SCIENCE & CHRISTIANITY:
This Easter Sunday
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
April 4, 2010
As I have emphasized in my March 19, 2010 report, the present element of reported moral crisis from within the Roman Catholic Church regions of Ireland, England, Germany and the U.S.A., is chiefly a matter of the British monarchy's exploitation of a certain obnoxious practice, which, admittedly, actually exists in those locations; but, the present, politically motivated exploitation of that aberration by the British Empire itself, is the far greater crime.
The same British monarchy which promotes a Hitler-style, global genocide today, as a health-care policy which is a copy of Adolf Hitler's launching of genocide, is engaged in an effort to destroy that Church's authentic role as a devoted adversary of that policy of genocide which is embodied presently in the Hitler-echoing ideology of both former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Blair's ideological devotee, President Barack Obama.
In this present report, I present a related issue of concern for Christians and others, the need for a scientific view of the specific distinction of the mission of, and by Jesus Christ, which distinguishes the essential quality of Christianity from other religious beliefs, including much of Protestant and Jewish belief, that by the actual implications of that notion of immortality which is inherent in a competent modern scientist's comprehension of the work of the authors of the compositions identified as The New Testament. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, most emphatically.
This present report of mine, on the subject of the matter of science and religious belief, is focused largely, but, by no means exclusively, on a matter of concern to the Catholic Church, as I remember it from my own and my wife's experience during the 1970s and 1980s, in terms of my present reflections on the ministries of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, and from the overlapping work of the Cusanus Gesellschaft in that same interval. In writing as I do here, I view this history, and its larger implications, from my own experience, as being one of encounter with what I justly consider, still today, a relative "golden age" of the Vatican's ministry, a time when my efforts were widely associated, internationally, with my initiative in launching the U.S.-prompted Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
Nonetheless, the actual subject of this present report is, really, no one more than you, the present reader. The subject is the contrast of hopes and commitments which must be remembered from my global role during that past experience of mine, to the ordering of the fate of the world, your world and that of your now prospective successors, at this moment, a "this moment" of the gravest crisis of all humanity at this present time.
The onset of that now famous period of the SDI, which coincides with what I have identified of a relatively recent Golden Age in Vatican history, dates from a time about a quarter-century or more before the present youth generation was born, and belongs to the political and related adult experience of generations born more than a half-century ago. Most of my colleagues from among notable figures around the world are now long deceased. Only a shrinking handful of the world's population, as from among many now deceased Cardinals and other leading clergy of the Church, remains in possession of actual recollection of the quality of thinking which shaped the history of the world's population during the still earlier times that General and President Charles de Gaulle, for example, was still a prominent factor in the current shaping of modern history.
Worse, there are almost no qualified professors of the subject of history alive and functioning in their posts in the world available to assist us today. Therefore, there is virtually no real comprehension of the larger actual experience of mankind in modern world history as a whole. Still worse, today, there is virtually no "instinct" for competent knowledge of the history of mankind, even among leading incumbent academics, pertaining to that period of trans-Atlantic history during the most relevant period of time since as recently as the infamous Peloponnesian War. Therefore, we, today, should speak of those dwindling numbers among we living today, who, in these present times, do recall, as the old men of Egypt in their time spoke to Solon of Athens of the already millennia-old history of Mediterranean cultures, warning: "You Hellenes have no truly old men among you."
How then, were it possible that what might be laughingly described as those youngsters regarded as "the old men" of our present time, could have any active knowledge respecting the concepts of death and immortality, in such intellectually poverty-stricken times as these of today?
To begin the following discussion here, the prevalent fault in historical outlook among most Protestant denominations today, is that the modernist, only nominally Christian doctrine of an "after life," locates immortality as existing, implicitly, only within some non-existing universe, not our own. Most religious believers dream of a false "other universe" sometimes identified to what is often intended to be a misleading effect, and contrary to the Christian so-called "New Testament" claims: a view which proposes an actually non-existent, pagan's sort of "Kingdom of Heaven" situated outside the actual universe.
In the truth of the matter, in that real universe of past, present, and future, which we inhabit today, the relevant, attributed statements of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, considered in essentials, refer us to a future realization of the intended nature of the soul of the relevant, presently living human person, a nature to be recognized as something which will be realized more fully at some future time after a supersession of the presently existing world system, when, in effect, we who will have passed off "this mortal coil," may hope to live still, in a certain way, as if in the flesh, in a future condition of this universe, in a universe known as a "simultaneity of eternity."
The problems posed by the childish fantasies of some religious sects, with special attention to those wilder varieties of syncretic, only nominally Christian ones, must be recognized as such, and then pushed aside, to make way for our attaining not only a better future for the outcome of our having lived, thus, but for the sake of the future of all mankind. Therefore, I narrow the selection of the issues addressed here, for the purpose of identifying, and correcting those misunderstandings which are to be traced to a lack of scientific competence in understanding the actually scientific implications of what the so-called New Testament, for example, actually specifies. I emphasize a contrast of that view, to the kinds of evils which can be traced to reductionist dogmas of Aristotle and Euclid, or to the influence of Paolo Sarpi's pro-Satanic corruption typical of much of modern Protestant dogma, or the theological implications of a frankly pro-Satanic, positivist view of the subject matter of science.
