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

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

For related articles, scroll down or click here.

Fidelio, Vol. II,No, I. 
Spring 1993

This issue is not the simple assertion, whether God exists, or not; the immediate question is a far more modest undertaking: By what means might human beings have the capability to know with certainty whether God exists? What aspect of Human intelligence might bear upon such a special quality of knowledge? What relevant form of scientific incompetence, commonplace among academicians, has Dawkins exhibited?

According to the daily London Independent of the most recent April 16, the preceding evening's participants in an Edinburgh (Scotland) international science festival had heard an Oxford University professor of biology describe belief in God as a disorder of the brain analogous explicitly to a transmittable “computer virus.” Oxford's Richard Dawkins' address had included the formulation: “These are arbitrary, hereditary beliefs which people are told at a critical age, passed on from your parents rather like a virus.” He had added: “that 'evolutionary theory' has removed any scientific basis for arguing the existence of God, and said that people who believe in a God who is responsible for the order and beauty of the universe are 'stupid.' ”1

Report of Dawkins' address was relayed to the present writer by Charles B. Stevens of 21st Century Science quarterly. Stevens suggested, that several persons, whom he listed at that time, co-sponsor the submission of a rebuttal of Dawkins to the Independent, to consist essentially of a 1960's ontological proof of the existence of God authored by Princeton University's late Professor Kurt Gödel.2

At first glance, that suggested rebuttal was particularly relevant, since the choice of formulation reported by the Independent might imply to a knowledgeable reader that Dawkins had intended to single out Gödel's 1961 ontological proof for attack. Nonetheless, Gödel's work appeared to be inadequate rebuttal on three counts. Firstly, presently available versions of Gödel's proof add nothing significant to the Classical argument by Plato and Leibniz.3 Secondly, it would be disingenuous not to attack directly the shameless illiteracy of Dawkins' rhetoric; this should be a crucial included point to be submitted in refuting him. Thirdly, the best available argument, which Gödel should have been able to offer, but apparently did not, the Classical argument restated from the standpoint of Cantor's Beiträge,4 deserves to be presented as a supplement to the Classical proofs by Plato and Leibniz.

The formal question begged, in speaking of such an ontological proof, is not the issue as posed so ineptly by Dawkins. The issue is not the simple assertion, whether God exists, or not; the immediate question is a far more modest undertaking: by what means might human beings have the capability to know with certainty whether God exists? More precisely, what aspect of human intelligence might bear upon such a special quality of knowledge? Also to the point is: what relevant form of scientific incompetence, commonplace among academicians, has Dawkins exhibited?

For Plato, to whom we owe the original ontological proof, as for the present writer, human knowledge pertaining to the existence of God is to be discovered, uniquely, within a correct grasp of the notion of “Platonic ideas” (eide).5 The Christian Platonist, Gottfried Leibniz, employed the term monad as a referent for such ideas.6 To the same purpose, Bernhard Riemann once employed the term Geistesmassen.7 These terms, and this writer's term, “thought-objects,” are each and all related in an essential way to (Christian Platonist) Georg Cantor's 1890's conception of transfinite types.8 In these following pages, we shall summarize the kernel of the proof, that the conception of a Judeo-Christian God occurs as a matter of human knowledge only in the form of a “Platonic idea,” or “thought-object.”

The Definition of
'Human Knowledge'

That quality which sets the human species above, and apart from all lower species, is empirically reflected most simply, but nonetheless crucially, in all that pertains to the simple fact, that mankind has risen, by successive advances, above the miserable potential population-density of a baboon-, or yahoo-like “primitive hunting and gathering” culture, to a population-density of a thousandfold greater today. This successful transformation has occurred without a change in the present-day human genotype, but, nonetheless, a succession of changes to an effect which is paralleled in the animal kingdom only by means of evolution from inferior to superior species. In mankind, this achievement occurs through upward transformations in quality of culture, a transformation effected uniquely by means of an agency termed “creative reason.”

To restate this: the notion of “human knowledge” is so defined, as the ordering of progress, from inferior, to superior forms of culture, a progress effected by that agency of change which we term human creative reason. The difficulty which impairs fatally the argument of a Richard Dawkins from the outset, and many other putatively educated illiterates voicing conceits like his own, is the fact, that no formal system of deduction/induction could portray positively such progress in human knowledge.9 That difficulty can be located in the following terms of reference.10

The central feature of a process of successive increases in a society's population or potential population-density, is scientific and technological progress.11 From the standpoint of formal systems of argument, the level of scientific knowledge (technology) of a society at a given time may be represented, approximately, by a mutually consistent open-ended set of theorems. This set of theorems is implicitly consistent with some underlying set of interdependent axioms and postulates. This arrangement is termed a “theorem-lattice,” and the associated, underlying set of interdependent axioms and postulates is sometimes termed an “hereditary principle.” Let one such theorem-lattice be represented by “A.” Let this A be associated with a specific potential population-density for that society. Let a fundamental discovery, overturning some part of the interdependent set of axioms and postulates of A, be correlated with an increase of that society's potential population-density. This change defines a new theorem-lattice, “B,” associated with a new set of axioms and postulates.12 That transformation, from A to B typifies a rudimentary definition of “scientific and technological progress.”

As we have shown in various other locations,13 no theorem of lattice A can be consistent with any theorem of B; an “unbridgeable” chasm of formal discontinuity separates mutually each lattice from all other lattices of such a series. That “chasm” corresponds, as does a map to a terrain, to that action of change by means of which B, for example, is generated from A. The series A, B, C, D, E, ..., is generated as a series by a higher factor of change. This higher order of change, orders the succession of individual changes AB, BC, CD, DE. etc., as a series. This higher change cannot be represented by any formal algebraic or similar representation of an ordered function—since each and every term of the series A, B, C, D, E, ..., is separated from all others by an “unbridgeable” formal discontinuity. Yet, this higher factor of change defines in its own way the effective generation of successive increases in potential population-density, increases on which succession the continued existence of that society ultimately depends.

A detour is needed at this point; an example of the change from lattice A to B must be supplied. For this purpose, the reader is referred to Nicolaus of Cusa's 1430's discovery of the isoperimetric principle, as the relevant features of that discovery are emphasized in this present writer's “On the Subject of Metaphor.”14 Briefly, the highlights most relevant to the ontological proof are the following.

To estimate the area of a square which is equal to the area of a given (e.g., “unit”) circle, use some form of the following algorithm. Construct two squares by means of a single, continuous construction, one inscribed within the given circle, the other circumscribing it. Repeatedly, double the number of sides of this pair of polygons, to generate a series of paired regular polygons 2n sides, from n = 16 to an astronomical n = 256. The average of the areas of the two polygons will approximate the size of a given circle, and the average of the perimeters of the polygons that circle's perimeter. That perimeter divided by the length of the diagonal of the inscribed polygon yields an approximate value for Π the estimated area divided by the square of half that diameter, is also an approximation of Π.

However, even if n is increased astronomically, as for the cases that n = 256 or much more, a well-defined, discrete difference in area and perimeters persists between the circle and each of the polygons. The perimeter of the polygons never converges upon congruence with that of the circle. The polygon and circle are of different species of existence.15 A strong proof, using the seventeenth-century notions of “infinitesimals,” for example,16 leads us, as in this illustrative case, to recognize that a circular action cannot be accounted for in terms of the set of interdependent axioms and postulates of Euclidean formal geometry.

However, let us define circular action in a different axiomatic way, as Cusa did. Let us define this circular action by means of what Cusa identified as his “Maximum-Minimum” principle; this principle is recognized in its more superficial aspect as the isoperimetric principle, of least action required to generate a given area, or the form of closed action which defines the largest enclosed area. Then, reference the way in which the same “Maximum-Minimum” principle came to be viewed over the course of the seventeenth century, as the Leibniz-Bernoulli principle of universal least action.17

We cannot define continuous circular action within the implicitly Eleatic terms of a formal Euclidean theorem-lattice. We must expel the disabling axiomatic features of that lattice, notably the presumption of a formally axiomatic existence of the asserted point and straight line. We must arrive at a formal description of actually existent points and lines, as consistent theorems generated by an appropriate new set of interdependent axioms and postulates. This new “hereditary principle,” from which such new theorems are to be derived, allows only the self-evident form “circular” (isoperimetric, “least”) action.

The seventeenth century concept of the cycloid (circular action acting reciprocally upon circular action), and its derivatives (involutes, evolutes, analysis situs, and envelopes), as the basis for an anti-Cartesian, non-algebraic calculus of universal least action, by Huygens, Leibniz, the Bernoullis, et al.,18 shows us that our new mathematics (“Lattice B”) enables us not only to eliminate the vicious paradoxes of “Lattice A,” but to equip mankind with the power of knowledge over nature which had not been possible within the framework of an inferior, merely algebraic “Lattice A.

That, in brief, is the gist of this short detour. Note that we have underscored three features of the discontinuity between A and B.

