Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

On the Subject of God

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,
July, 1992

Part II

This article is reprinted from the Spring 1993 issue of FIDELIO Magazine.

For related articles, scroll down or click here.

Back to Part I

Fidelio, Vol. II,No, I. 
Spring 1993

Evolutionary Theory

Evolutions intrinsically are negentropic processes, as this writer, for example, has supplied a corrected definition of “negentropy” in other locations. We introduce four exemplary relevant paragraphs from “Mozart's 1782-1786 Revolution in Music”70 for this purpose:

“There are two distinct species of thought-objects implied in the given, illustrative series of theorem-lattices. First, on the relatively lower level, there is a quality of the thought-object which is typified by the transformation of A to generate B. Second, there is the higher quality, higher species of thought-object associated with a notion of a choice of determined ordering for the series presented, the ordering of the lower-order thought-objects corresponding to the discontinuities AB, BC, CD, DE,....

“For example, a successfully advancing science would be associated with a succession of such revolutions, each always leading the relevant society (implicitly) to higher levels of potential population-density. This would also signify, that that generation of successive revolutions AB and BC must result in a revolution CD which latter increases the potential population-density more rapidly than the average of AB and BC. These successive revolutions are effected under the guidance of a self-evolving method for effecting successive such revolutions, a self-evolving method of scientific discovery. Call this quality of revolutionary ordering a method of evolutionary negentropy in increase of potential population-density.

“Understand 'evolutionary negentropy' as a conception introduced by Nicolaus of Cusa. The progressive evolution of the biosphere is dominated by emergence of relatively higher species—higher than any previously extant. This does not (generally) wipe out the surpassed inferior species. Rather, the proliferation of most among the accumulated, interacting species makes possible the emergent existence of the higher species. Similarly, in the case of the Mendeleyev Periodic Table of Elements and their Isotopes, the emergence of helium and lithium, and so on, from nuclear fusion of hydrogen, and so on, does not eliminate the lower ranking elements and isotopes of that table; rather, that development is characteristic of an ever higher state of organization of the “table” as an interdependent wholeness.

“We combine this view of such revolutionary/evolutionary processes as these, with a notion of rising 'free energy' of the entire 'system' undergoing such ordered evolution. This combination of higher states of organization with relative increase of 'free energy,' is a definition we prescribe for our use of the term 'negentropy.' ”71

And, an additional paragraph on the same subject:

“Thus, the provisional array of such thought-objects, µab, µbc, µcd, ..., is subsumed by a generative, self-evolving quality of yet higher-order thought-object. This higher species of such thought-object is called scientific method, a thought-object whose efficient dimensionalities are the notion of 'evolutionary negentropy,' which we referenced above.”72

In contrast to such a definition of “evolutionary negentropy,” Dawkins' address adopts the contemporary positivist representation of the Malthus-Darwin-Huxley dogma of the “survival of the fittest”/“natural selection.” This dogma Darwin adopted explicitly from Thomas Malthus; however, the dogma was not original with Malthus; it had been introduced to Britain earlier from the work of the Venetian Giammaria Ortes.73 It had been rightly seen as consistent with a Hobbesian-Lockean, bestial view of man's nature.

If we adopt as the primary phenomenon of biophysics, the biosphere as a whole, rather than the individual species taken one, two, or three at a time, the truer picture, refuting Darwinism, quickly appears. Contrary to the faddish “ecological catastrophes,” the biosphere as a whole has a remarkable adaptability, a remarkable type of metastability. This quality is associated with the curious interdependency among the full range of participating species in the evolutionary development of the biosphere as a whole. The characteristic of the emergence of new, higher species, successively, within that biosphere, is a type of generative principle, a principle of negentropic transfinite ordering, analogous to the subsuming principle of thought-object depicted here as ordering the successful successor of an evolutionary negentropic series of the pedagogical form A, B, C, D, E, ....

This “evolutionary negentropy” is, on the one side, a description of those processes of successive ordering which we associate with the term “creative,” as employed to signify the form of “creative reason.”

Thus, successive evolution “in the wild” has an eerie resemblance to successful creative, problem-solving reason in man. The effect of successful evolution of species and varieties is to increase the negentropy of the characteristic action of the biosphere as a whole; conversely, the level of the negentropy of the biosphere as a whole delimits the “spectra” of species which can be sustained. The existence of human culture is functionally a part of the biosphere as a whole; thus, as human development is negentropic for the human species, it is also a negentropic enhancement of the entire biosphere.

This line of argument is required, not to settle here issues of biology, but to expose the shamefully theological bias which Dawkins' address superimposes arbitrarily upon the hapless name of “evolutionary theory.” It is not biological science which governs Dawkins' theology; rather, Dawkins delimits “evolutionary theory” to what fits the Olympian blob's theology of his circle of putatively atheistic co-thinkers. We continue this line of argument, now, briefly, with that warning to the reader set plainly in view.

What Dawkins' choice of “evolutionary theorists” have done, may be described fairly in the following way.

Let the pedagogical series, A, B, C, D, E, ..., represent a species-evolutionary development—“evolution.” Instead of viewing the succession of discontinuities as this writer has described (as in correspondence with a higher, transfinite principle of ordered, “axiomatic”—or, “genetic”—changes), the empiricist ideologue74 demands, perhaps even hysterically, that we attribute the change from A to B, B to C, and so forth, in each instance, to some mechanistic, e.g., statistical form of action. Such an ideologue next aggravates his initial mechanistic assumption by demanding that we all ignore the most crucial fact of this series, that the succession itself has a self-similarly negentropic form of ordering; this ordering is, in turn, the characteristic action of the transfinite equivalence of each valid stage in the succession.

All such ideological errors of the empiricists are premised upon that same, specifically gnostic (i.e., oligarchical) principle which is typified by such marks as Descartes' deus ex machina and its Newtonian predicate hypotheses non fingo. Thus, in the case of the evolutionary biosphere, as in cultural progress, there is something which the gnostic refuses to face. In the case of the biosphere it is the evidence that evolution is not “randomly mechanistic,” but has an intrinsic ordering, as if a priori, an ordering consistent with a principle of nature subsuming the creative evolution of living from ostensibly non-living processes. In the case of cultural progress the empiricists deny the existence of a “divine spark” of the person's sovereign, human-specific potential for creative reason. As this “divine spark” puts mankind's existence into an efficient relationship to the creator of this universe, so that “divine spark” (Schiller's and Beethoven's Götterfunken75) must be denied hysterically by all of pagan Olympus' lackeys. Hence, the mark of the lackey intellectual in European civilization has become a preference for the method of Aristotle (or, worse, Ockham),76 and calumnious hatred toward the person and method of Plato.

This mark of the academic lackey is key to the perpetuation of the so-often discredited Malthus-Darwin-Huxley “evolutionary theory” hoax. When Professor Dawkins employs the name of such an “evolutionary theory” dogma to libel the Creator, it must be pointed out, that from the outset, the very existence of such an “evolutionary theory” was a gnostic's “religious” refusal to allow crucial evidence to be considered. Thus, the use of “evolutionary theory” to libel God, is a plain tautological fallacy.