Whether the reader of this report might be classed as a "believer," or not, the actual issues-in-fact of contemporary religious belief, with emphasis on European civilization's beliefs, are universal for all European and related cultures presently. Whether in or out of the places of worship, the confusion in this matter, is rooted in the defects inhering in the present cultural traditions of those nations, whether among putative "believers," or not; their ideological blunders are common follies, in particular, throughout European civilization generally.
For example, contrast the clinical case of that avowedly un-Christian child of British ideology, Karl Marx, as follows.
It is significant, for understanding the actual British reasons for what I have referenced here as a perverse London's presently prevalent frauds against the name of an actual Christianity, to point out the echo of Christian belief in the practice of physical science by the principled opponents of the so-called "philosophical" Liberalism of the followers of Paolo Sarpi. I refer here to opponents of such as Johannes Kepler. I also refer to the contrary, worse-than-useless, intrinsically pathetic, Sarpian, Isaac Newton cult of the followers of Galileo today (e.g., modern "positivism"). Take the relevant case of that notorious worshiper of Satan known as Adam Smith, who, in a manner of speaking, produced such avowed disciples of Sarpian positivism as the actual adult personality of the notable Karl Marx.
Clear the decks in preparation for this discussion, by brief attention to both the intrinsic fallacy of Aristotle, as reflected in the a-priori pseudo-principles of Euclid, and, then, continue with the different guise of a true Satan, the banning of all actual forms of universal physical principles by the Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi and his followers. Select attention to a stubbornly nasty case of this Sarpi problem; take the case of the depraved Sarpian ideologue, Adam Smith.
In his 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith presents us with the following paragraph, in which he sums up the essential notions of modern, Sarpian, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism. I cite here the same excerpted passage as published in my own and then-associate David P. Goldman's 1980 The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman.
The administration of the great system of the universe ... the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension, the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country. ...
But though we are ... endowed with a very strong desire of those ends, it has been intrusted to the slow and uncertain determinations of our reason to find out the proper means of bringing them about. ... Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.
Those remarks by Adam Smith are a faithful echo of the intention of "the true Paolo Sarpi," and are, also the ideology of such Eighteenth-century pseudo-scientists working in their role as hoaxsters as followers of Abbé Antonio S. Conti, his lackey Voltaire, the imaginary Abraham de Moivre, his crony Jean le Rond d'Alembert, the sinister hoaxster Leonhard Euler, and their Eighteenth and Nineteenth-century empiricist and positivist followers generally.
That modern moral perversion is extended from Smith and his life, up through followers of the sequence of positivists such as Karl Weierstrass, Ernst Mach, David Hilbert, Bertrand Russell's peculiarly brutish notions of "modern systems analysis," and beyond. Russell is echoed by his devotees among both the circles of the Club of Rome and of the utterly depraved hoaxsters of the pseudo-science associated with the Russellite tradition of Academician J. Gvishiani's Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), up through the present time of such as Russia's British agents Mikhail Gorbachov and Anatoly Chubais, to the present day.
Or, to report that view of Adam Smith's own avowed policies, as presented in his own words, above, but, in my own words: the reductionism of the followers of Paolo Sarpi, insists, that there are no actual principles existing within the bounds of the definition of the modern empiricism otherwise known as "liberalism," and otherwise known as either "positivism" generally or the similarly, morally depraved doctrines of "systems analysis," in particular.
In other words, there is the monstrous misuse of the term "principle" among the Sarpi devotees known as "empiricists" in general, or as modern varieties of "positivism" since Auguste Comte, Karl Weierstrass, Felix Klein, David Hilbert, or the more radical varieties among the followers of the "Cambridge Systems Analysis" of Bertrand Russell. Each and all among these typify fraudulent uses of the term "principle" among the devotees of Paolo Sarpi's dogma. The use of "principle" for such purposes as the notion of "a principle" of statistical behavior, is, thus, in and of itself, a fraud against science.
In contrast to Sarpi and his positivist followers, all actual principles of science exist only as either Johannes Kepler's and Albert Einstein's treatments of Johannes Kepler's principle of universal gravitation define a physical principle, or as is done in a refined way according to the practice of Academician V.I. Vernadsky's distinctions among Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere, as being outside all derivations of their origins from the domain of mere statistical deductions as such.
To restate the point: what the modern empiricists and positivists have chose to term "principles," are, according to Sarpi's specifications, merely statistical-mathematical deductions, not actually principles.
Or, in another view of the same matter, science is the enemy of modern positivism, as Albert Einstein identified Kepler's discovery of a true universal physical principle of gravitation, that as defining an expandably finite, and therefore unbounded universe, or as Vernadsky defined the distinctively universal principles of Lithosphere, Biosphere, and Noösphere.
To illustrate the proper notion of the use, or misuse of the term "principle," begin by comparing and contrasting the inherently fraudulent dogmas of Aristotle and Euclid, with those of Paolo Sarpi and his followers, contrasting both, each in its own way, to actual science. The attack on Aristotelean ideology delivered by Philo of Alexandria, provides us a valuable clue to the knowledge of theological matters which I present, thus, in my own terms, as follows.
