|This article appears in the April 3, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
KIEV PODOLYNSKY CONFERENCE PAPER:
The Principle of Mind
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 4, 2009
SYNOPSIS: Academician Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, and his contemporary, Albert Einstein, situated the summation of their greatest scientific achievements within that Riemannian concept of dynamics which is traced, formally, in modern science, from Gottfried Leibniz's 1690s resurrection of that concept of dynamis known to the Classical Greek of the Pythagoreans and Plato. As Einstein emphasized, the relevance of this for the presently known foundations of competent modern science, is expressed in that uniquely original discovery of the general principle of gravitation by Johannes Kepler, as in Kepler's The Harmonies of the World. When our attention is turned to include the subject of certain related, deeper implications concerning the human mind, implications which are prompted from within Vernadsky's treatment of the Noösphere, a certain, implicitly very important, but presently still controversial question is posed.
That subject is to be identified as a topic within the framework of a unified field theory. Albert Einstein posed the question, and Academician Vernadsky, whether one presumes that he knew it, or not, supplied a crucial clue which leads in the direction of the solution. That is the subject here.
Vernadsky & Economics
Our subject in this report is mankind as such, rather than man considered as a product of either an inanimate principle, as the most radical among contemporary leading positivists do, or, those who consider man and his development as essentially contained within a branch of an animal form of existence. The Noösphere, as that conception was developed in a uniquely fresh, and qualitatively distinct way, as by Academician Vernadsky, must be recognized as the containment of the universe, including the actual abiotic domain and "animal kingdom," by the independent, superior universal physical principle expressed as the willfully cognitive, creative powers of the developed human mind.
Therefore, although the present report is a scientific paper, we must recognize that it is man whose actions for development of the planet as a whole, contain the process of development of both the inanimate domain and the Biosphere, the latter treated, like the work of physical science as such, as domains subordinated by the expression, or lack of expression by mankind. Therefore, our subject here must express a departure from those conventions of taught science which have, heretofore, misjudged mankind from either the vantage-point of methods which presumed man to be defined in his development as to have been a subsumed part of an inanimate process, or from the pathetic presumption that mankind is contained as a product of the domain of merely animal natures.
Man dwells within the domains of the abiotic Solar system and the Biosphere, but it is mankind which changes those systems through willful development superimposed by mankind's own development. It is not the environment which determines society, but mankind, which, for better or for worse, induces those changes which define the destiny of the abiotic domain and Biosphere alike. So, in that specific sense, it is human social behavior, as driven by the actions of human individuals, which reigns under the authority of that Creator who has given to mankind the assigned obligation to reign in service to His Likeness.
Therefore, here, where the subject is mankind as it actually exists, a mere devotion to the goal of competence obliges us to employ methods of investigation and related argument, which locate the human species in its actually distinctive form of existence. That is to say, the willfully creative powers unique to mankind as outside, and above all that is merely abiotic, or merely animal.
The practice of physical science is therefore, essentially, a subject of the science of physical economy as I define the essential aspects of the content and outlines of that subject in these pages.
Therefore, the Method:
Johannes Kepler did not exaggerate in affirming his debt to those philosophical foundations for modern European science, which had been provided by the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as also by such notable followers of Cusa as Leonardo da Vinci. Cusa's crucial relevance for all modern physical science, is emphasized in the sharpest terms, when attention is focused on the combination of the opening two paragraphs and the relentlessly ironical, concluding sentence of Bernhard Riemann's revolutionary 1854 habilitation dissertation.
The importance of these matters of the fundamentals for all modern science, has been, often, variously ignored, or evaded, because of the hegemonic influence of the empiricism which the followers of Paolo Sarpi have continued to impose on most of modern European scientific dogma, since the savage, usually lying attacks on the work of Gottfried Leibniz by the Liberal followers of Paolo Sarpi. These were the attacks which were concentrated from the beginning of Europe's Eighteenth Century, onward, and have continued until the present day. The importance of that fact is made clearer, by attention to the related details of a sometimes brutal, systemic conflict between the opposing forces.
This, for example, had been the root of the conflict between Albert Einstein and his adversaries from among the modern logical positivists, that since the time of the attack on Max Planck launched by the German-speaking devotees of the mechanistic perversions of Ernst Mach, during the 1914-1917 period of general warfare in Europe. This same conflict was intensified in its echoes in the campaigns energized by the even far more radical forms of aberrations introduced by that faction of Bertrand Russell which has tended to dominate the academic side of the general discussion of scientific method since the 1920s Solvay conferences.
All of these considerations converge on a common topic within the framework of my specialty, which is, unfortunately, the rarely known science of physical economy, as I identify the principal expressions of the relevant, underlying connections in this report.
The relevant features of Academician V.I. Vernadsky's world-outlook in such matters of scientific method, have been best represented, pedagogically, by his method of experimental approach to the ontological definition of the Biosphere which was provided by him, as in his relevant definitions of the relevant matters of physical chemistry since the middle of the 1930s. So, Vernadsky's precise, ontological distinction of living matter from pre-biotic states, that as an expression of a universal physical principle of life, is now accessible to professionals familiar with the relevant method of Bernhard Riemann.
Therein lies the clue to an at least partial, preliminary step in finding an answer to the question of a unified field theory.
The related matter of what Vernadsky addressed, as that is presented by me here, is the comparable, qualitatively more advanced, but relatively less developed distinction, that of human life, the qualitative, functional distinction of the culture of the Noösphere, from the merely living. I approach that distinction, here, from the standpoint of a Riemannian, dynamic comprehension of the nature of those same, specifically human, creative powers, which are expressed by qualitatively progressive development in the medium of certain realized discoveries belonging to the subject of the science of physical economy. The latter are those same discoveries which define the potentiality for the intended increase of the productive powers of labor in societies, per capita and per square kilometer. This is a power qualitatively far beyond the power expressed by the Biosphere.
