Listen to the audio here. Transcript as follows:
MEGAN BEETS: Hello, today is June 4th, 2014, my name is Megan Beets, and I’m joined in the studio today by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and Cody Jones of the LaRouche PAC Science Team. Now, just to say a few things to set the context for today’s discussion: Over the recent ten days to two weeks, we’ve been experiencing a rapid acceleration in a process which, Mr. LaRouche, you have forecast, and have been driving, which is the shift of the world system, away from the dying, collapsing trans-Atlantic system, and to the process of development which we’re seeing occurring in Eurasia.
Now, this has been marked by a series of recent elections. First about ten days ago, we had elections in Europe, across Europe, for the European Parliament, where, in what was a shock to many people, though not all, certainly not to you, Mr. LaRouche, you had a victory in many countries for the parties which were anti-euro, anti-European Union, pro-Glass-Steagall, and anti-British Empire. This occurred in the U.K. itself, it occurred in Ireland, in Greece, and notably this occurred in France, where the party of Marine Le Pen shocked the world, by delivering a complete, crushing defeat, to the currently ruling, British-run, Socialist Party (PS).
Now, as you’ve commented, Mr. LaRouche, what we’re seeing now, is a process of potential formation of a triad of forces within Europe, consisting of France, Germany, and perhaps Italy, which is shifting away from and rejecting, the trans-Atlantic system which is dying, and is orienting toward the pro-growth and pro-development policies of another triad of forces in Eurasia: Russia, China, and India. Now, this process of growth and development which we’re seeing being pulled together by President Putin of Russia and others, is a process which can provide a future for mankind. This process of development can be the basis for a future for civilization. This is also the only basis upon which the nations of the dying trans-Atlantic system, such as the United States, themselves, could be saved. Now, this will only happen if the United States decides to make a decisive break from President Obama.
Within the United States itself, we’ve just come out of a phase of a major and successful flanking operation which was marked by a series of elections: Last Tuesday, we had the election in Texas, where Kesha rogers was running for U.S. Senate, and just yesterday we had the election for Congress in California, with Michael Steger in the San Francisco area, which proved that, as you’ve been saying, Mr. LaRouche, that it’s the impact of ideas which can change history and can save civilization, not the number of votes. And what we saw with the campaigns in Texas and California, is that we succeeded in breaking open the Democratic Party itself, and the national political discussion on the issue of the viability of the impeachment of President Obama. This goes right to the point, that it’s not popular opinion, it’s not the numbers which change things and shape the physical universe: It’s the power of the human mind.
And with that, I’d like to turn it over to Cody, who I think has a few things to say about that.
CREIGHTON JONES: Yes, thank you. So, today I’d like to get into what Mr. LaRouche has brought up as the second of two triads that really have been defining aspects of the history of mankind, really the history of the Solar System, and as we’ll later discover, the history of the universe itself. We’ve had over the last several weeks on this program, a number of discussions on the first triad, this relationship of Cusa, Brunelleschi, and Kepler. As you’ve discussed yourself, Kepler, last week.
And so, I’d like to get into the second of these triads, which is the relationship of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and V.I. Vernadsky. And as Mr. LaRouche has emphasized in a recent writing, Vernadsky does play a very crucial role, still today, for a number of reasons, not the least of which the role he could play as a figure historically, in bringing together the real relationship of Russia and Ukraine, and that should be the orientation that the United States makes in that direction.
So, I will deviate a little bit from what was the original plan for this. I think, maybe, the discussion will have to be in two parts, a deviation as a result of some of what Mr. LaRouche had brought up last night, in a discussion among a number of associates, particularly around a new paper he’s written regarding Leibniz. And he brought forward, very concisely, the idea of the relationship of the mind and the flesh, that in fact, it is not the flesh which gives rise to the mind, or the flesh which determines the mind, but it’s the mind which gives value to the flesh, that the mind is what’s primary. And that this question, the relationship of mind to reality has been the dominant question which has driven the most profound scientists throughout history, that’s always really been at the core of what they’ve been fighting to understand, what really is the nature of the human mind, and what I the nature of the human mind in this universe?
So, just to start off, and hopefully I won’t butcher the living words of Mr. LaRouche too badly here [laughter], to start with a quote, just to set up this discussion of these triads. This is from the most recently published paper, though there’s a newer paper on the way, and people can find this on the LaRouche PAC website. This is called, “Economists Who Were Usually Stupid,” by Mr. LaRouche.