It may be the case, that some persons had started from their arbitrary, diabolical hatred of God as Creator, to arrive at an adoption of the formalist methods of either an Aristotle or an Ockham. We are not making such an assumption; we are focusing our argument here only on the general case, in which the origin of Aristotle's (or, Ockham's) method is axiomatically implicit in the oligarchical lackey's servile attitude of dependency upon the species of Olympian “blobs.”

Social Relations As A
Correlative of Method

We have reached a crucial subordinate feature of our proof.

We said, at the outset, that the issue posed for us, is not whether God the Creator exists, but whether it is possible for the mortal mind of an individual person to know that He exists. We have demonstrated several things. We used the case of Nicolaus of Cusa's discovery of a principle of universal least action, to define a notable experience of an individual creative act. We show the equivalence of this creative act to Plato's Parmenides method, and to his negative proof of an absolutely infinite Good (God) from manifest existence of a universal, transfinite Becoming.77

That, with its essential, subsumed features, was the first part of our rebuttal of Dawkins' address.

We then focused upon Dawkins' specific assertion, that so-called “evolutionary theory” absolutely refuted the notion of the existence of God. We examined the Ortes-Malthus-Darwin-Huxley dogma of mechanistic “evolution” against the backdrop of social (e.g., “cultural”) evolution. We emphasize the proof, that social evolution is ordered by the creative principle of reason, which defines the individual person as imago viva Dei. We define this evolution as necessarily subsumed by a principle of higher hypothesis, a principle expressed in the form of self-similarly negentropic change in sequences of the pedagogical form A, B, C, D, E, .... We indicated that the interdependence between an entire biosphere and its included, newest highest participating species, reflects an ordering-principle of this same form.

To make clear the case for cultural evolution, we described the relevant setting of Dawkins' own existence and development: the two, irreconcilably (“axiomatically”) opposed social currents whose interaction is the past 2,500 years of European civilization. We defined, thus far, the crucial features of one of these two conflicting social currents, the “blob”-dominated oligarchical faction. We turn, now, to contrast that current with its Platonic and Christian adversary. We define thus, the most characteristic features of the conflicting interaction. We proceed thus, to show how the defect of Dawkins' imperfect thinking, on the subject of God the Creator, can exist in a universe created by a perfect God, in “this best of all possible worlds.”78

There is a manifest reciprocity between the two conceptions, between the individual person as imago viva Dei, and the “evolutionary negentropic” form of characteristic of action of a viable form of physical economy. In this connection, we have shown already, that the axiomatic basis for all valid thought respecting either conception, is Plato's quality of change as we have enriched Plato's notion of change by aid of references to our pedagogical negentropic series A, B, C, D, E, .... For the Platonist, for the Christian humanist, this non-linear quality of (negentropic) change takes the axiomatic place otherwise occupied by that linear principle of the Aristotelian syllogism within the oligarchical thinking of the “pod people,” the mind-slaves of “the blobs.” This latter distinction is key to both the functional differences and the interaction between the two warring factions in 2,500-odd years of European civilization to date. This is the axiomatic root of the difference between Professor Dawkins' April 15 address and the contrary way of thinking represented by Plato's, Leibniz's, and this present writer's statement of the ontological proof.

This is key to understanding those moral disorders of the student's or professional's intellect which are induced by the continued influence of such sadistic scalawags as the neo-Aristotelian formalists Leopold Kronecker79 and Bertrand Russell.80. A similar impairment of otherwise gifted minds is met too frequently, caused by the victim's guilt-ridden, propitiatory compulsion to conform to the crippling, anti-geometry sophistries of today's “generally accepted classroom mathematics.”81 The Cusa solution for the paradox of Archimedes' construction could never have been discovered, to this day, 550 years later, nor anything of non-algebraic functions, had the discoverers not detested the anti-geometric Aristotelian formalism of Ockham, Descartes, Newton, Kant, and the nineteenth-century positivists.

Contrast the two mutually-exclusive axiomatic systems: first, the modern Platonist mathematics, in which (in non-algebraic functions) multi-connected, circular least action is made self-evident through successive discoveries, especially the crucial such discoveries of the A.C.E. 1440-1697 interval; second, the opposing, Aristotelian system, in which static objects enjoy the attributed axiomatic quality of being perceived to exist self-evidently. For the second case, therefore, the “perfect point” and “perfect straight line” have also a self-evident, axiomatic existence, derived from the Aristotelian axiom of perception. For the first case, the modern Platonist thus echoes ancient Heraclitus' “nothing exists but change”; from this, we are led to the notion of action for change in physical space-time as the most elementary unit of cognition of the particular. In the second case, contrary to the first, the essential thing is that the mere sensory perception of the discrete object is the premise for the notion of existence.

Dawkins' address rests implicitly, entirely upon the implications of the Aristotelian's crude faith in the authority of perception per se. The deeper point to be made is that Dawkins' opinion flows ultimately from his adopted social status, as, so to speak, a “pod person,” a lackey of the oligarchical hierarchies within the “Venetian Party's” system.

The issue thus posed is implicitly twofold. First, how do social relations determine the axiomatic (methodological) beliefs of persons? Second, how is it possible, that an imperfect system, specifically the implicitly satanic system of Aristotelian oligarchism,82 may exist as ostensibly part of a perfect Creator's universe? We will bring this rebuttal to its implicitly pre-designated close by applying the answer to the first query to resolve the paradox of the second.

We know the universe by changing it. By comparing changes in human productive (and, related) behavior with corresponding changes in potential population-density, we are enabled, uniquely so, to know two things we could not know in any other way. The experience so identified admits of representation in the form of our pedagogical series, A, B, C, D, E, .... Thus, as indicated earlier here, we have two immediate qualities of change represented. First, the relatively linear order of change: from A to B, B to C, and so on. Second, the analysis situs ordering principle which subsumes the series of changes AB, BC,CD, DE... In other words, hypothesis and higher hypothesis. As noted earlier, any value of self-similarly negentropic evolution attributed to a row-series AB1, BC1, CD1, DE1, ..., implies a column series AB2, AB3, AB4, ..., of additional row-series, each with a higher value than row-series AB1; hence, implying the envelope-like hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. The object of our quest for scientific knowledge, is to refine our hypothesizing the higher hypothesis toward desired lessening of disagreement between our wills and the manifest Will of God.

That is not perfect, not absolute knowledge, nor does it converge, as if asymptotically, upon absolute knowledge. It is merely the transfinite of Georg Cantor, or, the same thing, the Becoming of Plato, which differs in species from the Absolute, the Good in the sense the perimeter of Nicolaus of Cusa's 2n regular polygonal perimeter differs from that higher species of bounding existence, the circle.83

This (transfinite) hypothesizing the higher hypothesis is what we must signify by use of the term “human knowledge.” It is not only false, but a quasi-schizophrenic sickness of the mind, to imagine that God or nature poses “right answers” neatly parsed in textbook formalism.84 No defensible definition which is contrary to our own here exists. This knowledge is generated and recalled in the form of what we have identified variously as “Platonic ideas,” “monads,” “Geistesmassen,” or “thought-objects.” It belongs to a higher species of mental existence than communicable forms of conscious activity, and bounds all sane forms of such inferior species of activity. The substance of this knowledge is, generically, not objects, not perception, but change; this change occurs in four forms: hypothesis, higher hypothesis, hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, and that still higher species which may be known only negatively, the absolute Good.