  1. The preconditions for the discovery. A paradoxical feature of theorem-lattice A is driven to beyond its limit. This shows, contrary to the anti-Monge, anti-Leibniz Augustin Cauchy,19 that processes defined by the inferior, initial lattice A, could never become coincident with a higher, bounding state of form. Thus, as this principle's method is typified by Plato's Parmenides dialogue, we show a formal flaw of A to be not only axiomatic in nature, but of the form of an ontological paradox.

  2. The discovery. This negative (Platonic dialectical) proof requires that the higher, externally bounding form, unreachable by the lower, is ontologically superior to, and existing independently of the lower. However, the lower is derivable from the higher; thus, a new theorem-lattice's underlying set of interdependent axioms and postulates is required, in which the ontological superiority of the higher form is axiomatic, and the existence of the inferior is a derived one. (Note, however, the fact that the inferior theorem-lattice's underlying set of axioms and postulates can be accessed from the higher does not mean that there is any consistency between the axiomatic structure of the higher theorem-lattice and any or all of the theorems of the lower lattice.)

  3. The proof of discovery. The proof of a discovery is threefold: (a) it must satisfy the paradox's requirement for a formal solution; (b) the discovery must increase implicitly mankind's power over nature; (c) the discovery must be one of an ordered series, of a method of discovery which generates a series of a type A, B, C, D, E, ... which correlates with increasing potential population-density.

All that which is properly termed “human knowledge,” must be nothing different from that characteristic of individual human behavior which is essential to the perpetuation of the human species as an indivisible whole. It is a fact of physical economy, that such existence of the species depends upon no less than some critical, minimum rate of increase of potential population-density.20 In other words, “change” in human behavior to such effect. This change is generated uniquely by those processes of creative reason referenced here. In other words, knowledge occurs solely in the form of “thought-objects,” Platonic ideas, and never as Aristotelian, Cartesian, empiricist, or Kantian forms of deductive conceits.

That point, crucial for the ontological proof in question, is best illustrated by reference to the evidence supplied by modern Classical forms of Christian humanist secondary education—from the Brothers of the Common Life of Groote and Thomas á Kempis, through Wilhelm von Humboldt's nineteenth-century reforms.21 This bears upon our third point, 3(c) above, under “the proof of discovery.”

The relevant kernel of such a Christian humanist form of secondary education, is emphasis upon the guidance of (a sense of) primary sources to prompt the student to relive the creative-mental experience of many great original discoveries in Classical natural philosophy, Classical forms of fine arts, and statecraft. This has two leading aspects, for our purposes here. Firstly, each discovery, relived successfully by the student in that way, is a reliving of, a replication of the processes of valid discovery, virtually those which were experienced by the original source. Thereafter, that portion of the creative-mental capability of the original discoverer lives again in the mind of the student. This replicated portion of that original discoverer's creative-mental capability lives on in that student's mind as a “Platonic idea,” “monad,” or “thought-object.”

Secondly, the process of such education is historical, each discovery located in time and place of original discovery, and also located, in time and place, in respect to each of those subsequent original discoveries for which it serves functionally as an indispensable predecessor. Thus, in this higher analysis situs, each such individual discovery is a member of one, or more series, each latter of the form representable by our pedagogical series A, B, C, D, E, .... With each series, there is associated implicitly the appropriate, required, higher order of thought-object. The idea of a “universal history,” as for Friedrich Schiller, in such a Christian humanist educational program, is a “Platonic idea,” a “thought-object” of this second, higher order.22

Contrast such a Christian Classical humanist education to the stultifying philosophical banality of today's far worse than merely mediocre secondary and university programs. The latter chiefly drilling future professionals, not to develop knowledge, but to pass computer-scoreable multiple-choice questionnaires. The Christian Classical humanist program aims directly at fostering the development, the increase of power of the student's creative-mental faculty; this is a method, rooted in “Platonic ideas,” for fostering directly, by carefully aimed intent, the development of the student's creative powers of reason. Modern positivist education aims at a conformist show of mere learning, as, in the extreme case, the late behaviorist pigeon-tormenter, B.F. Skinner, might have defined “learning.” Classical humanist education fosters human knowledge.

In the contrast of such “knowledge” to such mere, empiricist “learning,” is key to the kind of banalized credulity toward which Dawkins' form of populist sophistry is directed. The sixteenth century, Venetian founders of modern neo-Aristotelian gnosticism and its twin, Baconian empiricism, explicitly proposed exclusive emphasis upon the symbols (“marks”) of nature (perception), in explicit attack upon Nicolaus of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia.23 In other words, the gnostic empiricism of the Baconian Rosicrucians24 is based upon a militant outlawing of “Platonic ideas.” Thus, to accept empiricism, or, the same thing, positivism, is already to have adopted, purely arbitrarily, without reason, the formal premises for denying the existence of God, e.g., for excluding arbitrarily the entirety of that body of conclusive evidence upon which a proof depends. In short, bury the relevant crucial evidence, human creative knowledge, out of sight; then, that done, deny that there is any relevant evidence in sight. (This practice reminds one of a typically crooked prosecutor, burying exculpatory evidence with the complicity of a corrupt judge.) Thus, did a hoaxster such as Professor Dawkins tread in the gnostic Venetian footsteps of Paolo Sarpi, Francis Bacon, Robert Fludd, Jeremy Bentham, Bertrand Russell, and Rudolph Carnap.

The Kernel of the Proof

Since all progress in knowledge is correlated with the single dimension, of an increase of society's potential population-density, it adumbrates, from that latter standpoint, a formal representation by a single series of the general form of our pedagogical sequence of theorem-lattices, A, B, C, D, E, .... The increase of potential population-density lies causally, not in any one or many of these denoted terms of that sequence, but in the changes marked by the discontinuities among the literal terms.

Thus, the “substance” of knowledge is change. All such change has the “content” of a “Platonic idea,” or “thought-object.” In the pedagogical sequence referenced, two distinct orders of such change are denoted. There is the first case, the change (discontinuity) defining the change from one lattice to a successor; there is the second, higher order of change, the latter implied by the specification that the sequence as a whole correlates with a succession of increases of potential population-density. This second, higher order of change bounds the first; the first is determined by the second, not the contrary. That is to say, that the mere fact of a successful generation of B from A, does not generate per se a subsequent successful generation of C from B. AB

A still higher, third order of change (to similar effect), is implied by the notion of variability in change of the second order. Given A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, ..., is there possibly a more powerful, alternate rate of change of the second order which generates a series, A1, B2, C2, D2, E2, ..., of higher rates of growth than the first series? And, then, a third such; and, so on? The question is implicitly its own answer, at least partially so. (1) Let change of the first order be designated as hypothesis. (2) Let change of the second order be a principle of higher hypothesis. (3) Let change of the third order be a principle of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis.

This “hypothesizing the higher hypothesis” has a significance of Becoming in Plato and in Georg Cantor. This transfinite Becoming, in Plato and Cantor is bounded, “as from above,” by Plato's (“infinite”) Good (God). The “hypothesizing the higher hypothesis,” the highest state of mind corresponding to comprehension of Plato's and Cantor's Becoming, is bounded by the unchanged cause of change (for increase of potential population-density), the Good. This relationship of the lesser (Becoming) to its master (Good) parallels somewhat the bounding of the inferior species, a polygonal process, by the higher species, circular action.25

Focus upon the crucial detail of series A, B, C, D, E, ..., the relationship of the individual revolutionary discovery, say CD to altering the determination of DE by a BC CD There are two qualities to be considered. First, CD must be the necessary predecessor of DE Second, CD must increase the series' rate of increase of potential population-density above that determination of future such rate already implied for CD by the series AB implicitly anticipates this increase of rate of value of the series as a whole by later changes in the same series.

To illustrate what we are saying of this extraordinary quality of each term of that unified, transfinite series of changes, compare this to the case of successive integration (in the calculus): each term of the series is not only an integral of the preceding term created now as a differential; the number of multiple integrations performed increases with each successive term. This is merely a simplified illustration of the kind of analysis situs which substitutes for ordinary notions of deterministic function in the highest transfinite domains.

Consider a real-life case from the history of music (Wolfgang Amadeus “Mozart's 1782-1786 Revolution in Music.”)26 Three revolutions, in succession, brought about the discovery which Mozart exhibited in, for example, his six “Haydn” string quartets.27 The first was Joseph Haydn's 1781 presentation of his revolutionary Motivführung principle in his six “Russian” quartets of that year, Op. 33.28 The second is a Bach discovery of 1747, represented by a collection of related compositions entitled “A Musical Offering.”29 The third is Mozart's 1782 discovery, combining the three in the Isochronic time-series of necessary predecessor, 1781, 1747, 1782.

This example from the history of music is equivalent to the more general form of a (Christian) Classical humanist education, based upon the isochronic “necessary predecessor” principle of ordering of primary-source representation of crucial creative discoveries in the advancement of human knowledge.

What is occurring in all valid such series of this A, B, C, D, E, ... form, is that the series is converging isochronically upon a generalized form of Plato's and Cantor's Becoming. Notably, the manner in which this process of “perfection” is proceeding (in valid cases), to its “equivalence,” shows that it never becomes coincident with the efficiently subsuming principle bounding it, the Good.

