LATEST FROM LAROUCHE
Playing 'Hopscotch' vs. Managing the Biosphere
by Lyndon LaRouche
More than 100 young people, gathered for a LaRouche Youth Movement cadre school in Lancaster, Pa. on May 10, heard Lyndon LaRouche give the following presentation. A two-hour discussion, excerpted below, followed his opening remarks. The transcript has been edited and subheads added.
A long time ago, people used to play a game called "hopscotch." And in hopscotch, the idea was to cast stones and so forth, into this thing you drew on the ground, as a kind of playing field; and you would hop, on one foot, from one location to the other. The object, among other things, was not to step on one of the cracks that you had made by drawing this schema on the ground. This extended, also, in that period of time, into the way in which sidewalks were constructed of concrete.
Now, the concrete sidewalks were made by pouring cement mixture into a metal framework, which would contain the quasi-liquid cement, which would then dry and harden in that framework, and then the framework would be removed. Now, the way in which these sidewalks were constructed in the course of time, the sidewalk blocks, defined by this framing, would crack. So you had two kinds of cracks: You'd have the crack which had originally been created between the blocks which formed the concrete sidewalk; and then, you would have the cracks, which had additionally developed as a result of the breakdown, shall we say, of the subsoil, and so forth.
So, if you saw a fellow hopping along the street, walking very strangely, and you would look, and you would realize what he was hearing in his mind. He was hearing a ditty, a little rhyme: "Step on a crack, break your mother's back!" A little belief in magic: that he somehow must not step on the crack, or his mother, wherever she was, would break her back!
Now, the way in which society functions today, contains many elements of that kind of pathological, or shall we say, simply pathetic mentality, superstition. And, that's the case with economy.
Now recently, in Northern Italy, in both the city of Vicenza, which is in the Veneto districtthat's the northeastern Italy area, which is relatively prosperous, in terms of industry, employment and so forthand also later, in Milan, the address I gave to a group in Milan, at a mini-parliamentI'll just summarize it again to you today.
The Development of Eurasia
The general scheme for the recovery of the world, is that we have, in Asia, in East, Southeast, and South Asia, the greatest concentration of population, and of growth of population on the planet. Together with Europe, this is the majority of the human population. Now in this area, chiefly along the coastlines, in the case of China, you'll find that there are very few, or relatively few, mineral raw materials, relative to population-density. Whereas the greatest concentration of raw materials within the biosphere, that is, the fossil area of several kilometers depth on the top of the Earth, you find most of the minerals that you need for human existence, at least from today's technology.
Now therefore, the problem is to develop this area of Central and North Asia, which includes an Arctic tundra region, which is not considered the most habitable, by modern Pennsylvania standards, but this area could be developed. The development would require, of course, large-scale development of systems in transportation, power, water management, and so forth, and urban systems. In that case, then, we could have a balanced system in Eurasia, where we could manage the consumption and production of these mineral raw materials, according to human need. We don't have it, presently; but obviously, it would be sane to do that.
Now, this compels us to look at the situation, in a more profound way: in the way the famous Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky, for example, broadly defined the problem. The universe, as I've said many, many times, is divided among three phase-spaces, using Bernhard Riemann's conception of phase-spaces. And these three, are defined in terms of physical chemistry, or, biogeochemistry is the way Vernadsky defined it. On the one side, you have those processes, which express principles, that is, universal physical principles, which coincide with the range of non-living processes, as we define "non-living processes.
The second range, is that area of principles which define phenomena, which do not occur in non-living processes, but only in the presence, and under the influence of living processes. This is an area, not only of living processes, but of fossil products produced by living processes. For example, the top layer of the Earth's surface is largely composed of, and dominated by fossil forms, that were produced by living processes. Typical are the oceans. The oceans were produced by living processes, and could not have come into existence any other way. The atmosphere was produced by living processes, and could not have come into existence any other way.
Well then, this involves some problems. Most of the mineral resources we tap into, or the greater range of them, have been arranged within the fossil area of the biospherethat is, this area of fossil rock, and so forth, below the surfacehave been arranged and located there, because they were deposited there by living processes, or under the influence of living processesas distinct from the distribution of material below the level of this biosphere, that is, where the fossils are located.
Now at present, in certain areas of the world, we're using up the fossil minerals from the biosphere, from this fossil area, more rapidly than they are being regenerated by action of the biosphere on the lower part of the planet, where the same materials exist, but they exist in a different way.
Managing the Biosphere
So therefore, the problem we have is, in developing society, is to develop soome long-range understandingscientific and otherwiseas to how we can take control of the management of the relationship between the biosphere, as such, and the mineral uses from the biosphere, and the non-living or the abiotic part of the planet. How do we manage that? How do we define our policies, on the use, and selection of use of certain kinds of raw materials in certain areas? How do we make long-term planning, which generally means thinking 25 to 50 years ahead, in terms of our requirements, to develop the kinds of systems, which will ensure us, that we will have what society needs in all parts of the world, for their needs.
So therefore, we are faced with this kind of problem for the future.
Now, this coincides, right now, with the situation in Europe and Asia: On the one side, in Europe, as you see the collapse of Germany employment, up to about 5 million probably, or more, actual unemployment. At that level, the German government can not raise and spend sufficient tax revenues, to maintain society at its existing level of existence.
We have a similar situation in the United States. At present, at least 46 of the 50 states have no hope of balancing their books without killing people, that is, without cutting costs of government, which will have the effect of increasing the death rates and the general sickness rate; and will not allow people to develop, in terms of education and so forth, to the level where they will be productive, by modern standards, in the future.
