An autobiographical Memorandum:
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
During this past week, I took the occasion to present a long-standing, personal conviction respecting the meaning of science. I argued, as I presented the case to some relevant associates, that the time has come to throw archaic truisms respecting science to the proverbial winds.
I avowed, that there exists only one foundation for the foundations of mankind’s knowledge of science: the self-development of the human species itself: the meaning of the human mind itself, a meaning which is bounded by the progress of mankind’s conquest of successively more and more of the unknowns of mankind’s coming into evidence of the organization of what we know as our immediate universe. The rest were merely fictions rooted in silly fantasies.
The notion of merely abstract theories of the universe, has been implicitly a disaster, a wickedly awful waste of human time and energies. Happily, in the living history of scientific knowledge, there exists a kernel of uncertainties which, by means of a process of experimental discoveries, unveils more and more of the universal mystery which envelopes a process of human knowledge respecting the universe which we inhabit.
Actually, knowledge to that effect was already very ancient, and includes the most rudimentary distinctions of the human species from all known others, this far. On this account, modern science, notably since the work of Filippo Brunelleschi, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and their followers, the foundations of a modern science was supplied, by them, and, chiefly, thereafter, to those who followed the trail which they had (so-to-speak) “blazed through” the fields and forests of a new, Classical scientific method encompassing the topical themes of Classical artistic and physical-scientific domains, that crafted as a unitary conception.
Human knowledge defines itself, not through sense-perception as such; but, through the conquest of experimental knowledge, beginning the solid principle of mankind’s most crucial discovery, that our species has not been that of an animal (excepting the perverted opinions of idiots, or their like).
From a modern scientific standpoint in evidence, these are matters which actually mark the distinction of the human species from all presently known, other living creatures.
In retrospect, this standpoint of our view of the uniqueness of mankind among presently known forms of life, can be located in the essential distinction of mind from the mere brain on which the biological support for human mental processes, perhaps unfortunately, uniquely depends. The conclusion is, that, that distinction is of fundamental importance and scientific significance, alike, a significance which can not be attributed to merely sense-perception as such; but, is, rather, nearer to man’s best-grounded knowledge, that away from the principled distinctions of the mere beasts, or the merely misguided approximations of what many consider, erroneously, as acceptable religious belief: in short, the human mind.
The crucial distinction of the human mind, is, in other words, that we must regard confidence in sense-perception as such, with a certain profoundly-rooted distaste. This echoes the famous German motion-picture scheme of 1960: “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt!”1 We know effects, not simple certainties; these effects provide the basis in experimental proofs for a useful approximation of man’s actually relative degree of certainties. True principles, defined in actually scientific terms of reference, are invariables, not solutions for mere equations. They may be expressed in terms of approximation, but, they remain principles in the same sense that Max Planck and Albert Einstein defined physical principles for the really intelligent people during the time leading into the best Twentieth-Century standards for actually thermonuclear physical-scientific practice.
Actually, sense perceptions are effects, not self-evident truths in and of themselves. The meaning of those effects must be adduced from the powers of mankind to acquire knowledge of those universal effects (i.e., principles), not as interpretations of sense-perceptions per se. Such were the necessary methods of the true founders of modern science, the Golden Renaissance geniuses, Filippo Brunelleschi, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and Cusa’s most notable scientific heir, Johannes Kepler.
It must now be recognized, that sense-perception is merely sense-perception: a shadow cast without an inherently known substance-in-fact. Hence, in any actually competent expression of modern science, true knowledge, is not to be based on mere hands-on experiment, as such; but, rather, it is but the seemingly mysterious power of provable universal physical principles of experimental knowledge, as such: never statistical deductions.
This notion of principle stands in opposition to mere experiment as such, as all of the greatest among modern scientists had an understanding of what is the notion of an actual principle as such. Johannes Kepler’s greatest achievement was of that nature, in his discovery of a lawful principle of Solar space-time, an outstanding example of the meaning of principle in science.