The exemplary case of current economic practice which I reference for this purpose, here, is what has been, to present date, my own, presently unique success in forecasting not only the timing, but the unique nature of that presently ongoing, global economic-breakdown crisis which erupted during the last days of July 2007.
My emphasis here is on the matter of principle, as the science of physical economy serves to illustrate this point, that the abiotic, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere, must be considered as being, respectively, ontologically distinct categories, but, nonetheless, like a man and his familiar dog, systemically interacting, physical phase-spaces. It is to be emphasized, as Vernadsky did, that as there is a sharp division of the products of the abiotic domain and those of the living, and there is, comparably, a sharp, uncompromisable division of a generality of mankind from the merely animal. From the standpoint of a science of physical economy, my standpoint, all three of these phase-spaces coexist as qualitatively differing, but coherently interacting phase-spaces of a single universe. This situates the subject of this report within the bounds of a notion of a universal principle of harmonics, rather than particles interacting kinematically, as proposed according to the modern reductionists' empty, a-prioristic, Cartesian, or kindred types of what are methodologically both reductionist and a-prioristic misconceptions of space and time.
The presentation submitted here, is also a reflection of the repeatedly demonstrated, unique success of my method of long-range physical-economic forecasting, as demonstrated, most emphatically, in this present time when all my putative professional rivals, and important governments, had either failed to foresee these developments, or had presented opposing policies which were not merely incompetent, but whose effect has already been disastrous for all of the presently existing nations of this planet at large. Even still today, most of the notable figures in government and the economics profession, have not yet acknowledged the very clear, conclusive evidence, of a global, physical-breakdown-crisis (no mere "recession," no mere "depression" like that of both 1929 and October 1987 in the U.S.A.), a crisis which is presently built into the processes which are, still now, immediately threatening the future of the present world physical-economic system, unless the presently operating monetarist systems are scrapped and suitably replaced, very soon.
Therefore, I begin the body of this presentation with a chapter containing a crucially relevant statement respecting the method employed in Kepler's discovery of the general principle of gravitation of our Solar system. That will be the beginning of the questions placed before us here; the answer, bearing on the unified field theory, will come at a later point in this report, when the ground had been prepared, at the close.
I. Sense-perception Vs. Cosmic Conception
Since ancient times in Mediterranean culture, European civilization, in particular, has been dominated by the influence of a piece of sophistry expressed, as by Euclid's Elements, in the form of so-called a-priori presumptions of so-called "self-evident definitions, axioms, and postulates. The essential feature of those viciously silly presumptions, was the view that sense-certainty respecting time, space, and matter, based on blind faith in the senses, defined the real universe. So, on this account, over the span since the opposition to the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, by such as Aristotle and Euclid, until the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, only a relatively few, outstanding, Classical opponents of Aristotelean and related a-prioristic forms of reductionist methods, such as Eratosthenes of Cyrenaic origins, and, with certain limitations, the famous Archimedes of Syracuse, had typified a genuine body of physical science.
Although the revival of actual physical science in modern times was accomplished, chiefly, by the initiatives of Filippo Brunelleschi, and Cusa, the actual founding of a practiced modern science was accomplished by the actually original discovery of the great follower of Brunelleschi and Leonardo da Vinci, by Johannes Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation in his The Harmonies of the World. This was the premise employed, as by Gottfried Leibniz, for the still ongoing process of freeing physical science from the later, modern a-prioristic, reductionist Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi follower Rene Descartes and Descartes' empiricist followers of Europe's Eighteenth Century.
In Johannes Kepler's reaching the essential conclusion of his The Harmonies of the World, his presentation of his own, uniquely original discovery of what is, still today, the only competent, actual general principle of gravitation in circulation in scientific circles, Kepler had focused attention on the crucial irony of efforts to correlate the reductionist's quasi-visual image of physical space-time with that harmonic conception which has been repeatedly proven, since, to be a key to defining a single principle of self-organization of the Solar system as a whole.
It is important to emphasize, that Kepler, inspired by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's founding of the method of a modern physical science, had come to recognize, implicitly, that, contrary to a-priori presumptions of Sophists such as Euclid, or the modern Rene Descartes, or the empiricists generally, that the mere evidence of the senses does not account directly, in any instance, for the relevant principle of organization of the universe we inhabit. Sense-perception, such as the human faculties of sight, hearing, feeling, taste, and smell, are to be recognized as being no better authorities than in their serving as sources of important "instrument readings," readings which do not, themselves, contain the principle of action by which the actually perceived physical effects known as sense-perceptions are organized.
The readers should keep those thoughts in mind throughout the unfolding development within this report. This, as will be apparent at the close, is that the crucial point which must become clearly understood, as to what I am now proposing here as a provisional conclusion, is necessary, which will be summarized in the final point to be presented in this report as a whole.
In order that we might be clear, in the matter of the distinction of a human brain, which appears to reflect a more developed outgrowth of the category of animal brains, the noëtic function exhibited by the human brain does not appear specifically in the animal brain as such. What the biological significance of this difference is, as a matter of physical processes, has not been established; but, we are nonetheless obliged to accept the absolutely overwhelming evidence that that systemic distinction exists. The existence of man's knowledge and use of discovered universal physical principles, is sufficiently, persistently conclusive evidence of an absolute, ontological distinction of this function of the human mind from the animal brain.