This thing can not work. We have an insane President, sitting there in the White House, an insane government, which is not based on realityrefusing to face realityunder these conditions.
So therefore, the first problem we face, in every part of the planet, is to increase productive employment. And by that, I mean productive employmentnot make-work, white-collar jobs. In that case, where we will be producing more wealth than we have required to maintain the balance of normal activities of life; we'll have enough income, from tax revenue, to pay for maintaining Federal and state and local functions; we'll have enough income, enough employment, so households and private firms, and so forth, can live less uncomfortably, at least, than they're living now.
The same thing is true throughout most of the world.
So therefore, international cooperation depends upon looking at this problem, first of all, and secondly, beginning to look at, more seriously than ever before, the problem of managing the biosphere, in terms of the relationship among human population; human development, in terms of technological progress; raw materials requirement; and management of long-term raw-materials supply.
An Advanced Language-Culture
Now, you can't do this, with a globalized system, for an elementary reason: The progress of mankind depends upon developing concepts, whether new or old concepts, but through processes of education of the type that I demand, in opposition to what's going on in schools and universities today. That is, the individual must go through the experience of re-enacting discoveries of old principlesthat is, principles already knownin order to master them as principles, and know them as principles, not as formulas for quick answers on a multiple-choice questionnaire. It don't work, hmm?
So therefore, we have to develop the society, we have to develop the cultureand we have to develop the culture in such a way, that it advances; that mankind's mental abilities are increased; that new technologies can be introduced successfully, because you have a population, which is mentally capable of understanding these new technologies. Thus, we have to have a culture, which can do that. And a culture which can do that, is based on a language-culture.
Now, a language-culture is not simply a vocabulary of terms. You can not develop a language competently, on the Internet, by looking it up, in some kind of vocabulary text or that sort of thing. Nor can you find it in the normal teaching of education today, in which people learn to write, and think, as if they were a teletype machine putting out text, dot-dot, dot-dot-dot, dot-dot. They don't have any sense of communication, they're just babbling away! Babbling radio announcers, television announcers, and so forth.
A language contains elements which are not in the vocabulary. They may be reflected as changes in the optional interpretations of words in the vocabulary, but they don't exist in the vocabulary, as such. They exist in the ironies and metaphors of comprehension, which exist within the use of the language among the people, not within the literal language itself. And, the same thing is true with a lot of things that go into a culture.
So therefore, cultures can develop, only to the degree that people develop them, in terms of a living language, in terms of the ironies and metaphors in that language, and similar kinds of things. And thus, they can think: think about ideas, about principles. Whereas, if you had a population of a world, which knew only a vocabulary of the type you could look up on the Internet, you could not have technological progress, because you could not have mental development of the population. And the danger today, is that we are reducing populations to this kind of blab-school, babbling vocabulary, with no understanding of the implications of what they're saying.
Sovereign Nation-States
So therefore, we have to have separate cultures, which means separate, sovereign nation-states. Therefore, we require a system of separate, but cooperating nation-states, which are sharing certain common problems. These common problems include the management of the biosphere, on a much broader scaleultimately globallythan the territory of a nation-state.
So therefore, that's what we're up against. That's the challenge before us, presuming we get out of this hell-hole, which George Bush and his friends are trying to create for us now. And that should define the way we think about society; the way we think about ourselves; the way we think about politics. And people who don't think about politics, in terms of those combinations, are like superstitious people, walking through life, walking in a peculiar way, for fear that they might step on a crack, which will break their mothers' back. And, that's the situation we face today.
A 'Rabelaisian' Discussion with Youth
Question: I've been thinking about this concept for a while now, about how physical space-time is a multiply-connected process. So, I was thinking about this concept of time, and how we have different concepts, like the simultaneity of eternity; but, then you can also think of time as a measure of change. So, then, I started thinking about, what are we measuring that change against?
LaRouche: Ah!
Question: And then, you get in areas of composition, where now you know you're talking about the Noösphere, and then, there's still this element of time, and the ambiguities that are presented with it. So, I'd like you to comment on what this element is.
LaRouche: Okay. Well, it goes to the question of curvature, hmm? I don't know how much discussion among all of you there has been, about this question of Gaussian curvature, and its relationship to the idea of a Riemannian universe. Most of my work, of course, is based on that particular problem, that concept.
Now, as I've described it before, but just to situate this for everyone: If you imagine ancient man, that is, ancient intelligent man, looking at the night-time sky, on a clear night, and seeing a panoply of stars, and also planets, and some other objects floating around up there, and they would imagine the universe to be, in a sense, like a big spherical bowl, a container which they're in. Now, they don't know far distantthat is, how far that surface is from where they're standingbut they imagine that, someplace out there, there is a point, a surface, which you can see the inside of, and where all these different objects, stars and so forth, might be moving. And you try to measure the relationship among the movements among those bodies, the way ancient people constructed these astrological schemes; calendar schemes for the annual calendar, things of that sort.
Now, you call that the sensorium, this imaginationyou project a sphere, that you're inside a sphere; you're on some normalized point inside the sphere, and you're looking up toward the interior surface of the sphere, in which all these objects are moving about as light points: Is that real?