That principle, as Kepler himself had emphasized, had been located in the work of Nicholas of Cusa. The same was true, of Cusa’s relatively biological senior in physical-science designs: Filippo Brunelleschi, with Brunelleschi’s methods for the founding of modern physical science: a science which echoed the unique methods of Eratosthenes, as Eratosthenes typifies that in his measuring of the Earth, and related achievements.
Brunelleschi went further, and deeper into the mysteries, crushing mere mathematics with pioneering in a truly physical science based on principles of systemic insight, as with the exemplary case of his revolutionary design for the principles of modern physics, rather than merely experiments as such: as shown with the science expressed by such as the great Cathedral of Florence and the miraculous power of the Pazzi chapel (both of which cases fascinated me scientifically, in my own time, in my collaboration with certain leading Italian scientists working in deeper investigations into the nature of these as deep, scientific discoveries of principle from the Golden Renaissance).
The fraud which I had recognized in my first encounter with Euclidean geometry, in my experience with secondary education, had contributed greatly to my consequently permanent contempt for “practical” opinion. Contempt for Euclid helped me greatly, not only for reason of his awful scientific fraud; but, by warning me to learn the signal lessons of Eratosthenes, as representing a revolutionary method of truth for all physical science.
The complementary, leading influence on my direction of investigations, followed the method of Plato’s fairly well; but, my original study of Plato was more limited, this because I had already grasped, in the course of my secondary and later education, the implication of the fraud of Euclidean geometry, which had put me on the track for seeing the importance of Plato’s own work. The case of my “seemingly impulsive” recognition of Euclid’s fraud, had put the proverbial “fire in my belly;” I was already convinced, as if in advance, that Plato represented “my side” of the cause. I was, in fact, already a persuaded Promethean, in effect, throughout the course of my education since during the time of my secondary education, i.e., which is to say, the process of entry into puberty.
For those reasons, I was always enraged, thereafter, by the formalities of a customarily taught geometry in both my secondary school, and university experiences. The evidence of Euclid’s fraud, in my adolescent consideration of high-rise steel construction, had impelled me to seek out, and, to defy sources which implicitly echoed the systemic, known hoax inherent in the Euclidean method. This, has stood me in good stead ever since.
Thus, I had avoided the popularized academic follies in which many of my contemporaries had fallen, entrapped by their own worship of “false gods.” With Gottfried Leibniz, for example, I was at home; and, later, with much of Gauss, and Riemann: which for me, was that the latter were a pair of close collaborators respecting the principles of physical science broadly considered, and, thence, since Planck and Einstein, in the qualitatively principled features of their general, revolutionary contributions during the 1890s and beyond.
I have had certain distinguishing examples of such principles as these, in my own circumstances as a child, youth, and, then, my adulthood, later.
My paternal grandfather and father had been, among their other skills, rooted in the particular professionalism of the shoe manufacturing process, and with some related expertise in the technologies of that industry. They were both qualified experts in the underlying features of that manufacturing skill. But, my father and I were very different in our inclinations, otherwise.
We had some occasionally excellent cooperation, but, relatively, preferably at a comfortable distance, psychologically, from childhood, to the end of our association. This was, in effect of practice, largely because he persistently sought to push me to submit to choices where I had no desire to go.2
My own inclination was always at a distance from the hurly-burly of simply hands-on practice, a difference which was premised, for me, for the sake of deeper considerations: even where our activities, as parent and son, might seem to converge otherwise. He preferred practice for its own sake, and the prospect of its gains; I preferred scientific practice in pursuit of general principles of science, in matters of underlying principle. What that interested for me was a hatred of cook-book science-education of the typically available secondary school and university. My revulsion was not one of desire, but a sense that “I should not be here;” I did not believe in “them.” I hated the folly of popular belief in the cultic academic certainties based on the principle of regurgitating what one had been taught; I wished a truth which were rightly known to me, as my own: not hand-me-down intellectual costumes.