Before turning to the body of this report, ask: what should be an obvious question: what is so special about Christianity—or, better said, a carefully considered role of Christianity? The essential reply is, the specific kind of promise of resurrection, "as if in the twinkling of an eye," delivered for the cause of Jesus of Nazareth. The importance of that promise does not lie within the bare fact that it was presented; but, that lies in its accords with such developments as scientific proof available today, that the promise is a scientifically valid one, on condition that positivist and related gibberish expressed in the misused name of science, is, properly, discarded.
I. On The Subject Of Immortality
The question is: Since all mortal forms of mere animals do experience the permanent death which is the characteristic fate of the members of each such species, what should we adopt as the New Testament meaning of human "immortality"? "The bosom of Abraham" is not an un-useful suggestion, but it is useless as a scientific term.
For the competent scientist, the relevant reply is, that the discovery and perpetuation of efficient forms of what are actually universal physical principles (which do not exist in either the a-priorist doctrines of Aristotle and Euclid, or among Sarpi's followers), point to the possibility of an implicitly immortal act by the mind of the relevant human individuals. In addition, it is a crucial fact, demonstrated repeatedly by competent scientific practice, that the adoption of actually discovered universal physical principles for practice, if they are permitted to become truly efficient by society, live on, if they are actually discovered universal principles, as efficiently acting principles within society, long after the original discoverer is deceased. No other form of life, but mankind, can do this. Hence, Academician V.I. Vernadsky's physical distinction of the Noösphere from the mere Biosphere.
This phenomenon of apparent immortality of discovered true principles, which remain independently efficient when their authors are deceased, as so illustrated, can be termed a definition, for scientists, of that technical term of Christian theology which is identified by competent modern scientific practice, as "a simultaneity of eternity" which exists only in physical space-time, rather than as "space, time, and matter."
If we apply the notion of dynamics of Gottfried Leibniz adduced from his work of the 1690s, all persons who participate according to the influence of the discovery of a discovered universal physical principle, enjoy "the special kind of protection" afforded such beliefs in what are truly universal principles; this notion is opposed to the statistical sophistries of the empiricists and their bastard positivist offspring.
However, since no statement of physical principles, as such, is willingly permitted to be expressed, unharmed, within earshot of a devout British ideologue, we are thus impelled to assume that British subjects, and their monarchs, generally remain, like both behaviorist Adam Smith and the ordinary beasts at large, as like the devotees of the traditions of the pseudo-scientific organization which was spawned by Bertrand Russell and the Cambridge school of systems analysis. This was also known as the doctrine of that pseudo-scientific cult known as IIASA; the devotees of that cult, still today, flee from the specter of actually human life, directly to a kind of belief in nowhere, where they are unencumbered by the cultivation of any systemically soulful intimations of immorality. They are not as much merely "ignorant," as they are as viciously stupefied as by something equivalent, in effect, to the drugs in which the British empire traffics, still, under Queen Elizabeth II, today.
So, I came to the view that Bertrand Russell was the most evil man of which I had knowledge from among the contemporaries of my own life-time.
Therefore, the notable point which I emphasize here, is the special nature of mankind's adoption and practice of validatable, universal principles tantamount to Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of a principle of universal gravitation. This discovery by Kepler, is to be appreciated in the terms of Albert Einstein's summary treatment of that discovery by Kepler as an efficient, universal principle which is termed by Einstein as, "finite, but not bounded."
Those deeper ontological implications referenced by Einstein in that instance, serve us as a key to insight into the subject of this report: the scientifically definable conditions defining the immortality of relevant human souls.
To begin with, ask: What is the difference between the role of the true scientific creativity which is uniquely specific to the human mind, among all other kinds of known living species, and the opposing view expressed by such wretched creatures such as the Aristoteleans, the empiricists, and the beasts? Why, on precisely that account, do we mark behavior which would be rightly considered as "depraved" in a human being, such as the health-care policies of President Barack Obama, or of Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair, as normal only for lower forms of life met among insects, or some other animal behavior?
It should be commonplace to refer to this distinction as defining "civilized" or "cultivated" forms specific to some human behavior; but, such terminology, while sometimes convenient, is not scientifically grounded. Such usages belong, at their least worst, to the domain of "the superficial, but convenient," rather than to matters of strict principle.
What, then, is this principle of human creativity which is missing from all lower forms of life, and which distinguishes the human being, uniquely, from the beasts?
The Transition to Modern Europe
Since the death of Plato, much of the organization of mental life for the leadership among most of the populations of globally extended European civilization, has dwelt, during most times, under the reigning influence of dogmas similar to those of such as those rival expressions by Aristotle and Paolo Sarpi, which virtually prohibit the cultivation, often, even the recognition, of those innate potentials of the individual human mind for most of the human population. Implicitly, for the Aristotelean, "Do nothing which was not done by your father and other ancestors." For the followers of Sarpi, the slogan is: "Tolerate no principle!"