Now, reconsider the term, “leap of faith,” as employed to describe the mere outside appearance of an act of valid revolutionary discovery. To this purpose and effect, focus all that has been, or might have been said up to this point upon the Classical humanist educational process. The following observations bring the relevant images into the required focus.

  1. The purpose and content of humanist education is not the accumulation of mere information and recipes, but rather a direct fostering of the individual spark of creative genius (imago viva Dei) in each student, by a total emphasis upon incorporating in the student's mind crucial moments from the acts of crucial, valid discoveries by (implicitly) all of the greatest known creative geniuses in all of history. This experience of genius—this youthful living the experience of becoming a genius—is not limited to any so-called specialty; it covers all natural philosophy, plus great Classical forms of all fine arts, plus mastery of the universal principle of language from the standpoint of Classical Indo-European philology, plus the science of statecraft.

  2. The discoverer does not make a “blind leap of faith,” although that appearance may be presented to an observer who lacks familiarity with the true, Classical humanist species-nature of creative genius. The discoverer reacts to the stimulating paradox in the natural way of genius, as previously acquired through reliving the acts of genius of the greatest discoverers from the past. Genius, so educated, is not an extraordinary event to such an educated person. For that reason, for such persons, creativity has become a continuing way of life. It is the natural way of reacting to experience for those who have made constant companions of exemplary creative moments from within the minds of numerous among the greatest original thinkers of history.

The spark of potential genius is given to all of us who might become capable of understanding, for example, this page; all are imago viva Dei. Some, too few, develop their talent; most, unfortunately, waste it in squirrel-like pursuits of wealth and sensuous pleasures, or simply bury it, unused. To those who do develop that talent, or who might do so, as a Christian form of Classical humanist education implies that accomplishment, the way of true genius becomes simply daily custom, in every aspect of experience, throughout the entirety of one's life.

So, the educated Classical humanist—the modern “Renaissance man”—knows relevant parts of the creative mental processes of Plato, Archimedes, Cusa, da Vinci, Kepler, Gilbert, Desargues, Fermat, Pascal, Huygens, Leibniz, et al. Somewhat similarly, great moments of the greatest, and other Classical fine artists, and of the political history of our planet. For that humanist, the creative principle of change is the efficient principle, the characteristic behind all valid forms of human activity.

The apparent “leap of faith” is not a capricious act of arbitrary “blind faith.” Not only does creative revolutionary change—as best typified by valid, fundamental scientific discovery—set mankind's individual person apart from, and above the beasts; such creative thinking, such apparent leaps, is the true nature of all behavior which is characteristically human. The Classical humanist education compresses millennia of such human progress into the student's direct experience, by replication of numerous among the greatest moments of concentrated, valid discovery, by means of selection from among the works of the greatest original thinkers of all history. For the student fortunate enough to enjoy such a form of education, thousands of years of such progress in natural philosophy, fine arts, and political affairs are compressed into a few years of one's youth, one's development of the intellectual and moral foundations of adult life. In that case, one's own, richly developed creative talent is elevated from the rank of “raw intuition,” to an intelligible form of creative thinking. That intelligibility is named by Plato “the method of hypothesis:” to see one's own creative efforts in the setting of the higher hypothesis posed by one's experience of creative moments of history to date, is to make one's own conscious efforts, so situated, an object of conscious reflection; this is “hypothesizing the higher hypothesis.” Knowing the principle of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, so, we know when, how, and where to leap.

Once that educable quality of self-consciousness, hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, is attained (through a lifetime's continuing commitment to this Classical educational approach), the ontological proof is a readily intelligible proposition. Otherwise, as the case of Dawkins' April 15 Edinburgh address illustrates the widespread illiteracy among putatively professional academics, competence in this and related deeper matters of scientific method were not possible.

The crucial marks of Dawkins' address are sufficient to prove his illiteracy, conclusively. His hand-waving reference to hackneyed phrases respecting “evolutionary theory,” is among the more glaring examples of this. Here, thus far, we have examined, in summary, the kernel of the ontological proof; we turn next, to exploit the Dawkins case as a “whipping-boy,” to show some among the more important historical implications of the proof.

Plato vs. Aristotle

The core of Dawkins' argument is derived not from the progress of modern science, but from the influence of an anti-Renaissance, anti-Christian, gnostic movement which rose to great influence over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of modern European history, the Rosicrucian and related, gnostic cults which assumed the disguise of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment of Voltaire and his cronies.

This post-Renaissance, gnostic intrusion into Western Europe was partially an echo of medieval cults of “Buggery”30 and “Averroism.”31 It was introduced chiefly through Venetian usurers, such as the faction of the notorious Paolo Sarpi,32 and his forerunners of the early through middle sixteenth century.33 The proverbial “red dye,” by means of which this gnostic subversion may be traced from the East, is the promotion of the teachings and method of Aristotle.

That the real-life Aristotle, and also his writings are evil, is beyond reasonable doubt; his notorious Politics and (Nicomachean) Ethics are luridly so.34 In this present discussion, a different facet of his writings occupies our attention, the Aristotle of logic and natural philosophy. The famous Philo (“Judaeus”) of Alexandria was the first leading theologian to show explicitly that Aristotle's method rejects absolutely the existence of a Mosaic, Christian God the Universal Creator.35 In modern times, whoever has adopted competently the method of Aristotle, such as René Descartes,36 Immanuel Kant,37 or the typical, consummately evil Bertrand Russell,38 will reject axiomatically, as did Dawkins, even the mere suggestion that an ontological proof exists.

Expressed in this writer's “On the Subject of Metaphor,” the Aristotelian, or so-called “Big Bang” model of the universe, is implicitly consistent with a popularized delusion, that “human intelligence” is merely “information,” the which might be assessed statistically, and therefore could be accomplished by an adequately sophisticated form of digital computing system.39 This argument, typified by that of the late Professor Norbert Wiener, et al.,40 is the same proposition underlying today's Boltzmann-like statistical representation of an “evolutionary theory” based upon the “action” of “survival of the fittest/natural selection.”41

Compare the primary features of two somewhat similar, but specifically distinct evolutionary series. The first, is the geological and related records of transformation of the species-composition of the biosphere. The second, is human history (and archaeological pre-history) from the standpoint of physical economy. Both series demonstrate the principle, that successful reproduction of the global biosphere, or successful cultural evolution of physical-economic modes of social existence are characteristically negentropic processes.42

The following considerations are adduced.

  1. The first series (biological evolution) is characterized by some biological principle of action, the second by the sovereignly creative-mental processes of the individual mind.43 Yet, the general form of both is similar.

  2. The successful case of evolutionary development is the diversification of the entire process by addition of a new type whose characteristic activity increases the relative negentropy of either the biosphere, or the society taken as a whole process.

  3. There are many instances of failures in the actual history of both series, yet the failures are the proverbial exceptions which prove the rule.

Consider some crucial features of cultural evolution, and thereafter resume the comparative examination of the two, specifically distinctive series. Focus upon the physical-economic characteristics, i.e., changes in potential population-density per capita and per square kilometer. Include the standard of durable survival,44 e.g., not the value of AB but of the series A, B, C, D, E, ..., as a type, e.g., the higher hypothesis. Reflection upon variability of performance of higher hypothesis, then implies hypothesizing the higher hypothesis.

From this objective standpoint of physical performance, of the science of physical economy, the data collected by the anthropologists represent chiefly types of cultures which collapsed because they were, at best, no longer morally fit to survive, the least suitable, the “least fit” of cultural types. The usury-practicing cultures of Mesopotamia are a leading example of persistent decadence. All cultures under the influence of those forms of worship associated with the Shakti-Shiva, Cybele-Dionysus, Ishtar, Isis-Osiris, or Gaia-Python-Apollo form of Satan-worship, represent a fatal cultural virus, a disease of culture analogous to bubonic plague in the biological domain. From no later than approximately 1000 B.C.E. , the pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas were in a spiral of collapse, into such terminal forms of utmost moral degeneracy as the Aztec culture of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. There are virtually no instances of known aboriginal cultures; the philological and archaeological shards show that the so-called “primitive cultures” are usually the pitiful, degenerated remains of a former, collapsed culture.

Against this mass of evidence, there is no doubt of the great advancement of humanity's potential population-density, especially since the European Golden Renaissance of the fifteenth century.

The negentropic character of successful cultures is best illustrated by attention to the largest component of the human activity of a successful culture, its physical economy. To the purpose of exposing the illiteracy of Dawkins' use of so-called “evolutionary theory,” we take a necessary detour through the relevant rudiments of modern physical economy.

Physical Economy

The science of physical economy, or technology, first established by Gottfried Leibniz during the interval 1672-1716, was founded upon study of two leading features of the industrial revolution which such collaborators of Colbert as Leibniz and Huygens were designing at that time. In his 1672 “Society and Economy,” for example, Leibniz treated the principles of a real-wages policy.45 His more extensive work emphasized the principles of design of heat-powered machinery46 and the relationship between technology and productive powers of labor.47

So, we have identified technology, heat-powered machinery, and real-wages policy. Examine each of these topics, summarily, in that order; we need consider only enough to situate our use of the term “negentropy” as applicable to a description of culture.