So, by a complex of circumstances, I was, in due course, as a young adult professional, co-opted, partly as a matter of recovering from a rather prolonged, serious hepatitis attack, into the modest role of assisting in a management assignment, to help out a friend with largely inherited business problems. I took to the profession which that implied, like a proverbial duck who had been waiting for the discovery of water. This occupation projected me, soon, into my later role of a management consultant for a large such organization (of which I did not always approve), and soon gained a promotion to a part of the executive occupied with methods of scientific forecasting specialties, as I was at some times a key figure of that firm’s staff.
Up to a certain point, I had been more than merely highly successful as a professional, and, then a member of the executive staff. My achievements were most actively accelerated during a period in which I served as the de facto available scientist and general “brain-truster.” My career had progressed rapidly, until I came into a not-really-chance meeting with the FBI (within the New York City Chanin Building’s bank of elevator shafts), an FBI which wished to engage me, outside my more regular duties, in a project which I brushed off, by telling the agent, that his organization’s proposed project was a worthless waste of our mutual time; but that I would gladly entertain assisting in anything worth considering as a more serious investigation. That was, in short, the end of my then-accustomed career for a period of duration of several, or more years – that is to say, in my role as an executive of the consulting firm which had then, actually, employed me prior to my run-ins with the FBI. ( I subsisted as a part-time consultant.)
However, by that time, I had already produced the best economic forecasting performance in the industry, by pin-pointing the exact dates when a major industrial crisis of that decade would break out. I was out of the consulting firm (courtesy of the FBI); but, nevertheless, still one of the best economic forecasters, as I had been, already, in 1957, then and later, in the field. Soon, during the early 1970s, I was given the opportunity to prove my point. Soon, by Summer 1971, I had soon proven myself, thoroughly, as the best economic forecaster in both the United States (and also) Britain, too. (Not as much to my own credit, but, rather, the incredibility of my professional rivals. Life, I have found, is often like that.)
The significance of that choice of profession, as an economic forecaster, is that it is, implicitly the top of the list in terms of the career functions. Very few professionals are really competent in dealing with subjects of that nature, or on that scale, as I was to prove that fact in the Summer and Autumn of 1971 and, repeatedly, beyond. Mere statisticians are flops in that category of professional functions. I have been (scientifically) the best in that field since, certainly, since, in fact, about 1968-1971, and, soon, that pretty much, implicitly, internationally: that for the English-speaking world, at first, but, also in some other sectors of the planet, not long thereafter. My merely apparent disadvantage, has been, that the biggest success of a professional in my ranks, could, and did lead to those foreseen disasters later experienced by me, which had been caused by those who wished me to be suddenly highly unwanted, not only in my professional field, but in my very existence, as well. This is, nonetheless, still my profession, and I am still one of the best at it, as to be known still today, as events have demonstrated repeatedly.
The crucial importance of that aspect of my personal history, defines that which I do: as earlier, and as now. It is a function suited best to the highest rank of insight into the principles of economy, from a top-down view of prospects over time, and, that. over a nation, or a set of nations. It is necessary to see almost everything from the veritable top-down, locally, not as if from below. In other words: the practical significance for persons in such positions as my own particular profession, is that we see things from the top down (sometimes) for better, and, more frequently, for worse—the latter as Wall Street types do. The latter, tend to see the world from a relatively top-down standpoint of reference, as I do, still now, but, as if by habit. In fact, I am better, and they are terribly wrong; the difference is, that they are inherently wrong in their habituated methods of judgment (I have always trusted Alexander Hamilton on this account).
My particular speciality is a forecasting which approaches, all of my professional achievements as a economist, as, also my achievements and effectively global-strategic, top-down, outlook. I have been very good at that, considering the limitations which, presently, age, and related circumstances place upon the time and energy available to me as resources in practice. Today, it is like being a ninety-year-plus, great-grandfather type on the implied board of directors: hopefully, not-too-grouchy, but, also, not to continue my practice for much longer.
