by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Source: MORNING BRIEFING Sunday, September 25, 1994

LYNDON LAROUCHE: The main thing is this project on Africa, from two standpoints. First of all, it is the most {crucial} political event. The role of our enemy, who is the Venetian Party as headed by the primate among parasites, British royal family, is the focal point from which we have to, human terms, in flesh-and-blood terms, focus upon the nature of the enemy. As I have said, the problem has been that there's been too much focus upon this and that and this and that.
For example, it happened in the discussion of: incarceration, and various people would take their pet pee and say, "Well, LaRouche was incarcerated, because ..." and then they would mention this or they would mention that or they would mention this. Actually, I was incarcerated because in the Spring and Summer of 1982, because of changes in Moscow among other things that were going on, the New York and British Establishment, including Henry Kissinger personally, got wind of what I was doing in producing a project which was being seriously considered by parts of the Real administration, as well as being discussed by the Russia which would have overturned the entire nuclear weapons geopolitical doctrine on which the Establishment operated; the essential reason that I was put in prison, and the reason the things were done to us, was {none of the above.}
You could find some enemy of ours, for whom that was a leading issue; but the Task Force against us, this concert of action, was actually assembled from the ranks of selected members. It was like a club; they would select representatives of everybody who was out to get us, in order to throw together a team, for this purpose.
The question is not what was the motive of the member of the team which is what some of our people do and have done particularly when someone asks, ''Why was he incarcerated?' I've heard the most silly things imaginable. Not that somebody didn't have a factual basis, but it was not me reason. And it was also, in a sense, in a defiance of what people have been told repeatedly{was} the reason.
The reason was, that I was becoming personally, in the eyes of the enemy, much too powerful, and had to be destroyed and the key issue which defined that for them was two things. The Mexico policy of 1982 which was very important, but that was not crucial. It was not {Operation Juarez} they did the setup against. We had enemies on the issue of {Operation Juarez } very powerful ones, but that was not the issue. The issue was, that I was seen getting interest from within the Reagan administration on a new strategic doctrine which had overturned the entirety of the British geopolitical doctrine, especially the entire nuclear condominium/nuclear weapons policy. And it was on that basis that Henry Kissinger operating for the British royal family {personally,} got this operation in place. The same thing comes with everything else. People say ''The reason for this problem, is this faction is doing this..." Crap! Not true.
The reason for this operation, the only operation that's of any interest to us from an adversarial standpoint, is not this or that faction. All factions of any relevance, are simply predicates, in one way or the other, of this primate among parasites of the Venetian oligarchy party.
So therefore, it's from that standpoint that {doing this project right} and not falling back into our errant ways of trying to treat it as a subsidiary project, is {crucial} for us.
The only other thing that's crucial, of course, is what we're doing in terms of the philosophical issue of Aristotle vs. Plato, but that is {also} British; because there never was an Aristotelian faction {any place, of any clout,} in the past 500 years, which was not Venetian; and that includes the Aristotelians in the Church, who are Venetians. They're not Christians, they're Venetian. Some of them are well-meaning people, but that's the point.
So, first look at the British primate among parasites, and to the Venetian oligarchy from that standpoint, {then} pull in what are the species ideas, the axioms and postulates of the Venetian Party which control the British to this day, and what are the leading theorems under which the Venetians Party at his time is operating. Now you know who the enemy is, you know what you're fighting against, and you've got a unity of effect in action. And thus, everything has to be looked at from that standpoint. And I'm very happy that we're getting some progress in that direction. I realized all the resistance to that, was just from backsliders who, whether consciously or not, were trying to preserve old habits, which have led us down into great weakness and disorientation. And, we're going to get the British royal family. I don't care what they say about the Queen pushing drugs. She pushes dope-four children.
So, this is extremely important, and that should be our focus for this week.
Of course, this Ollie North business and the Bush business has to be assessed from that standpoint. There are all kinds of things going on the American political intelligence front as such, particularly with what Warren Christopher's trip to Atlanta to meet Carter means. I understand the two gentlemen don't like each other too much. I'm not spreading a rumor, but if somebody were to announce tomorrow that Carter's going to be the new Secretary of State, I would not be floored. I would be surprised but not floored.