This knowledge is individual knowledge, but it can be acquired and expressed only in a social way. It is individual because each and every generation of a true thought-object occurs uniquely within the sovereign creative-mental processes of the individual person, and never occurs in any different way.85 Nonetheless, in each valid discovery, the individual acts directly upon the entire corpus of human knowledge to date, and upon the potential population-density of the present and future of the human species. The terms of reference in which all discoveries are made is the general, historical-social context to which the efficiency of all discoveries refers.

In such creative-mental activity, it is as Nicolaus of Cusa stressed: the individual, as microcosm, participates directly, efficiently in the macrocosm—the society and the universe are as a Becoming within a timeless wholeness.86 It is through this relationship to knowledge for society as a whole, that the individual mind acts upon the wholeness of the efficient relationship of the human species to the universe. It is as hypothesis, and changed practice whose change is informed by hypothesis, that the individual mind acts upon the universe directly. This nexus is the point to which all development or proof of human knowledge is referred.

In the case of the Christian Platonist (to be specific), all such knowledge has the substance of “change”: hypothesis, higher hypothesis, hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. Thus, knowledge as a process is not merely non-linear in the relatively limited sense of non-algebraic function in general; it reaches into the still higher domain of the “alephs” (“ 's”),87 as the discontinuities of the pedagogical series A, B, C, D, E, ... are such. In the contrary case, the Aristotelian, the Ockhamite, the principle of the syllogism—the linear principle of Kronecker, et al.—takes the place of Platonic change.

The Platonic social relationship is essentially educational, as the Schiller or von Humboldt (Christian) humanist educational programs, or the related aesthetical principles of Schiller illustrate such a relationship.88 It is as we have summarized the matter above, the generation of thought-objects, as in the use of primary sources to replicate the creative-mental processes experienced by an original discoverer as part of the genius reproduced within the mind of many students. Thus, in the republican, anti-oligarchical humanist tradition of Solon, Plato, and the Christian Platonist,89 the quality of change, as we have defined its significance, is the essential, non-linear social relationship.

In the contrasted, oligarchic scheme, man's individual and collective relationship to both man and nature is that arranged by the Sophist's nominalist reading of the literal commands issued on behalf of the Olympian “blobs,” as Lycurgus' Spartan communistic oligarchy illustrates the point.90 Literal, deductive, linear consistency, as typified by Aristotle's and Kant's principle of the syllogism and categories, is the prescribed form of relationship among persons, and of mankind to nature.

On this account, if one does not see the unbridgeable gulf separating Socrates and Plato from the evil Aristotle, one understands nothing of the underlying issues of modern scientific work. On this account, among Plato's attacks upon the Eleatic forerunners of Aristotle and the Sophists, his concentrated Parmenides dialogue takes us most directly to the core of Plato's thought and method. If one does not grasp the significance of that dialogue, one understands nothing of Plato's work and standpoint. A related point: the student who has not yet experienced the abyssal and tectonically violent issues separating Plato from Parmenides and Parmenides' Sophist followers, one has not yet grasped anything of the principal issues of European thought during the past 2,500 years.

The Parmenides dialogue, with its central ontological paradox, is also the key, both to the Platonic ontological proof for the existence of God the Creator, and to recognizing the implications of the two indicated, mutually opposing, humanist versus oligarchical, social systems, as the root of those axiomatic differences in method which divide all of the recent 2,500 years of European civilization into two, thus far, perpetually warring cultural camps.

On this point of cultural differences, the oligarchical representative, Sir Isaac Newton conceded—unlike British oligarchists Kelvin, Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholz, Maxwell, and Rayleigh, later91 that the false picture of the universe, the “entropic” one, which is characteristic of the method of his Principia, was the result of a vicious defect in his choice of mathematics.92 That defective mathematics was the same syllogism-based formal algebra which underlies axiomatically the flawed “generally accepted classroom mathematics” of today. Any attempt to portray a universe in terms consistent with such a philosophically oligarchical, gnostic, linear mathematics, consistent with the principle of the syllogism, must represent the universe falsely, and pervasively so: from frontiers of scale in astrophysics, to frontiers of scale, beyond 10-18 centimeters, in microphysics. Linear mathematics must represent the phenomena falsely, superimposing upon the array of data a false image of an efficient statistical principle of universal entropy (“Time's Arrow,” this folly is sometimes named).

Similarly, as in the included case of mathematics' sly imposition of its vicious ideology upon the image of nature, does the axiomatic root of a method of thinking determine the policies of practice in all aspects of cultural determination of individual and social life. In this way, two mutually irreconcilable methods, the Platonic notion of universal change, versus the Aristotelian notion of a universal syllogistic principle, define implicitly, in their interaction, the essential features of the ruling cultural warfare of the recent 2,500 years.

Parmenides and the Aleph-Transfinite

The oligarchical syllogistic method, as Bertrand Russell's and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica depicts a radical Ockhamite form of Aristotelian mathematics, is axiomatically simple, one might say “brutishly simple.”93 As the case of the great Professor David Hilbert's pathological “Tenth Problem” ably illustrates this point, the comprehension of Platonic axiomatics is notoriously less simple. To be certain our ontological proof is stated without omission of any crucial pedagogical point, we describe summarily the importance of this present writer's relevant 1952 discovery.

In the culminating work of his magnum opus series on the transfinite, the 1897 Beiträge,94 Georg Cantor provides a systematic view of his last great discovery, the transfinite alephs ('s). Certain among Cantor's sophisticated admirers, then and later, praised this discovery, many with the curiously mistaken assertion, that Cantor had discovered a higher class of numbers which had no useful place in the real world. This latter mistaken opinion is analogous to the prevailing scholarly misinterpretation of Plato's Parmenides dialogue. This writer's 1952 solution, as represented in the design of the pedagogical series employed pervasively in this and earlier books and papers,95 permits a “stronger” treatment of both the Parmenides paradox and Cantorian alephs, than has been otherwise available.

The crucial added feature of the pedagogical series (A, B, C, D, E, ...), relative to Plato's Parmenides and Cantor's treatment of his alephs, is this writer's definition of that series as a sequence of successive increases in potential population-density. This addition leads to solution of hitherto perplexing problems in the physical economic functional definition of the Leibnizian term, technology. That, in turn, defines a quality of process in which Cantor's alephs acquire a unique physical significance.

The apparent problem of these alephs, is, that, apparently, by construction, they do not permit the kind of notion of functional ordering which we associate with a mathematical physics. They differ thus from algebra and also non-algebraic series. In the pedagogical series A, B, C, D, E, ..., the commas correspond to formal discontinuities. These discontinuities are alephs, by construction; they also correspond to the indicated action of change, and thus to “thought-objects.” As thought-objects of such a series, they have a certain kind of two-fold functional ordering. They have the analysis situs order of “necessary predecessor”; they are a series subsumed in effect by rising negentropy (potential population-density).