And then, you find out, that it's not real. It is real, it's a real shadow of reality, but it's not the reality as such. This, of course, is the significance of, among other things, Kepler's discovery. When Kepler discovered that the motion of the planets, starting with Mars, was not circular, but elliptical in form, and discovered two other things. This whole business about assuming that this is the actual surface, on which events are occurringthat goes out the window. Why? Well, he discovered, in the elliptical function, that the Sun was located at one of the two foci of the relevant ellipse. And also discovered that the rate of the planet's motion, along the elliptical pathway, was constantly non-uniform. And what the measurement was. That proved that there was an operating physical principle, invisible to the senses, but whose effect was, nonetheless, visible to the senses. And therefore, you can not simply say, that, from Euclidean geometry, from looking at the universe from the standpoint of Euclidean geometry, you can come up with a mathematical description of the laws of the universe. That's what he proved, among other thingsas others had proved before him.
The 'Shadow' of the Universe
Now, what does that mean? That means, essentially, that you have a real universe, whose shadow is the universe you think you're seeing. In other words, if you're looking at this spherical sensorium up there, which you imagine you're inside it; you're looking up at it, like the ceiling of the universe; and you think, that the mathematical relationships between the events you're observing, as on that sensorium, are reality. They're not. But, there is some reality to them, isn't there?
What is the reality, which they correspond to? Well, think of them as the shadows of something projected upon the sensorium from outside that universe. Think of that universe, the one you think you're observing, as an imaginary universeone created by the senses, as an artificial sense, of what you're actually experiencing, but an image which is determined by the way your sense organs are constructed. Now, what is the real process, which is causing this effect in your sense organs? Well, that's what Kepler's law meant, Kepler's law of gravitation.
Now, how does this reflect itself? It reflects itself, that the planet is now movinglike Marsit's moving along the elliptical orbit it follows. At every point you observe it, no matter how finely you divide the points, the rate of motion is changing, relative to sense perception. So, what is regular? What is constant? Well, at every point, on this pathway, you're dealing with a different curvature, which is intersecting the curvature of some elliptical pathway, as if it were touching it at that point. Call it a "singularity"the intersection of the curvature of the real action, as against the imagined curvature, which is a shadow of the effect.
Now, to understand the universe, you have to understand the relationship between the two curvatures. The curvature of the function, which is defined by the tangent action, or tangential interference at that point; and the motion within the orbital pathway, as a different surface. The two surfaces give you a sense of mapping of the universe. Now, obviously, the universe is much more complicated then, isn't it? It's more complicated, because you have to look at all the curvatures, to see what is really happening in the universe. And you come up with a different kind of universe.
Now, we also have a second thing going on: We have man in the universe. To the best of our knowledge, the number of physical principles, in the universe, as a whole, is predetermined. That is, we don't determine the number of principles that exist in the universe. We discover them, but we don't predetermine their existence. But, we're not aware of their existence, until we make the discovery.
All right, therefore, you have a sense of two universesor maybe three: one is the sense-perception universe, which is only a shadow, as, for example, Plato defines it; then, you have a universe as you know it, in terms of principles; but then, there's a larger universe, which includes what you know, and what you have yet to discover, which is the real universe. What happens, therefore, when man discovers a principle? Well, man's discovery of a principle, is not simply a matter of observation: It's a matter of intervention. Of willful intervention in the universe. When man, who is a creature of will, discovers a physical principle, and uses it, even though the principle discovered already existed, man changes the order of effects in the universe.
So therefore, we have three universes to consider: the totally imaginary, shadow universe of observation, sense perception; the universe, as we know it, in terms of physical principles, which is good, it's real; whereas the shadow universe is merely a shadow universe, but, it is not complete. We have not yet discovered the universe in full. So, there we are: We say, the process now is determined by man's discovery, and efficient use of, discovered universal physical principles. Ah!
How do we measure the effect of adding a new physical principle, as a discovery, to the repertoire we already had? In Gauss's measurements, or in Riemann's work in general, it's defining what's called a "Riemann surface." A Riemann surface is typical of the case, where you have the intersection of one universe, with the tangential impact of another universe upon ittypical Riemannian surface. In this case, you say, you measure the change in effective action within the universe, as a result of adding the action of this additional physical principle that we discovered. What that means, of course, in practice is, that relative to man, man's power over the universe increases. This power is expressed in various ways, but it's also expressed very simply in quickness. When man discovers new physical principles, and applies them efficiently, the quickness with which man can effect changes in the universe, is increased.
Now, if the quickness of a standard event is changed, if the measuring rod of time is changed, in terms of practice, then there is no such thing as universal, fixed, permanent clock-time. The universe does not go "tick-tock." The universe speeds up. It speeds up, because of the effects of the processes of principles. It speeds up, because man's intervention, with new physical principles, speeds up the effective measurement of time. That is, time tends to speed up; time becomes quicker.
So, the idea that people can take a fixed clock-time measurement, and apply that to the universe, and tell me what the actual history of the universe was relative to manthey don't know what they're talking about. They may be very good astronomers. They may be good scientists in general, but they still don't know what they're talking about.
So, that's what the anomaly is: that time is not an absolute clock-time, functioning independent of the physical changes in the universe. Time is a reflection of a direction and of relative power of the processes we're deploying, relative to the universe and relative to man's actions. So, time is essentially, intrinsically, relative. It is not absolute, in the sense of "tick-tock."
A 'Rabelaisian' Answer
Question: I've got a question about a specific aspect of your solution for solving the problems of our country; I've been thinking about this lately. How would you go aboutgiven the inevitable outcome of you becoming President in 2004how would you go about motivating a population that's just been beaten down, physically, psychologically? And I want to address certain aspects of this question, not only motivating them to become producers again, but we talked about the culture question, and how it does dumb us down, that is, to an animal level. But, how would you, as a form of policy, go about attacking it? How would you use television, or, what would you do about television?
LaRouche: Okay, let me just give you a good Rabelaisian answer to this, because I think the Rabelaisian answer is the most efficient.