In the case of the systemic adversary of Plato, Aristotle, his attempted suppression of those innate creative powers which are unique to the mental life of the human species, is typified by the fraudulent rewriting of existing knowledge of geometry which resulted in the inherently fraudulent system defined by the a-priori damage to humanity expressed as the presumptions of Euclid's Elements.
Despite important exceptions to this by great thinkers such as the Cyrenaican follower of the science of Plato, Eratosthenes, and the temporary revival of human progress under such as the reign of Charlemagne in Europe and the Baghdad Caliphate under Charlemagne's ally, the great Haroun al-Raschid, against a dictatorship of systematic suppression of the creative powers of the human individual mind, that suppression reigned in Europe, excepting relatively rare exceptions, until such geniuses as Dante Alighieri, that onset of Europe's Fourteenth-century Golden Renaissance centered on the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and the role in the founding of science by such of that renaissance's figures as Filippo Brunelleschi and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.
The economic-cultural impact of the work of that Council, as continued under the European governments of France's Louis XI and his English follower Henry VII, led, through the course of the Fifteenth Century, to the later collapse of the Habsburg power based in Spain, and, thus, produced those conditions of crisis in the pro-Aristotelean system of Trent, a failure of Trent which allowed the rise to power of a new form of reductionist evil known as the modern European, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, that of Paolo Sarpi. The outcome of Sarpi has been that British empire which both reigns as the principal threat to the continued existence of our United States and is the chief source of the perils and sufferings of continental Europe (and other places) up through the present moment this is written.
The ancient and medieval modes of moral corruption associated with the legacy of Aristotle, were premised on what the dramatist Aeschylus attacked on stage as the image of the evil Olympian Zeus of the Prometheus Trilogy. This evil product of the Delphi cult, was typified by the fraudulent dogma of Euclid's geometry, and by what Philo of Alexandria rightly denounced as Aristotle's asserted virtual death of the Creator—the basis in Aristotle for what was to become known Friedrich Nietzsche's "God is dead" nonsense.
The change from the notorious poisoner of his time, Aristotle, to the reign of a Sarpi whose rule over modern Europe, was based in the rising power of Atlantic maritime power over the relatively, economically stagnating Mediterranean societies, came as an attack on the Habsburgs' tyranny from its Atlantic flank. Although the Habsburg tyrannies of Portugal and Spain were, at the first, a relatively great power in Transatlantic maritime terms, the rot of the imperial conservatism of the "Aristotelean" Habsburg tyrannies of Spain and Portugal, has produced the characteristic, relatively persisting economic-cultural failures caused by oligarchical tyrannies in most of Ibero-America, including, in fact, today's oligarchical system in Brazil, to the present day.
In that, negative, way, the putatively "pro-Aristotelean" Habsburg tyranny, created the present British empire of today's world, by its crippling influence within the modern European continent and Mediterranean region.
The crucial difference underlying the (only) relative strategic success of what has become the British imperial system of Paolo Sarpi, must be credited, chiefly, to the opportunities produced by the stubborn stupidity of the modern European followers of Aristotle.
The relevant change came about in the following way.
The spark for the creation of modern Europe, out of the muck of a Venice-steered European feudalism, was provided, typically, by the influence of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries' followers of Dante Alighieri, an influence expressed inclusively by Dante's De Monarchia and his emphasis on the role of the Italian language as opposed to a tyranny of Latin. With the discrediting effects of the "New Dark Age" created by the Venetian monetarist manipulations of the foolishly credulous Italian merchant bankers such as the Bardi and Peruzzi, the later, Fifteenth-Century councils of the Papacy, combined with effects of such developments as the crucial influence of Jeanne d'Arc's personal leadership in this, led to a vigorous intellectual revival in Europe, a renaissance reaching a certain peak in the great, A.D. 1438-39 ecumenical Council of Florence, which had unleashed what should be regarded now as a profound revolution in all human history up to that moment, and the modern, ecumenical model of hope for all mankind, still today.
The most typical figures in the scientific revolution which accompanied the developments within and abutting this Council, are to be recognized in the succession of the efforts of founding a competent form of modern European science prompted by Filippo Brunelleschi and developed as a systemic body of knowledge by the founder of modern European science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. Notably, Cusa was also the creator of the policy followed, since approximately A.D. 1480, by Christopher Columbus's design for the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean first attempted in A.D. 1492.
The development of modern European physical science, by Cusa, was crucial for the launching of the first modern European nation-state, that of the implied follower of the great mission of the martyred Jeanne d'Arc, France's Louis XI, whose inspiration led to the great reform of Henry VII's freeing England (if but temporarily) from what had been the evil grip of Richard III.
The Oligarchical Principle
The combination of the defeat of the maritime ambitions of the Persian Empire and the folly of the subsequent Peloponnesian War, led to an attempted grand-imperialist agreement between the Persian Empire and the Macedon of Prince Philip which had come to dominate a Greece self-ruined by the Delphic folly of the Peloponnesian War. That attempted agreement between the Persian Empire and Philip of Macedon, failed when Philip was assassinated, and his heir, the Alexander known as "the Great" assumed the reign, despite frantic opposition to this from Aristotle, and proceeded from the directly contrary intention to what had been that of his father.