And so he says: “The physical science founded by Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler,” that first triad, “situated the progress effected by such outstanding figures, such as the true giants of the Seventeenth and early Eighteenth centuries, as Carl F. Gauss had been followed by his most brilliant student, Bernhard Riemann. Riemann made the revolution in science which the great Max Planck and Albert Einstein had later defined, respectively: the new minimum (Max Planck), the new maximum for science (Albert Einstein); and then, as being the successor for Kepler’s earlier role in Renaissance triad” (which we had discussed earlier): “the great Russian-Ukrainian, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky, whose work in the foundations of physical science, had achieved a higher meaning for insight into man’s relationship to the Solar system as such, than ever before: the unique, astrophysical efficient principle: the essential function of ontological advances in human life, as a basis for existence within the Solar system (and beyond) (per se.”
So that’s what we want to take up, this second triad. And as you had mentioned, you have with Planck, you have a redefining of an idea of the minimum, which he defined as a real physical action, a physical principle of the minimum. And then, with Einstein, you had a physical principle associated with the maximum, his idea of a universal gravitation.
So, I’d like to start by just saying a few things about Planck’s discovery. Planck is most famously known for his discovery in 1900, of what became known as the “quantum of action,” Planck’s quantum of action. And in effect, what he discovered is a relationship between an effect, which we measure as energy, and the action associated with electromagnetic radiation. And so, the famous formula or equation that comes out of this is, energy is equal to Planck’s constant times the frequency of radiation. Where this really blew apart what had been the assumed nature of things, like energy, was the idea that energy as an effect, does not occur as a simple continuous, linear process. That changes in an energetic state of something, or changes in effect, occur in leaps, in quantized steps. I think the important thing to realize is that the quantization is not in the energy, as such, though that’s how it shows up as an effect, as quantized energy, or what often gets discussed as energy packets.
But I think the real source of this quantization is the fact that it’s in the action. That’s what he defined as Planck’s constant of action, that the universe at its substance, is a universe of action, or change. And just like we’ve discussed, as just with an idea, ideas don’t occur as just continuous processes, and ideas can’t be broken down into pieces, they exist as wholes. You either have an idea or you don’t have an idea, and you go through leaps from one idea to the next, there’s an action involved, in making a discovery or bringing forth a new idea.
And so, in that same vein, the universe reflecting, or really, being characterized by the same principle of the human mind, the universe itself also has this kind of quantized action quality to it.
And so what you had with Planck, was this discovery that, in fact, physically, the universe is quantized, according to a principle of action, and that the action is what’s primary, and the effect of what we measure as energy is really just that, it’s an effect of a principle of action. And so, he really revolutionized things by introducing this idea that action is primary, and this is what characterizes his famous equation: E=h[nu], energy is equal to his constant of action, as that then is reflected in times electromagnetic activity. So an electromagnetic phenomenon, which carries out a completed action, which produces your effect of energy.
So that’s what Planck is most famous for as a physicist. But what’s less known is really, who he was an ontological thinker. Planck was not someone, as we’ll see, with some quotes here, was not someone, who just rested in the domain of matter, in the domain of tangible physics, as such. In fact, he himself was deeply provoked by exactly this question which Mr. LaRouche raised yesterday, of what really is the nature of the human mind, and what is the relationship of mind to matter, to the physical universe?
So we see that in a couple of quotes here, which I’ll read from Max Planck. The first thing I’m reading from is from an interview that he did in 1931, so this is the latter part of his life, and you really see where his mind was going, where all of this investigation into matter, energy, etc., what did it really provoke in him? Where did it really lead his mind? And so in this interview, the questioner asks him, he says:
“Do you think that consciousness can be explained in terms of matter and its laws?” pretty much the same question.