Technology is fairly described as follows:

  1. Every scientific discovery is susceptible of being represented in its effects by a form of demonstration sometimes named “a crucial experiment.”

  2. A refined version of such a crucial experiment is the model of reference for design of a corresponding principle of machine-tool design.

  3. The appropriate application of such a machine-tool design increases the average value of the productive powers of labor of that society.

  4. That form of increase of the productive powers of labor is the correlative of an increase of potential population-density.

  5. The crux of these connections, which places science and materialist ideology into irreconcilable opposition, is the fact that the origin of this causal sequence is a spiritual, i.e., mental-creative act of discovery, and hypothesis. I.e., a material result, increase of potential population-density, is the result of a spiritual cause, a result which could be accomplished in no other way than reliance upon this spiritual causation. This is directly contrary to the arbitrary dogmas of materialists Descartes (deus ex machina) and Newton (hypotheses non fingo).48

For example, the importance of private entrepreneurship is implicit in this aspect of technology. The higher the rate of capital-intensive (and energy-intensive) investment in application of high rates of scientific and technological progress, the higher the combined rates of real-wage growth, profits, and potential population-density. Thus, the necessary emphasis upon the sovereignly individual, personal quality of creative-mental processes, in the form of private entrepreneurship by family farms and small- to medium-sized manufacturing and related organizations, especially in the machine-tool sector. The right to private entrepreneurship is properly contingent upon promotion of scientific and technological progress in energy-intensive, capital-intensive modes.

However, the possibility of success in the private sector depends upon certain forms of relatively massive investments by government. These are properly concentrated in two categories of basic economic infrastructure: “hard” (e.g., water, sanitation, energy, transportation, communications grids), and “soft” (e.g., educational systems, public health systems). We turn to “hard” infrastructure, under Leibniz's rubric of heat-powered machinery.

Leibniz's treatment of the principles of heat-powered (e.g., steam-powered) machinery shows us, that although the increase of per capita and per square meter power does tend to correlate with functions of increase of the productive powers of labor, this functional increase is delimited by progress in technology—using a geometric representation of technological progress (of hypothesis and of higher hypothesis). The reverse is also true, even “more true.” The ability to realize technological progress is delimited by several factors which are measured appropriately in common terms of “per capita” and “per square meter” (or a multiple or fraction of a square meter). We call these “basic economic infrastructure,” which we divide into the indicated “hard” and “soft” categories.

A level of technology requires a minimum to maximum range of allotment, per capita and per square kilometer, of such “hard” infrastructure as (fresh) water management, transportation grids (ton-kilometer-hours), power grids (megawatts per capita, per square kilometer), sanitation, and communications. It requires a certain level of compulsory education (by Classical standards), and health-service grids—otherwise intellectual development, longevity, and health will not be sufficient for economical realization of the indicated level of technology.

In addition to such infrastructural constraints, the feasible level of realized technology by a society (as a whole) is delimited by the capital-intensity of employment in infrastructure, agriculture, mining, and manufacturing, combined. This capital-intensity is not measured, in any way, in dollars or kindred monetary units or indices; it is measured twice, in rations of the total available, and employed (respectively) labor-force. This capital-intensity of the society/economy as a whole, is the ratio of labor employed directly in production of producers' goods, to labor employed directly (physically) in fashioning households' and related goods.

This ratio of capital-intensity for infrastructure, agriculture, mining, and manufacturing, respectively, is combined to yield a capital intensity for that society/economy as a whole. Agriculture is combined with mining and manufacturing, to yield one crucial ratio; this ratio, in ratio to total (including infrastructure) yields the second significant ratio.


Given, these constraints, infrastructural and capital-intensity, for realization of a level of available technology, consider then the following, diagram-aided representation of the corresponding process of self-reproduction of an entire society.

The analysis of the process of self-reproduction of a society begins with the population as a whole.

In physical economy, two demographic features of the social-reproductive process are most crucial; life-expectancy and health provides us the general profile of the consuming population; the way in which the labor-force component of the population is defined, is the second of the two principal features.

In a modern, late twentieth-century industrial society, for example, the following rule of thumb applies (see Chart 1). Chart 1 is a bar diagram placed in a representation of age (modal life-expectancy of the society) compared with a functional demographic composition of that population. This bar, roughly corresponding to trends in the post-World War I U.S. economy to date, shows the following composition.

The highest significant life-expectancy range is between eighty-five and ninety years of age. The highest generally-significant age of gainful employment is between sixty and seventy years. Except for those living in sub-standard social circumstances, the modal school-leaving age is between seventeen and twenty-five years, concentrated in the seventeen to twenty-two year range. Elementary education occupies the age-interval from five or six through ten or twelve, secondary education up to seventeen or eighteen years. For obvious reasons, we distinguish infants under one year from the under six norm for pre-(elementary)-school-age.

Since World War II, an increasingly excessive ration of “housewives” has been employed in meeting the two-income requirement of the typical family; the resulting damage to children and youth is one of the principal evils of U.S. social life today. (The popular “baby-sitter” for children of all ages, has become Satan's own one-eyed entertainer, the proverbial “boob-tube.”) Although some have seen only the “improvement” of women's independent career opportunities, the fact of the matter is that the cause for the two-person-per-family income standard is a result of a trend of falling real wages per capita. This trend has been uneven, but consistently downward since approximately 1947-1949.

Since pre-civilized society, humanity has moved upward, especially since the accelerated impetus supplied by the early fifteenth century, Western European (Christian) Golden Renaissance (see Chart 2, “Population Growth Since Pagan Rome”).49 If a “primitive hunting-and-gathering society” ever existed, the life-expectancy was below twenty years of age, the infant mortality almost that of rabbits in the wild, and plus or minus the ten square kilometers of Cenozoic wilderness required to sustain an average individual life—such as that life might be.

The most crucial feature of modern civilized social life is, that individual political equality cannot be realized without a Classical humanist form of education through secondary-school age-levels. A civilized form of political society, a constitutional form of republican democracy, cannot be sustained unless the cultural standard of such an education is the generally accepted standard for policy deliberations. Call this standard set by the Brothers of the Common Life of the late fourteenth through the late sixteenth centuries, or of the Humboldt reforms of the nineteenth century. Every child and youth has a moral right, therefore, to completion of a Classical form of secondary compulsory education in natural philosophy, fine arts, language, and history of statecraft, through the age of seventeen or so. In addition, beyond a general Classical humanist education compulsory for all, modern society requires post-secondary specialist education of professionals, up to an age range between twenty-one and twenty-five years rather commonly, and through thirty (approximately) for the most intensive of scientific professional specialties.

Thus, a civilized level of society today requires postponing regular labor force duties of the young until the age of between sixteen or seventeen and twenty-five. This period of life, and cost of education, must be sustained by the production of the adult labor-force. This requires a long-lived labor force, kept in sound, work-a-day health, through ages sixty-five through seventy years. Such a labor-force has the present best life-expectancy profile for the age-ranges seventy-ninety. So in these and other ways, are development and demography interdependent.

Similarly, if the modal ratio of births per capita of adult population falls below more than one, a catastrophic demographic aging of the total population is the result. If the family (parental) household becomes an unstable institution, serious mental illness among the young is more frequent, and a broader range of incidence of less severe personality defects as well.

Such and related demographic considerations determine the ratio of a demographically healthy society's labor-force to total population. This brings us to Chart 3, summarized in the illustrative bar-diagram provided.

Compare the corresponding labor force and employment censuses of leading industrialized nations today with the first eight U.S. censuses (1790, 1800, 1810, 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870). We begin with the required rural component of total employment which is in excess of ninety percent; we proceed, through scientific and technological progress in the family-owned and operated farm and ranch, to a requirement on the order of two percent of the total labor-force. Look closely, briefly, at some crucial features of the development of agriculture.

Consider yields in agriculture in terms of per capita and per hectare. Consider also the roles of transportation-grids, energy grids, and industrial capital-intensity, and technology in bringing about reduction in agricultural labor-force required per one thousand of total national population. Consider also, improvements in diet resulting from technology of agricultural development, and from water-management, transportation, and post-1930 use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for refrigeration in the food chain.

Consider the growth of infrastructure 1790-1970 (little improvement, significant collapse has occurred in the U.S.A., for example, since 1970). Consider the growth in employment and manufacturing and fluctuations in mining. Consider the growth of employment in physical science and related engineering in two respects: as a percentile of the labor force, and in ratio to the operatives employed in rural and agricultural occupations.

Consider the “post-industrial” pathologies in employment of the labor-force, which have become so prominent, and so distinctly costly, since about the time of Harold Wilson's becoming prime minister in Britain. These include the cancerous growth of employment in parasitical expansion of administration and non-scientific services, financial services most notably. This also includes the growth of unemployment, and underemployment, and marginal employment. It includes the doubly parasitical wastefulness of a “recreational drugs” market which loots the U.S. economy today of an amount far greater than U.S. military and related expenditures combined.