Because there is particularly with that little piece that turned up in the Guardian, as Opposed to the {Telegraph} report on Clinton's policy, obviously something is up.
But all of this goes back to the same thing. It's this same policy we discussed at some length yesterday, and I'm pleased that we're getting motion on it. We have to recognize that we have to integrate our work around that particular issue, that's what also needs to be emphasized.


Now, we've got this other project, which is only, shall we say, a {Fidelio} project, but it's a very important one, on the subject of creativity. The purpose is not to introduce exactly a new idea, though for some people who haven't received the idea the many times it's been presented, it may appear new. I've done all the work actually, on this creativity project in the metaphor series and in similar places. But it's my view that what we have to do, in order to educate people on creativity is to start with Classical poetry, because that's the easiest way that metaphor is demonstrated. It's cute. That's the most general form. {Classical} only poetry. Not some poetry, not who's the good poet, not this usual kind of stuff, the "fan club" stuff. You know, some people have been subjected to Hollywood Fan Clubs so much, that when you say let's go work on somebody's work they say, "You mean we're a fan of his now?" This kind of nonsense. I hope none of that starts, because Goethe is very useful for this, even though I don't like him at all, and he's a very bad poet in many respects. But, he's very clever on this kind of thing, and, because of his inferiority, he's advantageous, because when you're looking at the Goethe strophic poetry, generally, you're not dealing with powerful ideas which are also powerful by virtue of importance of content. What you're dealing with, is a {method} by which powerful ideas {can} be presented, which is being used to accomplish some fairly trivial end. The only important end that Goethe's poetry really accomplishes, is that, in its time, and, later, with those who studied it, the analysis of Goethe's poetry enables us to see how the principle of metaphor works, because we're not distracted by the idea content so much . Like {Mailied,) which is probably trivial, but nonetheless, the principle of creativity is there. It's very well, very rigorously defined, very strictly defined. There is an absolute discontinuity, and admittedly, the poem as a whole is the idea which is defined by the {absolute discontinuity} between two contrasting aspects of a metaphor. That sort of thing. Now, the next stage is tragedy: Schiller. Classical tragedy, and use Schiller, who's the best tragedian in all history, and who is the most conscious one, about the method of how to design works, as he is the most conscious on many subjects that he treats. Use that as the example for example, {Don Carlos}, and {Wallenstein} is a very long one, even though, if people are familiar with {Wallenstein,} you can make a case; but a couple of Schiller tragedies and some other references, to show how the principle of creativity; ie metaphor as I've defined it, is the crucial aspect which defines the {punctum saliens} in the drama. That is. the {punctum saliens} in a Schiller drama, to restate Schiller's thesis is reached at the point that the drama has developed , implicitly as, say, for an intelligent, receptive reader of Plato's {Parmenides.} Remember Plato never actually gives the solution to the Parmenides paradoxes in the dialogue, but rather he impresses the viewer of the drama (which is what the dialogue is, to see, at a certain point, where he mentions that we are leaving out of account change. At that point, he has given the clue to the onlooker to the dialogue, what the solution is. That's the punctum saliens of the {Parmenides, } and what I would propose to do, is to use the Parmenides {punctum saliens} principle there, and treat it as a tragedy, because it is. Think of the Parmenides as a Classic tragedy as Schiller defines tragedy; it's all there. And what is the {punctum saliens}? It's the point at which Plato introduces what we are leaving out of consideration here, the matter of change. At that point, that's the {punctum saliens.