Look at Plato's Parmenides from this vantage-point. Substitute for the series of sections of that dialogue a series conforming to our pedagogical series here. This substitution does not alter any essential feature of the methodological and ontological issues posed by the original. Yet, this substitution, by introducing technological ordering, shows a case in which the doubly (or, even trebly) transfinite ordering of change is introduced to a dialogue which is perfectly characteristic of the form of Plato's Parmenides. On later reflection, this substitution yields in fact the general form of Plato's own dialectical argument.

That is to emphasize, once more, that if the change from A to B represents the actions of hypothesis, the series as a whole represents a higher hypothesis action. This, in turn, poses hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. Then, with the introduction of self-similarly negentropic action as the metrical feature of the higher hypothesis (increase of potential population-density), the meaning of the Parmenides is illuminated most brightly. Hypothesizing the higher hypothesis is the “envelope” of all higher hypotheses, and corresponds to the Becoming; the Becoming defines negatively the Good which bounds and subsumes it.

Examine the quality of analysis situs this (negative) dialectic implies. Begin with the exemplary case of Cusa's “De Circuli Quadratura,96 and De Non Aliud (The Not-Other).97 The persistence of a discrete discrepancy, and also a typical non-congruence between a 2n -regular polygon and the circumscribing circle, shows that the linear (algebraic) species of construction (action) defines the existence of the higher species, circular action, only negatively. Consider the discrete margin of discrepancy between the perfectly defined area of the sphere, and the indeterminately approximate area of the corresponding pseudosphere.98 However, the higher species, multiply-connected least (circular-derived) action adequately defines subsumed algebraic forms. This set of relations, between lower and higher species of constructions, illustrates the relevant notions of analysis situs (“required predecessor,” “required successor”).

Given, such a sequence (e.g., of the A, B, C, D, E, ... form). The “required successor” is the higher hypothesis which orders the sequence of changes as a self-similarly negentropic series of a type.

This corresponds to the empirical actuality of cultural evolution.

That type is a one which subsumes perfectly a many. This example supplies a functional significance to the method of the Parmenides dialogue, a dialogue echoed by Cusa's De Non Aliud. So did the application of the relationship of Plato's the Becoming to the Good, applied to the method of the Parmenides dialogue, suffice to point to the crux of Cusa's De Non Aliud.

The Subjectivity of Science

It is fashionable to speak of “scientific objectivity.” Yet, like most popular beliefs nowadays, this fashionable conceit is also false. Science is intrinsically subjective.99 Science is essentially the correlation of our hypothesizing of our formation of higher hypothesis with resulting increases of potential population-density. This hypothesizing, insofar as it governs our on-going process of changing our society's practice, is our relevant action upon the lawfulness of our universe. The gains in potential population-density “measure,” in effect, the lessening of the discrepancy between our thinking about the universe and the way in which the universe “thinks” efficiently. It is as if our hypothesizing the higher hypothesis were an attempt to guess at the “hypothesizing of the higher hypothesis” by the universe. The “reward” for our thinking in the right direction, is increase of our society's potential population-density.

This subjectivity of scientific thinking is key to defining the interaction of the humanist and opposing, oligarchical cultural impulses100: the respective consequences of a culture based upon either the oligarchical gnostic principle of the syllogism, or of the opposing principle of “Platonic ideas.”

Sir Isaac Newton once held the key in his hand. The gnostic principle of the syllogism, expressed as mathematics, is a pagan religious ideology, which superimposes an entropic principle upon the array of data it adopts; true, such a mathematical ideology imposes entropy also upon the practice of a credulous society. As the Golden Renaissance of Cusa et al. demonstrates the reverse, the practice of “Platonic ideas” (change) imposes negentropy not only upon the data as a whole, but also social practice.

If Isaac Newton did, thus, recognize the falseness of that “clock-winder” (“entropic”) portrait of nature, which his Principia presented, and, if he also recognized (as he did) that this false portrait was directly the result of a flaw in the mathematics he had adopted, why did he not choose a different mathematics? Why did he not choose a readily available, alternate mathematics which was free of that specific flaw, that mathematics of Johannes Kepler from which Newton and his Rosicrucian cronies of the London Royal Society had plagiarized such notable contents of the Principia as Kepler's discovery of the correct algebraic formulation for universal gravitation?101 The answer to these, and other such questions is veiled behind the lurid fact, that Newton and other Ashmolean scalawags among the followers of Francis Bacon and Robert Fludd were pagan mystics, a collection of gnostic, cabalistic practitioners of black magic in the image of Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus.102

What lies behind that sordid veil of Ashmolean debauchery? What but that which the higher-ranking English people (and others) of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries knew as “the Venetian Party”103 of Paolo Sarpi's casa nuovi, the “blobs” transplanted North by the usurers of Venice.104 Newton was a lackey of those “Venetian Party blobs.” The history of this Venetian Party in England, notably from the 1520's onward, is a topic of most importance and detail in its own right; let us limit our treatment of it here to stipulating those few most urgently relevant highlights, as follows.

In the middle of the fourteenth century, England repudiated its usuriously pyramided debt to the House of Bardi. This event triggered an avalanche of similar debt-repudiations throughout Western Europe. During the hundred-odd years preceding that event, and following the A.C.E. 1250 death of the Hohenstaufen Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, these evil, usurious Venice-led fondi had nearly destroyed the economies, the Church, and the political institutions of Western Europe by “IMF conditionalities”-like measures, promoting economic collapse, wars, famine, and epidemic—wiping out half the population of Europe in the greatest genocide until the twentieth century's looting of the so-called “developing sector.” Thus, the middle decades of the fourteenth century are known in the history texts as the “New Dark Age.”105 The wave of mid-fourteenth century bankruptcies of Lombard “blobsters” created the opening into which the Christian humanist forces advanced, leading to their glorious Golden Renaissance of the fifteenth century.