Thus, as this bar-diagram illustrates the point, these patterns of allotments of the total labor-force, to the various categories of respectively (physically) productive and non-productive employments, are an integral aspect of the characteristic of action of an economy/society during a chosen interval of time. This is a key facet of what may be termed fairly the “spectroscopy” of that economy during that interval, speaking in much the same sense we speak either of characteristic spectra in referring to the Periodic Table, or the spectra emitted, for example, to be detected by a moth, of a mechanically agitated molecule of pollen.50

This same characteristic of action of any interval of a physical economy has additional integral facets. The absolute levels of household consumption, per capita and per square kilometer, and the levels of output, also per capita and per square kilometer, correlate with the foregoing spectra of allotment in crucial and otherwise interesting ways. Also, we have already noted power-correlatives; this includes kilowatts per capita and per square kilometer, for both residential and production uses of land, respectively; the distribution of this requirement varies by type of land use, and by level of technology and capital-intensity employed. At the point of application of power by technology, we have power-density and electromagnetic-radiation characteristics.

The result of correlating this and other significant, integral facets of the characteristic of action, is an estimate of the necessary, optimal allotment of the total labor-force, as contrasted with any actual or mooted “spectroscopy.” This picture of a “global” economic function can be described in a series of constraints, written out for purposes of approximation as a list of inequalities.51 These include such constraints as the following leading items:

  1. The longevity and coefficients of health of the population must be increased, while the duration of the period of education converges upon a Classical-humanist program of compulsory education for all, extended upward in specialist professional education toward an asymptotic level of perhaps twenty-five years modally.

  2. The per-capita household consumption of a population of such demographic characteristics must be gradually increased in quality at an approximately steady rate.

  3. The allotment of labor force directly to agricultural employment must be decreased as a percentile, toward some lower asymptotic limit of probably between one and two percent, while increasing the per capita supply and quality of agricultural products for the population as a whole. 4.
    The employed industrial operatives component (including infrastructural employment) of the labor force must grow to a level of perhaps seventy percent of the total labor force, and be diminished below that only by transfers into the professional ranks of science and engineering.

  4. Within the individual operatives segment of employment, the ration employed in producers goods must increase relative to employment in production of household goods, but without reducing the per capita supply of household goods.
    And so on.

However, to realize the program of development such constraints imply, imposes two additional constraints upon the economy. First, scientific and technological progress must proceed at an adequate rate. Second, increases in development of basic economic infrastructure must be supplied in quantity and quality.

This requires a minimization of wasteful and parasitical activities, especially the evil of financial and related usury. If the kinds of constraints indicated are not satisfied, the physical economy will slide into an entropic collapse. The general rule is fairly described as follows:

Think of both “raw materials” and man's improvements of the total physical environment as, at each moment, a productive resource which must be maintained, if the productive potential—potential population-density—is not to be lowered. It is sufficient, for our present purposes, to stress an aspect of this connection: as the best and cheapest raw materials are depleted by use, physical productivity must fall in the sector, (and, thus, in the economy as a whole), unless this marginal depletion's effects are offset by advances in technology. There is no possibility of a “zero technological-growth equilibrium” in a real society/economy without scientific and technological progress in a relatively capital-intensive, power-intensive mode; otherwise society decays.

With this in view, return to Chart 3. With the considerations—constraints—identified taken into account, let a moment of the economic process of a society be treated as “theorem-lattice A” of a series of the pedagogical form A, B, C, D, E, .... This “moment,” A, is, of course, otherwise seen as an “interval.” This is an “interval of action,” action defined “spectroscopically” by the considerations outlined in our elaboration of some leading implications of Chart 3: a characteristic action of that interval A. This “local” characteristic of action is, of course, action for change, but changes which might appear to correspond consistently to the internal functioning of a system of linear inequalities. We are concerned to represent the point of breakdown of such a particular array of changes governed by linear inequalities.

This characteristic action of the economy/society as a negentropic process, has the following general features of interest to us respecting Dawkins' use of the catch-term “evolutionary theory.”

We begin with a demographic determination of a total population's labor force; this, as we have indicated, already reflects, at each moment, a level of technological practice. We measure consumption, per capita and per square kilometer, in terms of the total physical output of an operative's portion of the total labor force. We then estimate the amount of combined technological progress and expansion required (after accounting for depletion of previously improved resources) to sustain at least the same per capita values; this rate of technological progress plus expansion defines—with apologies to Professor Herman Minkowski—a “world-line,” a pathway of growth which merely secures a “zero entropy” condition for that society.

The margin of total physical output of operatives which is consumed up to the level of securing a bare “zero entropy” of the economy/society, is treated as analogous to the thermodynamic “energy of the system.” The “free” margin of total output remaining after this deduction for maintaining a “zero entropy” state, then attracts our attention. We focus more narrowly on that ration of this “free output” which is employed in fostering technologically progressive expansion of the economy's productive system; this latter, smaller portion of the “free” output is treated as analogous to “free energy.” We have, then, a notion analogous to that of a variable ratio of “free energy” to an absolutely expanding “energy of the system.”

This analogue of a “free energy” function correlates with a rising potential population-density.

Actual Physical Economy

The outline of economic growth just summarized does not correspond, in any consistent way, to the overall practice of modern European civilization. However, the exceptions prove the rule, conclusively.

Speaking statistically, European civilization—and its actual economy—is not the result of a single current of successive cultural impulsions (“characteristic of action”); for more than 2,500 years to date, Europe and European civilization have been, at each moment, the net result of two conflicting, irreconcilable sets of impulses. There was the evil of Mesopotamia and Canaan, against the Ionian city-state republics. There was the conflict between the Athens of Solon's constitutional reforms, and the oligarchical evil of slave-holding Sparta under Lycurgus's code.52 There was Plato, versus the evil represented by Aristotle and Isocrates.53 There was the Christianity of Sts. Peter, John, and Paul, against the oligarchical, paganist gnosticism of the Delphic and Roman pantheons.54

Of these, Professor Dawkins might say, “Two opposing viruses.” Indeed, from the standpoint of his April 15 address, were he consistent, the whole of history, including the history of teaching biology at Oxford University, must appear to him as not a product of human behavior, as much as a virus-like infection of the collective mind by some potency in the form of “covenants,” or “linear systems.” To understand Dawkins' thus-perplexed miscomprehension of history and science, think back to a type of Hollywood, pseudo-science fiction rather modish during the 1950's. Pods from outer space invade Earth surreptitiously (of course), and capture the minds of hapless persons, which latter become a special sort of “zombie-like” creatures, “pod people.” Unfortunately, there are real-life approximations of that script, less fantastic, but ultimately just as eerie in their own fashion, and as evil.

“Sorry, buddy. This is nothing personal; I'm just doing my job.” Assassin? Government bureaucrat? Corporate bureaucrat? U.S. Democratic Party hack? Concentration camp gas chamber attendant? Vietnam body counter for Robert S. McNamara? Whoever that might be, the principle of the case is essentially the same. Personal moral responsibility to be self-governed by truth-seeking reason is put aside, when a mere covenant might be obeyed blindly. Who or what covenant-wielding potency is directing this “zombie”? A “blob” from outer space, perhaps? No, not from “outer space,” but perhaps one of those “blob”-like pestilences spread from the Cult of Apollo by way of a Venice faction to which the notoriously evil Paolo Sarpi and also England's Sir Henry Wootton adhered.55

Fly for a moment, in the imagination, to a possibly fictional death chamber of a dying, fabulously wealthy and powerful man. His attorneys and a notary are occupied at the side of the tycoon's bed. The dying man completes the legal rituals; his visitors depart, leaving the old Croesus to the ominous sound of his own breathing. Whatever his daydream, it brings a small, sadistic smile to his aged, Faustian features. He has purchased a certain, perverse kind of earthly immortality, by creating his own “blob” to live after him: a new charitable foundation.

Already, the foundation's initial roster of administrators is in the process of being selected and installed. They will each die, as will the individual attorneys of the law firms, and the officials of the private banks; but the foundation will live on in its eerie, “blob”-like earthly quasi-immortality, like a pagan god of Olympus—to live in earthly immortality forever, at least until the inevitable “Twilight of the Gods.”

Who are the passing generations, of attorneys, bankers, and so forth, who administer to the “blob”-like covenant throughout its long, but finitely eternal immortality? “Pod people”? More or less, exactly so; just “pod people” going about, “just doing my job.” The dying old man leers at the thought.

The “pod people” who minister to such “blobs,” are not limited to the administrators, attorneys, financial officers, and so forth, who serve as the lackeys of the “blob's” personal household. Its power reaches out, through the tentacles of its usurious capital, to recruit its “pod people” among the corporation executives, real estate schemes, and reinsurance cartels. Through the tentacles of its charities, the “blob” controls its “pod people” in the university faculties, the science laboratories, the fine arts, medical officials, and the popular entertainments. By aid of these means, the “blob's” roster of “pod people” includes judges, various officials of other branches of government, and political party organizations, as well as the leading news and entertainment media.