And so, Planck says: “No. I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We can not get behind consciousness. Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
And the writer of the article then goes on, paraphrases further discussion with Planck, but I think it gets at the same point. So the writer says, “In reply to another question concerning the notorious difficulties that beset modern physics, particularly the phenomenon of light,” something which obviously Planck was heavily invested in that investigation, “where we apparently have to use two sets of ideas that are in contradiction to one another.” This is the whole particle/wave duality paradox that comes up around light. He says regarding that, “I found that Professor Planck considered that these difficulties illustrate the extent to which the world of science, depends upon the mind. For he considers that these difficulties arise simply because we regard certain concepts as being objective realities. Thus, we assume that everything that exists in nature exists in space and time. The material universe we assume, is something that exists in space and time. When we regard certain modern scientific entities, for example, the light quantum, from this point of view, they seem to possess contradictory properties. Thus, certain experiments show that the light quanta is very large, and other experiments show that it is very small. Planck suggested that the light quantum is something to which the notions of spatial and temporal extension do not apply. Men must learn to regard space and time, not as objective realities, to which everything must conform, but as concepts, which, in this region of phenomenon, must now be transcended. They are not objective realities,” that is, space and time; “They are not objective realities, independent of consciousness, and perhaps none such exists.” [transcribed as read]
And so you see, from Planck a very clear idea of at least what the paradox is. And again, this is still, as Mr. LaRouche indicated, that’s why this second triad is still an incomplete concept, because we’re still really fighting to get a hold of this idea of what really is the nature of mind, and the relationship of mind to the universe.
And just another point on this, to give you, again, a sense of how Planck approached this, someone who sometimes is painted as sort of a rigid figure, or someone who is just a cold, hard scientist. Not at all! If you really get to know Planck’s mind, and who he was, this was someone who was deeply committed to humanity and to an idea of the real universality of the human mind.
So this is in a speech that he gave, apparently in Italy, also towards the end of his life. He says, “Gentlemen, as a physicist who developed his whole life to the sober science, the study of matter, I’m surely free from the suspicion of being taken as a Schwarmgeist. And so, I say of my researches of the atom, there is no matter as such. All matter arises and exists, only by a force which brings the atomic particles in motion and keeps them together, as the tiniest solar systems in the universe. But as there is neither an intelligent force, nor an external force in the whole universe,” — this is the long-awaited perpetual motion, which humanity has failed to reinvent — “we must assume a science conscious, intelligent mind behind this force, the spirit is the basis of all matter, not visible, but ephemeral matter is the real, the true, the substantial. Because matter would not persist at all without Spirit. But the invisible, immortal spirit is the truth.” And he goes on in that vein.
So, you see, this was, again, Planck’s outlook: Mind is what’s primary. And if you reflect back on really, what was the breakthrough of Einstein, again, you see a reflection of that same kind of investigation, or that kind of understanding.
So, you look at Einstein’s discovery, or really, he had a set of discoveries. One, he blew out of the water, the whole idea that time, space, space-time, have any kind of real, ontological existence; that they are, in fact, what’s relative. Time-space relationships change depending on the perspective of any individual observer.
So what does stay invariant? What doesn’t change? Well, if you look at what he really came to in his General Theory of Relativity, was that what stays invariant, is the fact that no matter what your perspective is, every human mind will still measure the pathway of light as being a least action pathway. That what’s preserved, what’s invariant, to all investigations is that, action occurs according to a least action kind of process. And I think the way to really understand this concept of least action, is not just simply as a measurement, but least action really is, I think a reflection, of the fact that a process is knowable; that least action represents the non-arbitrariness, of a process, that by expressing a least-action quality, as people like Fermat had discussed and discovered with light, that really, what you’re seeing, is that processes in the universe operate according to an intention, a directionality and that they have a knowability to them. So that even though, for any individual observer of a process, you might measure very different time and space relationships, all human minds, regardless of their perspective, are going to be able to know the actual, invariant, least-action pathway of that process of electromagnetic action, and it will be a knowable phenomenon. That’s what’s universal, that’s what’s invariant, is the fact that these processes occur according to an invariant principle of least action.
And so, you see, I think what Einstein was touching on, was the fact that that is sort of reflecting what’s at the core, what’s at the substance, of physical space-time, is that at its substance is a principle of intention. There’s a directionality to the process. And this is in fact, what then, Vernadsky really started to latch onto, is to grab ahold of this idea of, what really is the substance, the nature of the universe, as a directed process?
And just to set up this next step, which is to take a look at some of what Vernadsky was investigating in this regard, take another quote from Mr. LaRouche from this paper I cited earlier, “Economists Who Were Usually Stupid.” This is from the last section, specifically on Vernadsky. This is from the section, “Vernadsky’s Unique Principle of Mankind”:
“As I had indicated, in this present report, earlier, the realization of the goals which I have identified here, this far, depends upon an urgent need for systemic revision of the heretofore present notion of the specific practical role of mankind within the Solar system itself, as such. That is to emphasize, that the heretofore accepted notions of mankind’s efficient place within both the Solar systemic system, and beyond, must be radically rectified, and that strictly according to the particular standard stipulated by V.I. Vernadsky. Mankind must now be recognized as the supreme power operating within the process of development of mankind’s policies of practice respecting relations within and of the Solar system as a whole: that as Vernadsky had strictly emphasized while he had been still living.