The central figure of the mid-fifteenth century Renaissance was the towering intellect of that priest, theologian, scientist, and statesman, Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa. Several times during the 1430's and 1440's, Cusa played a crucial role in reconstituting the shattered Christian Church, and also defined the indispensable foundations of modern scientific method in his De Docta Ignorantia,106 and in his relevant later writings.107 Venice responded promptly with efforts to destroy the work of the A.C.E. 1439 Council of Florence, and the influence of the Platonic Christian humanists. On the practical side, Venice and its Ottoman partners conspired with the leading Aristotelian gnostic of Mount Athos, Scholarius (later Patriarch Gennadios) to bring Constantinople and the Greeks under the partitioning of Greece by Venice and the Ottomans, in 1453 A.C.E .108 At the same time, Venice worked virtually to drive the memory of Cusa from the Church, and to establish Aristotle as the official pagan philosopher of organized Catholic, Byzantine, and Protestant theology during the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

By the middle of the sixteenth century, Venice had nearly succeeded. Venice's usurious “IMF conditionalities” had plunged Europe into what some have described as a hundred years of a “little dark age,” until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.109 By 1648, the name of Cusa had been driven into obscurity by Venetian calumnies. 110

This is the background for the launching of strange pseudo-scientific, gnostic cults by the oligarchical faction, from approximately the beginning of the seventeenth century. Typical are Francis Bacon's rantings against England's greatest scientist of that time,111 and Rosicrucian Robert Fludd's attacks upon Johannes Kepler.112 The strange features of Descartes' deus ex machina dogma, and of the Rosicrucian kookery by the Ashmolean London Royal Society's Isaac Newton, et al., represent the pro-Aristotelian Venetian Party's basing of both Cartesian formalism and English liberalism and empiricism upon the revived core of theological dogmas of French medieval “Buggery” (“Bogomil/Cathars”).113 This echo of “Buggery” persisted after the seventeenth century, as the axiomatic basis for the philosophical standpoint of such exemplary influentials as David Hume, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Rousseau, Bentham, and the “French (pro-Aristotelian) Enlightenment” generally, Immanuel Kant, Karl S. Savigny, and today's positivists.

This tradition of “Buggery” in the misused name of science, is known to us most commonly as “materialism,” although it has other expressions, including wildly mystical speculations. The “Buggers,” otherwise known formerly as the “Bogomils” or “Cathars,” were, like their Manichean forerunners, a Byzantine-created cult, deployed by Constantinople as part of its arsenal of alternating military and cultural warfare against both the so-called barbarians and Western Christianity.114 The usury-practicing Bogomil cult, thus established in Byzantine Thrace (Bulgaria) about 1,000 years ago, spread across Bosnia into the commercial centers of northern Italy and southern France's Rhône and Cologne-Tarne-Pyrenees regions. The cult's notion of an “elect” was based upon a Dionysiac/yin-yang notion of hermetic separation of the spiritual from the material realm.115 That is a hermetic distinction perfectly consistent with Aristotle's Organon and the Aristotelian “Big Bang” dogma of Creation attacked by Philo of Alexandria.116 Although this Bogomil cult was nearly destroyed several times, including the case of the “Albigensian Crusade,” its network of usury, extending across northern Italy, enabled it to persist into the sixteenth century, whence are derived the prominent reflections of its dogmas of “elect” and “spiritual/material” dichotomy in Descartes' deus ex machina and other ways. The Rosicrucian cults of the London Royal Society, and Newton's hypotheses non fingo are consistent reflections of the usury-network's deeply embedded tradition of such Buggery.

The relevance of the Padua Aristotelians' promotion of Bogomil dogmas in this way, ought to be clear at this point in our report.

In science, spiritual signifies imago viva Dei, those faculties of creative reason which cast man in the imperfect likeness of the Creator. Similarly, it signifies three conscious states of the maturely developed creative scientific intellect: hypothesis, higher hypothesis, and hypothesizing the higher hypothesis. The essence of such scientific activity, is the role of the spiritual, as cause, in changing the ordering of the ostensibly material.

From the standpoint of the oligarchical “blobs' ” pagan-priestly lackeys, the useful feature of the sexually aberrant Bogomil dogma was the passionate extremes to which these Buggers went in outlawing interaction between the creative powers of the spiritual realm and their usury-bound material domain.117 The motive of Venice's sixteenth and seventeenth century's Aristotelians for promoting the Bogomil dogma as Cartesian deus ex machina and English Rosicrucianism, was essentially the same as the impulse among today's oligarchs for promoting “ecological” anti-science fanaticism under such rubrics as the satanic (gnostic) dogma of stewardship, or revived pagan worship of Satan's putative Delphic mother, Gaia.118

In summary of this point: the seventeenth-century oligarchs attempted to destroy, and replace then-existing institutions of Renaissance science, by aid of the following doctrinal argument. “The world of perceived things, the material world, is the realm of Satan, a realm which operates according to its own, nether-world logic, Aristotelian logic. You must deal with this nether-world of perceived things on its own terms, and never attempt to mix in anything pertaining to the higher, spiritual domain.” Hence, Descartes' deus ex machina and the London Royal Society's war-cry, “Hypotheses non fingo!”

The same echo of medieval Buggery dominates, permeates the work of Immanuel Kant, and also the nineteenth-century dogmatic, neo-Kantian Romanticism of Karl Savigny's war-cry: “Absolute separation of Geisteswissenschaft (spiritual) and Naturwissenschaft (material)! Thus, it was avowed by these modern Buggers, that there must be no attempt to find the connection between science and the fine arts, or to consider any principle of creative discovery in efforts to define the characteristics of valid work in the physical sciences. Such was the doctrine of Kant.119 Such is the basis, in the tradition of Buggery, for today's “generally accepted classroom mathematics.”

To repeat the crucial point of rebuttal, we summarize the case as follows. We are able to demonstrate knowledge of nature, not from repetition of the same facts of perception, but only by showing a correlation between our states of mind and increase of man's power over nature, as measurable in per-capita and per-square-kilometer terms. It is this kind of efficiency of material change, as a consequence of the spiritual change we experience as Platonic hypothesis, higher hypothesis, and hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, which is the sole basis for that which deserves the name of human knowledge.

We note, and emphasize, in this connection' the aleph-like ephemerality of a creative action which shows itself to be the most powerful agency internal to the universe of the Becoming.

Thus, through showing the creative power of the spiritual, hypothesis, we expose the quality of imago viva Dei in its aspect as efficient agency. This shows man as participating in God! Through knowing this connection, we have access to certainty respecting the efficient existence of God as the higher species of universal personality which bounds and subsumes both our universe and ourselves individually.

We see thus directly the fallacy, the Buggered-up quality of Dawkins' thinking. He proceeds, according to his own insistence on the point, from a materialist standpoint (in “evolutionary theory”), a standpoint which was established for the specific purpose of excluding fanatically all signs of the spiritual domain from contemplation of perceived things. This policy, this so-called materialist method, was introduced directly, contrary to a two-hundred-year record of the greatest material scientific successes in history by persons who rejected the materialist method.

Thus, we should not be astonished at the spectacle of those only philosophically illiterate, or, in some cases lying professors today, who insist that science is essentially “objective”; there exist the strongest motives of factional self-interest, among the oligarchical party, to conceal the mystical depths of their own subjectivity, the subjectivity upon which the popularized delusion of “objective materialist science” is premised rhetorically.

“The Best of All Possible Worlds”

If we measure history by the standard of each person as imago viva Dei, we have a completely different notion of history in general than is taught in our foolish university textbooks and kindred places. We summarize this proof, beginning with the case of the individual person as such. Each of us, by the time we enter adolescence, knows that we are mortal creatures born to die within a few decades, more or less. What will be seen of our having lived, once we are deceased? Let it be added then, speaking of our past life, “what would humanity have lost, had that person never lived?” Even great physical works erode with time; what contribution could a mortal person supply, which might have lasting value to mankind for thousands of years—for example—to come?