Nonetheless, the assassination of Alexander himself, a killing which the pointing finger of history attributes to the skilled poisoner Aristotle, presents us a relevant version of the intended empire, as one based on the oligarchical principle; this came into being, step-wise. Ultimately, a de facto treaty-agreement reached, on the Isle of Capri, between the Octavian later known as Augustus Caesar, and the priesthood of the cult of Mithra, set the terms for the establishment of that Roman Empire which remains the root of European forms of imperialism, from that time to the present state of rule and ruin, enjoyed under the present "Dope, Incorporated" regime of the present, putative empress, Britain's Elizabeth II.
The opposing, European resistance to that imperialist system, was already expressed in such relevant locations as Aeschylus' Prometheus Trilogy. The significance of that point can be illustrated as follows.
Today, what Aeschylus deployed to illustrate the principled issue of that Trilogy, was the case of what the figure of the Olympian Zeus banned as "the use of fire" by members of what the relevant priests of the monetarist Delphi cult considered a virtual body of "popular cattle" known as human beings.
Today, the exact same principle of evil of that Olympian Zeus, is the evil of the cult which is known as "the green ideology." The opposition to nuclear power, as in the case of Germany presently, is an excellent illustration of the way in which nations are destroyed through the Flagellant-like cult of a "green ideology" of that British Royal Family typified by the explicitly pro-genocidalist Prince Philip, as by the Royal Family's current, avowedly pro-genocidalist, American puppet, Barack Obama. The whimpering mass of those foolish U.S. Democrats who defend Obama's policies of Adolf Hitler-style mass-murder in the name of "health-care policies," are now being directed by "Big Brother" Obama against members of the families of Democratic Party officials, all in the Orwellian name of "health care." This evidence presents us with an apt illustration of this grave moral problem of the U.S. government presently.
When we speak today, if we speak competently, the inner characteristic which thus distinguishes the human personality from the beast, is precisely that quality of creativity which we may rightly associate, symptomatically, with the inspiration of both great discoveries of universal physical principle and of the creative works of Classical artistic modes of creative expression.
Therefore, we enter the following chapters of this report by focusing on several among the most relevant among the subsumed, most crucial implications of this notion of the nature and powers of individual creativity.
II. The Human Mind
The currently prevalent, or better said, "relatively bestial" opinion respecting the nature of the human individual, is, first, the presumption that the reality of human life is that which is associated with faith in sense-certainty, and, second, that contrary notions such as those of the Classical artistic composition and physical-scientific discovery of principles, are the relatively, or even absolutely ephemeral aspects of human activity and inward mental life.
The problem that habit represents, is the perverse denial that it is the domain of sense-certainty which is the mere shadow of reality, and creativity, the true substance of the existence of the human individual.
However, in the practice of modern physical science, as founded by the successive stages of development by Filippo Brunelleschi and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, the physical reality of mankind's successful dealings with the universe outside both our skins and other sense-organs, is shown to coincide, in modalities, with Brunelleschi's otherwise practically impossible construction of the dome of Florence's cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore, by the use of a physical curve, rather than a Euclidean one. The same point is made by Cusa's recognition of the incompetence of Archimedes' presumption that the circle could be generated by quadrature.
This approach by Cusa was extended by Johannes Kepler's successive discoveries of the nature of the planetary elliptical orbits of Earth and Mars, and, after that, Kepler's discovery of the universal principle of gravitation, as the significance of this latter discovery was made clearer by Albert Einstein.
It must also be emphasized, that these discoveries in modern European science, are reflections of ancient European accomplishments such as Archytas' constructively dynamic solution for the duplication of the cube, as emphasized later by Eratosthenes, and the matter of the Platonic solids.
Most crucial, however, has been Kepler's fundamental, and uniquely original discovery of the system of the Solar planetary orbits. In this case, the use of the mutually contradictory senses, of sight and harmonics, were combined to define a phenomenon which was neither of the two. This method employed by Kepler, absorbed the methods of both his ancient Classical predecessors and the work since moderns such as Brunelleschi and Cusa; yet, it also defined the exact nature of a competent form of modern physical science for all physical science thereafter.
The consequent importance of the progress met in the ancient Classical Greek science, in the emergence of modern science through Leibniz and Gauss, and the later genius shown by modern leaders in the physical relativity of such as Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Academician V.I. Vernadsky, and Albert Einstein, is located for modern science in the unique originality of Kepler's discovery of a universal principle of gravitation, as Einstein recognized this aspect of the matter.
The point to be emphasized in this account, is, that, contrary to the modern positivist cult's dogma, the human senses, when considered in and of themselves, are merely instrumentation which does not show us the reality of the universe which that instrumentation addresses. It is only those crucial-experimental proofs which, like Kepler's uniquely original discovery of gravitation, show us experimental evidence which does not rely upon the assumed authority of any particular type of sense-perception. This requirement is imposed upon synthetic instrumentation as also upon sense-perceptions. Call this "The Helen Keller Principle."
These considerations impel us to make a crucial distinction between the human mind, as such, and the human brain with its attached sense-organs. Here lies the clearly expressed distinction of man from beast.
