The "Hereditary Principle"
LaRouche sometimes refers to the strange term "hereditary principle."
Here is what he wrote about this:
"Any prevailing body of ideas about man and the universe, most clearly and simply mathematical science, can be interpreted as a logical latticework defined everywhere by some "hereditary principle." This principle may be either of the syllogistic or constructive species. In the case of a syllogistic lattice-work, all theorems have embedded in them reflections of the axioms and postulates upon which the elaboration of the lattice-work is premised. Similarly, although a synthetic geometry has no such deductive or axiom-postulate features, the point of departure of the geometry, and the principle of construction employed, is an hereditary feature of the geometry as a whole." (1)
"Any prevailing body of ideas about man and the universe"? Well, translated into plain English, that is what one could understand as "Culture".
To reduce "any prevailing body of ideas about man and the universe" to "a logical latticework" sounds bizarre, to say the least. It also sounds, strangely enough, very "Aristotelian" (aka the "evil philosophy" according to LaRouche)!
Now, where does this "principle" come from ? In other words : What is the hereditary principle behind this hereditary principle, if such a "principle" exists?
It seems this is yet another typical LaRouchian concoction. To our knowledge there are two possible sources:
Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche. Russell (whom LaRouche read many of his works before trashing him away as an "Aristotelian") was referring to such a "Hereditary Property" in his Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, Chapter III (1918) applied to the series of natural numbers ONLY. It deals with the Aristotelian notion of induction.
We do not know what are LaRouche's sources, but both are good contendants since he is known to have read them both.
However, on this very subject, LaRouche attacked B Russell:
"This is the problem which Bertrand Russell, for one, attempts to circumvent by mere word-juggling, using the term “hereditary principle.” I.e., since every possible theorem of a consistent lattice is hereditarily consistent with the imputable set of axioms and postulates underlying it, that set of axioms and postulates must be construed as an “hereditary principle”; once the hereditary principle’s distinctions are understood, as distinct from that of other lattices, the notion of any infinity apparently existing within a formal lattice is expressed adequately by direct reference to the “hereditary principle.” The trouble with Russell’s version of this, and those of his followers, is that his views involve a deliberate fraud, a methodological, formalist’s fraud closely related to that of LaPlace, Cauchy, and Moigno earlier."
So, this leaves us with... Friedrich Nietzsche! But, does it? You NEVER know with LaRouche who, as a serial thief, is used to erase his tracks to avoid from being caught.
1. LaRouche On The Subject of B.G. Tilak's Thesis: The Present Scientific Implications of Vedic Calendars from the Standpoint of Kepler and Circles of Gauss; Fusion Energy Foundation, January 29, 1984.