One “blob” by itself does not make such an Olympian power within, or over society. Over the centuries, the species of “blob,” called in Venice the fondi, has come to constitute a large number of such “blob” families. It is these types of “blob” families who constitute the collection of those non-human creatures, the real-life gods of Olympus. These “blobs,” whose existence is premised upon a mere parasitical, usurious covenant, constitute the oligarchy; those “pod people” who serve the oligarchy's “blobs” are merely the mind-slave lackeys of the inhuman oligarchy proper.

Since King Philip's ancient Macedon, Philip's agent Aristotle is the gnostic archetype for the mind-slave lackey of those inhuman “blobs” which constitute the ruling oligarchies of this planet, the quasi-immortal, earth-bound gods of pagan Olympus. This quality of evil in Aristotle's still continuing influence, is shown explicitly, pervasively in his Politics and Ethics.56 The immediately relevant point is the correlation between the method of Aristotle's anti-scientific logic and natural philosophy, on the one side, and the method permeating Dawkins' address reported in the April 16 London Independent. We are stressing here the congruence of that Aristotelian method with the state of mind which is typical of the mind of the priestly rank among mind-slave lackeys of the “blobs,” down through the ages, into the present.

The non-human existence of the “blob” as a species, is key to the curious dualism we see in 2,500 years of European civilization to date. The “blob” does not exist, of course; it “lives” only as a phantasm in the minds of deranged children, children who might just be occupied with playing the game of the Lord of the Flies.57 What if many deranged people play out acting lackeys of a “blob,” or of an assortment of “blobs,” as young people might be caught up playing “Dungeons and Dragons” in dead earnest? What if people make a secure income, and enjoy great covert power by pretending that the “blob” which nominally employs them is a real personality, a personality whose absolute self-interest is the preservation of itself as an increasingly wealthy “blob” in a nation which is ruled by like-minded “blobs”? What if overgrown children, as an assortment of trustees, attorneys, financial agents, corporate executives, heads of fraternal orders, university officers, and so on, each and all dedicate all of their resources, in dead earnest, to perpetuating eternally “the game of blobs”?

What, on the other side, if a newly elected government, for example, were to remove the legal protection of tax and other statutes indispensable for the continued fictive existence of a powerful nation's local oligarchical collection of “blobs”? How would the assembled lackeys of the “blobs” respond?

Some common gossips insist, that every individual's opinions are either a response of an experience-scarred “human nature” to sensory stimuli, or some silly babbling to the same net effect. What ignorant, unobservant, foolish gossips these are! How often do we not meet a person pompously “just doing my job” in the disgusting manner of a mind-slave lackey of either some “blob,” or another, but related type of non-human, fictive institution manned by mere apparently soulless lackeys? What of the curious propensity, observed in that way, in such a variety of frequently encountered incidents, of persons whose apparent chief concern in life is “what will the neighbors think?” What is the commonly pathological feature of mental life typical of those persons who behave in such unwholesomely aberrant ways? Why speak of “human nature”? Why not speak also of persons of “unhuman nature”? What is the method commonly characteristic of such bureaucratic, unhuman mental processes? This brings our attention back to the method of Aristotle, and of Dawkins' address.

The submission of the human will to the service of a non-human, fictive potency, such as an oligarchy of “blobs,” submission to such an institution, the most vital, usurious interest of which is antithetical to natural law,58 such submission is in itself a form of evil. This evil is intrinsic to the most essential feature of oligarchical overlordship. This evil is that which underlies the method and doctrines of that person who is, historically, to date, one of the most famous, perhaps the most famous, gnostic lackeys of the oligarchy of “blobs,” Aristotle.

Construct a concept of the relevant conception in the following, illustrative way.

Focus upon the cited attribute of the “pod people,” the lackeys: “This is not personal; I'm just doing my job.” That statement reports implicitly that lackey's conviction that he has, at least momentarily, suppressed that agency fairly identified as “one's personal conscience.” In other words, the lackey signals us so, that he has suppressed his capabilities for truth-seeking, rejected, at least for the moment, that quality of rational thinking and action we associate with the tradition of scientific discovery.

There is nothing immoral, per se, in carrying out orders; it is the suspension of reason, the suspension, thus, of moral responsibility for the ultimate consequences of one's actions, which is immoral. One might say, “I know the person guiding my actions in this matter is a reasonable, responsible person, who deserves to be respected morally as an 'authority' in such matters.” A respected physician might be such an authority, and the person speaking a patient of that physician, or a person assisting in the care of one of that physician's patients. In such latter circumstance, to reject or ignore the physician's authority out of hand, would be an irrational act, and therefore an immoral act. Or, persons who insist on “my right to act according to my gut-feeling,” that tribal witch doctors often know better than doctors, are behaving irrationally, certainly immorally, and perhaps also criminally. In the latter case, the evil lies in the mode of thinking per se of that culprit.

So, there is nothing intrinsically immoral in short-term faith in the competence of moral accountability of some putative authority provided that judgment is premised upon a reasonably grounded, intelligible basis for faith. Frequently, especially in those urgent cases where postponed action would be disastrous, it would be a lunatic degree of immorality to do other than act, at least for the near term, upon acceptance of such authority. The moral question is, whether one is acting on the basis of a reasonable attribution of reason and personal moral accountability to the person issuing the instruction, or, in the opposite case, acting as an “amoral” lackey in service of a form of “blob”-like power, such power as command over great wealth or physical forces. Without going much further than this in the matter of a fine, legalistic distinction, we may now concentrate on the types of instances in which the latter, immoral relationship to power is clearly the case, the point in Beethoven's Fidelio (Act II, Scene 3) at which the bass, “Papa” Rocco, the warden of the prison, exclaims with evidently great relief and recognition: “O was ist das, gerechter Gott!”59

For this purpose, we must exclude from the Christian (and, Plato's) notion of an ontologically existent creator the Adam Smith doctrine of worship of God “by faith alone,” without “any consideration of their [personal impulsions'] tendency to those beneficent ends which the great director of nature intended to produce by them.”60 The god of Adam Smith and Lady Margaret Thatcher's “free trade” dogmas, is clearly not the God the Creator of Moses and the Christians. This is to underscore the point, that the “beneficent ends” of policy guided by true reason are intrinsically intelligible to the degree that whoever disregards that practical connection, as Adam Smith proposes we do, is plainly a scoundrel. It is the intelligibility of the Creator's work, as this is accessible to us within the inferior domain of Plato's Becoming, and Cantor's Transfinite, which is the intelligible basis for morality, and also the intelligible elementary basis for faith in the ontological existence of the Creator.

In belief, as in Adam Smith's clearly paganist belief, there is another, pagan's choice of monotheistic deity, such as Baal and the Zeus of Olympus. This deity is a “blob,” a pseudo-human (anthropomorphic), quasi-immortal, fictive object, to which is ascribed the authority and power of a Babylonian potentate, the authority and power of the ruling fondo of this usurer's earthly paradise.61 In a word, Satan. For Adam Smith, this fondo-god was currently incarnate as that spawn of Paolo Sarpi, et al., the “Venetian Party's”62 British (and, Dutch) East India Company, which Smith served as a lackey. For this Smith, the palpable devil incarnate was probably known to him as that lackey's immediate employer, Barings Bank's William Petty, also controller of William Pitt the Younger's Parliament, and paymaster also for King George III, the second Earl of Shelburne.63 If not Shelburne himself, then certainly Shelburne's chief thug, the murderous professed usurer and pederast, Jeremy Bentham.64

Such pagan deist's anthropomorphic concoctions are a caricature of all the wicked rulers of ancient Canaan and Mesopotamia, concentrated into one foul essence. They are as arbitrary in their absurd claims to legitimate authority as in their whimsical decrees, their literal commands. These are fondi, whose literal commands must be obeyed by the lackeys (and helots) without rhyme or reason. Such a lunatic's earthly paradise corresponds to its own implicitly underlying axioms respecting ordering and ontology. The most consistent known representation of such a satanic form of natural philosophy is the Organon of Aristotle.65

Let us introduce the term institutional reflex, to identify that type of human behavior which is controlled characteristically by a wont for blind implicit obedience to literal commands; this is in contrast to individual behavior intelligibly directed by an agency of truth-seeking reason (as we have defined reason, both in the referenced “On the Subject of Metaphor,”66 and earlier in this present writing). Focus upon that type of institutional reflex we have described here to the lackey's form of submission to the “blob.”

In the oligarchical utopia, the infantile, mythical realm of the Olympian pantheon, men and objects alike are ordered directly by the literal form of a command spoken by one among the pagan gods, or as conveyed by an Olympian emissary (lackey) to the same effect. The intent attributed to such literal babbling by Delphi's Pythia, as such intent is interpreted by the local, hermeneutic “spin doctors,” the priests of Apollo at the bench before Python's grave, is the presumed order of universal pagan law, civil, geological, biological, and astronomical.67 Herein lies, implicitly, the underlying axiomatic, ontological basis which, as an “hereditary,” oligarchical principle, underlies Aristotle's so-called Organon as a whole.68 Mythically, Zeus spake, and by his literally spoken command, all the objects in Aristotle's universe, and their attributes, were created in a single “Big Bang.” If this is examined rigorously, then, as Friedrich Nietzsche adduced from Aristotelian rantings, such a god—Aristotle's pagan god, in point of fact—is long since as good as dead.69 The simple Aristotelian dialectic, turned upon Aristotle himself, is to the following effect.