“We must now recognize, that space and time no longer exist of themselves as reliable notions, nor with actually practical efficiency for mankind; only the role assigned to mankind by our given nature, has useful merit, precisely as V.I. Vernadsky has made that point. Mankind itself, is the only proper determinant of the practical meaning of what is, mistakenly called a basis based upon a mistaken notion of an actual combination of time, space, and matter, presently popularly presumed to be available to humanity’s will. The actual basis is only the creative (i.e., noëtic) powers attributable to the individual human mind, expressed through increase of the power of the human species to change the course of development of the life of the human species within (immediately) the Solar system as such: Vernadsky’s most essential expression of the identifiably essential principle of the existence of our human species. …
“The metric of evolution in the Solar system itself, is not merely life-forms-in-general; but, only, as known this far, the self-evolution of the human will unique to the human species’ own principle of a universal chemistry, the principled increase of the energy-flux density enabling the progressive evolution upward of mankind itself: the evolution of mankind which prompts the increased power expressed as higher characteristic evolutions upward by the societies of the human species, into constant rises in the power of mankind’s self-existence and effective revolutionary progresses in mankind’s appropriate authority for the evolution of the Solar systemic system as a whole, immediately. My words, in my time, but his (Vernadsky’s) explicitly stated intention.
“By wielding the upward evolution of both the preconditions and evolutions of the effective power, per capita, in coordination with a rise in the living human progress to higher potencies of energy-flux densities through the means of what we name as upward-evolving chemistry as mankind’s characteristic abilities, mankind daily resets the clock of the Solar system’s future, as done through the means and requirements for great leaps in the applicable energy-flux density of each nation, each people, and each willing person, whose effective role must be leaps in the power of mankind within the universe, per capita. That is the expression of true human nature to be known: which reflects the leading revolutionary achievements of the magnificent poet of human reason, the late V.I. Vernadsky, and of principled scientific will.”
And that really is, in fact, where Vernadsky went with his life, also, as he evolved himself, through his investigations of life, of the principle of life of the biosphere, he, too, like Planck, was confronted with really, the real question, the human mind, where does this intention come from? Where does this directionality come from? And what really is the highest principle which can guide this?
And so, towards the end of his life, he had written a piece, it’s more of a fragmented piece, that was then translated and put out by his son, and it’s a paper called, “Some Words About the Noösphere.” And it’s interesting, he sort of sets you up in a sense, by setting up the paradox, because, in going through some of his own discoveries of the evolution of the biosphere, etc., he then gets to this concept of cephalization. And he has a section called, “Cephalization — The Arrow of Evolution.” And he’s looking at this whole idea that Dana was investigating, which is that, one of the things you can look at, or one of the biological aspects you can look at through evolutionary time, is this process of the development of the brain, of the nervous system. And he says: Okay, the nervous system is always increasing its power, becoming a more and more dominant feature of the biological organism.
And so, he seems to be setting you up, to say, “Oh, maybe that’s what evolution is. Evolution is just development of the brain, everything is leading towards the development of the brain.” And so, he sees in this, he says yes, and he says: “The evolution of living matter is proceeding in a definite direction.” So there is a directionality to it. But in setting you up with that, he then gets to an even higher idea, that there’s something more than just biological evolution, there’s something more than the biosphere. And he gets to this concept of the noösphere, where he says: “The historical process is being radically changed, under our very own eyes. For the first time in the history of mankind, the interests of the masses on the one hand, and the free thought of individuals on the other, determine the course of the life of mankind, and provide standards for mere ideas of justice. Mankind taken as a whole, is becoming a mighty geological force. There arises the problem of the reconstruction of the biosphere, in the interest of freely thinking humanity as a single totality. This new state of the biosphere, which we approach without our noticing, is the noösphere.” [emphasis in original] So he says, we have now entered this period of the noösphere, where mind is now becoming the determining driver of the evolution of the planet. The planet is now under the control of mind in total.