These considerations define the human soul as the reality, and sense-perception as merely the shadow cast by reality, as I had learned to begin to understand this through studious reflections on constructions witnessed at the Charlestown Navy Yard.
Man in Space
In the immediate post-World War II decades, the U.S.A.'s space pioneers considered the hypothetical sending of a flotilla of space-craft from Earth to Mars. Today, we admire that thought, but have considerable reason to doubt that the task is quite that simple, although comparable in conception.
There are two exemplary problems to be considered. First, the effects of a voyage across the Earth-Mars distance on the physical condition of the passengers and crew during a lapsed time of travel in the order of perhaps 300 days. While that may present no systemic problem for non-human objects, 300 days in such travel by human occupants of the space-craft, poses some rather alarming problems.
First of all, we know that by tapping the resources of helium-3 isotope lying on the surface of our Moon, we can conjecture accelerated flight between Earth-orbit and Mars-orbit. Perhaps as brief a journey as several days. However, then, we are forced to recognize that the space between Earth-orbit and Mars-orbit is not empty space, especially if we attempt the indispensable, constantly accelerated/decelerated flight-trajectories. It may "look" empty, because we have no built-in sense-organs for recognizing what lurks for the unwitting traveler in the seemingly empty space between the points in any presently ordinary way.
At that moment, as our current "basement" discussions run, we are approaching a subject which requires us to treat cosmic radiation as the leading subject of our interplanetary travel-plans for mankind, especially the problems associated with the tuning-ranges of relatively "soft" radiation of particular interest to living processes. We have entered the domain in which singularities supplant the presumed, rather naive identities of particles as such. We are confident that the apparent obstacles will be mastered if approached in the proper way, but the process of mastering those conceptual difficulties must proceed.
There is a certain quality of urgency involved, since the Sun will not treat Earth's present orbital pathway pleasantly forever. The remainder of the century appears relatively secured on this account, so we do have some time available for the art of worrying.
Matters posed by our physical chemists proceeding in the tradition of such as William Draper Harkins and Academician V.I. Vernadsky, when they are duly considered in broad terms of discussion, return our attention to the subject-matter of the human soul.
Once we recognize that nitty-gritty is not at all that which naive faith in mere sense-perception suggests, the perception of man's soul becomes, rather quickly, a view closer to the person of the Creator than to attractions to the follies of sense-certainty. Indeed, the essence of man's existence becomes primarily that of a practically efficient kind of what would be considered, as by today's more or less naive beliefs, as a spiritual being, rather than being considered, wrongly, as the reality of merely living meat. The kinship to the Creator is thus sensed more intimately. It is those discoveries we can class as discovered principles which live as efficient principles after the human discoverer is deceased, which tend to reveal themselves, more and more, as the essential expression of the distinction of man from beast.
In the moment those considerations of the nature of being is to be taken into account, something wonderful seems to have happened. The distinction of mind from brain has growing practical importance for scientific progress today. Now, the significance of what are actually the discoverable universal physical principles which the followers of Paolo Sarpi forbid to be considered, starts to grow upon us.
At the same time we must re-map the "periodic table" for the comparison of the function of cosmic radiation's role in, respectively, living and non-living functions.
This brings us to the subject of dynamics.
As he entered the closing decade of the Seventeenth Century, Gottfried Leibniz returned European science to the period of its achievements between, first, a moment prior to the legalized assassination of the innocent Socrates, and, then, the death of Plato: looking back to the concept of dynamis, or in the modern language of Gottfried Leibniz, dynamics. The most crucial among the effects of this shift, is that, whereas the universal physical principle of dynamics, shifts the means of mass-action from the will of the discrete individual from the brutish, ape-like individuality to what might have been considered the phenomenon of a mass of individualities, we are impelled, thus, to focus our attention and intentions on the role of the sovereign individual intellect as a participant in the process of influencing, and being influenced by the massed process itself.
Man is not an intruder into the domain of Earth otherwise; rather, the extension of man's development subsumes the development of our planet, and, ultimately, the Solar system, and beyond, as well.
The effect of this change in adduced viewpoint, is most conveniently typified by the concluding paragraphs of Percy Bysshe Shelley's A Defence of Poetry, as also by Rosa Luxemburg's conception of "the mass strike" as a matter of Leibnizian dynamics: an emphasis which is now expressed by the currently accelerating rate of transformation of the behavior of the mass of the citizens of the U.S.A., in opposition to both the President and most members of the U.S. Congress, presently.
Essentially, the apparent change currently in progress among us, is, that, as Shelley emphasized in the concluding paragraphs of his A Defence of Poetry, requires that we consider, that in the individual's making an essentially individual decision for action, the individual should act upon the shaping of the disposition for action among a mass within the population. Thereafter, while that situation persists, the individual's influence is expressed chiefly as acting on the mass of which he or she is a functional part at that moment, a reciprocal kind of effect among individual will and mass social dynamics, which, in turn, shapes the individual's and the group's shared disposition for a choice of form of action. In a word from physical science, dynamics.