} The solution presented. Shall we say, when you were trying to solve a problem m school, in mathematics, the hint, the hint that showed you: "0h this is how you solve the problem " And, at that point, the {punctum saliens} is presented; and thence, thereafter, the tragedy, the {failure} - and that's why the {Parmenides} is a tragedy, because in the end it fails. All the speakers from the Parmenides crowd, {fail}; and the fact that the failure occurs, despite the hint which could have prevented the failure, defines it as the tragedy. Thus, the people who {understand} the tragedy (and the job of the actors and directors is to do that, to make that clear to the audience}, those who walk out of the theater, are obviously improved and ennobled in nature, by having lived through that kind of experience, in which the behavior of man in history is shown to them in these terms, and they really begin to understand history as the history of ideas. So then we go into other matters: music. We have enough on music where the {punctum saliens} is clear. In the case of the {Motiven-Durchkomponierung,} a method which was introduced by Haydn and developed by Mozart, the key thing, then, as I've indicated earlier in this "Mozart's Revolution," is a discontinuity. And the discontinuity is merely {typified} by the problem of dealing with the F Sharp as the middle of the octave. Then you get, in the later Beethoven, a much more advanced, much more {tension-laden} method of the same thing, of {Motivfuehrung.} And, what I've suggested to Bruce and others, is to look at the Razumovsky Quartet No. 2 of Beethoven, as an example of Beethoven's mastery of what Mozart had done in amplifying {Motivfuehrung,} and then to go from there to compare the Opus 132, which is the more advanced model, directly with the comparable earlier quartet, which is the Opus 59 of the two Razumovsky, which makes, again, from a musical composition standpoint, by drawing out this crucial feature of the method of Beethoven's composition which defines his work as creative, not because it's innovative, but because it's actually creative, which is different than innovative. Innovative is changing your sex every three hours; creative is something else. Then, finally, back to mathematics. I'm writing a preliminary paper on that, which is to attack this problem of the definition of causality. It's fun but I think that people will get to mathematics last, because mathematics actually lends itself to psychosis, which is why you see so many psychotic pure mathematicians. When somebody studies mathematics these days, particularly in the conventional, accepted classroom pedagogy of mathematics these days, chances are that about 95 percent if they get a doctoral degree, they generally tend to become psychotic, and you can ask Jonathan Tennenbaum about the number of psychotics who are accredited academics, professors of mathematics, who write psychotic drivel among themselves, and speak psychotic drivel. I met one in Rochester. He was typical. I wasn't surprised. People would say to me, "But he's very bright. He can't be all crazy. He's a very bright mathematician." I said "The reason he's crazy, is because he is a mathematician. His mathematics is his nuttier side." He believes in people from outer space, that's a minor flaw. Mathematics-that's the real lunacy! So, mathematics is actually, for that reason, people believe in the formalism, but actually it's a world of virtual reality, in which a sense of reality is lacking among most people who study mathematics, especially people who are, presumably, professionally very good at it. If you are a professionally competent mathematician, whether you specialize in physics or anything else, you tend to have a psychotic streak which is called pure mathematics or mathematical formalism. You have to understand mathematical formalism, but don't let it take you over. And thus when you try to present, as I've done, the creative principle im light of the geometric-mathematical model, I'm presenting the most rigorous and strictest formal presentation of it possible; but people have difficulty with it. Two problems: first of all, they say "But he's going against what everyone in mathematics teaches, how can this be possible?" and also, for most people, mathematics, especially advanced mathematics, is a realm of psychosis, it's a realm of virtual reality. Therefore, the problem that I have, is that as people get into mathematics, they turn on their psychotic generator or psychosis generator, and so I've lost them the minute I've tipped them off to the fact that we're going to deal with some mathematics. Thus, it seems {essential} as the general pedagogy to present the notion of creativity {earlier,} in terms of starting with poetry, the simple case of metaphor. Classical poetry, not the garbage type, not the modernistic or modern trends in poetry, but Classic strophic poetry according to rules. Otherwise, the metaphor is not clear.