Q: Is this God perfect?
A: Yes, that is his nature, by definition.
Q: Otherwise, he would not be God. Is that not true?
A: That is true.
Q: If he is perfect, then his commands must be perfect. Is this true?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Then, his creation is perfect. Is this not also true?
A: Yes, that follows, as you have said it.
Q: Then, the laws his creation builds into the universe are perfect?
A: Also.
Q: If they could be changed, they would not have been perfect laws in the first place?
A: Also true.
Q: Then God could not act to alter any of these laws without causing them to have been imperfect?
A: That is true.
Q: Then, once your God had created this universe, he must never act to change what he had done at the moment of creation?
A: (Silence)
Q: Did you hear me?
A: (Nods slowly)
Q: Do you see any flaw in my argument thus far?
A: (Shakes his head very slowly).

Q: Then, all is as pre-ordained at the instant of creation, and your God himself could not change any of it, without making the original creation imperfect, and therefore himself the author of an imperfect act, and not a true God. Is this not also true?

A: (Pulls out a dagger, and moves as if to kill).

So, like the pagan oligarchical priest's mythical Python swallowing his own tail, Aristotle's form of the dialectic consumes, and nullifies itself. His God never existed; neither did his fictive, linear, mechanistic universe, nor the neo-Aristotelian fictive universe of the materialists Francis Bacon, Descartes, Kant, Darwin, and Dawkins.

In Aristotle's fictive universe, the name of an attribute, associated with the mere name of an object, drives the name of that object, linearly, to affect the name of another object in a named way. In Aristotle, there is no true causation; there is only the mechanism of the syllogism. His universe is a tangle of “blobular,” “physiocratic” covenants, in which each particle does his duty as prescribed by contract.

The Christian impulse in political-economy, in opposition to the oligarchical radical Aristotelian nominalism of modern monetarist dogma, drives the economy as we have indicated, but does so in defiance of the satanic power of the oligarchical enemy. Hence, the dual aspect of European civilization's history. Hence, because of the political power currently enjoyed by the oligarchical patrons of empiricism, Dawkins acquired his esteem for the views he has championed in his April 15 published address.

Go to part II

top of page


1. The quoted passage is from the April 16, 1992 wire-dispatch summary by EIR News Service. Dawkins' reference to “order” and “beauty,” appears to be a direct slap against the 1961 “informal proof of God” by Princeton University's Professor Kurt Goaudel; that appearance is buttressed, twofoldly, by the fact that Dawkins' radical-positivist argument is virtually plagiarized intact from “linguistics” co-founder Rudolf Carnap's 1941 arguments against Goaudel.

2. Cf. Hao Wang, Reflections on Kurt Goaudel, (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1987), pp. 214-217; John Howard Sobel, “Goaudel's Ontological Proof,” in Festschrift fuaur Richard Cartwright, ed. by NAME Thompson (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1987), pp. 241-261; C. Anthony Anderson, “Some Emendations of Goaudel's Ontological Proof,” in Faith and Philosophy, (Ann Arbor), Vol. 7, No. 3, July 1990; Jerzy Perzanowski, “Ontological Arguments II: Cartesian and Leibnizian,” in Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, ed. by Barry Smith (Muaunchen: 1991).

3. E.g., Plato, Parmenides, in Plato: Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias, Loeb Classical Library, trans. by H.N. Fowler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), and Timaeus and Critias in Plato: Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles, Loeb Classical Library, trans. by R.G. Bury (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929). Also, Gottfried Wilhlem Leibniz (on “most perfect being”), Monadology, trans. by George Montgomery (LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989); also, Theodicy, trans. by E.M. Huggard (LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Co., 1985).

4. Georg Cantor, “Beitraauge zur Begruaundung der transfiniten Mengenlehre,” in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ed. by Ernst Zermelo (Hildeschein, 1962), pp. 282-356; English translation: Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers, trans. by Philip E.B. Jourdain (New York: Dover Publications, 1955). It is in this development of Cantor's work, that Cantor touches most critically upon the quality of the Platonic “idea” (eidos); see Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “On the Subject of Metaphor,” Fidelio, Vol. 1, No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 17-50..

5. Admittedly, “Platonic ideas” are not to be confused with the ordinary positivist definition of the term. Hence, for several years, this writer accepted the suggestion that Plato's eidos be translated as the English “species,” or Cantor “type.” For reasons grounded in the argument of his “On the Subject of Metaphor,” op. cit., it is better to adhere to the two-word translation, “Platonic ideas.”

6. See footnote 3..

7. See Bernhard Riemann, “Zur Psychologie und Metaphysik,” on Herbart's Goauttingen lectures, for Riemann's reference to Geistesmassen, in Mathematische Werke, 2nd. ed. (1892), posthumous papers, ed. by H. Weber in collaboration with R. Dedekind.

8. LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit., pp. 42-44; Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Mozart's 1782-1786 Revolution in Music,” Fidelio, Vol. I, No. 4, Winter 1992.

9. This is proven implicitly by Plato, as in his already referenced Parmenides. Modern proofs of this, such as Georg Cantor's, or the famous “Goaudel's Proof” of Professor Kurt Goaudel, are reflections of Plato's original model proof. Although a correspondent of Goaudel's, Goauttingen's famous Professor David Hilbert never understood the most essential implications of Cantor's Beitraauge; cf. Georg Cantors Briefe, ed. by Herbert Meschkowski and Winfried Nilson (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1991), passim.. This is perhaps nowhere more plainly displayed than by Hilbert's axiomatic blunder proposing his famous, intrinsically insoluble “Tenth Problem”; see J.P. Jones and Y.V. Matijasevic, “Proof of Recursive Unsolvability of Hilbert's Tenth Problem,” in The American Mathematical Monthly, Oct. 1991, pp. 689-709; see also LaRouche, “Mozart's Revolution,” op. cit., footnote 56..

10. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “In Defense of Common Sense,” chaps. II-V, in The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991).

11. Ibid., chap. III.

12. Ibid., passim; also, LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit., passim.

13. Ibid.

14. Op. cit., pp. 17-22..

15. Ibid.

16. See Gilles de Roberval, “The Cycloid,” in A Source Book in Mathematics, 1200-1800, ed. by D.J. Struik (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 232-233; also in Gilles de Roberval, Treatise on Indivisibles, trans. by Evelyn Walker (New York: Teachers College, 1932).

17. See Johann Bernoulli, “Curvatura Radii,” in Diaphonous Nonformabus Acta Eruditorum, May 1697; trans. in D.J. Struik, op. cit., pp. 391-399..

18. Ibid. See Christiaan Huygens, The Pendulum Clock, or Geometrical Demonstrations Concerning the Motion of Pendula as Applied to Clocks, trans. by Richard J. Blackwell (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1986); also Christiaan Huygens, Treatise on Light (1690), trans. by Sylvanus P. Thompson (New York: Dover Publications, 1962).

19. Contrary to later apologies for the London-allied Enlightenment circles, France's continued leading position in the world's science and technology, through 1815, was centered in the Platonic heritage of Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert's Academie Royale de Seaaance, and its successor, the Leibnizian Gaspard Monge-led Eaacole Polytechnique of 1794-1814. The factional opposition represented the contrary, Aristotelian, “Enlightenment” method. With the victory of Castlereagh's faction at the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, the Holy Alliance forces inside the Restoration Bourbon monarchy expelled Monge and his program from the Eaacole Polytechnique, putting French science under the vastly less competent leadership of the Marquis de Laplace and Laplace's protege, Augustin Cauchy.

20. This is a point from the (Leibnizian) science of physical economy. The continued existence of any society, even one of fixed population, must deplete natural conditions upon which the existing standard of per capita and per square kilometer productivity depends. This depletion must be offset by an at least equal margin of growth of per capita productivity. Hence, a minimal rate of advancement of employed technology is required.

21. The Brothers of the Common Life was a religious community founded in 1376 by the Dutchman Gerhard Groote. Based on a rule of personal piety known as the devotio moderna, the movement followed the precepts expressed by Thomas aag Kempis in his The Imitation of Christ and The Christian's Exercise: or, Rules to Live Above the World While We Are in It. Aag Kempis also wrote “The Life of the Reverend Master Gerard the Great, Commonly Called Groote.” Nicolaus of Cusa received his early education from the Brothers of the Common Life community at Deventer. See Albert Hyma, The Brethren of the Common Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950). For Wilhelm von Humboldt's educational reforms, see Carol White, “The Humboldt Brothers' Classical Education System,” Campaigner, Vol. 14, No. 5, August 1981; see also, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Humanist Without Portfolio: An Anthology of the Writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt, trans. by Marianne Cowan (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963). See also, Wilhelm von Humboldt, “On Schiller and the Course of His Spiritual Development,” in Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. II, ed. by William F. Wertz, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1988).