Thus in all the relevant aspects of human existence as known thus far, it is the act of revolution in the quality of human thought which prompts a change in the massed standpoint of a relevant individual's options for proposed action, which largely determines, for better, or for worse, the options for the great changes in direction of entire classes of persons in society at each time.
The most instructive expression of this is to be recognized in the best intervals from ancient or modern physical science, when dynamics, otherwise known by the ancient name of dynamis, shaped the leading movements in ancient physical science, as prior to the culturally catastrophic Peloponnesian War.
This concept of dynamis/dynamics, is inseparable from the phenomenon of a social process in which universal physical principles, or the like, exert what appears to be a top-down direction of the unfolding of progress respecting both ideas and actions within the relevant society, or social processes as such. Regard for the relevant effect does appear in social processes organized according to such cases as the modern empiricist cultures, such as those of Britain and the Netherlands under the influence of Sarpi-ism, but there is no moral or comparable principle, other than a kind of bestial passion involved in this in those cases of today's stubbornly reductionist dogma.
Probably, in future times, more or less nearby, society will have a more active, better sense of these matters, than today. The likely cause for that improvement in the potential for scientific understanding of the universe we inhabit, will come when our scientific communities cease blocking out attention to the role of cosmic radiation, especially so-called low-intensity such radiation, especially upon living processes, prompting scientific practice to abandon the crude reductionism of a simply particle-based image of the universe, and of the reading of the periodic table, for emphasis on singularities, especially the role of living processes, and of the functions of the human mind most emphatically.
It is most provocative to consider the physical-economic fact, that ancient maritime-based cultures, such as those expressed in the form of the great Pyramid of Egypt, reflect the development of both maritime and the recent six- or seven-thousand years' development of riparian cultures under the superior influence of the effects of the role of trans-oceanic maritime cultures during the period inclusive of the last great "ice age" and the rising of oceanic and related levels to those of about 4,000-2,000 B.C.
IV. Creativity & Spirituality
No known species of living creature, other than mankind, embodies the power of actual creativity. When the implications of this are understood, what may be rightly termed spirituality and creativity are essentially identical forms, ontologically. The appropriate forms of sane religious beliefs, are an expression of the apprehension of the sense that it is this creativity, as a distinction of the human species, which imparts to mankind the potential for an implicitly immortal role within the universe, beyond the bounds of an animal-like incarnation.
This distinction is that of the quality of the principle of specifically human creativity whose existence is denied by both Aristotle and the followers of Paolo Sarpi.
The power of human creativity is expressed, typically, by those discoveries of universal physical principles which continue to be, specifically, efficiently creative in their immortal form, long after the discoverer is deceased.
Thus, there is an expression of human individual creativity which continues to express that creative power long after the author is deceased, an immortal existence of that power within the universe, a power which lives on long after the human brain to which it might be thought the relevant individual brain is no more, and continues to exist, for us, in our universe, as long as the mankind which possesses that discovery continues to exist.
Then, the sense that we, in this way, partake of the nature of the Creator, as we might adduce such an intention from the first chapter of the Mosaic Genesis, prompts us to locate our personal identity in our sense of an ontological likeness to, and affinity with the Creator, which, in turn, is the legitimate expression of a form of religious belief congruent with the notion of true universal creativity.
This creative action, turns on a light, suddenly, in the mind, which unleashes a sensation of a sudden surge of a likeness of warmth in the discoverer, which, once unleashed within society, exists as if it had "infected" persons other than the original human discoverer, even long after the original discoverer were deceased, as my own youthful experience with examples of the experiencing of the creativity of such as Gottfried Leibniz, or Bernhard Riemann, attests to this in a particularly outstanding way in my own experience.
However, that does not fill out the picture.
For as long as we believe that our merely sense-perceptual notion of self must dominate our notion of a so-called "practical" form of personal identity, the sense of a creative potency existing within us, is associated with a "feeling of something unreal," and always tending to slip from the grasp of our mind, and, yet, sometimes, expresses a more or less compelling sense of "the religious feeling."
Yet, it is not merely a "feeling." It is only when we see our sense-perceptual powers as "necessary, although unreal," as in a scientific manner, that we are enabled to begin to associate the sense of an "I-ness" with the higher, creative, and implicitly immortal powers of the individual human mind, as distinct from the mere notion of a "brain." It is the prescience of a successful discovery of a universal principle, rather than a merely wishful impulse, which presents society with a creative insight through the role of what are usually very much exceptional individuals.
It is in such moments, when this occurs, that the effect is of "a light turned on in what had been a darkened mind," not a fantasy but an insight into what is not merely feasible, but a necessity.
Such is the celebrated "intimation of immortality," a discovery which, once unleashed, retains the power to inspire, again and again, thereafter.
The only valid remedies for such a sense of uncertainty respecting what passes for the "spiritual" aspect of personal identity, are those made accessible through recognizing the function of the human individual's actual creative powers, or, simply, the capacity to act for the sake of a quality of "lovingness" toward other human individuals. Even the sense of companionship with, and responsibility for a pet dog, as an extension of the principle of loving regard for one's children, serves this purpose with a certain more or less profound sort of fair approximation of the religious motivation, the simple joy of being alive.