Thus, contrary to the a-priorist dogma of Euclid's Elements, or that of Rene Descartes, the discovery of true physical principles, is an action specific to the matured, specific cognitive powers of the human mind, not of the senses as such. In fact, all discoveries of universal physical principles, such as Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the presently known universal physical principle of universal gravitation, have been prompted by empirical evidence that there is a vicious, incontrovertible contradiction among two or more types of sense-perceptual evidence. The experimental demonstration of the discovered principle, thus proves the existence of the true knowledge which defies sense-certainty. This systemic quality of distinction of the mind from the senses, which I emphasize here, is the essential clue which prepares the way for what will be presented as this report's conclusion.
The action specific to scientific creativity, occurs, like classical poetical irony, at a certain point in experimental efforts that, at that point in the effort to discover a true principle by sense-experience, at which our way forward appears to be barred by systemic contradictions, such as between two notions of sense, such as those of vision and the contrasting notion of hearing, as for Kepler in the case of his uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation; so, a systemic contradiction appears ironically among two or more modes of sense-perceptions, as it appeared in the course of Kepler's composition of his The Harmonies of the World.
Examine that crucial-experimental case.
In that work by Kepler, the challenge of finding a possible discovery of a true universal principle, was posed as being the relevant remedy for a crucial kind of "ontological teasing" of the discoverer's mind. That typifies the kind of distinctions which express that irony, which points, as in the discovery of gravitation by Kepler, toward those cognitive powers of the human mind, in which a discovery of a general principle of science is required, outside of sense-perception per se, in order to present a solution for that specific riddle, the riddle which only the creative conceptual powers of the human mind, alone, can and must solve.
Hence, the fundamental contradiction between, on the one side, the ontologically infinitesimal, a concept which underlies the foundation of Leibniz's discovery and development of the principle of the calculus, against, on the other side, the relevant Eighteenth-century devotees of the cult of empiricism's Abraham de Moivre, D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Lagrange, and, later, Laplace, Augustin Cauchy, and also those founders of the absurd dogma of "a law of entropy" concocted by such as Rudolf Clausius and the mere mathematician Hermann Grassmann.
The crucial point at this stage in the report, is that the role of human thinking individuals in the universe, is not merely a subject of the Earth we inhabit, or even peculiar to our Solar system. As Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Riemann, Vernadsky, and Einstein approached a certain point in succession, rather than consider man as a subject of that environment, as presented, almost "blab school" style, in the customary classrooms' notion of the Solar system, we must accept the evidence that the Solar system is a subject of the human creative power for change, a power which is to be considered as the innate potential of the human individual mind.
From this vantage-point in crucial experimental investigations, as typified by the case of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of gravitation, we are impelled to regard universal physical principles so defined, not as fictional, as did the devotees of positivists such as Bertrand Russell, such as Professor Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and the followers of the Cambridge school of systems analysis. We must recognize their a-priori notion as a delusion, perhaps as defective, or merely as misguided, as what the radically reductionist followers of Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell implicitly presume, still today.
On this point, again: the ontological paradoxes arising within the domain of sense-perception, as those paradoxes which proved crucial for Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, are to be regarded as the useful shadows which must be considered as candidates for being treated as the mere shadows cast by that potency which has been acquired as knowledge, naturally, by the powers of creative insight given to the human individual mind, powers which have been, and are demonstrated to be efficiently real in their experienced effect, but whose essential quality of existence lies beyond immediate direct access by the mere "meter-readings" of sense-certainty as such.
Those notions of reality, as met in the work of both physical science generally, and in the specific science of physical economy, are notions which are distinct, ontologically, from particularized sense-perceptions in themselves. They express the notion of dynamics which Leibniz re-introduced to modern European science, formally, during the 1690s, as in his modern resuscitation, during that decade and later, of the notion of the essential role of a subsuming principle of dynamis associated with that ancient science of Sphaerics adopted by the Pythagoreans. The richer exploration of this notion of dynamics came with the essential discovery by Bernhard Riemann, as outlined in all essentials within his 1854 habilitation dissertation.
This is also the same notion of dynamics featured, summarily, as a true principle of artistic composition and social systems, in that most exciting, concluding paragraph of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. The role of dynamics as the characteristic feature of the creative process in Classical artistic composition, warns us that a competent physical science and a competent expression of Classical modalities in Classical artistic work are each subsumed by a common, higher principle. Competent physical science treats man's concentration on forms of existence lower than the human species'; whereas, Classical artistic composition applies the same cognitive prowess to treating mankind itself as the subject.
So, as Albert Einstein emphasized this in his famous Riemannian appreciation of that uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation by Kepler, and as Gottfried Leibniz had already defined the infinitesimal of the calculus in a way which was contrary to the Eighteenth Century empiricists; so, Leibniz, Riemann, and Einstein, for example, had treated true universal physical principles, in succession, as not being embodied within the confines of mathematical formulations. Rather, the true principles of physical science are of the type of experimentally validated solutions, properly known as principles according to the method of, typically, Cusa, Leonardo, Kepler, Fermat, and Leibniz, which, once uncovered, have the apparent, initial effect of appearing to bound, rather than simply connecting, as if mathematically, the observed points-in-motion which are phenomena actually generated by a discoverable universal principle.
These essential facts, bearing on matters of universal physical principle, can not be effectively uncovered and demonstrated except from the standpoint of practices specific to the human mind, such as Classical artistic composition, or a science of physical economy. To know what moves the relatively lower domain of physical science, we must proceed from the qualitatively higher standpoint of social processes of mankind, as being the standpoint of discovery of the principles of specifically human knowledge, rather than those mere subjects of human behavior, other than the specifics of human behavior in human history as such.