22. See A Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1992), chap. 11, “Artistic Beauty: Schiller vs. Goethe.”

23. See Francis A. Yates, The Occult Philsophy in the Elizabethan Age (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979).

24. See LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit.; also Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., A Concrete Approach to U.S. Science Policy (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1992), chap. IV, “The Cathar Root of Cartesianism.”

25. Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance), Book I, trans. by Jasper Hopkins as Nicholas of Cusa On Learned Ignorance (Minneapolis: Arthur M. Banning Press, 1985); also, “De Circuli Quadratura” (“On the Quadrature of the Circle”), trans. into German by Jay Hoffman (Mainz: Felix Meiner Verlag).

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

27. Ibid. For musical score of the “Haydn” string quartets, see Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Complete String Quartets from the Breitkopf & Haaurtel Complete Works (New York: Dover Publications, 1970), K. 387, 421, 428, 458, 464, 465. For recordings, see Amadeus String Quartet, Mozart Complete String Quartets, Deutsche Grammaphon; Budapest String Quartet, Mozart's Haydn Quartets, Sony Classical.

28. Ibid. For musical score of the “Russian” string quartets, see Joseph Haydn, String Quartets Opus 20 and 33, Complete Edition, ed. by Wilhelm Altmann (New York: Dover Publications, 1985). For recordings, see Taaatrai Quartet, Hungaraton HCD.

29. Ibid. For musical score, see J.S. Bach, Musikalisches Opfer—Musical Offering— Offrance musicale, ed. by Carl Czerny (New York: Edition Peters, No. 219). For recordings, see Leipziger Bach-Collegium, Capriccio, CDC10032; Cologne Musica Antigua, Deutsche Grammaphon (Archiv).

30. See LaRouche, Science Policy, op. cit., chap. IV.

31. For Averroeaus see, for example, Oliver Leaman, Averroeaus and His Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).

32. Paolo Sarpi (1550-1623), a former Procurator-General of the Servite religious order, was appointed state theologian of Venice in 1606. He was a leading theoretician of the “new houses” (i nuovi or i giovani—“the young”) of the Venetian aristocracy, which took power in 1582. The nuovi faction proposed: (1) an all-out assault against the Church at Rome and Rome's allies, Spain and the Hapsburg dynasty; and (2) a major redeployment of Venetian financial power north into England and Holland. See David Wotton, Paolo Sarpi: Between Renaissance and Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); see also Sarpi, ed. by Peter Burke (New York: Washington Square Press, 1967), pp. xv-xvi and passim.

33. See Francis A. Yates, Occult Philosophy, op. cit.; also The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972).

34. See Aristotle, “Politics” and “Ethics,” in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. by Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941).

35. Philo (“Judaeus”) of Alexandria. “On the Account of the World's Creation Given by Moses” (“On the Creation”), in Philo, Vol. I, trans. by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).

36. On Descartes' deus ex machina, see LaRouche, U.S. Science Policy, chap. IV.

37. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Norman Kemp Smith (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965); Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysics, trans. by Paul Carus (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1977); Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1956); Critique of Judgment, trans. by J.H. Bernard (New York: Hafner Press, 1951).

38. Carol White, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980), passim.

39. LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit.

40. Cf. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (New York: John Wiley, 1948); 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1961); also, The Human Use of Human Beings (New York: Avon Books, 1967).

41. Cf. Ludwig Boltzmann, Vorlesungen uauber Gastheorie, vol. i (1896), st6..

42. LaRouche, “In Defense of Common Sense,” and “The Science of Christian Economy,” in Christian Economy, op. cit., pp. 31-41, 318-323..

43. LaRouche, “Project A,” chap. II, “The Crucial Fact,” in Christian Economy, op. cit., pp. 104-109..

44. LaRouche, “Common Sense,” chap. II-IV, op cit. pp. 8-26..

45. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “Society and Economy,” (1671) Fidelio, Vol. I , No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 54-55..

46. See Philip Valenti, “A Case Study of British Sabotage: Leibniz, Papin, and the Steam Engine,” Fusion, Vol. 3, No. 3, Dec. 1979, p. 26..

47. Understand the phenomenon corresponding to “technology” as typified by the following illustrative example. Given, two machines, performing the same operation in production of a specific quality of net work-output, powered to the same degree, and operated, alternately, by the same operator. Yet, one of these two machines produces a larger quantity of the same work-output, of equal or better quality than the other. That difference in the design of the internal organization of the machine is the phenomenon of technology.

48. See footnote 36. Sir Isaac Newton, in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, states “hypotheses non fingo” (I don't make hypotheses), and explains his reasons for this on grounds of induction versus hypothesis. See Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World, revised trans. by Florian Cajori (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), General Scholium, pp. 546-547..

49. Data for Chart 2 are taken from Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1978).

50. Philip Callahan, “Insects and the Battle of the Beams,” Fusion, Vol. 7, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1985, p. 27..

51 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. So You Wish to Learn All About Economics? A Text on Elementary Mathematical Economics (New York: New benjamin franklin House, 1984), chaps. 4 and 8.

52. Friedrich Schiller, “The Legislation of Lycurgus and Solon,” in Friedrich Schiller, Vol. II, op. cit.

53. Isocrates (of Plato's adversary, the Athens School of Rhetoric) and Isocrates' protege, Aristotle, were agents of Athens' enemy, King Philip of Macedon. Plato's Academy at Athens, shortly after Plato's death, backed Philip's son, and political adversary, Alexander the Great, against Philip's agent, and Alexander's mortal foe, Aristotle.

54. On oligarchism and pantheons, see text, below. The Delphic Cult of Apollo was the chief usurer of the Mediterranean littoral, and, as sponsor of Rome among the Latins, the key backer behind pagan Rome's step-wise advancement to imperial power.

55. See footnote 32..

56. Although there is no generally accepted crucial evidence against the opinion that Aristotle wrote these books, there is reason to suspect that much of the content may have been the work-product of others, notably Aristotle's Peripatetic collaborators. Either way, the moral assessment of Aristotle's thinking remains essentially the same.

57. William Golding, Lord of the Flies, (New York: Coward-McCann, 1962). Two motion picture versions of this title have been issued: 1963, directed by Peter Brook, produced by Allen-Hogdon-Two Arts; and 1990, directed by Harry Hook.

58. This signifies Christian as opposed to John Locke's definition of “natural law.” Cf. LaRouche, “The Science of Christian Economy,” chap. VIII, op. cit., pp. 301-359..

59. The liberator's trumpet is heard, and Rocco exclaims, “O, what is that? Almighty God!” Ludwig van Beethoven, Fidelio in Full Score (New York: Dover Publications, 1984).

60. See the cited passage from Adam Smith's The Theory of the Moral Sentiments (1759), in LaRouche, “The Science of Christian Economy,” op. cit., pp. 291-292..

61. Presumably, this “earthly paradise” is that of U.S. State Department ideologue Francis Fukuyama's The End of History. See Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).

62. See H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story, 1630-1754 (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1987), pps. 74-76, 158-201..

63. The well-known “free market” economist Adam Smith was a paid retainer of the British East India Company throughout most of his career. According to the family biography of William Petty, Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805), during a rather famous carriage ride to London in 1763, Lord Shelburne, a member of the East India Company's ruling ”secret committee,” commissioned Smith to prepare the research outline for an ambitious study of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The outcome of that Shelburne-Smith discussion was Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Smith's most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, was also written on commission from the East India Company, and was an attempt at regrouping Britain's empire following the loss of its crown colony in North America. In that latter study, which was harshly criticized by American System economist Henry Carey in his The Slave Trade: Domestic and Foreign (1853), Smith advocated the development of the opium trade from India as a means of securing hard currency. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and David P. Goldman, The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1980), pp. 97-124; see also Carol White, New Dark Ages, op. cit., pp. 312-321. For further details on Smith's relationship to the Earl of Shelburne, see Edmond George Petty-Fitzmaurice, The Life of William Petty, Earl of Shelburne, Afterwards First Marquis of Lansdowne (London: McMillan & Co., 1912).

64. Jeremy Bentham served as resident philosopher and counterinsurgency specialist for the British East India Company from 1776 through his death in 1830. He was one of the principal propagandists of the Enlightenment concept of the “pleasure-pain calculus,” which posited the idea that human beings are merely animals driven by the desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. An avowed enemy of the American Revolution, Bentham, operating out of the Earl of Shelburne's estate, ran a “radical writer's workshop” which produced many of the speeches and pamphlets for the Jacobins in France. He later entered into a close collaboration with the American traitor Aaron Burr, and was part of the Burr plot to establish a new British colony in what was later the Louisiana Territory. When Burr fled North America, he took up residence at Bentham's estate in England. Among Bentham's most noteworthy economic writings is his essay, “In Defence of Usury.”

65..Aristotle, “Organon,” in Basic Works, op. cit.

66. LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit.

67. See LaRouche, “Mozart's Revolution,” op. cit., footnote 41 on the priests of Apollo.

68. On “hereditary principle,” see LaRouche, “Metaphor,” op. cit., pp. 32-36..

69. See footnote 35..

Go to part II

top of page

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.