It's hard to look a guy in the eye, when you're trying to kiss his ass at the same time. That's the problem. That's the problem that most people have in politics. Okay. The point is, that what most people have as a problem, in politics, is, they're saying, "How can you actually get across an idea to somebody, without offending them? Without offending their prejudices?" And the fact is, as I said, that's why I used the Rabelaisian format. You can not look a guy in the eye, while you're trying to kiss his ass at the same time. And that is where most people in politics, and similar kinds of things, fail. They're trying to find a way to woo somebody from behind. Whereas, if they would simply state, straight-up, what they intend to say, or should intend to say, looking the guy in the eye, so to speak, the idea would probably get across.
Now, for example. What does the typical American need?
Say, "Are you one of these dumb Americans who think that the economy is not collapsing? Are you one of the Americans who thought that free trade is this and that?" Now, you don't quite say it that way, but you don't kiss his butt. What you do is say, "The problem that we're having, in society, which many Americans have, is they refuse to face reality, partly because they're afraid of being overheard saying the kinds of things that might get them into trouble. And therefore, people convince themselves, they should be overheard saying something, and when they say it too much, they even begin to believe it. The fact is, this system is collapsing. There's no solution except a new monetary system. Now, do you want to survive? Do you care what happens to you, and your family, and so forth, 10 or 20 years from now? Do you care? Do you care enough to change the way you think and act now?"
And that's the only way to deal with it. Now, the advantage is, with younger people, as opposed to Baby BoomersBaby Boomers tend to sayyou're trying to influence a guy by kissing his butt. That's Baby Boomer behavior. Whereas you young guys, who may tend to do the same thing, sometimes, but you really, instinctively, you have a sense that your generation has been betrayed, by the preceeding generation, and therefore, you're less hesitant to recognize the fact, that the policies which have been adopted over the past 40 years, the policies which have been tolerated by the previous generation, or the older generation, the 50-60 generation, the policies which are running the country now, have been awful, have been betrayal. And that getting rid of those policies, and looking at the policies which previously existed, as a point of reference, for what we ought to be doing instead, is the way to look at it.
The person of the younger generation, say, the 18-25-year group today, is less inclined, to do ass-kissing. And that's the difference.
So, the point is, the younger person, who is saying plainly, like the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's story of "The Emperor's New Suit of Clothes"the whole crowd is standing there like a bunch of Baby Boomers, or blubbering Baby Boomers, admiring the Emperor walking down the street, absolutely naked, all pretending that they see him with his wonderful suit of clothes, that this couple of swindlers have foisted upon him. And the little boy there, standing by the street, says, "But, Daddy, he has nothing on!"
And when you look at the parade of Baby Boomers and their Emperor walking down the treet, and you see George Bush babbling his way down the street, and every fool in the world admiring, saying "But he's the President!" And some little boy says, "Hey, he's got nothing on. He's brainless," that's the truth. So, sometimes, the way of getting across, and emphasizing the simple truth, and looking inside the mind of the person you're addressingnot kissing their rear end, but looking inside their mind, to see what is the contradiction that's bothering them, lurking inside their mindthat will bring them to a recognition of the reality of the issue you're raising, you're posing. That'll work. Because reality is working for you.
Look, the dollar is now running at $1.15 to the euro, as last reported. $1.15! It was supposed to be at parity at one. The dollar is collapsing. The U.S. economy is collapsing. The U.S. financial system is tumbling. The President of the United States is sinking in the quicksand of his own mind. So, if a person says to you, "No, everything is fine," they don't know what they're doing. "This is all fine. You're wrong. It's all going to be all right." You've got the advantage. He may tell you "no" today, but two weeks from now, he's going to look at you"Hey, I was wrong, you were right." And that's the way to win.
Man Is Intrinsically Good
Question: I have a lot of problems with the statements you're making. First of all, I agree that the interior continents must be developed, but if we tried to do the Eurasian Land-Bridge today, we'd have it administered by corrupt Western and Japanese busnessmen, Middle Eastern Wahabis, Central Asian warlords, corrupt Chinese bureaucrats, and the Russian mafia. Each would take the resources entrusted to him, for the development of the Land-Bridge, and use it to line his own pockets.
Second, you equate budget cuts with genocide. That assumes that the increase in government spending during the '90s actually saved lives. Which of course is not true. Most government spending today is wasteful, and should be cut. Your fallacies, Mr. LaRouche, spring from your failure to apprehend the real problem, the sin enthroned in every human heart, and the only solution: personal faith in the blood of Jesus, shed to atone for our sins.
LaRouche: Well, actually, you can't complain about the morals of other countries, because the worst morals I know in the world are found in the United States, in the U.S. government. And it is notit was misspending, not excessive spending that was the problem. That's not the problem. The problem was, not enough spending in the right way, and raising prices without producing goods.
And these other countries do not have as much corruption as we have. They don't have the luxury of being quite as corrupt. So, we're in a sense better off with them, than otherwise.
Besides, man is not naturally evil. That's a wrong conception. Man is not intrinsically evil. Man is intrinsically good. However, there's a little problem here, of getting a person from a new-born condition, into realization of their true human potential. And so far, in society, very few people really make it. But I know, from long experience, that if you do as I do, and accept the frustration that that incurs, sometimes, you appeal to that within people which is good, naturally good, it's best thing in the universe.