Man is not a subject of what is customarily regarded, today, as the "physical universe;" all actual knowledge of that universe is a matter of the attempted, conscious mastery of that universe by mankind. It has been the attempt to treat mankind as, axiomatically, a subject of the animal kingdom, or, worse, as today's radical positivists do, as a subject of the abiotic domain, which are standpoints which are premised on the assumed primacy of phase-spaces inferior to what Vernadsky's work defines as the Noösphere. It is the submission to the ideas, whether refined or crude, peculiar to an ontologically lower phase-space than the Noösphere, which characterizes the fundamental error in all which has been generally accepted as "principles of economy" in society thus far.
Thus, if we adopt the radically positivist view of the universe adopted by the followers of Professor Norbert Wiener at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's RLE, or the notion of the computer and the brain, or the more radical of the premises of the idiot-savant devotees of Bertrand Russell, John von Neumann, and "Silicon Valley," we dehumanize mankind, and, thus, not only exclude life as a universal principle, but, similarly, deny the principle which, in fact of practice, places humanity outside both the abiotic domain and also beyond our comprehension of what are merely the lower forms of life.
For the purpose of defining the essentially underlying practical principle of a competent modern science, the notion of principles which I emphasize here, is also to be seen, in retrospect, as typified by the case of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the universal principle of gravitation. This was the same argument which Gottfried Leibniz had derived from his own consideration of Kepler's work, in his own presentation of the conception of a calculus of the ontologically efficient (rather than merely mathematical), infinitesimal notion of the universal physical principle of the calculus. Hence: that which should have been read by scientists as the startling effect of the already referenced, concluding sentence of Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation. Hence, we have Einstein's conception of Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, a conception of gravitation as bounding an intrinsically finite, but not externally bounded universe.
In the modern reductionists' view of the universe, it has been sense-certainties, which, for them, bound their choice of an actual, or merely supposed universe which the wretched Rudolf Clausius, Hermann Grassmann, Lord Kelvin, and Maxwell had misconceived as being universally entropic in principle. Contrary to such reductionists as those, we have the alternative of the true science typified by the work of Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Riemann, and Einstein; for the latter, as in Leibniz's ontological, rather than empiricists' mathematical notion of the "infinitesimal," it is the adduced, anti-entropic universe, which, ostensibly, "self-bounds" the behavior of the objects of sense-perception dynamically.
What I have just described as the anti-entropic view of these matters, is clearly suggested by the consideration of the record of anti-entropic development of orders and species of living organisms, and, in a parallel, but different modality, in the role of scientific and technological progress in the increase of the potential relative population-density of progressive currents in the self-development of human society. That anti-entropic view of these matters becomes much more interesting, when we will have taken into account the specific quality of difference in modalities of anti-entropic self-development, of living plant and animal species versus mankind, as of the Biosphere as such: when this difference is situated in the contrast of lower forms of life to the evidence of the driving principle expressed by the increase of the potential relative population-density among various cultures of the human species, the Noösphere.
It is the implications of Academician Vernadsky's development of the specifically Riemannian types of ontologically qualitative distinctions of the abiotic, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere, respectively, each and all from the common standpoint of experimental physical chemistry, which then point in the direction of, not a solution for the question posed by the notion of a unified field; but, towards a much needed, working understanding of exactly how we must define that which we have yet to know in that matter, beyond bare essentials: an understanding of the nature of the subject itself, rather than a completed systemic view of the matter.
To find even that partial answer to the question so posed, we must first explore the troubling presumption which has customarily stood in the way of understanding not the answer to the "unified field conception," but the question which points the way out from today's prevalent confusion, into the needed direction.
What Is Human Nature, Really?
From the standpoint which I have just identified, the function fulfilled by the expression of the actually creative, expressed power of the developed mind of the human individual, a mind which is, so developed, to be considered as immortal in principle, relative to the merely mortal, living human body as such. That mind is to be viewed in terms of the qualitative distinction which separates the specific nature of the human individual's relatively immortal mental potential, as that is to be contrasted to the case for individual types of animal life.
This view of the human mind, when examined in light of the mind's power to generate efficient, revolutionary discoveries of physical principle, is mysteriously, but undoubtedly distinct from the heretofore prevalent notion of the mortal body. This crucial distinction of the human mind's characteristic potential, as contrasted with the mere animal mortality of the beasts, confronts us whenever we consider the way in which discoveries of conceptions of efficient principles, of either Classical artistic composition, or physical science, continue to outlive their putative creators in a manifestly efficient way, by efficiently continuing, post-mortal action of the discoverer (such as the modern Filippo Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Pierre de Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Academician Vernadsky, and Albert Einstein) of any such principle upon the future, anti-entropic development of the human species. These human figures are justly treated as typical of our species' immortals, in that they define a functional notion of the continuing existence of a physically efficient, spiritual immortality of such an individual, when that person is otherwise deceased.
To restate that point, we must ask ourselves, speaking of the matter of ontology, wherein lies that which is the power of a certain, delimited type of idea which continues efficiently, as the existence of an efficient universal principle, when the mortal body of that once living human minter of that idea has died. What is that willful power of such efficient expressions of human creativity over the universe, which is not found among the individuals of those lower forms of life? What is the principled nature of the systemic difference between, on the one side, those willful acts of human discovery of universal principle, which were forbidden by the truly evil Olympian Zeus and his pro-malthusian followers, as in the account of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, and, in contrast, on the other side, to the unwitting mode in which biological evolution has occurred, efficiently, among orders and species in forms of life other than human?