Then, go to drama which again situates creativity in real life, as we are doing with intelligence work. We're looking at the axioms and postulates of intelligence work, human behavior in history, {not} the so called simple motivations, but rather the axioms and postulates. To put it another way, the important thing to show to people, is when you mention Jeremy Bentham for example, is to show, and Bentham's repertoire for ideas, policy, is exemplary of this in a very clear way, is to show that people who think they are making free decisions, are not making free decisions. They are making decisions on the basis of the authority of underlying assumptions, including fads, trends, and so forth, which should be called the postulates. We have underlying assumptions which define the possibilities of consistent theorems. Then you have fads and trends which determine what is generally popular m utilizing these theorems, or these axioms and postulates to develop theorems. So, you have trendy theorems, as opposed to other theorems, which were equally valid from the standpoint of the underlying postulates, but they're not as "trendy, as the British would put it. So, if you understand history, or if you understand intelligence, yon have to see this aspect of history, that the guy who says he's making a free-will decision, that he has a free opinion, {has not got my own opinion. } He's a zombie, because his theorems are enslaved, totally, number one, under a set of axiomatic assumptions and the postulates attached thereto, and secondly, that his choice among possible theorems, according to that set of axioms and postulates, is {delimited in direction,} at least by emphasis, by some current trend. Thus, the people who tell you they're making a free decision are actually under the tyranny of a lunatic dictator which they would call "tradition," or "our way of life," or "the accepted way of thinking." That's true in mathematics, that's true in other things. Thus, Classical drama {is} history. That is {real} historic-throw out political science, that is by the Mme. de Saustaal (pigsty). Throw all that stuff out, that positivist crap! Throw out ethnography, throw out psychology, throw out all the behaviorists; it's all {garbage!} If you want to study history, you study, first of all, poetry, metaphor, and above all, Classical tragedy, and look at everything through the eyes of the Classical tragedian, particularly Schiller. Then you will begin to understand how history works. Then what becomes obvious to you, and nothing makes this clearer than tragedy, is that people who think they have "their own opinion," people who think they're acting out of "free will," are actually poor, zombie mind-slaves, under the double tyranny, first of all, of a dynasty (that's the set of axioms and postulates); and then you have a currently ruling Emperor of this tyrannical dynasty, which is called "current approved trends." And these poor babblers are nothing but programmed idiots, babbling out theorems and other propositions, which are dictated to them {from within,} by an absolute tyrant. On the one hand the dynasty of axioms and postulates, and, on the second level, the currently popular trends in their particular set. They're a bunch of loonies! And don't try to explain the behavior of those loonies, from the standpoint of British human nature, as the populists do. Populism is a form of insanity, it's a form of moral insanity as well as intellectual insanity, and {illiteracy} It's a product of historic, scientific, and philosophical {illiteracy} and, sometimes, {moral} illiteracy.


So, don't bother trying to tabulate or produce a plausible product of evaluation to fit the prejudices of these dammed fools and zombies! What we have to do, is to {shape} history by {changing, by overturning,} trends and axioms and postulates which have been embedded in our culture for sometimes {hundreds} of years. And, only when you see a tragedy where that's posed, where a trend an axiomatic assumption, an ancient tradition of belief, becomes the cause of the doom of your entire society, and you see at that point that you have to chimge that longstanding assumption {in a very radical way.} Because if you do not produce a {discontinuity, } in that set of axioms and postulates, a discontinmty in those terms and trends, you cannot save your nation. That's history. That's science. That's political intelligence. That is Classical tragedy. So, the project creativity for the {Fidelio} series, is actually an attempt by us to do the same thing we're doing with this primate among parasites, the British royal family, that is, to attack the problems that face our culture and civilization, at the core, and to relate everything {to the core,} and thus to determine what is important, what is not important. For example, let's take the case of Samuel Ruiz in Chiapas. Let's take the Yummy-yummy [Yanomami] Indian or the Miskito Indians, all these kinds of things. Look at the major project, which is the primate among parasites project, and you'll see that the way this is working. Earlier, this kind of thing was run under the Eugenics Project, but then they spun off, for the British royal family, a project which is actually coherent with the Eugenics Project, but which has a somewhat different emphasis. It's the World Wildlife Fund, or the World Wide Fund for Denaturing the Planet. Now, under this, people, as for the ethnologists and the French positivists, are animals. And the word "indigenous people" is actually an insult. "What do you mean, they're not human?" Yeah, that's what they mean. It means they're {animals.