But then later he gets to this same problem, this same question. He says, okay, well, what exactly are we dealing with here? And so, toward the end of this paper, he has another section, which is called, “How Can Thought Change Material Processes?” And he says, he just poses the question: “Here, a new riddle has arisen before us. Thought is not a form of energy. How then can it change material process?” [emphasis in original] He leaves it as an open question. He says, many people have tried to answer this question, but it remains the fundamental paradox. How is mind, which seems to be taking over the planet, determining its direction, but which is not something which you can measure in terms of energy, how is mind able to transform the physical universe? He leaves it as an open question.
But just to end on where his thought is, he concludes the whole piece by saying: “Now we live in the period of a new geological evolutionary change in the biosphere. We are entering the noösphere. This new elemental geological process is taking place at a stormy time, in the epoch of a destructive world war. But the important fact is that our democratic ideals are in tune with the elemental geological processes, with the law of nature, and with the noösphere. Therefore we may face the future with confidence. It is in our hands. We will not let it go.”
And so that’s how he concludes it, but he still, as Mr. LaRouche has pointed out, it’s still a large question. The evidence is being presented, but it’s still a very large question: What exactly are we dealing with here? What is mind? How does mind operate? How do we know the mind? And, I think that’s going to be the question that we continue to wrestle with and try to gain a greater understanding of, and fortunately, Mr. LaRouche here, has sort of taken quite a liking over his lifetime of investigating that idea. So, Lyn, maybe you have some thoughts on this.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: The fundamental error and the source of confusion in all these matters, is the presumption, that sense-perception is the measure of all other experiences. When in point of fact, precisely the opposite is true. That’s the actual implication of Vernadsky’s final conclusion, is that it is the human mind, itself, which directly expresses the reality of the universe. And what we get as sense-perception — sense-perception does not actually generate thought! It’s only sense-perception. The thought occurs entirely in the human mind.
Now, for example, you take the case of chemistry, and chemistry’s a very useful thing if you understand if you understand it the right way. If you think that chemistry is an expression of physical, that is, tangible sense-perceptual experiences, that is false. It goes the other way around. And this what actually underlies Vernadsky’s entire method: That is it the human mind, which is the primary existence. And this comes up very clearly with Vernadsky’s final word on this thing, and it’s the same thing we have otherwise. A human mind is functional. Sense-perception is not. Sense-perception is the shadow, mind is the principle.
And this is Vernadsky’s entire systemic view of reality, is based on the fact that sense-perception is merely a symptom, it is not a cause. The average way is what’s wrong, is they assume that sense-perception is the cause, and that mind is merely a product of that cause. Reality, as Vernadsky emphasizes his whole conception of eliminating the idea of space and time, is based on the fact that it is the mind which is the reality! The human mind is the reality! The animals have a different reality. The human mind has this reality. And the universe as we know it, as human, is based on the concept of the mind as primary, and that the sense-perception is merely a product, a reflection.
Now, the way it expresses itself, is in the increase of the energy-flux density, in terms of the behavior of living species. So everything is coordinated with living species. Mankind is the only living species which can measure itself. Animals can not measure themselves; animals can not voluntarily change their nature. Human beings can change their nature, but animals can’t. So therefore, mankind is the only determinant of the existence of the universe. Mankind has the only primary understanding of the universe. And it’s mankind’s development of that ability, which we call progress, because it’s mankind’s ability to do that which makes this difference.
Now, this is actually the key to understanding the exploration of physical space-time. You have to turn the thing around, and say, everything we know as human beings, comes from the concept of mind. Now we use the concept of mind, we make constructs, experimentally, which in the construct, produces what we want to know.
And that’s what — I mean, you get that with, Riemann, for example, is already there; his approach is there, like that famous last sentence of his habilitation dissertation, which poses that question. Then you go through the habilitation dissertation in more detail, beforehand, before that concluding portion, and you see that’s exactly what is on his mind. He doesn’t have the answer. He has the question!
Now, this all goes back, again, to what? To the Golden Renaissance. That’s where this conception exists. Why is it that Nicholas of Cusa is the greatest intellect of his time, in the origin of the whole process of modern civilization? Why do we find this understanding, against the evil, the idea of the creative principle, and the principle of creativity as against Zeussian kind of nonsense; the Promethean conception, the Promethean is a self-conception of the human mind, in terms of the human mind’s action. We change the universe. We see what we are doing to change the universe. It’s not an object we’re getting. We’re responding to the change, so we’re making changes. Mankind is evolving to a higher level based on the human mind’s activity.