In my age, profession, and condition; the rule must be, get it done, but don’t wait too long to do it, if you wish yourself to get the job actually done!
I could say a lot about that; but, having said as much as I have spoken here, this far, that is enough to set the stage for describing my role I play within the working bounds of this present report.
My responsibilities at this moment are momentous; if my present exertions were successful, and were I able to continue to function under the present intensity of my duties, I would, otherwise, “naturally” tend to a less intensive role in time and exertions alike. I am still vigorously capable for dealing with tough intellectual situations within the compass of my present knowledge and related habits, and in matters of relevant scientific discoveries in which I play a part; but, my present situation is necessarily temporary in terms of times what is to be counted down: that, biologically, on this scale, medical developments considered: plus, or minus.
The point of this report, is that there are certain principled issues of scientific method, in respect to which, I touch matters at a relatively very high level of intellectual and related competence for these times. My function, here, in this report, is to present several points of reference which have a sweeping implication for the relatively immediate present and future needs of nations, including my own. Part of this, is simply a continuation of that which I have come to do, which is essentially my own department; however, there are certain, few matters, in which my principled achievements are, both, still advancing, and more or less unique under the present conditions of presently catastrophic global crisis. I am on record, repeatedly, as (in fact) among the best economic (and related forecasters) alive, still today; that is my profession; that is who I am. The present threat of human thermonuclear extinction, is a highly relevant example of how I respond to crisis; I find myself, repeatedly, being a strategist. That is also in the nature of the subject of this present report, as now follows.
The teaching of the practice of mathematics, that usually done on the silly presumption that it is a foundation of scientific practice, is among the commonplace signs of rampant folly among both the so-called “scientific,” and the lower professions of both financial accounting, as in the inherently crooked Wall Street practice known as “usury.” The true facts of the subject-matter, were settled, for all competent minds today, by the standards set, implicitly, in Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s four principles of the physical economy of that American System of society which had been established within an environment created under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin.3 That means the profound American cultural victory over that of the British empire of that time; and, the genius exemplified by the unique discoveries made by the first Administration of the United States, especially that made by President George Washington’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.
Those opinions contrary to my own practice in an economic science, are rightly to be considered as potentially dangerous “quacks,” in both intentions and effects. Presently, Franklin Roosevelt’s great Glass-Steagall’s achievements illustrate the point, and expose the virtually chronic insanity of any contrary, merely monetarist opinions.
However, the premises for that conclusion which I have just identified, for myself, immediately above, are not financial in any essential respect; they are exclusively “hard core-physical” in their essential nature. Money per se is simply a matter of masturbation, in one expression, or, another: which is exactly what Wall Street bankers might be duly doing, in lunch-time, or evening entertainments with the boys and girls, alike.
Money as such, actually “earns” absolutely nothing, when it were measured on the scale of human realities. To speak in relatively specific terms: human progress can be fairly measured, in terms of its net physical effect, per capita, as an effective increase of the net energy-flux density efficiently expressed, per capita, relevant to the environment in which human purposeful activity is effectively expressed. The notion of chemistry as such, serves currently as an excellent first approximation of the categorical, ontological species-difference of mankind from beast. Lack of progress on that account, measures nothing as certainly as the death of economy when measured in such terms, as shown under the wretched conditions created under the alleged ministrations of the George W. Bush. Jr. and Obama Presidencies, now each approaching eight years of a still continuing pure Hell for our United States!
The popular, but thoroughly fraudulent standard, which is often substituted for that principle-of-effect, using hoaxes such as belief in sense-certainty as a standard of measurement, has a certain relevance for the effects of human behavior, but very little, in and of itself, of the relationship of the noëtic principle specific to the human mind.