And this idea that Christianity deals with man as being intrinsically evilthat is a false belief, which has nothing to do with Christ; has nothing to do with Christianity, the conception of Christ. Just think about the ludicrousness of this argument, about this: Christ came to rescue the evil. This is a Jonathan Edwards-type of crazy idea, which spread among some Protestant cults, and others. You're saying that God, the Creator of the universe, has bad taste, that he would send His Son to die, for a bunch of creatures which are the lousiest, most evil things slithering across the planet. I would propose to you that God does not have bad taste. And that Christ's sacrifice for the redemption of mankind as a whole, expresses God's confidence in the essential goodness of the human individual. And as Christ and many of the apostles, and others, sacrificed their lives, willinglynot that they desired to sacrifice their lives, but they did it when they had todid it in order to, on behalf, of that intrinsic goodness, which lurks in all mankind.
Our job is to bring forth in man, to inspire them to recognize that goodness. And to recognize it in themselves, and to cling to it, and not to slip into some kind of degenerate kind of behavior. Which is typical of people today, including many so-called fundamentalists.
A fundamentalist, for example, who supports a John McCain or a Lieberman, or some of these crazy cults that support George Bush, is actually doing evil. Now, how can they say that their kind of Christianity is what I should listen to, when what I see them doing is evil? Whereas I know that mankind, who often does commit evil, is intrinsically good, and that God, through Christ, in particular, has expressed his confidence in the essential goodness of mankind. And it's my job, as anyone else who follows that, is to bring forth in people, to the degree possible, the essential goodness which lives within themnot to write them off, assuming that if they get down and crawl, and say what a dirty little boy they are before the altar, at an altar callI don't have any confidence in altar calls. I've seen many of them, and I don't believe them. An altar call is a habit which is expressed by an inveterate sinner, who has an altar call, and then goes out and commits a sin, and then has another altar call. And I haven't seen it doing much good lately.
Particularly in the case of the President of the United States, who has two defects: One defect is his former drug habit; the other is, he got off the drugs in the waythrough one of these fundamentalist thingswhich turned him into a beast. And that's the problem.
We have to believe, if you want to defend Christianity, you have to believe in the essential goodness of man. You have to believe in the redemption of mankind. You have to believe in the cause of trying to get other people to participate in that process of redemption of mankind, not out of fear, not out of hate, not out of combat against evil as such. You want to fight evil? Fight Bush. But in the sense of the goodness, that you have one life, and don't waste it. Spend it wisely. Spend it, do good.
And most of humanity is like that. They're reachable. It's our jobespecially those who become leadersit's our job, constantly to reach, to bring forth the goodness, which is innate to all people.
Language and Women
Question: My question is about language. I find, I've found all my life, that there's something very profoundly missing from language, and that's women. I don't think that people are aware of the psychological effects that language has on experience. Well, to give you an example, the word "mankind," even "humankind" is constructed in a male-centric way. The word "he" to describe everybody. I think that, if we're to bridge the social gap between art and science, wouldn't you say that it's important to socially reconstruct language?
LaRouche: No, I don't. Language is not the problem. I know this argument is often made. It's made often by the feminists; it has been essentially since, oh, actually earlier, but it became significant during the course of the 1960s. Before, it was there, you found it with left-wing groups and so forth, particularly experimental groups of feminists, who sometimes would come up with these elaborate schemes to try to explain that the problems of life, the problems of injustice toward women, were somehow rooted in mental states, which are problems of language.
Actually not. It's quite the other way around. The problem lies not in language, because the idea that language should be literal, itself, is a problem. Languagea good languageis never literal. It rather depends upon irony and metaphor, and also, it depends upon certain functions of musicality which are derived from, actually from bel canto, that is, physically derived from the principles of the body, which result in the bel canto norm, of the human singing voice. Therefore, it is what is conveyed which is the problem, not the language per se.
In fact, all of us who write, or who study these matters, professionally, as we're forced to, as I've had to, particularly in dealing with philosophical and related questions, realize exactly this distinction. The discussion of language being the problem, posed by the feminists, is wrong. That is not the problem. The problem is the connotations of the use of language, which contain the problem.
And this is very clearly distinct. It becomes obvious in jokes. It becomes obvious in latrine-type jokes, barracks-type jokes, that sort of thing. Also, it becomes obvious in women. Now, feminists have played with this thing, about cosmetics and so forth, as being a kind of self-degradation. And then it goes to the other extreme, and that doesn't work either. A person tries to be clean, well-groomed in public, and the use of cosmetics to that degree, is something you can't contest with. That would be oppression, to make that an issue.
But then I see thingsI was just making jokes about this the other dayI was in Milan. Milan, in Italy, which used to be an industrial center, has ceased to be merely an industrial center, though there are medium-sized and smaller industries across the beltway of northern Italy, which are among the most successful parts of the European economy today. But Milan has become a center of fashion. And you have poor girls, who are generally abused by lesbiansthat's the characteristic of the model market in Milan, is you have these girls who are super-skinny, you'd think they were recruited from the catacombs, they're so skinny, and they generally are abused, as the Naomi Campbell case illustrates, abused by lesbian women who prey upon them, and determine their careers. If they don't satisfy the desires of a lesbian woman, they can lose their career as a model, and so forth.
Then, these poor girls, who are out there trying to make a livingand only a few of them are the superstars that make a real livingthese poor girls go out on stage, wearing strips of rags, which you thought were thrown away by the Paris fashion shops, walking in a peculiar walk, because they're so underfed, that they walk peculiarly, angrily but peculiarly, on stage. And it's horrible. It's a horrible degradation of women. And the things they wear are disgusting! It's rags. So, it's like a skeleton walking on stage, wearing a few bits of rags, and it's called fashion. And this guy Versace, for example, his tradition, is typical of this problem.