So the attempt to say that sense-perception is primary is what the source of the great fraud is. Sense-perception is simply — really, it’s not the sense-perception as such, it’s the action. It’s not the perception of the object, it’s the action that counts. And this is where Vernadsky’s great genius is, on defining, saying space and time are not determinants of the human role in the universe. They’re not the efficient principle of the universe. Space and time are determined by mankind, because mankind is the only species which voluntarily changes its own nature. Therefore, human will, is not expressed by animals; human will is expressed only by mankind’s self-development. And that’s the core of the thing.
So what you have, is you have the Zeusian conception, of matter. There’s only matter. And you can make complications with matter, you can build parts, you can cut out paper dolls, do all those kinds of things, right? But, can you change the way in which man deals with the universe? Yeah! By making discoveries of universal principles. But there’s no way in which you can use sense-perception to discover a universal physical principle. You can only discover it by human experience, in experience of the human mentality. The noëtic capability of the human mind is the only experimental tool you have. So you take the phenomena which you experience, which are phenomena of the human mind, and you find a science of that.
Now, the very idea of a chemistry, if you take the idea of a simple chemistry as it was developed in the 19th century and going into the 20th century, you say, we’ll that’s an indicator of something going on out there. It’s that perfection of that indication, to high levels, which is what really is science. So therefore, what happens is, when you say that matter, as we call matter, which is merely sense-perception; matter is only a notion of sense-perception. If you want to understand anything higher than that, you’ve got to get beyond sense-perception itself. See, sense-perception is an effect, of what your mind is telling you, if you have a mind.
This is the great advantage of this process. And this is what Vernadsky really touches upon. But if you think of what you just presented before, what Planck did, Planck’s remarks: Same thing! Einstein’s, the same thing! You go back to Riemann, the same principle.
JONES: Yeah. In his Philosophical Fragments, where he brings up his idea of Geistesmassen and the development of mind. But he then goes through a discussion of the biosphere in his own terms, and then also of things like light and energy —
LAROUCHE: And of hearing!
JONES: But in each case, he always goes from the mind.
LAROUCHE: Take the case of hearing, where he was attacked on the issue of hearing.
JONES: Right. And in each case, he always uses mind as the way to access all the other domains. You always understands it from the way we understand how the mind operates.
Now, you go back to Leibniz, which is what I dealt with here. Leibniz also does that exactly. That’s why I attacked this swine, this Dutch swine, because that’s exactly what the problem was: What he does, he writes a book, organizing his opinion about Leibniz’s work. And it’s a piece of crap; it’s absolute piece of crap. What he does, he quotes what Leibniz writes, and then he interprets it to mean exactly the opposite!
JONES: Right. And it’s interesting, with Leibniz, also in his correspondence with Clarke, on Newton’s thinking, I mean he blows out of the water, the idea that there could be anything such as an absolute space, or time — I mean, even before Einstein, long before that, Leibniz had proven the fallacy of an idea of space and time.
LAROUCHE: Look, Leibniz had the same concept as guess whom? Kepler. The same thing. Nicholas of Cusa, the same thing! Brunelleschi, the same thing. So, when you look at this thing, you look at it from the beginning of the great Renaissance; the Renaissance was based on this concept. This was not original, however, to the Renaissance. We have cases of it, reflections of it, all through known history, they keep coming up. The concept of man, the concept of the human mind, the power of the human mind! What you have is, the problem is, you have intervening the Zeusian, or really called Satanic force; Zeusian is the Greek term. Satanic is the Christian term. So the British Empire, like the Roman Empire, is a Satanic culture.
And that’s what the problem is that mankind faces, now. The British Empire is a Satanic institution, like the Roman Empire before it. But we have, in the course of history, like the issue of the Zeus conflict, in legendary treatments, against Prometheus: Zeus against Prometheus, this is old! This didn’t come in the Renaissance. It was already there before, long before. It’s the struggle between man the beast and man the mind.
JONES: It’s interesting, when you think about Kepler and Leibniz: Both of them, one idea which has…
LAROUCHE: Yeah, but they’re connected!
LAROUCHE: That was what I had fun with this thing, they’re connected. Yes, it was a few years’ difference, between the death of Kepler and the birth of Leibniz. But you look at the content of his first thesis, which is a complicated thesis, right? That issue is the same thing as Kepler’s issue: It situates the same problems.