The great, common error of customary beliefs, in this respect, is the presumption that sense-perception defines the reality of our species’ ultimate nature, as a species. But, the truth is, that sense-perception remains merely sense-perception, always in passing, not as a conclusion, either backwards, or forwards in history, in its direction of motion. The true test, is the effect of the expressed human will on the Solar system (and beyond) as such.
This challenge, can be, and must be, assessed in terms of the effective rate of increase of the human species’ immediate effect on qualitative changes in its willful effects on the living environment which we inhabit in our incarnation as human Earthlings. Yet, what are those effects? They are to be measured in the efficiently physical increase, or retrogression, of the powers of the human species over both the Earth’s environment which we inhabit, our powers per-capita as contrasted with changes between rival animal and human forms of creatures, and our relative power to influence the large universe which, we, as a species, inhabit. Sense-perception, as such, has the value of some sort of masturbation performed by the human mind: i.e., “the pleasure-pain principle.” Pain is useful as a warning-sign; otherwise, if considered as evidence of fact as such, it must be contained by consideration of more reliable evidence pertaining to man’s evolutionary upward nature as a species as such (or, decline).
There is no accident in the evidence which we have recently tended to consider as the periodic table of chemistry and its experimental characteristics; now lately, that is undergoing, inevitably, progressive revisions within the onset of thermonuclear technologies. Yet, even then, chemistry considered as a self-evident system, has been shown to have been a wrongful presumption. It is the power of man to effect the environment which we inhabit in our species’ marginal benefit, which is the only competent standard for measurement of truth. “Kill the unnecessary pain,” if possible, but adore progress within our Solar system, and beyond, above all else. That, instead of the pleasure-pain standard. Protect against the pain, if you are able, but seize the opportunity of progress of man within the universe, as an integral agency-principle of the universe. Pain, with aid of science, we can manage. Progress, as I have just now defined it, is absolutely essential, come what may.
Here lies true pleasure and pain, when sorted out, properly.
The true pleasures which man must seek, are located in the type of experiences which we might identify as what is usefully named as lawfully construed Music (Classical only), Poetry, Drama and actually physical science practiced by man on Earth and beyond, insofar as we are enabled by the development of our minds. Anything otherwise, is to be treated as garbage. All that is human, must be governed by the principle of mankind’s proper devotion to a process of universal creation. That is our immortal destiny; that is, really, what we should be, as the practice of means to that end.
The principle which I have, thus, described here, must be the kernel of our motivation; and, from motivation derived from those true measures of progress of the human mind which is unique for what we may identity as the Classical artistic experience. Such are the measures, standards, and human benefits of a truly Classical art and science.
When we discover a higher quality of the future of mankind, on Earth, as, for example, within the nearby planets and, asteroids, the mysterious overlapping of the Solar system with its galaxy, and, so on, are the truly natural expressions of human intention and resulting progress. It must become our true pleasure, to locate the notion of value in what the creative (intrinsically noëtic) powers of the human mind resonate still longer after the original discoverer were deceased, an effect then resonating as if through the heavens, as if forever. That is a clue to the true destiny and meaning of the human life. From Adam through Einstein, and beyond, that reveals the underlying, immortal experience of that which has lived to create higher principles within our universe.
So, it must be, from generations to generations. It seems to be, at first, a mystery which could not be efficiently explained by anyone. It is, so to speak: Just there! Yet, nevertheless, we now know that would be a silly thing to think, or, to say. What we are (or, at least, should be) thinking, is that there must be some kind of meaning in all this. The fact that we may not actually know that meaning, in and of itself, in some explicit terms of practical considerations, does not mean that the relationship does not exist. It means, simply, that we have not yet understood this satisfactorily. Anyway, what baby had ever known, actually, why he, or she had been born? Whether you like the idea, or not, is pretty much an irrelevant issue in and of itself.
The issue for us, is, simply: What would be a wise course of action implicitly built into our nature, for those very reasons?