Such are the experiences of an intimation of immortality.
It is this experience, which has the quality of an expression of a sense of quiet joy, which we not merely sense, but know, when it is accompanied by the manifestation of a power of discovery of a principled form of notion of creativity which seizes our will with both the power of a fresh discovery, as something which is inherently good because it is a true discovery.
More will be said on these subjects, as the work "in the basement" and in related endeavors from sundry contributors from around the world produce their effects.
 In place of actual historians, today, we have those whose mouths utter oddly selected gobbets of facts from sundry isolated persons, places, and events, sometimes accurately, at other times falsehoods, but, usually, with no comprehension of actual history as a process.
 Compare what I have just described here with Raphael Sanzio's representation of the controversy depicted within the School of Athens.
 The Karl Marx of the myth, rather than the man, is a phenomenon of a political idea which the relevant actualities of history have bestowed upon the actual image of the effect with which he is associated. I suspect that Rosa Luxemburg understood this in some degree; the evidence to that effect is a subject in itself. As a study of the offshoots of the Cambridge School of systems analysis demonstrates (e.g., IIASA, the International Institute of Applies Systems Analysis) Marx's doctrine, is not the nadir of the business; there is far worse stuff than Marx's follies to be recognized in present British actions which have shifted the financial capital of Russia from Moscow, to the cess-pots of the Cayman Islands and related Antilles.
 Irony does not create truth, but is usually an indispensable aid for revealing it. According to Karl Marx's father, that father's errant son had traveled far distant from the principles of his secondary education in Trier under Johann Hugo Wyttenbach. Marx was converted to the reductionism of the Romantic School which was famously denounced at that time by his sometimes acquaintance Heinrich Heine, but was also dosed, through rabidly reductionist influences such as the British agent Frederick Engels. According to the correspondence of both Engels and Marx himself, Marx was repeatedly "brainwashed," by controllers such as Engels, to effects, as Marx himself admitted, to be consistent with the depravity of the actually imperialist social dogma of Lord Shelburne's agent Adam Smith. Although the use of the term "positivism" is usually dated to its later uses, the principle of positivism was already presented by Sarpi, as also such Sarpi apostles as Galileo.
 The New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, 1980. Goldman went on to become, presently, a devotee of that evil which he had shared in denouncing in 1980—as if to say: if you can not beat them, join them!
 The following four chapters present the "spine" of a set of chapters which will undergo evolution and expansion during the coming weeks and months. What is presented initially, is the hard core of the subject-matter. The future expansion in revised editions will reflect discussions of these topical areas among the author and his associates.
 Certain households' dogs, for example, find a curious intimation of immortality contingent upon the household which they represent; but, that is a subject-matter for a different occasion.
 I enjoyed such an experience during the age-range of 14-15. Through repeated opportunities to observe construction at the Boston, Massachusetts area's Charlestown U.S. Navy Yard, I reached the conclusion that the process of construction, whose designs I observed, required a calculation in physical space, rather than simply mathematical geometry. The relevant discovery occurred, fortunately, prior to my first day in the relevant geometry class. It was not an original principle, but it was one I made in what was for me, a personally unique and original way. I had neither read nor heard of physical geometry as a conception then, but what I did discover then virtually saved the meaning of my life. The single set of experiences, in making that elementary discovery of a principle of physical geometry, rather than a silly formal geometry as such, shaped the course of my intellectual life from that time, to the present day. Back then, the initial effect was to send me searching for everything I could find of the work of Gottfried Leibniz.
 Contrast the case of the insanity of Georg Cantor, as symptomized by his assertion of Isaac Newton's version of Paolo Sarpi's positivism, "Hypotheses non fingo," in his 1895 Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers. Cf. Letters 99-101 of Cardinal J. B. Franzelin with Cantor, in Herbert Meschkowski's Georg Cantor Briefe (1991). Cantor, apart from his insanity during the closing years of his life, including those of his 1895-97 publication of his Contributions..., was strongly influenced by the destructive influence of such positivists as Karl Weierstrass, and the credulous believer in a positivism which remains as a grave systemic weakness commonplace among modern mathematicians, as distinct from the inspiring breath of sanity which has been expressed by the leading physical chemists who were followers of Bernhard Riemann. The followers of Riemann, such as Academician V.I. Vernadsky, Max Planck, William Draper Harkins, and the physicist Albert Einstein, have given us what I recognized as that beleaguered minority of competent scientists, beleaguered by the positivist fanatics, still, in this field, today.
 E.g., the design and crafting of the construction of the cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore made possible through Brunelleschi's use of the universal physical principle of the catenary.
 De Docta Ignorantia.
 All of the modern European attacks on the work of Kepler are a combination of sheer lies, as by the "Newtonians" of the school of Abbé Antonio Conti and his underling Voltaire, who were desperate in their efforts to suppress both the work of Nicholas of Cusa and of Kepler. The desperation of these fraudulent attacks on Kepler expressed Sarpi's and Galileo's fear that they might not succeed in imposing the modern, principle-free empiricist (e.g., Liberal) system on European culture.