JONES: I was going to say, one of the ideas which they both very specifically address and develop even further, is Plato’s idea of recollection: That the mind already contains, in essence, the totality of the universe. And that, in effect, knowledge is just, as Plato discussed it, recollection, but it’s the man’s mind in dialogue with the universe, sort of being teased to increasing levels of discovery, and understanding of the fundamental character of this universe.
LAROUCHE: What you get, if you look at discovery, true discovery, valid discovery, you find that is merely the inversion of the fact. it is not sense-perception which gives you knowledge. It’s knowledge which gives you an understanding of sense-perception, and how to use it.
BEETS: And you referenced Riemann’s work on hearing, and his paper which was published after his death on the mechanism of the ear. And it’s ostensibly about the way that the middle ear works, but really it’s an attack on exactly this question you’re bringing up, ’cause it’s really a discussion of method. And he demonstrates, to come to a true understanding of a phenomenon of nature that you might observe and take measurements of, like the bones of the inner ear, the only way you can understand it, is by going through a process of the re-creation of that, from necessity. So he starts from the standpoint, what must the human mind have as an organ of hearing, to be able to participate in the universe?
LAROUCHE: And then think of the attack on him, on Riemann, for that question, for the hearing question. And it’s in this big footnote, this guy was really a creep. [laughter]
BEETS: Helmholtz, mm-hmm.
BEETS: But anyway, it’s the same fight you referenced the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. The way that Leibniz completely crushes this guy is by sticking to the idea of sense-perception and fixed space and time, what was really being said is that God is Zeus, is that God is Satan. And that’s what Leibniz gets this fool, Clarke, to admit.
But it’s the same thing that Cusa was dealing with. It goes back to the Renaissance. Cusa showed that the manner in which man is God-like, is through his creative reason.
LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm. But that’s the essence. That’s the ontological essence. The ontological thing does not lie with sense-perception, or the experience of sense-perception. The ontological principle lies in the human mind. And that was the great accomplishment of Vernadsky, to make that point!
JONES: And you keep emphasizing — I think this will become clear, hopefully not in a tragic way — that sense-perception as reality is going to be completely destroyed, as we go further out, into the Solar System, and have to think about how does man’s mind exist, beyond the limits of Earth? Because there, the senses mean virtually nothing in terms of their ability to interact with reality.
LAROUCHE: Yeah! But that’s already the case: It’s just people are too slow-minded on this thing. Imagine trying to say, you’re going to interpret from sense-perception, you’re going to interpret all the creative processes of the human mind? From sense-perception? That idea stinks! [laughter]
JONES: And you don’t even need a good nose to know that!
LAROUCHE: No, this is the problem. And you know, of all the things like this, this is, to me is so obvious. It’s so obvious: All you have to do is give up your pre-assumptions, and try to think about what reality is! You don’t have to “believe what the teacher told you”! And the problem of this whole society is, there are all these teachers out there, and they don’t wish to know what they’re talking about, because that would disagree with their proprieties. So therefore, that’s what the problem is. We educate people to be stupid, by telling them that the “teacher knows.” And they assume the teacher, writing on the blackboard, “Ah! The Teacher is creating something!” by writing with chalk on the blackboard! Nonsense! I’ve seen this, you know — I was enraged by this thing, on this issue. The fraud, that you can deduce from mathematics, you can deduce the reality of the human mind! Well, the jerks do fairly well that, they don’t have a mind to speak of. They substitute something else.
No, this is crucial. But the Vernadsky point, I think is the most — you cite a couple of cases like Planck and Einstein, yeah they’re all relevant, like Riemann is. But you want to get at the essence of this thing, this is what teased Vernadsky.
JONES: Mm-hmm. In a certain way, I think Vernadsky was at an advantage, simply by the material which he chose to investigate. He got first, with life, you do find an undeniable directionality, an intention governing the whole process; which leads directly to — you’re saying, well, there’s intention; where else do we find intention? Well, the only place we find willful intention is with the human beings, in the human mind. And so, I think he had an advantage just by the fact that he was investigating something which had a much more clear expression of a directed intention to it. Whereas Planck and Einstein were trying to grope around this world of physics…
LAROUCHE: They were all the same area, in terms of the subject-matter. Riemann implied a lot of it. But then you get also, Planck, very specific, and very clear. He identified most of this area. That’s the way thing is. With Einstein, it’s the same thing. It was a different aspect of the process, they were to come in from a different aspect on the thing, and trying to solve the same common problem. And by finding practical instances, as Einstein made a practical discovery in the sense of this principle, which Planck had not done. And so the two of them, combined with Vernadsky, represent the intellectual giants of the 20th century.