In seeking to answer such questions and related considerations, such as those, a sane riddler would examine his chances for what he might justly consider reasonably actual options for enjoying the given arrangement of affairs. Why not simply enjoy the power to discover!? It clearly seems to be what the “Boss” wishes to do; “He” leaves us no desirable option, otherwise. Thus, the composition of the Universe, however it might have been composed, seems, clearly, the “only way to go:” enjoy the ride which we call “life.” After all, “the boss” was, really, always in charge. Perhaps he is a lot smarter, in his way, than we are, even in ours.
Also, there is the important fact, that the creative human powers of mankind, are the only moral expression of human existence. Creativity is the law which reigns over this universe, insofar as we know it. Do not get on the wrong side of the Creator; the results might be, foreseeably evident. The Brutish Queen’s “political disease,” for example, is doubtlessly a Satanic trait, as it has always been, as it is to be, therefore, a damnation of all of the cult-worshippers of the Zeusian persuasion of such as the Roman Empire, and of its avowed grandchild, the British Empire still of the present time.
So, the good grandfather, the artisan, took his grandson to view the massive construction to be comprehended by that child. The grandfather said: “I was one of those who built that!” That principle is not an expression of the grandfather’s “ego;” it is the expression of his religion, his true nature, the spirit which is to be inherited by the grandson.
That is prelude; what is the substance? In other words, what does true science mean for the “small guy” representing humanity?
The fool, and he is legion, says to himself, “I experienced that!” What did he actually experience? Was it not the silly pride of sense-certainties? What are our senses, after all? Are sense-certainties real? What do they actually accomplish, when we seek to explain how the Solar System actually works? Is sense-perception really ours? Or, is it our consoling fantasy? How is the evolution of our Solar System managed, in effect? Was it by merely sense-perception?
Our Sun is currently in a relatively quieted phase, and very bad for us, especially West of the Mississippi. That is, in fact, frightening. As a result, the entirety of the United States west of the Mississippi has collapsed in terms of the water of life. This had happened before; then, it went on for centuries. The water of life in the western part of our nation, is drying out, in effect; how, then, shall we live, over centuries to come? What does mere sense-perception do for us, under comparable circumstances?
Those frightening effects, and related kinds of effects, mock our foolish pride: the silly pride of saying that “I did that.” Sense-perception is one of the worst whores we have seen, but, also, therefore, the most likely sexual fantasy of fools.
We, mankind on Earth, have entered a time, in which new great challenges to our species are now emerging to confront our attentions.
How mighty, in fact, is our Solar system? Is that Solar system itself not grabbed by the more powerful fist of its galaxy? Shuttled and battered by the waves of power which the galaxy represents as in progress? What, then, of your silly pride in the virtually mere fantasy of your precious pleasure in mere sense-perception?! You are tickled: you laugh. You are hurt: you moan and curse your fate. You rule!? You, with your me-me-me chants? Your silly sense-perception, and its sillier wishes? Is sense-perception actually reality? Or, is it a kind of merely herding-device for human who must be guided in their very opinions by the whips of fate, called the bloodied thongs of mere sense-perception? Or, are they the mere whips for a blinded man, who must be bludgeoned into following the course of his destiny, by the mere blindness of sense-perception, and thus governed by more than anything else, by the lusts and whimperings of the batterings and seductions, or the lures and pains—or, of mere sense-perceptions?
Can we not, somehow, find a better guide to our proper destiny than mere sense-perception? Merely pleasure and pain? I contend, that we can find just that remedy for our existential pain; and, that that is the lesson of reality which defines the truth of human existence. That, is the true meaning of science; that, in turn, is the true meaning of the existence of our human species. That is our only true immortality as a living species.
Start with the management required for our direction of the evolution of our modest Solar system. Move asteroids! Change planets in their course! How is the Galaxy managed? What lies beyond? How long must the mere womb be our universe? What design compels us to mate? What is the intention of seeing, or hearing, of distinguishing pain from pleasure? How small-minded are our citizens generally? Sense-perception? You childish idiot!
You think that you can measure God? Design his clothing. Arrange his travel-schedules. Choose his garments. A blind man could see the truth much better than you, with your pitiful pride in sense-perception. Is it not that case, that because you came into the world a very silly, little thing, who knew not what he was, or why: all lollipops and tears, pain and pleasures. What were those whips and lures all about? Why?
It is when we escape the mythical characteristics of mere sense-perception, that we begin to discover what species we really represent, rising from infancy of your mere existence as a species, to rise above, and beyond immediate experiences, to seek a higher purpose for the existence of that of which you still know almost nothing presently. To rise beyond the compulsions of infantile existence, that of mere sense-perceptions, into an education into a valid more or less of creativity respecting the universe which we inhabit.
It is time for you to change your mental diapers, voluntarily, without making a horrid mess of nearly everything in sight. Your assigned destiny is not to be that of a giant, fat and foolish baby, taken from the imaginations of the wise Rabelais, and into his insight into the meaning of Panurge! Get past the point that you must rely upon your ancient, and now very disgusting mental diapers; select a useful trade of your own making! Help fix up the universe, on your own account; then, you will mean something useful in this local universe: as Brunelleschi and Cusa had done. Then, you will be no longer stumbling infants in your very smelly, present, and dirtied, intellectual diapers.
What I have written in this report, up to this present moment, can be reviewed, at this point in my report, when my preceding arguments are taken adequately into consideration.
We are, in effect, possessed by a certain destiny of which we are not informed, and yet, as my remarks here so far, imply, there is an accessible view of the meaning of human life beyond merely sense-perception as such. Not some consoling fantasy, but a prescient foretaste of reality, a mere glimpse of the future of man in our universe. That means what I would otherwise mean as the passage from infancy into adult reality of members of our species. No longer should we be confined to sense-perception as taught by our kindergarten teachers, but, we must, rather, choose the inspiration of a voluntary role no longer requiring spiritual diapers. This is a role not far distant from the necessity of herding human sheep: as what the devoutly religious Rabelais must have meant by the case of “The Sheep of Panurge,” and, also, the related case of the notorious woman of Paris.
It is the sheer infantilism of our fellow human creatures which must shock us into realizing, more, what we have not become, than what we think we are, which prompts the twinges of insight to the reality we, customarily childish creatures that we are, often wishfully prefer to ignore. It is a sensibility of a higher purpose, which an infantile society prefers to ignore.
The distinction to be made, on this account, resides within the notion of creativity per se, the coming-out from the infantilism of sense-certainty, into the necessity for doing that which had been (sensually) never done, or desired before: true human creativity. No longer lured by the follies of sense-certainty’s infantile delights, my own greatest sense of true pleasure is that shown by such as Cusa, Kepler, Rabelais, Shakespeare, and Schiller, and, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, and the like, to make man better, actually growing up from childishness, to creative visions of a purpose for life. To reach beyond the shackles of childishly mere customary behavior, for the benefit of the voluntary future yet to come.
Such are the greatest delights which I have been enabled yet to know.4 The question so posed: is the meaning of the existence of human life. In the flesh, there is little to be gained, as such. But there is a higher mission, which can not be taken from us, living, or dead. To know that, is our true happiness, the passion which directs our purpose in our existing for as long as we are enabled. We are the immortal soldiers of the human soul.
We are not the chattel of Zeus, and never will be: thus, the martyrs have cheated the devil himself, and will enjoy a truly sweet revenge against evil per se. All of our greatest scientists and poets have done the same: we make the future; that is our profession; that is our strategy, of which, we are assured, that nothing can prevent. The planets may be destroyed, solar systems and the like, may pass, but we are ever there, jerking the devil’s tail as if by invisible hands, wherever, and whatever we may become beyond. We are joined together in this mission, throughout it all, forever. That is the meaning of a human life having been lived.