The ontological paradox so posed becomes, thus: Can there be the effect of a physical change in the universe caused by an action which is not usually to be distinguished as specifically "physical" in its source of efficiency? This question, which arises for modern science only in the setting of contrasting human to both denizens of the domains of animal and inanimate behavior, is the pivotal question underlying this present report as a whole.
Is it not the case, therefore, that the customary notion of physical is at fault here? This does not signify that the idea of an equation of physical to efficient, is wrong. It is a case of a reductionist's notion of efficiency, which leads to a misreading of what we ought to intend to say by use of the term "physical" in what is purportedly a "scientific" way.
Or, should we not state the case as follows: that the opinion of that misguided person who regards sense-perceptual experience as being intrinsically real, is expressing a wrong opinion which is often to be seen as an obstacle to recognizing the true nature of the universe which underlies those mere "meter-readings" of perception which are, in fact, as human knowledge, merely perceptions, merely "data-like" effects of "instrumentation"? What is the singular foot which has produced the perceptible footprint; and, much more relevant, the perhaps, two or four feet which have produced the ontological quality of that succession of footprints of which the experimental, evidentiary trail left by the presently unseen feet, is evidence.
Once we have put those questions to ourselves, we are properly impelled to improve our appreciation of the work of Academician V. I. Vernadsky in a very specific way. In the case of the category of the Biosphere, we are treating the principle of anti-entropic currents of biological evolution as a principle of creative change in the physical universe at large. In the case of the Noösphere, the impacts of implicitly anti-entropic ideas of physical principle, assume, in effect, a role comparable to that performed by the universal principle of life in the domain of the evolutionary development of the Biosphere. However, we approach that subject with a crucial, specific quality of difference from what might be considered as conventional opinions. These two conceptions of universal principles among the living processes within our universe, must be examined with respect to the ontological quality of the contrast of human creativity to the specific principle of organization of, respectively, both the Biosphere and the abiotic domain of that same universe. The noëtic quality of mankind, contrasted with that of the Biosphere otherwise, and of the abiotic domain, are, respectively qualitatively different categories of developing types, essentially interacting types of qualitatively distinct qualities of processes. This, I regard, as the most essential of the relevant achievements already realized in the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky while he was still living among us.
Such are the implications of Albert Einstein's presentation of the implications of the notion of discovery of universal principles of physical science. Such are the indicated issues posed by the crucial evidence supporting Academician Vernadsky's presentation of his conception of the Noösphere.
Without putting the leading accomplishments of those essentially, historically contemporary figures into this perspective, as essentially interactive currents of the advances achieved by that generation in its time, my own, most deeply underlying achievements as uniquely successful work in economic forecasting would not have been possible.
The crucial consideration which is not developed in Einstein's published work, we meet in the way in which Academician Vernadsky employed a true principle of physical chemistry to define three ontologically distinct qualities of the Earth's composition: the abiotic, the Biosphere, and the Noösphere. What is to be emphasized, as I do here, is that we must see the implications of Vernadsky's achievement on that account in the following way.
In the "history" of our planet itself, as Vernadsky's work implies such a history, the crucial experimental evidence, is the progressive change in the composition of the planet as a whole, in terms of changes in the relative total mass of the planet's principled composition, that of abiotic, Biosphere, and Noösphere. The total mass of the planet remains in the same general range, but the shifting division of its proportions into new ratios of abiotic, Biosphere, and Noösphere, shows that the power of the planet to influence the Solar system as a whole, requires study of the evidence to the effect, that the abiotic mass is decreasing relative to the Biosphere as Vernadsky defined it, and that the Biosphere is decreasing relative to the net effects of human creative activity, the Noösphere.
It that sense, life is more powerful than the abiotic, and the creative powers of the individual human mind are a more powerful force within the universe than the principle of the Biosphere.
The obstacle to grasping the crucial implications of such evidence as that, is, chiefly, the presumption, as implied in Aeschylus' portrayal of the evil of the Olympian Zeus and his "malthusian" oligarchical lackeys, the false assumption, as by the depraved Eighteenth-century opponents of Leibniz, and such as the Nineteenth-century hoaxsters Rudolf Clausius and Hermann Grassmann, that the universe is organized according to a general rule of "entropy."
It was the toleration of this fraud of "universal entropy," the fallacy of the so-called "law of energy," which stood in the way of comprehension of the deep implications of Academician V.I. Vernadsky's greatest achievement, that for the benefit of all mankind. Academician Vernadsky's implied, but not explicitly stated achievement on the visible record, on this account, becomes clear when we take into account, that from the standpoint of the uniqueness of my success in forecasting in my practiced speciality, the science of physical economy, the evidentiary implications of the currently onrushing, accelerating general physical breakdown-crisis of the physical economy of our planet as a whole.
What is crucial, to that specific effect, in the achievements of Academician Vernadsky, is that these have coincided precisely with what had been those of President Franklin Roosevelt's commitment to physical-scientific progress in the domain of a science of physical economy, as his policy was later opposed under the leadership provided by the British-led, fascist opinions and policies of such among Roosevelt's vicious, pro-fascist adversaries as John Maynard Keynes and President Harry S Truman. The latter, regressive policies were those pro-fascist commitments of Roosevelt's immediate predecessors in the office of President, and were, once again, the wrecking of his successful reforms, a wrecking unleashed beginning immediately on Roosevelt's death. This regression, which was launched immediately by Truman with President Roosevelt's death, a degeneration, that launched by Truman, which has now been demonstrated in the result shown as the presently onrushing general breakdown-crisis of this planet as a whole. We are on the verge of a threatened, rapid collapse from a world population-level of over six-and-a-half billions human souls, to a rapid descent toward less than two billions, or, perhaps even worse.