} They treat them just the way they treat the rhinoceri they protected," the way they treat the elephants they protected," the way they treated the gorillas they protected," for the same purpose. The reason that they support the Cree claims in Canada, or the Yummy-yummy Indians, who are nothing but a bunch of sick, dying drunks, who are not really a tribe, not really a people. As Fernando pointed out, could you imagine the ambassador, the representative from the Miskito Indians, who came to the United States, his name is Steadman Faggot?" That's not a culture. In any case, the Chiapas Project is what? It's a project of the World Wildlife Fund. Where is it next to ? Belize. What's Belize? What's Belize? Well, Belize is a fancy name for British Honduras. What's British Honduras? Who is the head of state there? Oh, it's the Queen! They're running the Yummy-yummy Indians and all the other pestilences that are being run, including all these forest preserves in California, which are being taken away from the people of the United States and given to private interests, under Federal law. This is all being directed by the same enemy. So therefore, what we have to see and understand in all these things, is not that we've got to fight this guy on this issue, we've got to fight this guy on this issue-No. We've got to say: "These are the forces of the enemy of humanity. Here is the organizational structure of this oligarchy and its apparatus, which is being deployed against us, and here are their methods of operations." And the assumptions we have to eliminate, are the assumptions which cause us {to tolerate} this force, the primate among parasites, and that which it represents, the international Venetian Party, the oligarchy.


So, the major operation of the oligarchy, is to create dumb people. The fight is between the conception of {imago Dei} as {I} have presented it, not the way some theologians present it, but the way I presented it, which is the way Philo of Alexandria understood it, the way Cusa understood it, the way others have understood it. To be in the image of God, means {nothing but} creativity as I have discussed the notion of metaphor. Unless that aspect of yourself is brought forth, which emphasizes {that creativity,} you're not talking about man in the image of God. You are not saying anything about man which Prince Philip, the chief spokesman for the primate among parasites, would not accept. You are not disagreeing with Gaia, essentially. You are not disagreeing with the Orphic cults. You are the same thing as a Bogomil. You can use the word {imago Dei} all you want to, but if you don't mean what I mean by it, you're talking gibberish. So therefore, you look at history: what have these bastards always done? What have they done with their religions, their cults ?

What's the Orphic cult ? The Orphic cult is this. A follower of the cult of Orpheus, which is a branch, or a variant of the Cult of Apollo. The Bogomils, for example, were Orphic. The Veno Christians are actually not Christians, they're Orphic. The Aristotelian faction by and large, in Christianity, is not Christian; it's Orphic. And it's readily showable. What is the Cult of Orpheus? Some of you know about this. The Cult of Orpheus, is the Cult of the Other World. It's the legend of Orpheus with his lute behavior, going from the Netherworld to this world, and, for the Orphic believer, the Other World, Paradise, is Orpheus's spiritual world, the world of the dead: Hades. Hecuba. As for the Calvinists, for example. The Calvinists come from what? The Calvinists are Bogomils. And they're Bogomils who were settling on the Rhone, and Geneva at one point was the capital of the Bogomil cult, because of its position at the head of the Rhone At one point, the Bogomils, in the region of Cluny, in Burgundy, became nominally Christian, as, often, they do. The Bogomils often pretended to be Christians, they pretended to be the heirs to the Pelagians.
These pseudo-Christian Satanist, Bogomil, Hades-worshipers, called themselves Calvinists. And so, this reform movement is {nothing but an Orphic Cult. } You have an irrationalist cult within the nominal Catholic Church. You have the same thing: an Orphic Cult, not dissimilar, entirely, from the Bogomil, or from the Venetian. Some of these call themselves conservative" Catholics. But they're conservative in the sense that they take an older form, as opposed to the newfangled, more exotic form. The idea of this world and the spiritual world: The denial of works, the emphasis on Grace alone, by Luther and others, is a product of the Orphic doctrine, the Orphic cult.

