Fall 1992.] Isochronism, for example, is not an object of the senses; contrary to the pathological presumptions of some, it is not a "property" of the cycloid. Rather, as Bernoulli et al. demonstrated, the existence of the cycloid is determined by material relations characteristic of physical space-time in general: geometry does not determine physical space-time, but, rather, our progress in discovering improved hypotheses respecting efficient relations within physical space-time, determines our always imperfect ideas respecting geometry.
64. This does not signify that the ordering can be predetermined in any sense other than "greater than/less than." The idea that there might exist an apriori formal geometry for comparing orderings of the (n+1)/n type by the yardstick of "linearization in the very small," is as absurd a notion as it is a somewhat popularized, and arbitrary one.
65. The U.S.A. of 1861-1865 enjoyed the benefit of two extraordinary commanders. Notable was the William Tecumseh Sherman (the "Anvil" of the Grant-Sherman pair) whose genius was highlighted by Alfred v. Schlieffen's Cann[ae]. The greater genius of these two Americans, was Sherman's commander-in-chief, President Abraham Lincoln, who shaped much of the policy of the U.S.A.'s struggle against Britain's diabolical creation, the Confederacy, with aid of lessons from Shakespeare's dramas. The decisive role, during 1863, of Russia's alliance with Lincoln against the Victorian Britain of Palmerston, Russell, and the "Black Age's" Prince Albert Edward, renders the reference to Sherman and Lincoln of double significance in the setting of the present writing.
The Schiller Institute
Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.
Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.
Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join