And that’s what the enemy is opposed to.
JONES: Yeah. It’s probably no coincidence, that it was really with the death of Roosevelt, that really coincided around that same time, Einstein, Vernadsky, Planck, they all died around that same era, and nothing was able to pick it up and carry it forward, politically, scientifically, musically: You saw sort of a conclusion of a certain process.
LAROUCHE: Well, the way I look at it, this way, actually: Vernadsky is on the top, in terms of advancement on this general area. So, that’s the way to look at it. And now, the question is therefore, since Vernadsky is a function, in terms of Russia, Russian history, it actually puts Russia — not because of anybody else, but because of Vernadsky and his influence — puts Russia in a very significant historical position today. Not because of Russians in general, but because of Vernadsky and his influence on Russia. And therefore, what you have is a unifying principle, in terms of politics, political strategy, is that Vernadsky’s contribution, to global human knowledge, is the leading edge of a whole history of the evolution of mankind’s thought about mankind, for over a long, deep period of history. So you can go through a whole period of history, which comes step by step, in the best efforts, to something like this. He comes down to the point, where he cancels out all the things that have to be cancelled out, to make the issue finally clear.
And therefore, the question is, is not a scientific issue in the abstract, it’s not a proposition in that sense. It’s a sense of, how does man have to think about man and the human mind, in order to achieve the goals of mankind? What is the adequate development of science, which enables us, if we think that way, to be able to come to another step higher, than mankind has ever come before?
My concern has always been that. There’s this element which is higher. And our job, intellectually, is not to copy effectively, so-called textbook science, or like science. Our thing is to say what’s wrong with science? What have we not taken into account? And my point is, I say, well, look: We have one fact, that all sense-perception as such, is junk, — all sense-perception criteria. It’s the human mind, per se, which creates the shadows of its own activity. That is, concepts, concepts which have this function.
And therefore, the problem is, you have to not teach this, because it’s an explanation of something, you have to teach it because it’s more than an explanation. It gives you another step of access, a dimensional access, which you don’t have otherwise. Which means mankind can now progress because you’ve discovered that principle, and now you have to learn how to use it.
That’s what my whole life is sort of accumulating data to gain that idea. Go to the next step, find out what is wrong, what is omitted that needs to be taken into account, and then, drive it for all it’s worth. And then hope you stumble into something even better later on.
But that’s the nature of humanity! That’s the whole intention of humanity. Humanity is always living and dying. That, when mankind dies, mankind should, in the process, make a step up, to what mankind has never been able to do before. That’s, you know, the religious view of space and time. When you think about the Solar System, what do you think about? You think about how is the Solar System organized? How is it self-organized? You’re sitting on Earth, this little speck on Earth here, right, in the system. And you know you’re inside of a galaxy, on top of that. So that’s out there, too; you’ve got to deal with that. You don’t understand that, yet. Well, you’re going to have face some new ways of thinking, about how the mind works, because when you develop the way the mind works, to a higher level, then you can understand these things. So you should never stop, and wait for the thing to hit you over the head. You should get out there and find it, first — don’t wait.
And it’s the only thing worth doing. Not repeating other people’s lessons, but adding something to their knowledge, that they didn’t have before. That, for me, is fun. It’s a good thing to do.
BEETS: And you also see, with the paradigm shift under way right now, exactly what you’re bringing up, about the possibility of establishing — that this is the new paradigm for mankind. It’s the only possibility. And so it goes exactly to that point. It’s not an academic, ivory tower question. It’s the action of man in the universe.
LAROUCHE: The point is, we’ve got to get people to get out of the jerk phase and get into doing this. Therefore, that’s the reason we have to argue for this. Because we’ve got to get them to stop being jerks, and find them an enlightenment, a real enlightenment, which is not based on the dirty nitty-gritty. That’s fun!
LAROUCHE: That’s the stuff I like.
BEETS: Okay, sounds like a good mission for us all. So, we’ll leave it there for this week. Thank you for joining us: Stay tuned to larouchepac.com.