That is what the oppression is, is the imposition of social roles upon, and attitudes toward, women, as merely creatures of this or that type, in acts of self-degradation. That, insofar as these things become the connotations of the use of language, then language is a problem. The problem is not the need to reconstruct language, the problem is to shift the conception of man, from a creature who is used for the pleasure of others, into a person who is truly human, into a notion of humanity which is premised upon the distinction between a monkey, and a human being. And that's where the fault comes.
But most of these feminists, that I've known, when they've made the argument, they don't make the distinction between a human being, and an ape. And that's where the problem lies. They themselves, who are protesting most violently, against so-called male oppression, are themselves propagators of the infection whose results against which they are complaining.
The Classical Principle in Music
Question: My question is relating to music. I write a lot of poetry, and a lot of lyrics, and some songs, and I want to ask you, just because, I like music, and it isn't Classical, does it not have meaning, is it not music?
LaRouche: Well, if it's not Classical, it's wrong. The question here is not a Classical form. It's a Classical principle, as I noted earlier. The form should be subordinate to the intent, to the principle, not the principle to the form.
Now, one of the best examples of this, iswell, this, of course, is a more advanced subject, but it's being addressed by some of us. Take the case of one of the greatest revolutions in music since Bach, at leastBach's revolution was so impressive that it overwhelms almost everything that follows. But after Bach's revolution, the most impressive change in music, as that done by Beethoven, as expressed in such works as his Missa Solemnis, and his final series of string quartets.
In this, Beethoven breaks from the strictures of a formal compositional form, such as the formal quartet form, and as in the Op. 131, 132, moves into a straight developmental form, in which there's a progression of development of a single idea, to such effect that going through these compositionsthe 131 and 132 are fairly longbut going through these compositions from beginning to end, with a good understanding of them, produces an effect which, in total effect, is absolutely magnificent.
Now, this is a result of a change in form. You have a similar change which occurs in Beethoven in the Piano Sonata 106, the so-called Hammerklavier. In the third movement, the Andante Sostenuto, there is a development section, in which the development goes through a rapid change, succession of keys, it's into a form of modalities, which is almost free. This element of that part of that movement, is then used by Brahms as the developmental principle of his Fourth Symphony, which indicates a progression. Beethoven, in his Seventh Symphony, is already moving in that direction, and Brahm's Fourth Symphony has many reflections of the approach to composition of Beethoven's Seventh.
So, in the process of musical development, there have been revolutionary changes in the forms, but never violating the principle. As a matter of fact, almost more strenuously emphasizing the extension of the principle, rather than the form as such.
The same thing is true in physical science. That in physical science, the progress, actual progres in physical science, involves revolutionary overtones in the sense of forms. So, there's not a Classical model, in the sense of a fixed model of form of composition. There is rather a principle of composition, in which you may use different forms, as long as the principle is the same.
So I don't think there really should be a problem. I think what you get today, is, in a sense, is the idea of having effects, which are strictly sensual types of effects, used as the Romantics did, as a substitute for Classical composition, for ideas. And that's where the problem lies. The term "Classical" should meanexactly as I said earlier, should mean thatit should not mean a specific form. Even though you have to have respect for the fact, that certain forms were developed according to Classical principle.
What Is a Thought?
Question: I was thinking, about thinking, you know: What is thought? Is it a creative form? Are there forms of thought, like, maybe, when I have a conception of something, it's not in the form of language? I'm not thinking in a thoughtwell, I don't know if the thought is the idea; or, if the thought is the communication through the language of the thought that is produced, so.
LaRouche: Well, that's not such a big problem. It's a big challenge, but it's not formally a big problem. The problem is, that society today is so full of all these assumptions, which people are taught to believe, or induced to believe, that what they ought to recognize at first-hand is blocked by the secretion of all of these assumptions.
You're talking about speaking, as communicating. Talk about music, as a form of communication: What's the purpose of it? The purpose is communication. What do you mean by communication? Well, let's take human communication. You have two levels of communication: You have animal communication among human beingsyou know, "pass the salt," for example; that's animal communication. Then you have human communication, which involves ideas, that is, ideas which existthey're real; or they're conjecturably, possibly real, but their existence lies outside the domain of sense perception, and they can be known to sense perception, only as shadows, cast by reality upon sense perception.
So therefore, you're trying to express a relationship, between a sense-perceptual frame of reference, and an idea. And the function of language is to communicate the idea, by the way you refer to the sense-perceptual reference.
Now, what you do, is a sense of irony. For example, let's take the simple case of the stage: You have the use by Shakespeare of the soliloquy. You have the actors on stage; they're acting. They're acting out a part. They're within a context, which is a play. Then you have the soliloquy, which is performed by the actor, who turns from his role inside the play, the contexthe turns toward the audience, and he delivers a commentary upon what is going on in the play, or something relevant to it, to the audience.
So, you see the principle of communication is thus illustrated: It's the relationship between the physical referent, and an idea, which is totally offstage, from a sensual standpoint.
So therefore, the question of speech, the question of music, is how to deliver ideas, whose existence is, in a sense, offstage, by means of the way in which you use the stage. So, speech, and music in its literal form, are a stage. Painting, in its literal form, is a stage. The function of Classical composition, whether speech, or drama, or poetry, or painting, is to present ideas, which exist offstage, off the stage of sense perception, and the language which pertains to sense perception.