The difference in direction, which has accounted for all of the progress in productive powers of labor in modern European civilization and its extension, on the one side, and the willful lowering, at an accelerating rate, of the potential population under the conditions introduced by the Truman administration, and, most emphatically, the 1968-2009 interval to date, must be regarded by intelligent and sane leaders of society today, as expressing the brutish lack of morality among the oligarchical and related cults of neo-malthusianism advanced by those depraved creatures known to us as the so-called "globalizers" and "environmentalists."
By witnessing what is precious, but which we are rapidly losing, we know the degraded quality of those outlooks, practices, and policies which we have permitted to occur in implicit defiance of the Creator since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. That is what we must defend. We must defend that against the unwillingness of those responsible, both leading financier and other ruling circles, to submit to the clear evidence, of the existence of mankind, as built into that design of the human personality, a design which sets mankind apart from the beasts. What we must defend is the miraculous quality of immortality of the individual human personality given to willing mankind. What we must defend, is that which we, especially citizens of our United States, must defend, and make that the world's practiced policy, as the heritage of the two most notable, great U.S. Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, had intended.
Once we have taken that evidence into account, as in examining the successive accomplishments of Riemann and Einstein against the background of the referenced, principled scientific achievements of Academician Vernadsky, the proper meaning of a "unified field" will appear to "the witting" among us. It appears as a suitable outgrowth of the fundamental achievement of a great follower of Nicholas of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, who prepared the way with his uniquely revolutionary discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as in his derivation of the general principle of gravitation in the course of his The Harmonies of the World. Might we not say, on that account, that the followers of the cult of that silly plagiarist Sir Isaac Newton, on this account, are virtually satanic, at the relative best, implicitly so?
At this point, we must shift our attention, temporarily, to some important indications to consider from within the work of pre-Sophist, Classical Greek scientific and related thinking. Term these features of the following chapter of this report, the "moral implications" of our subject in this report as a whole. If we were tempted to doubt that, then consider the awful effect on the fate of all mankind on this planet today, the threat to human life in the mass presently represented by the reductionist argument of the followers of a Sir Isaac Newton who, in fact, discovered nothing at all. When Newton was challenged to explain how he had happened to "re-discover" exactly the formulation for a law of gravitation which had been presented in Kepler's The Harmonies of the World, Newton could only attempt to conceal his fraudulent claims by uttering sullenly, his silly "I don't make hypotheses."
II. The Moral Implications
Since the appearance of the subject of the human species, as a species qualitatively distinct from all other living species, the subject of the identity of creativity and morality, which I have posed afresh in the preceding chapter, defines the essential characteristics which distinguish the Noösphere from all other known forms of existence. Among all living creatures, the actual subject of morality exists systemically only for the human species. It has been the prevalent failure to take this aspect of scientific creativity (per se) duly into account, as being essential for science, which has been the chief reason for the prevalent incompetence shown by the relevant governments and other institutions which have brought this planet as a whole to the present condition, a condition of the worst danger to mankind since Europe's exemplary experience with what was called the Fourteenth Century's New Dark Age.
A crucial aspect of this presently menacing failure, has been a widespread disregard, by both governments and also the majority of the governed, generally, of the consequences of the failure to recognize the essential interdependency between, on the one side, successful national economy, and, on the other, an efficient passion for truths of that quality typified by the indispensable role of morality in valid discoveries of universal physical principle. I mean a universal physical principle such as by means of the morality expressed by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal gravitation in physical science.
Human creativity, as I have already identified it, on the one side, as in the preceding portions of this report and, on the other side, morality, properly conceived, are to be considered as uniquely, and essentially associated, as integral features of the expression of what is actually a principle of human goodness, a principle which is explicitly contrary to the damnably empiricist immorality expressed, typically, by Adam Smith in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments. In the matters of human behavior, including scientific behavior, competent science is never morally neutral.
Morality is located essentially in the mustering of the potential creative powers of the human intellect, as in physical science and Classical modes of artistic development, to increase the power which is located within the individual human personality, the power to continue the anti-entropic form of fruitful and ever more abundant physical-scientific and related progress of mankind, within and over the universe.
The root of that distinction is to be located in the way in which morality is defined by the essential distinction between man and beast, in the distinction of the specifically human implications of fundamental scientific and Classical artistic creativity, as Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of human creativity exemplifies creativity.
Without the affirmation of that assigned role of creativity, there is no true creativity, and no truthful and efficient expression of public morality. Without that affirmation, the relevant society lacks both true morality and its correlative, the correlative which is a wont for true creativity. It is this function of true creativity which must be recognized, if the idea of the principle of creativity itself is to be understood with scientific competence.
Such are the implied moral, and also scientific distinctions of the manner in which Academician V.I. Vernadsky introduced the concepts of Biosphere and Noösphere to modern physical science.
Thus, some lack a sense of happiness as Gottfried Leibniz's definition, of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," was made central to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. That definition is to be read as expressing a quality of passion required in all scientific work. What we might call "work," otherwise, is no better than poor in essential quality, and certainly lacks the true quality of human creativity. Herein lies the essential fault of so-called Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, a fault which is tantamount to evil, as the U.S. Declaration of Independence implicitly recognized the policy of John Locke, Hume, and Adam Smith as being evil. Evil is the exclusion of, or merely indifference to the good; morality, so defined, is essential, on the condition that its appropriate passion is competently defined scientifically. Dostoyevsky's richly ironical portrait of the evil inherent in the character of the Grand Inquisitor, is a relevant, and also penetrating insight in defining this connection.
There can be no competence in science, when science, treated in its function as human behavior, does not take this matter of morality identified by Leibniz, as being in explicit opposition to that which is expressed by the evil of the pro-slavery dogma of John Locke, prominently into consideration, as I do here.