For example. During the coming centuries, mankind will—almost certainly—begin to colonize space, rather than merely explore it. For future mankind, which will come to dwell, in the vast majority, many, many light-years far from our Solar System, Earth will be but a very distant, legendary speck in man's ancestry. Think of school-children living in those far future places; they will be stunned by the very idea that mankind was once pitifully Earth-bound, apparently hopelessly so. “How did they finally begin to get up from Earth?” a child's voice will ask. What, then, of that mere handful of German scientists who, in the 1920's, began the project which, about five decades later, placed the first human footsteps on the Moon? How necessary did those few persons turn out to have been to the human species as a whole, and for more than many billions years to come?

For example. Look back to Plato. If we were to remove from 2,350-odd years of history all that humanity has received from Plato and his Academy, would there have been a European civilization during the recent five hundred years since Christopher Columbus? If one is informed of all those things for which modern Europe is indebted to Plato's work, it is doubtful that a European civilization would have developed under the Christians without Plato.

We have indicated earlier, that continued human existence, as human, requires at least sufficient scientific and technological progress to more than meet the “zero-entropy” degree of required offset to depletion of man-improved natural resources. Thus, although, as the two foregoing examples imply, the necessity for a life lived long ago may be expressed in terms of a concrete work, such examples do not address the essence of the matter in a general way. It is the participation of, one may wish, all of the population's individuals in the continuing process of generation, transmission, and efficient assimilation of the fruits of combined, fundamental scientific and Classical fine-arts progress, which is the essence of the human species' ability to continue to both merely exist as a species, and to progress. Thus, the development of the individual person's “divine spark” of potential for creative reason, imago viva Dei, is the essence of history, and thus the measure of the immortal necessity earned by an individual mortal life.

This reflection should guide the reader's thoughts toward a higher notion of relativistic space-time. To wit: we observed a kind of analysis situs which applies, demonstrably, to the domain of creative reason's “thought-objects.” We observe, that in that space-time, of that analysis situs ordering, the relations among efficient ideas (“thought-objects”) have a characteristic paralleling isochronicity in the domain of non-algebraic physical functions. On such grounds, we may not know the design of God's own clock, but we can see its reflection within a domain of our “thought-objects,” the domain Plato named “the Becoming,” Georg Cantor's higher transfinite. That reflection is, as we have just indicated, a far different sort of a clock than that to which we are accustomed in measuring ordinary, mere perceptions.

Think! When we reach back into history, to employ and modify a discovery a century or more ago, we are changing the past in the essential feature of all things past, their outcome for our future. Once we shift our notion of what is essential, from the relatively petty matters of perception, to that which is historically essential, the “world-line” of necessary predecessors and successors in the isochronic domain of “thought-objects,” we're in a higher, truer universe, qualitatively different than the inferior world of mere perception, a wonderful domain in which I may know Plato, or Nicolaus of Cusa, far better, more intimately than a sibling in my household.

It is from the vantage-point of such relations among efficient “thought-objects,” which he named “monads,” that Gottfried Leibniz spoke of that domain as “the best of all possible worlds,” the “best world” one might choose to inhabit.

What, then, of poor Richard Dawkins' pathetically blasphemous public utterance of this recent April 15; did that transpire in “the best of all possible worlds”? The largest genocide in history, executed upon Africa by such means as “IMF conditionalities,” is occurring; is that an event in the “best of all possible worlds”? We might continue so.

A friend has recently translated into English three extremely important essays, on the subject of tragedy, by history's greatest tragedian, Friedrich Schiller.120 In these three are stressed, in an excellent way, a topic which fills Schiller's treatments of the intertwined topics, tragedy and history, in many more instances than these three. The gist of the matter to be emphasized here, is that the emotions are an integral feature of our powers of reason, creative reasoning most emphatically so. I know that the sight of great suffering, real or Classical tragedy, musters within me a well-spring of motivating strength, to the purpose of goading me to solve the quality of problem which has afflicted my emotions in that painful way. In that way, in “this best of all possible worlds,” despite himself, Professor Dawkins' shameful piece of public blasphemy may evoke from others, by negation, a good thing we might otherwise lack.

That now said, in conclusion of this, let us turn our imagination to the Prometheus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.121 Prometheus warns the immortal, Olympian “blobs” by the ears of Zeus's message-bearing lackey, that there is a real god who will work justice upon both Olympian pretenders and on behalf of mankind. I am certain that Aeschylus' Prometheus is a true prophet; we shall have an end of Olympus' tyranny soon, and that by aid of God's own agent, the imago viva Dei acting within men and women. Then, soon, I presume that Professor Dawkins will begin to recognize the ontological proof of the existence of God.

top of page

On the Subject of God:

A friend, after reading the draft of this work, suggested that I compare my argument with the content of Book II of St. Augustine's Free Choices of the Will.* From this, I have adduced two topics whose brief treatment may help to clarify further the arguments central to my principal text. The first, prompted by Chapter II, Section III of Augustine's text, I caption now “The Correspondence Among 'Free Will,' 'The Power of Reason,' and 'Self-Similar Negentropy.' ” The second, prompted by Chapter VIII of Augustine's text, I caption now “The Paradox of Indefinite Divisibility of Number.”

* St. Augustine, “The Free Choice of the Will,” Book II, in The Teacher, The Free Choice of the Will, Grace and Free Will, trans. by Robert P. Russell, O.S.A. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1968), pp. 108-1263.

Ch. II, Sec. III of Augustinus' Free Choices of the Will:
The Correspondence Among 'Free Will,' 'The Power of Reason,' and 'Self-Similar Negentropy'

Populist hermeneutics misdefines “free will” as a matter of mechanical choices. The “freedom” of the voter to choose the received “lesser of two evils” in the 1992 general election, is an example of that pathetic opinion. In my book, on the contrary, “freedom” is equal to those exercises of truth-seeking creative reason in the sense I have employed that term in this and other relevant published locations.

To the point, a beast may choose, even if he is likened to Balaam's Ass. So much for “unhuman behavior”; creative reason signifies more than choice; it signifies an included quality of negentropy, or, for emphasis, “evolutionary negentropy” as that is described in the article above.

To “do what is right,” is not to select one from among an array of two or more alternatives presented; to “do right” is to do only that which promotes the cause of the right in defiance of all wrongs, including all “lesser evils.” That “right” is not the mere avoidance of evil (wrongs), but has a required negentropic quality, even as I Corinthians 13 defines the requisite quality of agape.

For example. In music, to repeat a thematic passage over and over, without developmental change, as Maurice Ravel's experimental “Bolero,” for one case, is a degradation of music. In music, constant simple repetition, like monotony per se, is to be abhorred. Negentropic change, as the Haydn-Bach-Mozart form of the Motivführung principlea of unifying equivalenceb in composition exemplifies this, is the essence of truth in artistic beauty in Classical composition. This principle, as typified by two outstanding Mozart songs, his Abendempfindungc and Ave Verum Corpus,d is also key to the perceived quality of agape in great artistic compositions.

The complementarity/interdependence between the “evolutionary negentropic” quality of creative reason, and the quality of “sacred love,” agape, is the reflection of the Good, of rightness, in the macrocosm.