This involves irony. One of the aids in speaking, as in singing, for the use of irony, has to do with musicality. The bel canto trained singing voice, that is, a voice, which has been trained to sing, and to speak, in the Florentine bel canto mode, is expressing a natural, physiological potentiality of the human speaking-singing apparatus. And there is no difference, between the speaking and singing apparatus, in terms of this characteristic.
Now, this gives you register shifts; it gives you difference in registration; it gives you differences in coloration, and all devices of color. And every device that exists in music, in song, exists in speech. Ancient Classical poetry is an example of this: Ancient Classical poetry is based essentially upon the use of what is otherwise known, in modern times, as the "Florentine bel canto principle," principle of speech, to sing poetry. And the Classical poetry is used in that form. The remarkable thing about Classical poetry, as we've looked at some of these things, with the aid of some experts in India, on the question of the ancient Vedic Sanskrit poems, is that, some of these poems, for example, contain precise astronomical information. Some of this astronomical information, calendar information, is embedded in this poetry.
The people who have transmitted this poetry by oral tradition, in the lack of a written communication, by oral tradition, are able to transmit this over many successive generations with great fidelitythat is, with a minimal amount of error. And the convergence of all the people who repeat these little hymns, is such that, the culture replicates the hymns. In many cases, the person who is reciting Sanskrit, or Vedicchanters, do not know the language in which they're reciting. But, nonetheless, they're able to communicate these hymns, with relatively great fidelity. And thus, the poetic form, as a Classical poem, as known to the Vedic or Sanskrit, is thus shown to be a medium of communication, in its own right, which is much more reliable than what we would call "prose speech utterance" today.
And thus, the use of musicality in speech, as in singing, is an essential part of the process of communicating ideas. The significance of this shows in irony. Not only metaphor, as such, but irony more generally. You convey a meaning, by a matter of intonation, in such a way, that you convey different levels of irony. The idea, which is always a tension between the sense-perceptual reference, and the idea which exists beyond sense-perceptual reference, is like the actor speaking offstage; also, at another moment, speaking onstage. And therefore, the distinction between the two, enables the human being to communicate ideas offstagethat is, relevant to ideas which exist in the domain beyond sense perception, but are using a language, which, in its obvious function, is designed essentially to communicate references to sense perception.
Sometimes, "pass the salt" can be a statement, which is a poetic idea. Sometimes, it's just saying, "pass the salt."
Celts, Irish, and Christianity
Question: As a brand-new organizer, I'm having some trouble managing my studies, being so many areas to study: economics, mathematics, philosophy, etc., which are all interrelated, I find myself jumping around a lot, and basically wasting my spare hours or days to study, because I'm skimming over a lot of topics. And, those hours are pretty precious, as a full-time organizer. So, I guess I'm asking for your advice, which is: Where do you think the best place is to start? And why?
And, I also have a second part, because I'm obviously finding that most so-called "historical" accounts, are nothing more than propaganda and fallacy, so I'm looking to find a way to research the true history of my Irish and Celtic roots, for an historic account of the relationship between religion and the peoples who created them.
LaRouche: Oh! This is fun. Well, of course, there may be some cross there, because, you know Classical Greek was the language of Christianity; it was the language of St. Paul and John, for examplethe Gospel of Johnwhich, in a sense, touched the influence of people like Cicero, in ancient Rome. And, of course, affected strongly Augustinus and others. And, from thence, Christianity and that Classical Greek tradition in Christianity, was passed to Isidore of Seville, and it made its way up to Ireland, of all places. And the Irish were the only Christians in sight!
And, the Irish then Christianized the Saxons. And, as I've said, the Saxons, in turn, returned the favor by Christianizing the court of Charlemagne. But, then the Normans came in, and they slaughtered the Saxons, and there's not been a Christian seen in England sinceat least that's the Irish version of the story.
This, I think, is the reality of it: is to look at this question of Irish and Classical Greekit's ideas. Ideas. And, of course, in the Irish, you're looking at the poetry and things like thatthe legends and so forth. But of course, there was the Norman influence there, too, so you've got to take into account, the Normans did conquer Ireland, and ruled it for some period of time.
On the other thinghow to organize conflicting studies: My view is, from experience with this sort of thing, reflecting upon my life's experience with it, would be, that you have to have an independent standpointindependent of any of the subjects as such, or as classroom subjectsand you have to sort of "look down" on them from this pinnacle, or observation point, which lies above them. Then, you are the master of the experience of the studies, rather than you being a person, buffetted from one island in the sea of this or that, to another. The problem is, when you're buffetted about.
And, most education today, in most universities and schools, is pretty bad. It's gotten much worse, as I've observed over the recent generations. I thought it was bad, when I went therebut, it's much worse today. So, really, you have a problem; you have a cultural problem in society, in which it's working.
So therefore, you have to have an independent standpoint, a sense of personal identity and knowledge, which stands above and outside the confines of any of the subjects as taught. Then, you look at each of the subjects as taught, clinically, as an observer of those subjects, from the standpoint of where you find your own identity. It's the only way to deal with this. What I've done, and developed over the course of my life, I quickly developed my point of view, my sense of personal identity, as opposed to my exposure to this horrible thing, called the education to which I'm being subjected.
Classical Education vs. 'Blab' Schools
Question: I have three questions, actually. The first question is: For me, the idea of school for me, is to give a training ground to move one from one point of understanding, to one which is presumably a higher understanding. To get a person from a non-Classical to a Classical standpoint of education understanding, how do we move them ahead without addressing that point directly? How do you move them from one point to the other, without going through that point that characterizes that mindcorrecting it and aligning it, to conform to the overall Classical understanding? How do you move them ahead, but without addressing all the underlying problems that are there?
LaRouche: Well, the first thing you have to do is, redefine the problem. Don't accept the problem in that formthat's not the problem. There is a problem; what you described reflects a problem, but that is not the problem.
The problem is, that you're dealing with the same kind of problem we had to deal with this slave tradition, or post-slave tradition: You had the original freedom movement among Americans of African descent, typified by Frederick Douglass, typified in the best way: Frederick Douglass's approach was to organize the freed slave, or the slave who was to become free, around the highest level of Classical culture in European civilization. That was the basis for the movement.
Now, what happened was, with the freedom of the slave, masses of people, including so-called "do-gooders," said, "No, we're not going to educate the slaves the way Frederick Douglass demanded. We're going to give them education, which does not push them above the station in life, which they must expect, in adult life." So, you had a general tendency toward, what we used to call in the Kentucky hills, "blab schools," or something converging upon blab schools: small classrooms in which the level of education was almost trivial. And they were turned loose to work as cheap labor for the former slave-masters, generally, under this kind of degeneration.
Now, what happened is, that you had a reaction against this, in the sense of a defense of a depraved culture imposed on African-Americans, by this change in policy, of opposition, which you'll get to this day, in the struggle for freedom against the after-effects of slavery, of people who attack Frederick Douglass, as the enemy of the culture of the African-American. You will get the same thing, not only among African-Americans, but among many strata in the American population. What you have to recognize: You're dealing with the fact that a person who has been condemned to be herded human cattle, is given a culture, a cultural conditioning, whose purpose is to condition them, not only to accept, but to defend the brainwashing they've got, as culture. This is the problem today.
Then, you have a second aspect to it: Not only do you have the educational problem, as such; but you have the popular-culture problem, as typified by rock, etc., etc. These were forms of cultural behavior, which were intended to destroy the susceptibility of sections of the population to develop any cultural capability, any intellectual capability. You had, also, the counterculturethe rock-drug-sex counterculture, and related kinds of manifestations of the mid-1960s (which also had a precedent, but this was a mass form of culture), which actually told people to use LSD, to destroy their minds, in order to become college graduates, in effector college dropouts.
So, now you had this LSD-marijuana-etc. culture, the drug culture, the rock-sex-drug culture, which took over a large part of the U.S. population. And people to this day, defend that culture. You know, I had this question from Seattle, the first question [at the cadre school] from Seattle last week: What's my attitude about the freedom for drug use, drug policy? And, I said: You want our people to go through the program of drug use, which destroyed mind of the President? A President who is now destroying the United States, because he's got a destroyed mind? You want us to have that kind of policy?
But, that's what we have. We have a permissive attitude, about a rock-drug-sex counterculture, which has destroyed the minds of a large part of the population. And, as manifest by the rave dances, you have a large section of the population, which is absolutely destroyed, in its emotional and other ability to function, because of this subculture. These people then become conditioned to defend what was done to them.
For example, the case of early England, 18th-Century England: The British imported a cheap device called "gin." It was called "gin" because it was named for Geneva, as in Switzerland. It was originally called "gin" among the Dutch; so Dutch gin was then pushed into England, and used to stupefy the English population, to make it more controllable, by making it stupid.
College-Educated Fools
The biggest problem we have today, is that form. And, at all levels. It's called "college stupidity": You have college-educated fools, who have been subjected to courses in existentialism and so forth. They come out of collegethey're brain-damaged! I don't know whether it's biological brain-damage or not, but functionally brain-damaged. They defend that; they defend existentialism. They defend the rock-drug-sex counterculture. They defend it. And they treat you, as if you're trying to change that, attacking that, as if you were somehow their oppressor! Their oppressor is the ones who conditioned them to be what they are. It's like Dracula's flock are saying, "You're taking away our blood!" Or something like that. That's the kind of thing.
So, the key thing is, don't worry about it. Be aware of it, but don't worry about it. Don't be conditioned by it. The basic way to go at this, is, we have to go at it as a groupsometimes as individuals, it's tough to do. We have to say, "We want to free you from that. We want to free you from the habits of slavery."
Again, the girl was talking earlier about this question about feminism and language, which is very much a concern among many young womenhas been for some time: What is the role of certain habits in society, in oppressing and depressing women? Well, it was trueit worked. The problem was not in the language, the problem was with something elsebut it nonetheless, it worked, that's the problem. You have the same thing, the history of slavery, of post-slavery United States, of education; of taking a large mass of former slaves, and how to prevent them from developing intellectual capabilities of actually integrating into society; to keep them as virtual slaves, when they were rounded upevery time there was a harvest, the local sheriff would round up all the African-Americansround them up, and put them out on chain-gang to do the work for the harvest period; that kind of thing.
Then, what's happened to the population generally, as with the drug-rock-sex counterculture, to destroy the mental powers of that whole section of the population. And then, having these victims, of that abuse, turn upon society and say, "Don't try to take away our culture"; "our culture" being the habituated, self-degradation, which they had been subjected to, for that kind of intent.
So, we have to recognize that. And, having recognized that, then, we become the loving fellows: We're the ones who have to step in, and figure out, as pedagogues, how to structure educational and related programs, programs of educational effect (as opposed to strict education), and these programs which will give people an experience of the sense of the powers they have within them, and let it flow from there. But, I think, also, we have to be very, very plain, very plainspoken, about slavery. The way to free people from slavery, is to remind them, and convince them, that those things they're wearing are shackles. And, don't be afraid of saying, or attacking the shackles, for fear that they will react, and say, "Those shackles are part of our culture," because that's what's happening to a lot of our Americans, today.
|