The following, personalized comments are therefore relevant to the account of the subject of science as addressed in this report.
At my age, and with my experience in life, I can testify to the relevant fact, that I have come to know the relevant associations toward which I have just pointed here. I know this both sweetly and bitterly, as relevant, wise old men and women do, and, I can say this, confidently, of both the bitter and sweet experiences of my life to date. The evidence to be considered on this account, is abundant; we live amid a rich experience of the fact, that the world in which we have recently lived, especially during the recent four, or more decades, until now, has been predominantly mean-spirited, and has been even actually wicked most of the time.
The goodness which one may experience in the presence of known works of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, is a sample of a case which points to happy exceptions. True goodness, as in the work of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, or his follower Johannes Kepler, or the experience of the mind of Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, of Albert Einstein, or works of Academician Vernadsky, is made clear to us when we do recognize it, often with something akin to tears of joy, as the experiencing of some exceptional moment of the goodness associated with a true discovery of principle.
It is of material relevance here, as distinct from mere illustration, that I have often referenced English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defense of Poetry on this matter of such a congruence of science and morality, as reflected in matters of politics, law, and Classical poetry and drama. This is especially the case, in the summation of that work of his, in its concluding, rather long, scientifically crucial paragraph, during which Shelley summarizes the conception of the relationship between human goodness and the power of the human creative imagination. Here, in good physical science, as in great Classical poetry, we encounter a certain quality of passion, as this is associated with great Classical artistic and scientific compositions, compositions which show themselves, by their expression of creativity, as being inseparable qualities of passion for good.
That is to say, in a different choice of words, that without the association of that certain feeling of goodness associated with what the Classical Greek of the Christian Apostle Paul adopts by the name of agap , there probably never was a creative conception which was not engendered by a concomitant experience of that presence of agap which the Christian Apostle Paul, and, later, Johannes Brahms, famously portrays in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and in J.S. Bach's Jesu, meine Freude.
We may be certain, that if this quality of experience is not experienced, a truly creative scientific, or Classical-artistic act had not occurred.
So, to recapitulate that point, it is of proper relevance to the subject of this report, that creativity, as I have illustrated that principle in the previous chapter of this report, can not be separated from a specific quality of human goodness which is rooted in a compelling, and impelling, passion of the individual creative human intellect. Such was the difference between the creative Leibniz and the Eighteenth-century followers of the intrinsically evil Abbé Antonio Conti, Voltaire, D'Alembert, Leonard Euler, Joseph Lagrange, et al. So, the quality of creativity can be readily identified in the known creative work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky, as in poet Shelley's A Defense of Poetry, or Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms, as distinct from the Romantics. In my own experience, it is impossible to place goodness and creativity in separate categories of motive and experience.
This principled kinship of creative scientific impulses and true morality, is no coincidence. This relationship is illustrated by reference to widely known, ancient Classical Greek works of outstanding significance. This relationship is, as I indicate here, not only an essential correlative of actual scientific creativity, but the passions expressed in true artistic and scientific creativity are essentially of the same quality, and this can be demonstrated from the artistic beauty expressed in the generally known creative-scientific work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
However, the following qualifying observation must be added, that in order that morality not be attributed to the slovenly emotions of Romanticism, or to the likeness of arbitrary rules or conventions either of law or custom. The passion for the kind of truthfulness expressed in the form of what are actually creative impulses, as I have identified creative impulses in the preceding chapter of this report, is, as I know this, an integral part of any truly creative action, whether in art or physical science.
Whenever morality, defined as I have just indicated, leaves the premises of scientific practice, there is a bad smell throughout the premises.
Therefore, in concluding this present interim chapter, I must now emphasize that connection to be made here in approaching the subject of the principal object of this report in the following terms.
The Prometheus Principle
For the sake of such needed emphasis, consider a few relevant pages from Classical Greek history. Note, first, Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. However, also note, that the great Classical tragedian Aeschylus gets to the heart of the matter, through the implicit contrast between the quality of optimism expressed in the Prometheus Trilogy, when that work is viewed with reference to that contrast provided by contrasting the tragic stink of the Homeric Iliad and the humanist optimism of the Odyssey.
The genius expressed in the composition of the Iliad is its great, ugly, but truthful paradigm of tragedy per se: The most evil gods and demi-gods whisper into the ears of their playthings, the human characters of the drama, and those foolish people then act under control of a consequent impulsion to destroy themselves and one another, accordingly, as in the tragic case of a world which tolerates British imperialism, still today: most notably, the Fabian variety of what is virtually imperial fascism, of today.
Those predominantly evil gods, especially the followers of the fictional Zeus, express a principle of evil per se. To the extent that the whisperings of such "gods" and "demi-gods" shape the judgment of their lawful prey, the people of that culture are, in general, controlled by that influence upon them. That is the only true principle of all Classical tragedy. Just, so, Shelley, in the concluding paragraph of his A Defence of Poetry, identifies the ruling dynamic as the determinant of a good or evil outcome of the behavior of the great majority of the population generally.
Thus, when our subject of discussion has shifted from the abiotic and animal domains, where there is neither guilt nor innocence, to the domain of the Noösphere, science and morality appear in their essential parts as differing facets of the same subject-matter. That specificity is lodged in those powers of human individual creativity which are the categorical distinction of our species, the human species, from all other creatures.
It is therefore important to recognize, that Bernhard Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, especially respecting its opening two paragraphs and the concluding sentence, is both a most rigorous expression of the fundamental principles of physical science, and also a statement of the true morality located in its expression as the creative aspects of the human practice of physical science.
When those principles are adopted, in opposition to both empiricism and reductionism generally, those principles come to represent a force (a dynamic) which influences the behavior of a society to an effect which is counter to the influence of such "Olympian" powers of evil as Sophistry in particular, and reductionism in general.
It is essential to recognize, that, contrary to the silly opinion of our modern romantics and kindred varieties of so-called experts, a true tragedy is never an exhibition of the personal failure of one or several characters on stage. A true tragedy is the failure of a culture in which an element of evil grips a people so strongly that those people are rendered unable to resist self-inflicted suffering and ruin by their own willful choice, that not so much because of anything as much as their currently adopted own customs, such as the terribly tragic influence of the irrationalist cult of so-called "environmentalism" today. The shackles which are the acquired customs of a people, prevent such fools from breaking free of the evil influence of either the imagined pagan gods, or, the equivalent expressed in the form of a reigning culture of an entire reigning class of people, who say, in effect, like Shakespeare's Hamlet, "If I do this, it will destroy me and my society; but, I must do it, because my people's reigning culture demands it of me." He is saying, "I must honor our pagan gods, lest the faithful worshipers of those idols destroy me, as punishment for my disobedience to the will of their gods!"
So, since the so-called Seven Years War, from which the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' private empire emerged victorious as an imperial tyrant over Europe and beyond, in February 1763. It has remained so, ever since, to the present day, in the form of the British monarchy and Commonwealth as being such an imperial tyrant of financier-oligarchical power over money and over the living human bodies which money or comparable temptations could buy, that during most of world history from then to the present moment in A.D. 2009.
There was a relatively brief interval, with the U.S.A.'s joining Britain as an "uncomfortable ally," during the period of that war-time alliance, and until U.S. President Nixon's 1971 destruction of the fixed-exchange-rate system, in which the U.S.A. was nominally "top dog" in the Anglo-American arrangement of 1941-1971, but that vanished, essentially, in the ruins caused by the Anglo-Saudi oil-price swindle of the 1970s, and the continuing ruin of the U.S.A., to the present day, by implementation, under U.S. Presidents Carter, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, of policies launched by David Rockefeller's and Zbigniew Brzezinski's Trilateral Commission.
That form of empire reigned so, through the whispers from the imagined evil gods and demi-gods in the likeness of the tragedy of the Iliad. So, in the later tragedies crafted by Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Friedrich Schiller, mankind has often made a great fool of itself, as this is shown in the Wallenstein Trilogy, through the folly of its status as the prey of a commitment to evil expressed in the form of the compulsions of prevailing, ruinous, national or comparable customs, customs modeled on the legendary banning of human creativity by the Olympian Zeus of Prometheus Bound.
Thus, as Edward Gibbon, the author of The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, advised his master, the British Empire's Lord Shelburne, to emulate the practice of the Roman Emperor known as Julian the Apostate, by such means as playing the religions of a virtual imperial-British Pantheon against one another. In this manner, the nations of Europe, as elsewhere, have repeatedly ruined one another in wars among themselves, the virtual victim-members of a British-run Pantheon, in virtual Roman-arena-style gladiatorial battles fought for the sadistic amusement and greater glory of their common oppressor, the so-called British empire. They fought as fools, as in the Napoleonic wars fought for the glory of the British empire, or the Twentieth Century's so-called "World Wars" and "Cold War," always to ensure that the British Empire, so called, remained the Venice-style financier-imperial power of inherently predatory, Sarpian Anglo-Dutch Liberal power. There, in that and kindred examples, we encounter the true, spiritual origins of all great tragedies.
It is that type of tragedy, the typification of all true Classical tragedy, including the Homeric Iliad, that it is the foolish collective passions of cultures which induce those cultures to ruin themselves, or to put themselves, again and yet again, at the feet of a tyrant who has ruined them by his, or her manipulation of their devotion to silly, habituated passions.
Such was the case of the joint actions designed to crush Germany, initiated by Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, with support of U.S. President George H.W. Bush and France's President Francois Mitterrand, in the Fall of that Wall which had divided Germany. Germany was ordered to destroy its economy, piece by piece, for the convenience of that British empire which has remained the dominant, actually imperial force in shaping world policy ever since.
To destroy people is already a crime; to induce a people to destroy themselves, as the influence of the British empire has done, in case after case, over recent centuries, as by such tricks as promoting the British drug traffic, is among the greatest crimes, as in the exemplary, British-steered pushing the Nazi Adolf Hitler into power in Germany, and supporting Hitler, in fact, until Britain's French fascist ally of the moment had assisted the relatively weaker military force, the Wehrmacht, in overrunning an actually superior French national military force.
It is that type of induced, habitual moral self-degradation of peoples and nations, which has been the greatest curse of humanity throughout historical times, the habitual self-degradation which has permitted the habit of empire to dominate known history in such a fashion, from ancient to present times..
It is the same in the domain of modern science, where the pure evil epitomized by the influence of Paolo Sarpi on the modern perception of science, religion, and politics, has brought European civilization repeatedly into a mire largely of self-inflicted degradation, through service to wicked passions such as those which orchestrated the evil reported in the Iliad's accounts. It is that corruption, typified by the authorship of Paolo Sarpi, and typified in practice by the examples of the origins and continued influence of what has come to be called "The British Empire," which has made a great fool of European and other civilization during most of modern history leading into and beyond the February 1763 Peace of Paris.
It is by the lack of adherence to those passions which are the expression of true creativity, that nations acting according to the injunction of the Olympian Zeus of Prometheus Bound, bring suffering upon themselves. What, and where, then, are those passions, speaking ontologically?
III. The Model Case of the Historical Dynamics