The separation of the spiritual world from the material world, so called, which goes with the idea of Aristotle, whose system is exactly Bogomil Calvinist in the worst form. Belief. Read the {Politics,} read the {Ethics.} Every obscenity-slavery, lying, degeneracy-possible to man, is permitted in the material world, as for the Bogomil. That's the cult of Apollo. The other part, which is the part of Dionysus, who is interchangeable with the King of Hades, is the spiritual, the world of the disembodied spirit the world of the dead, exists, and their spirituality means to them, Hades, in the sense of the Orphic cult. It means the Other World; it does not mean a world in which the {principle} of {Imago Dei} is operative day by day, moment by moment, in the determination of the conduct of human behavior and social law, natural law. The repudiation of natural law as Cusa and so forth define natural law, the repudiation of that, in favor of a positive law, is {consistent} with the Orphic cult doctrine. What these guys do, what the oligarchy always does, in every manifestation, whether Hiram of Tyre, Canaanite Tyre, the worship of Moloch; in Venice, the Venetian ambassadors. Pomponazzi. Bellarmino, the same thing. He's on the opposite side, he's the Vecchi, but he's really the same thing as Paolo Sarpi in terms of belief Gasparo Contarini, and so forth and so on, they're all the same thing. Francis Bacon. They all say that the mental object, the moment of creative discovery, the idea which corresponds to the metaphorical bridge between two ironically juxtaposed subjects, which define an idea, which is not in the sense-perceptive world, but is the world of governing relations, the world of Reason; that these objects of thought, are not to be admitted, and we must confine ourselves to sense-perception. But you have, on the other hand, as Gasparo Contarini, later Cardinal, said to Pomponazzi: Yes, in your theory {in this world} you are right. There is no God, there is no soul. But in the {other world,} the world of Orpheus's visits to Hades, the world of the dead, there is a spirit."

So, that kind of dogma, which is typified by, this is what the Aristotelian code, canon is used for within Christianity, to destroy Christianity from within, by use of the Aristotelian method of canon law. Wherever the Aristotelian canon is employed, you find this Orphic tendency, whether it's Protestant, whether it calls itself Catholic, whatever it calls itself. The same thing. Now, what they're trying to do, constantly, is to destroy {imago Dei.} So, these jerks will use the word {imago Dei,} but they're actually trying to destroy it, when they use, because they are {preventing, denying, prohibiting,} the development and ordering of society according to ideas as {efficient} ideas, within what they call the material realm. This is the problem, say, with Christianity, in dealing; with the problem of economics. The {failure} to deal with economics, is largely a result, in the economic domain, among religious people, of the Aristotelian influence, of the oligarchical influence. Thus, the importance of creativity - the {fundamental} importance of creativity. These guys are trying to eliminate creativity from the human race; and creativity, as I define it, {is imago Dei,} {is} the active principle of {imago Dei.} Thus, they seek to destroy creativity. So, the fight - the war between us and the oligarchy - is between those who are oligarchical, who are trying to destroy man as {imago Dei,} to reduce man to an animal (not to discover that he is, but to {reduce} him to one), by suppressing the recognition, development, and nurturing of the principle of reason, which is {imago Dei,} the principle of creativity, as typified by fundamental discoveries of principle in science. Those who say: "Religion is {opposed} to science," are again, Gnostics. They are part of the Orphic Cult, because they do not believe, or refuse to believe, that that which is responsible for man's discoveries of principle, for man's power over nature, is the nature of man , and is the nature of the spiritual principle. They deny it. Therefore, they're Gnostics. They belong, by implication, to the devotees of the Orphic Death Cult - with their deathbed conversions, for example. The ticket to Hades is called a "deathbed conversion." This kind of stuff.


So therefore, the fight, on the one side, is the oligarchy. The continuity of the oligarchy is represented today, by the primate among parasites, the Venetian Party and its leadership, the British royal family and appendages.
But the {idea} which defines the oligarchy as a species, which is the species-nature of Prince Philip, comes from the age-long Aristotelian and related traditions of an Orphic cult, which is what the enemy is. We are dealing not with the flesh and blood, though we have to deal with the flesh and blood, but what is the problem that makes the flesh and blood a problem ? It is this tradition, this idea, this set of axioms, the Orphic Cult of Aristotle, in its most popular modern form. The oligarchical cult which {denies} creativity.
What is being done with OBE in the schools, is the mass murder of {imago Dei.} It's the same as the actual mass murder of children, which is why I said, from prison that we have to fight against this, and there is no compromise, this is a war to the death} against OBE and everything it represents. You are not serious about life, if you tolerate OBE, you do not take a war-to-the-death attitude, against it and what it represents, because it aims to destroy, as it says, the cognitive element in education, particularly among people who they think are racially inferior, like blacks. And, when you take away the cognitive emphasis in education, you take away the ground work on which the fostering of creativity as a conscious quality of behavior, is based; so you are actually murdering man, in his nature as man, and reducing him to a beast, which is murdering man. So, all of these fads in education, these empiricists, these liberals, the liberal philosophy of empiricism, or the French positivists, Abbot Moigno, for example; all these people are the enemy. They are the enemies of man, they are the enemies of God, and they are that, because they represent a pnndplele. Not merely the oligarchical social formation, though that's there; but the oligarchical social formation coheres, as practice, with the opposition to creativity and these ideas. Thus, it's very important for us to put foremost the principle of creativity. This is what we've been based on ever since I've started giving these courses. What I was emphasizing constantly, was creativity, as defined by the economic situation - which, essentially, is the core of my contribution to scientific knowledge.


Now, I'm doing this attack on Galileo's method, because Galileo, like those who follow him defines causality mathematically in a very specific way, in his laws on motion, and this comes, in a sense, from people like Bellarmino, who is the guy who sent Galileo to the Inquisition. Bellarmino was also a member of the Orphic Cult, just as Paolo Sarpi was, but different factions on the Orphic Cult. They introduced the idea of causality, such that, if you look, for example, at the algebraic equivalence between the derivation of a formula, an algebraic formula of gravitational relationship from Kepler's Third Law and the so-called Newtonian expression for gravitation, you'll the two are algebraically consistent; but conceptually opposite, and conceptually opposite not merely in ideas about what you're talking about, but in the practice of it. Because the Kepler version of the Third Law, is derived in a way which is consistent with what we call the Quantum Field mathematics today, which is what Planck was actually representing, and which they were trying to bury through the Solvay Conferences, up through 1927. But it's Kepler's determination of the orbits, the planetary orbit, the available position, is on the basis of the implications of Plato's treatment of the Five Platonic Solids; that is where Kepler's Law comes from. So, Kepler's physics, derived in that way, does not attribute actions to causality in the Galileo or Newton sense, but rather to a governing principle of reason, reason because this is the way man recognizes it, which, in other terms, is the lawful ordering of the universe, a lawful ordering of the universe, which is not inconsistent with the remarkable significance of Plato's discovery of the implications of the Five Platonic Solids. So, to make clear that crucial issue, the notion of causality, which is the form of insanity which infects every stupid advanced professor who goes to a blackboard or to the equivalent today, that is an issue which you must address directly. Otherwise, you cannot locate creativity efficiently in scientific work. And, as long as you're promoting scientific and technological progress, but you allow the Venetians to get by with this swindle of Galilean causality in the field of mathematical physics, you see what happens. Therefore, all of this is one and the same thing. In our work, there are certain primary considerations which are of a historical-epistemological nature; which, if we master those, all the other parts of our work, fall into place rather neatly. Whereas, if you start the other way, and do cottage industry detailed studies, and hope, somehow, to find the secrets of history by putting these things, "objective facts" together, interpretation of facts together in this way, you don't get anywhere, you just get to disorientation, the way most other people have in academic life. So, that's my thought for the day.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on January 07, 2009, at 12:43 PM