It should not be inferred from this excerpt from Augustinus that good deeds are always followed by simple rewards to the doer. Only a fool would deny that Augustinus was already aware of martyrs at the time of writing this referenced passage. However, the society which fails to sustain scientific and technological progress, for example, will soon discover itself to have lost its moral fitness to survive. All individual Good, and its consequences, lies essentially in the macrocosm, in the larger process in which the mortal individual action participates.

Ch. VIII of Augustinus' Free Choices of the Will: The Paradox of Indefinite Divisibility of Number

Georg Cantor's referenced Beiträge obliges us to look in a new way at the nature of attempts at an indefinite divisibility of number. Nonetheless, although it might appear that Augustinus suffers from a deficient mathematical education, the point of his argument endures on the condition we shift the discussion of Augustinus' illustrative point from the standpoint of Cantor's Beiträge. For example, referenced, above, are a treatment of the polygonal series to the n, through n = 256.e

Nature is not “indefinitely divisible” in a simple way. However, the proofs of that fact lead us to Cantor's discovery of the alephs, as presented in his Beiträge. Thus, as we have corrected, above, such relatively popularized misreadings of Cantor's work as that of David Hilbert, a rigorous form of failed attempt to solve problems of convergence “at infinity” is the basis for proving Augustinus' point respecting the faculty of reason.

top of page

Back to Part I


70.. LaRouche, “Mozart's Revolution,” op. cit.

71.. Ibid., p. 12.

72.. Ibid., p. 17.

73.. Giammaria Ortes (1713-1790), influential Venetian economist, whose works were plagarized by various of the British school of political economy following the consolidation of Venetian control over England. His “Calculus of the Pleasures and Pains of Life” (1757) formed the basis for the Benthamite hedonistic calculus (see footnote 64); the economic models he based upon this philosophy of “man as beast” are developed in the works of “Free Traders” from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, including today's illiterate Jeffrey Sachs. His Reflessioni sulla popolazione delle nazioni per rapporto all'economia nazionale (Reflections on the Population of Nations in respect to National Economy) (Venice: 1790) was plagarized and popularized by Parson Thomas Malthus in his “On Population.” Ortes was the only Italian economist cited by Karl Marx in his Capital (Vol. I). See Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica, ed. by P. Custodi (Milan: 1802-16).

74.. We are using the term “empiricist” here in its “generic,” rather than more narrowly proprietary definition. Specifically, we are including British liberal philosophy and Franco-Viennese positivism under the same rubric.

75.. Freude, schoaune Goautterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium: Goautterfunken equals “God's sparks.” The reference is to Beethoven's famous Ninth Symphony setting of Friedrich Schiller's “Ode to Joy” (“An Die Freude”).

76.. William of Ockham (Occam) (d.1349). A radical Averroist gnostic, forerunner of empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume, and, later, Ernst Mach and Sigmund Freud, the lowest intellectual form of neo-Aristotelianism.

77.. Roughly speaking, Georg Cantor's work equates his notion of transfinite to Plato's Becoming, and places the idea of an absolute infinite beyond both transfinite and becoming, in the domain of Plato's the Good.

78.. This is the formulation from Gottfried Leibniz which drove the author of Candide, the gnostic Voltaire, into his frenzy of hatred on the subject.

79.. Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891), professor of mathematics at the University of Berlin, student of the great Lejeune Dirichlet; but a fanatical, cabbalistically inclined formalist, famous for the savagery of his vendettas against mathematicians Carl Weierstrass and Georg Cantor. See Uwe Parpart, “The Concept of the Transfinite,” Campaigner, Vol. IX, Nos. 1-2, Jan.-Feb. 1976, pp. 54-56.

80.. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), grandson of British-empiricist Prime Minister, and anti-American foe of President Abraham Lincoln, Lord John Russell. Bertrand is regarded by some well-informed circles as not only a savage racialist mass-murderer against people of darker complexions, but one of the most evil political figures of the twentieth century. In mathematics, a radical empiricist, early author of a bungling but hateful text (Lectures on Geometry) attacking Karl Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. His influential misrepresentation of Cantor's work is a travesty.

81.. The commonplace worst case of this classroom problem is the radical-positivist “New Math,” popularized since the close of the 1950's.

82.. Satan equals Lucifer, Apollo, Python, Dionysus, Osiris, Baal, Shiva, et al. Satan's mother: Shakti, Ishtar, Isis, Gaia, Cybele, et al. The best-organized Satanist forces currently operating in the United States include the Lucis Trust. This putatively respectable, United Nations-accredited Satan cult—it worships Lucifer—operates in New York City out of the United Nations, and also the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine. The Lucis Trust runs the “Temple of Understanding” at United Nations headquarters, the only religious chapel so located. It was originally founded in London in 1922, as the Lucifer Trust. The Lucis Trust associated with the U.N. is the New York affiliate of the British organization; the name was changed from Lucifer Trust to Lucis, to make the nature of the organization less conspicuous. For a review of the spread of literal satanism today, see Carol White, Satanism: Crime Wave of the '90's, EIR Special Report (Washington, D.C.: Exectuive Intelligence Review, 1990).

83.. See LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit., pp. 18-22.

84.. A humorless obsession with nominalist literal, “dictionary” meanings, is associated with schizophrenic tendencies in language behavior. In professional and related work, this is a destructive phenomenon, and plainly, functionally a pathological disorder of the mind.

85.. Cf. LaRouche, “The Science of Christian Economy,” chap. IV, op. cit., pp. 229-240.

86.. Cf. Nicolaus of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia, op. cit., passim.

87.. Georg Cantor, Beitraauge, op. cit., passim.

88.. See Friedrich Schiller, “On the Aesthetical Education of Man,” in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. I, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1985); also “What Is, and to What End Do We Study, Universal History?” in Friedrich Schiller, Vol. II, op. cit. For Wilhelm von Humboldt's educational policy, see footnote 21; see also Joachim H. Knoll and Horst Siebert, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Politiker und Pedagoge (1767-1867) (Bad Godesberg: Inter Nationes, 1967).

89.. Unfortunately, the term “neo-Platonist” has been pre-empted by a collection of quasi-Aristotelian, anti-Plato, gnostic cults of Byzantine origin. Such cults have nothing to do with Plato or Christian Platonism.

90.. Friedrich Schiller, “The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon,” op. cit.

91.. The so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics,” or “Law of Entropy,” concocted by Kelvin and Clausius during the 1850's, is essentially a rewarmed Newton “clock-winder” fallacy. Entropy occurs, of course; it is the gnostic dogma, a so-called “law of universal entropy,” which is the kookery in question.

92.. See footnote 48.

93.. See Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1927), 1968-1973 printing.

94.. Georg Cantor, Beitraauge, op. cit.

95.. The LaRouche texts referenced include the cited Christian Economy, “Metaphor,” and “Mozart's Revolution.”

96.. Nicolaus of Cusa, “De Circuli Quadratura,” op. cit..

