Lyndon LaRouche speech at Rome Tribunal, January 20, 1989 It's good to see you; it's good

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Lyndon LaRouche speech at Rome Tribunal, January 20, 1989 It's good to see you; it's good to be here. The art of warfare sometimes consists--as soon as you are engaged in one battle, or, to be more precise, as soon as you have engaged the adversary in one battle, start another on another flank! What I wish to do today, briefly in connection with the subject of economics, and particularly the question of and economics, is to continue a battle already begun with the aid of our dear professor Bartoli from Florence, is to make clear the moral importance for all humanity of the cupola of the dome of Florence. This object, the dome of Florence, this cupola, is the object in all the world by Moscow. The reason that Moscow hates this object, as do all Satanists, whether Communist or not, is that the cupola of the dome of Florence is coincident with the Council of Florence, on which all modern Western civilization is premised, immediately, and also because it expresses, in its construction, in the personalities who were responsible for the design and the accomplishment of its construction, it expresses the same principle which pervades the Council of Florence. Thus, this object embodies as a work of art, more than any other work of art, the entire Renaissance of Western civilization, after the terrible Dark Age of the 14th century. Now, Moscow is Satanic, and like all Satanic bodies, it believes in symbolic philosophy, which is another name for satanism, a polite, freemasonic term for satanism. Everything is symbols, because nothing is real. Moscow believes that the destruction of the Vatican and the destruction of the cupola symbolically assures the eternal imperial world rule of Moscow over this planet. There is something else about this cupola which is not accidentally to be found there. There is a quality in the way in which the construction, the most remarkable construction, of this cupola was effected, which is a quality of science not understood by over 95% of the leading professional physicists today. Not by the architects--most of the architects are idiots, like the Galileo Galilei, who could not understand the principle of construction of the cupola when he was asked to comment on it. Moreover, most physicists today would be incapable of understanding in principle what was clearly understood by Fillipo Brunelleschi, and also understood by Leonardo da Vinci and others later. This principle of physics takes us to the very frontier of the possibility of physical scientific discovery today. This was something that was understood in part in the last century by the great Beltrami, who called our attention to this aspect of the importance of the work of Brunelleschi and others on negative curvature. With that in view, I would like to present to you, in the context of the morality of economicss, a proposal that we all rally together with Professor Bartoli and the cupola of the dome of Florence, with these thoughts in view. First I shall summarize a few things which indicate what I mean by morality and economics. Most people who study economics today, at best learn some accounting; they learn nothing about economics. They learn about money. They learn nothing about economy--not as economy was understood in Italy, France, and Germany during the 17th and 18th centuries as , as physical economy, as the art of statecraft to promote the welfare and increase of the productive powers of labor. That is no longer studied, and therefore if one has an economic problem, the first thing one does in a prudent government is to lock the economists out until the problem has been solved, and bring in the physical scientists to deal with the problem first. Those of us who have had to deal with problems of management of industry and government, are well acquainted with the dangers of allowing an economist near economics. We can demonstrate very simply what the fundamental principle of economics is, the fundamental question. First, before you develop an answer, you should know what question is being asked, what question is being posed to us by nature that we have to answer, that we should call economics. Now, there are some people who are idiots who call themselves anthropolosgists. If you are not an idiot you would not call yourself an anthropologist. This is an outgrowth of the influence of people like August du Comte--the founder of positivism--in France in the Dark Ages of France of the 19th century. These fellows conjecture that 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, somewhere deep in the wilderness of what is called the Canezoid (sp?) period there was the earliest stage of man, still predominant on this globe. That stage was called simple hunting and gathering society--before bows and arrows, before the discovery of sticks, almost before the discovery of mud, people lived simply by gathering their food, animal or vegetable, from nature about them. Now, we have made some calculations as to, assuming this kind of society existed, what are the possibilities of human existence in this society. First of all, it would take about an average of 10 square kilometers of the wilderness land area of this planet to sustain an average individual in very miserable existence. This would mean the total planet population could never exceed 10 million human beings--these would be very miserable human beings. They would be living on a subsistence level of between 1,200 and 2,500 calories a day, average. They would have a life expectancy which is much below 20 years of age. It would be a society largely of babbling, stupid children and a few women acting as mothers and surrogate mothers for them. This is the only possibility. Then we come ahead to the present. We have reported recently that we have 5 people on this planet, not 10 million. Now that's three decimal orders of magnitude, approximately, greater than the anthropologists attribute to primitive man, and three decimal orders of magnitude greater than would be possible if the ecologists run the policies of the governments. Under the ecologists, we will not be satisfied till we go back to a state of perfect harmony with nature, which is 10 million people on the surface of this planet, at most. We have the possibility, in terms of technologies which existed by 1970, technologies which are partly in use, including nuclear energy, to be able to sustain, by now, somewhere between 15 and 25 billion people on the surface of this planet, with that technology, and that technology alone. We could have attained, with that technology, and that population density, a standard of living for the average person on this planet, comparable to that in industrialized nations of Western Europe and North America in 1970. We could have attained that standard of living, without question. With enough energy, with enough water management, with enough land management, with enough investment in capital- intensive loans and technology, that is perfectly feasible. We have before us today, the possibilies, first, of fusion energy, and then of the controlled matter-anti-matter reaction which will come down, over the course of the next century. We could increase that potential of mankind to a total planetary population in excess of 100 to 200 billion people, living much less crowded than they do in Belgium today, and at a much higher standard of living than anyone dreams of today. The important thing about ensuring human survival, physically, is to increase the human potential population density which raises the standard of living, increases the level of culture which can be materially supported for the average individual, and assures human survival. From the standpoint of physical economy, the capacity of mankind, through scientific and technical progress, to increase the potential population density of our species, and higher standards of living, is the characteristic of human behavior, which from the standpoint of the economist--the real economist, not the accounting variety--is the fundamental, empirical distinction between man and beast. It is this quality, this performance, which distinguishes and sets man apart from and above all beasts--unless man becomes an ecologist, in which case he aspires to descend to the state of a beast, morally and otherwise. What is the difference? Man has the capacity to generate and efficiently assimilate what we call fundamental scientific discoveries. This is true not only in terms of physical discoveries in science, this is true in great works of classical art, where the same principle of creativity is used. This is also true in a more fundamental way, as I shall indicate. Even parents, in giving birth to and raising a child, are expressing in that devotion to the development of the child, are expressing the same human principle, unlike that possible for any beast, which is the same principle expressed by the great scientist who makes a fundamental discovery in physical science and contributes to all mankind. Now, in the recent two centuries in particular, since the rise of the Enlightenment, