|
|
This article appeared in the
November 20, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence
Review.
October 19, 1998
The recent attention to the evidence bearing upon the 233-231 B.C. attempt
to circumnavigate our planet, that by Egyptian associates of the Plato
Academy's great Eratosthenes, should impel us to recast, in a richer way, the
thesis on maritime culture which I presented in a publication written about
sixteen years ago. Several benefits, of the utmost general scientific, and
also global, contemporary political importance, are implicitly located in
the outcome of such renewed attention to this subject-matter.
The core of the thesis on which I premised that report, is the elementary,
physical-economic paradox, that it would have been impossible to generate
civilization out of a process which were functionally defined as occurring
within the limits of land-centered "hunting and gathering" cultures. As I
argued, in that document: To obtain the culturally usable energy-throughput
required, to effect the phase-shift from an inland-based, predominantly
"hunting-and-gathering," to an urban-centered culture, could not have occurred
except through an intermediating process, the intervention by maritime cultures
on an oceanic, or even trans-oceanic scale. The amount of effectively available
bio-energy throughput, generatable within an inland-based "hunting and
gathering" mode, would not be sufficient to permit a succession of phase-shifts
to such ultimate effect.
In other words, that widely taught doctrine is false, which asserts that a
series of cultural phase-shifts, marked by a transition from "hunting and
gathering," through "riparian," or so-called "hydraulic" cultures, defines the
origins of the emergence of known early civilizations in general. Not only is
that doctrine false; it has been, largely, a willful hoax of modern British and
related origins.[1] As the representatives of
the Hansa might have said to their friends upstream, along the Rhine and Elbe
rivers, the appearance of the great river cultures could have occurred, only as
a by-product of a preceding, relatively advanced development of maritime
cultures on an oceanic, or even trans-oceanic scale.
Until I began, during my studies of the 1950s, to redefine a
cultural anthropology, axiomatically, from the standpoint of a Riemannian view
of the ordering of physical-economic phase-shifts, this as an application of my
earlier discoveries, the approach which I adopted to those issues had evidently
never been considered prior to that time, certainly not in any of the
references in the English-speaking literature with which I was acquainted. None
among those generally known academic doctrines, had recognized what should have
been the obvious, the relevant, unresolved paradoxes of doctrines of
anthropology which are generally taught still today.
As I stressed then, this point is heavily underscored by the fact of the
effects of glaciation cycles. The massive changes in climates and levels of
oceans, during the ebb and flow of glaciation, are to be stressed on this
account. These glacial cycles are that leading long-cycle feature determined by
the Solar system as a whole (not developments defined within the bounds of
Earth), which determines the pulsations of alternating ice-ages and warming
periods. They are dominant among the circumstances which must have defined the
potential bounds for the possible courses of development of human existence,
since as far back, at least, as two millions years to date. From such
circumstances, certain conclusions follow.[2]
The only consistent mode of existence under which developments leading into
so-called "riparian" cultures could have occurred, was the kinds of maritime
cultures which, in addition to other possible considerations, might have
bridged a period of up to approximately 100,000 of the glacial years preceding
the 19,000-4,000 B.C. contraction of the most recent long period of extensive
glaciation: during a period in which ocean levels were sometimes as much as
several hundred feet lower than during historical times.
Such an hypothesis already strongly suggests, that the dominant strains of
culture emerging into those historical times dated to the present interglacial
interval, notably between 6,000 B.C. and the present, must have been offshoots
of the kinds of maritime cultures associated with a distribution of the
branches of the main channels of the preceding 100,000 years of human cultural
development, through the media of maritime cultures.
The principal language-groups known to fit that description, are four: 1) A
Dravidian language-group, a leading Indian Ocean group, 2) An Indo-European
(Aryan) language Polar-Sea group specific to the last cyclical period of
greatly increased glaciation, 3) An East Asia (Pacific) group associated with
China's origins, and 4) A virtually semi-lost, trans-Atlantic group. The last
is linked to an "Atlas," "Peoples of the Sea" culture, which, according to
Egyptian (and Plato's and Diodorus Siculus') secondary sources, had colonized
the savage Berbers as early as 12,000 years ago.[3]
This latter group, including traces of a pre-Indo-European Iberian language,
was recommended for further study by the Humboldt brothers. The latter are
typified by trans-Atlantic traces found within some of the "pre-Columbian"
languages of Central America, whose cultural decline is seen in that
degenerative collapse of the preceding, "pre-Columbian," Mayan and other
urbanized cultures of the Americas, the which is the predominant long-range
trend typical (with isolatable incidents of outside Pacific interventions, such
as the Quiche Mayan) of a period extended from no later than 1,000 B.C., until
the general revival of the culture of the Americas, from Europe, in the
aftermath of A.D. 1492.
In Classical European literature, the Transatlantic voyage of Ulysses,
putatively datable to the period of the Trojan wars, serves as a benchmark of
reference. By comparing the initial outward voyages of Columbus, in a craft
comparable in performance to craft used by Ulysses (or, of Captain Rata of the
Egyptian Pacific expedition of 233-231 B.C.), the Odyssey
describes a route beyond the Straits of Gibraltar along the same currents later
used by Columbus. The return of Ulysses to his home describes a complementary
journey, by similar means, from the Caribbean, up the Gulf Stream, to the
northern coast of continental Europe, and across continental Europe, to a
relatively short sail to his home. One would have thought anyone rooted in
English maritime culture would have recognized such obvious evidence.
Certainly, the extensive other evidence of Greek and Egyptian awareness of an
Atlantic civilization, should have been taken into account in reading the
Homeric epics. One ought to have asked, why are the British anthropologists and
others so all-damned fanatical about insisting upon a contrary view, upon their
arbitrary opinion which is willfully conjectural at its least worst?
Then, consider the accumulated evidence, since the 1880s, to the present
effect of showing the use of a language otherwise specific to Cyrenaica, in the
Pacific region known to us as Polynesia.[4] This
connection, documented from the early Hellenistic period, must be considered in
light of the known interactions, as in the Dravidian culture of Sumer, of
Middle East cultures with a known, Dravidian maritime culture which had
dominated the Indian Ocean and adjoining regions until about 2,500 B.C.[5] That case illustrates the point to be examined.
The case of the Thai language, a language of a Chinese stock, but overlain
today with interactions with the Aryan-Dravidian impacts upon Southeast Asia
cultures generally, prompts our attention to the subject of
language-group-typified language-cultural interactions.
To
understand the pseudo-science which dominates British anthropology and related
topics today, return to the dirtied dust of Mesopotamia, a place long the
object of questionable adulation by superstitious, dirty British minds,
especially among British Protestant fundamentalist witchcraft cults of the
British Israelite variety.
The line of argument introduced here, as in that document of approximately
sixteen years ago, goes against what is still, presently, generally accepted
doctrines respecting ancient history, and many other, functionally related
topics. This state of affairs is to be studied from the standpoint of the
empiricist's (and modern Aristotelean's) myth of a "Copernican Revolution." The
latter is the fairy-tale which teaches that it was Copernicus and, after him,
Paolo Sarpi's personal lackey, Galileo Galilei, who turned tradition around, by
suggesting that the Earth orbits the Sun. The Egyptian voyage of 233-231 B.C.,
the attempted circumnavigation of the planet by associates of Eratosthenes,
underscores the other, conclusive evidence, which demonstrates what an awful
lie the myth of the "Copernican Revolution" has always been. (Copernicus
himself, was not a fraud, of course; but, the inventors of the myth of "The
Copernican Revolution" were.)
We could not understand adequately, the task posed as implications of the
Columbus project, if we believed that any literate person from among the past
two thousand years of European civilization, actually believed that the Sun
orbits the Earth, unless he or she were either a foolish or lying fanatic, or
one of the latter's dupes. All the relevant leading scientific minds of
European civilization, since no later than between the times of Thales and
Eratosthenes, knew, and had proven, or relied upon, the fact that the Earth
orbits the Sun. Claudius Ptolemy, and his followers, down through the
Seventeenth Century, were simply either wittingly outright liars, or, virtually
the same thing, ordinary gossips. Indeed, the same "solar hypothesis" known to,
and proven afresh by Eratosthenes, was transmitted to become the knowledge of
that Fifteenth-Century Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who founded modern
experimental physical science. It was a professed, and actual follower of Cusa,
Johannes Kepler, who went qualitatively further than Eratosthenes had, to
supply the modern crucial-experimental proof for the actual organization of our
Solar system.[6]
That is not the end of that matter. Most of the frauds taught as
anthropology, history, and so on, in the academic curricula today, were
corrupted, more or less axiomatically, by adaptations to the utterly
irrational, specifically gnostic, or kindred type of anti-Christian religious
conviction. Typical of such gnostics and equivalent types, are persons who
supported either the implications of accepting the fable of Copernicus and
Galileo, or a related, astronomical lunacy: the paired doctrine, that
civilization began in Mesopotamia, and that lunar calendars were the basis for
the later development of solar calendars. When one digs into the commonplace
fallacies of most academic textbooks and classrooms today, one is, at first,
shocked, and, later, disgusted, by the degree to which such a vast ration of
received academic doctrines are derived from the impulse to teach nothing which
offends the three myths we have just identified: 1) That Claudius Ptolemy was
an honest astronomer; 2) That civilization began in Mesopotamia; and 3) The
delusion, that solar astronomical calendars were an outgrowth of the earlier
development of lunar calendars.
From this point on, most of the readers of the memorandum written sixteen
years ago, either know the truthfulness of the points I now register,
concerning so-called "British," or brutish science, or have some knowledge of
the standpoint from which I present the case. To that purpose, the argument to
be made on this account, is situated as follows.
The birth of modern European civilization, including the
emergence of the modern nation-state, occurred during the Fifteenth Century, in
a process centered about the developments leading into, during, and immediately
beyond the great ecumenical Council of Florence. This process is identified by
the term "Golden Renaissance." The birth of modern physical (experimental)
science, of the nation-state, the accomplishments and benefits of modern
scientific and technological progress, and the uplifting of increasing portions
of Europe's population from the bestial conditions inherent in the
anti-nation-state, feudal order, were, each and all, specific results of this
anti-Aristotelean Golden Renaissance, and nothing else. This Renaissance is the
watershed of all fundamental scientific, cultural, and political progress
since; nothing since even begins to approach the quality, or crucial
importance, of progress effected during the period associated with the great
ecumenical Council of Florence.
The characteristic feature of the Golden Renaissance and its accomplishments
in science, statecraft, and cultural improvement of populations generally, was
the revival of the Classical Greek tradition of Plato, reversing significantly
that earlier anti-Augustinian popularization of Aristotle in western Europe,
which had occurred under the influence of the Venice-steered Welf League
factions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries.[7]
It would be a fraud by anyone who has actually read the writings of Dante
Alighieri, to suggest that the Platonic tradition was virtually unknown to
Thirteenth-Century Europe. One must understand not only how, but why the
depredations of the Venice-steered Welf League ("The Black Guelph") plunged
Europe into that prolonged "New Dark Age" which brought Europe, and the Papacy,
into a vastly depopulated state of physical and moral collapse, during the
middle of the Fourteenth Century.[8] Only when
the Golden Renaissance is understood from the standpoint of an insurgency
against the pure evil of the Venice-steered Welf League, can modern European
history's characteristic features be understood. The factor typified by the
presently continuing heritages of the Venice-linked Welf League of the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, requires that we interpolate the crucial
point on that matter at this juncture, before turning to the remainder of the
list of points.
This latter point is the key to a set of
phenomena appropriately termed "dirty British minds." In other words, with rare
exceptions, British science, British theology, and related other academic
studies, have been dominated, since the Seventeenth Century, by a usually
fanatical emphasis upon the development and insinuation of pseudo-scientific
mythologies, mythologies which are designed, like Paolo Sarpi's invention of
that Ockhamite hoax known as English and British empiricism, otherwise known as
British philosophical liberalism, to serve the special strategic interest of
the London-centered, neo-Venetian British financier oligarchy's global
factional concerns.
Thus, scientists and scholars pursuing their careers within institutions
dominated by the reach of this British myth-making, are careful not to offend
the local pagans' household gods of Aristoteleanism and empiricism. In short,
such scientists have learned to sing, assuredly not for the sake of music, but
for their dinners. In franker, less kindly words: they have learned when to
lie.[9] To understand the related issues of
anthropology, one must first recognize the origins of what defines British,
anti-nation-state, financier-oligarchical cultural and related strategic
self-interest today.
The
key to all of the leading developments constituting actual medieval and modern
European history, is the issue of law which erupted as the point of
Thirteenth-Century conflict between the Welf League, on the one side, and the
Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and his heirs, on the opposing side. Formally,
both of these factions of European feudalism, were committed to a notion of the
form of imperial law which medieval Europe had inherited from the imperial
tradition of Babylon, and from such successors of evil Babylon as the Roman and
Byzantine empires. This is the notion of imperial law addressed by Professor
von der Heydte's Die Geburtsstunde des souveränen Staates.
It was a conflict of the form of a struggle for survival between two empires,
one "Ghibelline" (Waibling, Hohenstaufen), and the other "Guelph" (Welf). The
actual, substantive issue of that conflict over the content of the then
prevailing principles of international law, between Welf League and Emperor
Frederick II, is underlined in blood by that event to which later,
Nineteenth-Century Italian patriots such as Giuseppe Verdi referred as "The
Sicilian Vespers."
The issue thus, was not yet a conflict between empire and nation-state, but,
rather, between two axiomatically opposing notions of imperial law. The Welf
League represented the anti-Christian, or specifically gnostic reading of
imperial law; the forces associated with Frederick II's faction, including,
notably, Dante Alighieri, represented a Christian reform of Roman and Byzantine
forms of imperial law. The one, the gnostics' Welf League, said to the
chattels, "Submit to your feudal degradation to the culture and condition of
human cattle now; you get your reward in the next life." The Christian
principle of the mortal self dwelling in the simultaneity of eternity, is
opposite to the gnostic dogma characteristic of the Welf League.
The underlying, axiomatic issue, was a conflict respecting the manner in
which the choice of notion of the nature of the human individual, determined
the governing principle of law of nations. The crucial issue was, that the
oligarchs of the Welf League, like the extremists among the Protestant
fundamentalist cults of Britain (and the "Elmer Gantrys" of the U.S.A.) today,
insisted that mortal man does not "possess the divine spark of reason," but is,
rather, a hopelessly degraded, worthless creature, whose debasement and
self-degradation make it attractive for purposes of the Creator's post-mortal
redemption of such wretches. Thus, the Welf League, like the pagan Emperor
Constantine earlier, rejected the notion called in Latin the Filioque;
they rejected man as they had rejected Christ. Their view is typical of the
specifically anti-Christian, oligarchical, or gnostic definition of "human
nature."
The Christian principle, in opposition to the racialism inhering
axiomatically in modern Zionist dogma, is that all men and women are equally
made in the image of the Creator, endowed with the "divine spark of Reason,"
this without distinction on account of perceived differences among race or
nationality, and that natural law must be so defined. The individual person,
like Christ, dwells in the simultaneity of eternity; there, in the simultaneity
of eternity, the purpose of the individual's mortal existence is resolved.
Mortal man does not exist to be tested, as if in some freemasonic ritual; the
mortal individual incarnate, exists to act efficiently in mortal life, for that
cause which is the simultaneity of eternity. It is therefore the duty of the
law of nations to protect and nurture this "divine spark of creative reason"
within the mortal existence and action of each and every individual. This, as
we shall elaborate below, was the core issue of the war between the two
imperial factions of the Thirteenth Century; this is the core issue of the
struggle against the primary evils of today's world, the implicitly satanic
evils of "free trade" and "globalization."
The anti-Welf League faction, the faction of Dante, said the law must exist
to serve the cause of uplifting the people into participants in the process of
self-government of society, that no portion of humanity can be subjected to
that condition of human cattle which is typified by the pro-feudalist
Physiocratic doctrine of laissez-faire. The role of Frederick II's
policy for the development of Sicily, as for Alfonso Sabio in Iberia, typifies
the Christian view, in which persons can not be lawfully degraded, as serfdom
does, to the status of human cattle. Dante's writings, on language-policy and
in De Monarchia, typify the Christian view expressed within the
framework of Frederick II's anti-Welf League policy.
Frederick II did not create the notion of modern nation-state republic; that
came just less than two centuries later. Nicholas of Cusa was the discoverer of
the ecumenical principle upon which the modern nation-state republic is
premised. Frederick, like his successor Dante Alighieri, posed only the issues
of Christian justice, implying other issues which it was left to the Golden
Renaissance to solve.
It was only later, chiefly through the role of Nicholas of Cusa from within
the conciliar movement, that the ironies of Dante's De Monarchia
were effectively addressed, and that conception of law established, the which
revokes all notions of imperial law. Hence, in principle, from Cusa's role as a
Cardinal of the restored Papacy, through to Pope John Paul II, the unity of
faith is lawfully rooted in reason, as opposed to the arbitrary authority
commonly traditional to the imperial law of Mesopotamia, Rome, and the
Byzantium of Constantine and Justinian. It was Nicholas of Cusa, who solved the
paradox of law left to him by predecessors such as Abelard of Paris and Dante
Alighieri. Thus, the modern form of sovereign nation-state republic was brought
into being in that form later expressed by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln's
defense of the U.S. Federal constitutional republic, against the neo-feudalist
degenerates of the Confederacy, and against today's implicitly treasonous,
oligarchical U.S. Federalist Society.
Thus, when the Welf League and its accomplices used the brutish Charles of
Anjou for the bloody suppression of the people of Sicily, the anti-Welf League
forces, continuing the policy of Frederick II, prepared, and conducted the
"Sicilian Vespers," a connection deeply appreciated by Giuseppe Verdi. Verdi, a
defender of Italy's belated creation as a modern nation-state republic, was
right in recognizing the connection between the "Sicilian Vespers," conducted
under one notion of international law, and the modern nation-state as
exemplified by Lincoln's United States, the latter the beneficiary of the
Golden Renaissance's revolution in respect to principles of law. Cusa, above
all others, had discovered that bridge from one to the other notion of law, to
the law reflected in Leibniz's principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness," and the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution.
Unfortunately, the triumph of feudal reaction, in the defeat of the League
of Cambrai, unleashed a temporary, if friction-riven alliance, between the two
principal factions of the European oligarchy: the financier oligarchy centered
on Venice,[10] and the landed aristocracy. Since
1509-1511, the modern history of European civilization has been, thus far, an
endless strife between the modern sovereign nation-state and the political
heirs of that Thirteen-Century Welf League, the which collapsed all of European
civilization into the "New Dark Age" of the Fourteenth Century.
Only in the creation of what has been, thereafter, the ever-besieged and
internally embattled United States, was that lawful model of political economy
established, the which approaches the Golden Renaissance standard for a
Christian notion of natural law. Since 1789, especially since the aftermath of
President Lincoln's victories over Lord Palmerston's puppets, the Confederacy
and Maximilian's tyranny in Mexico, other states have either wrought
constitutions and political economies in imitation of the U.S.A., or have used
that model for parliamentary reforms of government, measures which somewhat
tamed the continuation of oligarchical rule without actually overturning it.
Since the founding of the U.S. republic, the continuing object of our nation's
principal and continuing mortal adversary, the British monarchy, has been to
eradicate both the United States' Constitution and every other nation-state
economy from this planet, forever.
The temporary, Kissinger-like, Hobbesian quality of the alliance between
Castlereagh's rentier-oligarchical Britain and Metternich's openly reactionary
Holy Alliance, typifies the continued heritage of the Welf League in modern
European civilization, up to the present day. The present-day dogmas of "free
trade" (e.g., financier-oligarchy) and "globalization" (a harking back to the
Thirteenth-Century Welf League), are nothing other than a modern guise for the
feudal tradition of the Welf League, and for the evil tradition of the Roman
Emperor Diocletian earlier--the Diocletian who bequeathed to his successor,
Constantine, the pragmatic advice, that it were more efficient to confuse and
corrupt the Christians, as that Mephistopheles, pagan Pontifex Maximus
Constantine, did in fact, than to continue to slaughter them.
Underlying
all that we have said, or touched upon here, so far, there is an essential
principle. The array of topics woven into our account thus far, has been
composed with that principle in view, that as the subject-matter to be brought
thus into focus. Perhaps, nothing better, more simply illustrates the principle
than the implications of the 233-231 B.C. attempted circumnavigation. The
characteristic form of action which defines the existence of our human species,
is the act of creation by means of which a validatable discovery of physical
principle is generated within the sovereign cognitive processes of the
individual's mind. It is that characteristic form of action, which defines the
physical relationship between our species and the universe as a whole. It is
the change in the behavior of the human hand, through a validatable,
revolutionary discovery of principle generated within the individual's
sovereign cognitive processes, which is the quality and form of action which
defines the nature and the potential of our species for continued existence. It
is that form of action which defines, if you please, the Kepler-Gauss orbit of
history, of the development, or doom of nations and cultures. The case of the
attempted circumnavigation is an example which contains all of the essential
elements of an illustration of that principle.
At an earlier point in this report, we reviewed three points in summary.
With the remarks in the foregoing paragraph, we have now come to a fourth.
Since Gottfried Leibniz's 1672-1676 creation of a calculus, that
according to requirements previously defined by Kepler, it has been clear to
all competent scientists and related scholars, that the characteristic of the
Solar system's Keplerian orbits is expressed as what Leibniz termed as the
characteristically "non-constant curvature" of processes in the infinitesimally
small interval of action. In modern language, this notion of Leibniz's, defines
the strictly proper usage of the term "non-linear." In all non-linear
processes, the characteristic action expresses an ordering of crucially
experimentally validatable, successive changes of physical (or, equivalent)
state; no formal mathematics of the axiomatic form associated with Galileo,
Descartes, Newton, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, et
al., can represent such a characteristic. In Riemann's terms, in the closing
statement of his Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde
liegen, in such cases "we must depart the domain of mathematics, for the
realm of physics." It is in the ordering of successive changes of physical
state, the which, by their nature, lie beyond deductive-inductive methods of
formal mathematics, that the comprehension of such ordered changes of change of
state must lie. This is shown, if only negatively, in formal terms, by the fact
that any change of state corresponds, mathematically speaking, to the
introduction of a new "dimension," resulting, thus, in the abandonment of
previously established mathematics, for a new manifold, whose characteristic
action must be determined experimentally, not a priori. These changes of
state belong to the domain of a Gauss-Riemann hypergeometry; their
representation requires a Riemannian comprehension of the general problem posed
by multiply-connected manifolds.[11] The
characteristic of all human history (and pre-history), is a principle of action
of this general class. It is only from this standpoint, that the crucial
historical implications of the 233-231 B.C. attempt at circumnavigation can be
adequately appreciated.
This characteristic action, which defines the nature of man, in contrast to
all other living forms, is located primarily in a specific kind of sovereignly
cognitive action by the relevant individual human mind. This action is typified
by the role of Plato's Socratic method. This action is prompted by recognition
that a paradox pervades some existing body of belief, to such effect, that no
solution for that paradox can be found within the province of that troubled
domain of belief. The solution can be found only through those sovereign
cognitive (creative) powers of cognition, the which Immanuel Kant insisted,
autobiographically, do not exist. The generation of an hypothetical solution to
the paradox, through the agency of these cognitive powers, if validated by
crucial experimental means, constitutes both a solution to the relevant
paradox, and a new universal principle of physical, or Classical-artistic forms
of general knowledge within that specific culture. This type of
intrinsically non-linear, anti-entropic action, the creative action of
crucially validatable acts of sovereign individuals' cognition, is the
elementary characteristic of human nature, that which distinguishes the human
individual from even the amiably playful beast, and also from unplayful, morbid
philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, Hume, Hume's prodigal son, Kant, and
Hegel.
There is more, as the internal and related evidence bearing upon Captain
Rata's voyage illustrates such further connections. Once we have recognized
that human nature is expressed by validatable forms of sovereign cognitive
actions by individual minds, we are confronted by the duty of discovering how
ideas which can not be communicated beyond the sovereign precincts of the
individual mind, may be replicated as recognizable experiences by the minds of
other individuals. The Humboldt program of Classical-humanist secondary
education, illustrates with relative excellence the same principle central to
Plato's Socratic method, and to the teaching practices of the Brothers of the
Common Life and the Oratorians. The latter method presents, as an individually
replicatable experience, a specific individual act of cognition, and also
represents the way in which the replication of that individual cognitive
experience may be replicated. It is that replication of validatable discoveries
of principle, by means of which ideas are transmitted for practice,
cumulatively, to successive generations. That is human nature, that is the
nature of history as the history of ideas associated with such principles, and
that is the characteristic action by means of which mankind's relationship to
the universe is defined.
The very special distinction of Rata's
voyage, which places it, in world-historical importance, above all modern
discovery and exploration of the Americas combined, on this specific account,
is navigator Maui's attention to the work of Eratosthenes within the surviving
records of that voyage. Here is science in action. Here is man's nature
expressed in world-encompassing fullness of scope. Here is the relationship
between man's nature and our species' increase of its power over the universe,
expressed in a most appropriate, distilled form. Here, the legacy of Plato
shines above the ages. Here, we are pained by proof, of how little the
progress, and how rare the precious gains in principle, of mankind, during the
nearly 2,400 years since the trial of Socrates, and the more than 2,200 years
since Captain Rata's voyage.
When we employ that image of the work of Plato's Academy, to reach beyond
the customary smallness of most of even the leading academic minds of our
century, to look up and grasp the implications of hundreds of thousands of
years of human experience and development prior to all of ancient, medieval,
and modern history, a certain, most fruitful humility overwhelms us. We see
ourselves rightly, as individuals pausing for a moment, to deliver something
needed, to, as from, the simultaneity of eternity.
Where
did mankind find the cultivated species and varieties of fruits and vegetables,
upon which our lives and those of our livestock chiefly depend today? An
important question; to discuss history without considering the answer, is a
contradiction in terms. In 1982, I was hosted for several hours by the New
Delhi agricultural research center, where important aspects of that part of
history are kept as living and other evidence. To go directly to the heart of
this exemplary question, consider the following.
The commonplace incompetence of even academic opinion, is the custom of
defining action as between two consecutive arrays of events within the same
phase-space. This is, in other words, today's customary, if also incompetent,
linear view, a customarily stated, or merely implied pagan's faith, in
perfection of linearity in the infinitesimally small. As we have stressed here,
above, it is indispensable to define action otherwise, as a phase-shift from
one state to a different state, across a non-linear gulf of separation between
the two. Thus, respecting the matter of that development of foodstuffs needed
to establish the preconditions for urban-centered civilization, we must pass
over all linear notions of "practical, how to" explanations. We must focus upon
the fact, that the transformation in our potential foodstocks was essentially a
fruit of many successive discoveries of principle. This distinction between the
merely imaginary "practical" and the real, the scientific, is exemplified by
the relationship between Captain's Rata's voyage, and certain explicit, crucial
features of navigator Maui's role in making the successfully revolutionary
features of that voyage possible.
Modern academic and news-media Babbits, like Newcomen Society Yahoos, make
much of offering what they present as plausible conjectures, that with what
passes for a knowing look. Usually, in fact, they attempt to explain away
everything, and yet actually explain nothing. Like the practical actions taken
under the direction of Captain Rata, all of the crucial features of that
voyage's revolutionary achievements were reflections of, products of the
application of discovered principles, the discoveries of physical principle by
Eratosthenes most notably. This same is true of all that human progress which
is characterized by a necessary change of state in knowledge for practice.
In such matters, as the Rata voyage illustrates the point, we must proceed
from an understanding of the nature of human cognition. It is the compelling
paradoxes which experience of a recent state of human practice, presents as
challenges to the sovereign creative powers of relevant individual minds, which
are the general precondition for all advances in human knowledge and practice.
The relevant folly of education and educated opinion today, is that a lack of
the rigor which a Socratic form of Classical-humanist education supplies, by
obliging the student to learn nothing whose original discovery of principle the
student has not replicated for himself, prompts contemporary popular conceit to
persuade itself it has explained away cheaply (as by looking it up on the
Internet) what it has rendered itself virtually incapable of understanding.
Specifically, customary education, and kindred varieties of mere gossip about
"information," evade the adducible evidence that each quality of progress in
the results of human practice was preceded by, and an outgrowth of an
accumulated density of validatable discoveries of physical, or cognate
principle.
The case of Rata's voyage, situated as I have done here, is an exceptionally
valuable object-lesson for understanding better, the necessary principles of
law within and among nations, for remedying the threatened, onrushing doom
which threatens civilization with the close of this present century.
[1] British anthropology as such, appeared as
an offshoot of the French positivists' "ethnology." As shown through researches
conducted by Anton Chaitkin, in follow-up of earlier studies by Alan Salisbury,
the leading branch of English-speaking anthropology was the so-called American
school of cultural anthropology, introduced to the U.S.A., during the 1840s, as
a form of French ethnology, by British agent (and U.S. Treasury Secretary under
Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) Albert Gallatin. The hoaxster
Morgan of Ancient Society, who is known for his influence in
shaping the incompetent anthropological thinking of Karl Marx and Frederick
Engels on this and related matters, was an agent deployed by British agent
Gallatin's seizure of control over the Washington, D.C. Smithsonian
Institution. The American School of anthropology, based at the New York
American Museum of Natural History and Columbia University, was the result.
This was all an outgrowth of the "noble savage" cult of the Abbé Antonio
Conti's Eighteenth-Century "Enlightenment." The fact that the initially leading
influences of ethnology/anthropology were in the Americas (e.g., Mexico, the
U.S.A.) was chiefly a reflection of London-directed efforts to prevent the
development of the western portion of the U.S.A., and also to impede the
influence of modern civilization in the Spanish-speaking Americas. It was with
the spread of the imperial Francophone and Anglophone cults which France and
Britain developed as the cornerstones of their colonial policies for Africa,
that British cultural anthropology assumed its present relative weight.
However, the same degraded British mind-set was otherwise established as the
British Israelite cult which London's Seventeenth-Century, Protestant
fundamentalists, and others, practiced then and later, under the rubric of
archeology, in the "Biblical lands" of the Middle East.
[2] At the time this was being drafted, an
associate, Bruce Director, wrote a brief report summarizing our cumulative work
on this point. What the defenders of Newton and Euler have refused to
recognize, to the last report, is that the organization of the Solar system is
that presented by Kepler. The fussing about Titius-Bode calculations, as
substitutes for Kepler's estimates, arises out of the same formal mathematical
error used to bolster the Clarke-Euler-Cauchy fallacy, the false assertion that
we might fairly estimate that actions within relatively infinitesimal intervals
of action are linear. Kepler came to recognize that the Solar system, and,
implicitly, the universe at large, is composed as a multiply-connected manifold
of what we must recognize today as of the Gauss-Riemann type. This is the same
issue of scientific method, that of a Riemannian multiply-connected manifold,
upon which all of my fundamental work of the past forty-six years has been
premised. For example, during the early 1980s, I insisted, that the
thermonuclear fusion which produced the composition of the Solar system as a
whole, can be explained only from the standpoint of the implications of
Kepler's so-called laws respecting the "shedding" of spin during the earlier
life of our Sun, not a gravitational-fusion model of a squatting Sun. The
principal determination of global changes in Earth's weather, is either by
changes in behavior of the Sun, or, like glacial cycles, and associated long
cycles of cooling and warming, by the multiply-connected determination of the
orbital characteristics of the Solar system as a whole.
[3] We must treat such accounts as
approximations of what might have been, under other historic, or pre-historic
circumstances, a more precise documentation. We should treat such accounts as
of a "more than, less than" precision, at most. They are indicative of
something important, whose exact importance is to be determined later. In the
meantime, they are too significant to be ignored, but not precise enough to be
over-interpreted. Meanwhile, there are significant bits of corroborating
evidence to support the gist of these secondary reports on the content of
earlier, presently unavailable sources. On this issue of method, see a more
precise approach to such matters, below.
[4] Notably, the Ionian Greeks were an
integral part of the same group of Peoples of the Sea associated with
Egypt-linked Cyrenaica. The Etruscans were rivals of the Canaanites
(Phoenicians and Carthaginians), and de facto allies of Egypt-linked Cyrenaica.
Just as the Ionian seamen were the leading ally of Egypt, against Tyre, in the
eastern Mediterranean, the Etruscans were the leading ally of Egypt against
Carthage, in the western Mediterranean. For related reasons, the Romans
attempted virtual genocide against any actual memories of the living culture of
their Etruscan victims. Chiefly, only the Etruscans' grave-sites survived this
Latin genocide. Not only is Plato's Theaetetus associated with Cyrenaic
origins, as well as Eratosthenes; Cyrenaica played a leading role in the
Egypt-centered maritime culture of the Mediterranean, and beyond, and was also
noted for its navigators and other mathematicians. Whereas the Latins acquired
their technologies through conquest, the Greeks were the principal immediate
source of all the valid ideas Latin culture acquired. In their time, the
Etruscans represented a culture qualitatively superior to that of the Latins,
as did the people of Magna Graecia, and, evidently, also the Italian speakers
of that time. There is a notable relationship between the practice of
geographic discovery, and the development of the propensity for acquiring and
generating validatable ideas.
[5] The primary sources show Sumer to be a
settlement by a non-Semitic, "black-headed people," of the Dravidian
language-group. The internal evidence corresponds to Herodotus' accounts of a
Subcontinent-based (Shatki-Siva) maritime culture of the Dravidian
language-group, which Herodotus associates with such locales as Yemen
(Aththar), Ishtar (Mesopotamia), and Canaanite (Astarte). The Isis-Osiris cult
is recognized as part of the same cultural set, as also the Phrygian
Cybele-Dionysos, and Delphi Gaea-Python (Apollo) cult. The gross evidence is,
that the Subcontinent-based branch of this Dravidian-language-group culture,
associated with Harappa, went into decline during a period corresponding to
some time during the Third Millennium B.C., a period corresponding to the
growing influx of the Indo-European, Vedic culture, originating proximately
from a relatively less arid period in Central Asia. The Semitic cultures of
more recent times are by-products of the interaction between Egyptian culture
and Dravidian-based influences such as those encountered in the Akkadians,
Yemen, Ethiopia, and Canaan. Thus, whereas the original Hebrew, Mosaic faith is
associated with Egypt, the Hebrew tradition following the first Babylonian
captivity (accounting the Persian as the second Babylonian captivity) is mixed,
syncretically, with the imposition of elements of the pagan mythologies of the
Akkadians.
[6] It was not until the successive work of
Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, that the deeper implications of
Eratosthenes' "sieve" could be placed in terms of physics. Gauss's approach to
determining the asteroid orbits has its roots in Eratosthenes' establishing the
ecliptic as the basis for oceanic navigation. These two features of
Eratosthenes' work, anticipate both the notion of a generalized
multiply-connected manifold, and, as Georg Cantor implicitly showed, the higher
implications lurking behind Eratosthenes' sieve. Mankind has made much progress
since Ptolemaic Egypt of Eratosthenes' and Archimedes' time, but we must not
exaggerate the progress of science since then. Two points are to be made.
First, from the standpoint of method, only a few crucial points of progress in
method have actually been made; second, there have been numerous detours,
outright falsifications, and retrogressions incorporated, as if on an equal
footing, with the actual achievements of modern science.
[7] Thomas Aquinas' notable achievement was to
raise a standard, to the purpose of obliging a politically hegemonic,
pro-Aristotle culture of his time to submit to the doctrinal legacy of St.
Augustine: to accept the products of reason, if not yet reason itself. The
comparison of the writings of both, and relevant Encyclicals of Pope John Paul
II, makes the point clear in practice.
[8] The introduction of gnosticism, together
with Aristotle, into western Europe came chiefly from the Emperor Constantine's
Byzantine tradition. The motive for this is found in the Code of Constantine's
predecessor, Diocletian, whose social-economic dogma prescribed both a
zero-technological-growth social order, and the axiomatic premises for what
emerged out of Rome's "Dark Age," as western European feudalism. Virtually all
gnostic cults, including those, such as Pietro Pomponazzi's mortalist doctrine,
were introduced to western Europe from Byzantium, either directly, or through
Gasparo Contarini's Venice and his teacher's, Pomponazzi's Padua. The pivotal
element in this process of corruption, was Venice's controlling role in the
crusades, and the role of the victors of the Fourth Crusade, in particular, in
launching the Welf League's insurgency against the Hohenstaufen in
mid-Thirteenth-Century Europe.
[9] Typical of such political corruption of
our universities and learned professions, is the Clarke-Euler-Cauchy-Clausius
dogma of "linearity in the infinitesimally small." No graduate of even
competent secondary training in Euclidean geometry could not readily recognize
the fraud of Euler's celebrated defense of Clarke's argument against Leibniz on
this point. Euler's fraudulent pretense at proof rests absolutely upon
including the theorem, linearity, as an axiom of that geometry upon which the
proof of the supposed theorem depends absolutely. The theorem is false in any
case. The objection to such clear proof of Euler's petitio principii
hoax, is the career-wise academic's posture of indignation, the transparent
sophistry: "You can't say that about Newton, Euler, or [proven plagiarist]
Cauchy!" The faculty of reason is excluded from the composition of such pure
fustian as those wild fits of hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar indignation.
[10] Venice remained the dominant political and
financial power, in Europe and the adjoining Mediterranean region, from the
early Thirteenth Century, until the mid-Eighteenth Century. Formally, Venice's
power ended with Napoleon Bonaparte's occupation of that state. Actually,
Venice's financier oligarchy had already shifted the political center of its
Europe-wide financier faction to the Netherlands and London, during the
interval between the 1688-1689 usurpation of the English throne, by William of
Orange, and the 1714 accession of one of William of Orange's
protégés, George I, to the newly established British throne,
where the Devil squats still, to the present day.
[11] This must necessarily be the case,
since in effecting discoveries of
principle, we are encountering previously unapprehended dimensionalities of our
universe, in its characteristic expression as a multiply-connected manifold of
the Gauss-Riemann type. The change in empirically adducible characteristic of a
newly apprehended part of such a manifold, will necessarily reflect the
efficient role of aspects of that still greater manifold yet to be more fully
apprehended. As Riemann stressed, notably in his habilitation dissertation,
such empirical reflections pertain to the further extremes of scale where
scientific progress incurs: both at the greater astrophysical, and yet
ever-smaller microphysical domains. In the infinitesimally small, therefore,
the measurement of the principled characteristic of action, always includes,
implicitly, a higher, yet unknown cardinality than the present comprehension
apprehends, and the quantitative feature of this type of axiomatically
non-linear characteristic must be apprehended experimentally, not a
priori. This characteristic is located conceptually, axiomatically, in the
ordering of changes of physical state of human practice associated with
applicable discovery of a newly uncovered physical principle. In other words,
expressed as "non-constant curvature" in the infinitesimally small. This was
the method of Gauss, in his calculation of the principal asteroids' Keplerian
orbits.
|
|