97.. Nicolaus of Cusa, “De Non Aliud” (“The Not-Other”), in Towards a New Council of Florence: “On the Peace of Faith” and Other Works of Nicolaus of Cusa, ed. and trans. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1993).

98.. The pseudosphere is the rotation, as around the abscissa of a three-coordinate system, of the tractrix. Therefore, the area of the surface of the pseudosphere differs from the area of the surface of the corresponding sphere by an infinitesimally discrete, but not eliminable discrepancy. See diagrams below.

99.. Cf. LaRouche, Christian Economy, op. cit., Appendix XII, pp. 426-431.

100. “Humanist” is employed here in its original, Renaissance meaning, as “Classical humanist” or “Christian Classical humanist,” not the modern atheistic, “secular humanist.”

101.. LaRouche, “The Science of Christian Economy,” op. cit., footnote 8, pp. 471-473.

102.. Christopher Marlowe, “Doctor Faustus,” in The Works of Christopher Marlowe, ed. by C.F. Tucker Brooke (London: Oxford University Press, 1910).

103.. See H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won, op. cit.

104.. See footnote 32.

105.. See Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century (New York: Knopf, 1978); see also Carol White, New Dark Ages, op. cit., passim.

106.. De Docta Ignorantia was completed on Feb. 12, 1440. A major attack on the work, written by the Aristotelian John Wenck and entitled On Unknown Learning (De Ignota Litteratura) was written between March 26, 1442 and mid-summer of 1443. Cusa's response, entitled A Defense of Learned Ignorance, was completed on Oct. 9, 1449. For Nicolaus of Cusa's role in reconstituting the Christian Church in this period, see Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “Nicolaus of Cusa and the Council of Florence,” Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 2, Spring 1992, pp. 17-22; and Nora Hamerman, “The Council of Florence: The Religious Event that Shaped the Era of Discovery,” ibid., pp. 23-36..

107.. Principal writings on the subject of scientific topics by Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa, composed after De Docta Ignorantia, include: “On Conjectures (De coniecturis),” “On Beryllus (De beryllo),” “On the Game of Spheres (De ludo globi),” “On Quadrature of the Circle (De circuli quadratura),” “On Mathematical Complements (De mathematicis complementis),” “On Geometrical Transformations (De geometricis transmutationibus),” “Quadrature of the Circle (Quadratura circuli),” “The Golden Proposition in Mathematics (Aurea propositio in mathematicis).”

108.. Scolarius's A.C.E/ 1453 treason against Greece was rewarded by the Ottomans appointing him, as Patriarch Gennadios, as patriarch for all the non-Muslims of the Byzantine Empire under an Ottoman dynasty. Venice, for its part, shared the spoils of the 1453 conquest with its Ottoman partner.

109.. See H.R. Trevor-Roper, “The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century,” in Crisis in Europe: 1560-1660, ed. by Trevor Aston (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967).

110.. The Venetian Francesco Giorgi (Szorzi) was the founder of a gnostic cult in England during the period of the 1518 fight in which Henry VIII voided his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. It was Giorgi, Venice's premier cabbalist scholar, who provided the justification that Henry's marriage to Catherine was never valid, as the Pope had had no right to grant dispensation for the marriage in the first place. This marked the beginning of the direct Venetian takeover of England. Writing in his 1540's Harmonice Mundi, Giorgi attacked Nicolaus of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia as follows: “Those who retreat from the direct knowledge of the universe will retreat into the Docta Ignorantia” (as quoted in Yates, Occult Philosophy, op. cit.). Hence, Giorgi's gnostic cult, which claimed Robert Fludd and John Dee as members, and which formed the basis for the Rosicrucians and later, by way of the influence of Francis Bacon, inspired the Royal Society of Isaac Newton, had been the enemy of Nicolaus of Cusa from the beginning.

111.. I.e., William Gilbert. For Gilbert's investigations of the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, see William Gilbert, De Magnete (On the Magnet), trans. by P. Fleury Mottelay (New York: Dover Publications, 1958).

112.. LaRouche, “The Science of Christain Economy,” op. cit., footnote 18, pp. 481-482.

113.. LaRouche, Science Policy, op. cit., chap. IV, “The Cathar Root of Cartesianism,” passim. See also, “Metaphor,” op. cit., loc. cit., passim.

114.. See Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. by J.B. Bury, 7 vols. (London: Methuen); reprinted (New York: AMS Press, 1974). See also Boris Primov, Les Bougres: Histoire du Pape bogomile et du ses Adepts (Paris: Editions Payot, 1975).

115.. The Phrygian Satan-figure's Indo-European name signifies “day-night,” indicating the yin-yang and other affiliations.

116.. Philo, “On the Creation,” op. cit.

117.. Once a Cathar effected the rite of pasage to the ranks of the elect, he could not place his semen in the vagina of a woman; he was permitted almost any substitute form of recreation. Hence the name Bugger.

118.. The substitution of “stewardship” for “dominion” in Genesis 1:28, is the hallmark of the anti-Christian, gnostic “Bible.” The Delphi of the Cult of Apollo was originally the site of the Gaia-Python cult. In the case of Python, like that of Shiva, Osiris, et al., the customary “Satan” of the interchangeable serpent/penis imagery: Gaia was ambiguously his consort or mother.

119.. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, op. cit., passim.

120.. Friedrich Schiller, trans. by George Gregory, “On the Use of Chorus in Tragedy,” article this issue, page XX; German original (“Uauber den Gebrauch des Chors in der Tragoaudie”) in Friedrich Schiller, Werke in Drie Baaunden (Muaunchen: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1981), vol. III, pp. 471-477. See also unpublished trans. by George Gregory of Schiller's “On the Reasons We Take Pleasure in Tragic Subjects,” German original (“Uauber den Grund des Vergnuaugens an tragischen Gegenstaauden”) in Friedrich von Schiller, Saaumtliche Werke in Sechs Baaunden (Stuttgart: Phaidon Verlag, 1984), vol. 5, pp. 127-140; and of “On Tragic Art,” German original (“Uauber die tragische Kunst”) in ibid., pp. 141-162.

121.. Aeschylus, “Prometheus Bound,” in Aeschylus Two, Four Tragedies: Prometheus Bound, Seven Against Thebes, The Persians, and The Suppliant Maidens, ed. by David Grene and Richmond Lattimore, trans. by David Grene (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

top of page

Back to Part I

Related Articles

Revolution in Music

Education, Science and Poetry

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1992-1996

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1997-2001

Fidelio Table of Contents from 2002-present

Beautiful Front Covers of Fidelio Magazine

What is the Schiller Institute?

top of page

Join the Schiller Institute,
and help make a new, golden Renaissance!

MOST BACK ISSUES ARE STILL AVAILABLE! One hundred pages in each issue, of groundbreaking original research on philosophy, history, music, classical culture, news, translations, and reviews. Individual copies, while they last, are $5.00 each plus shipping

Subscribe to Fidelio:
Only $20 for 4 issues, $40 for 8 issues.
Overseas subscriptions: $40 for 4 issues.

The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps |
Dialogue of Cultures

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2001- 2004 All Rights Reserved.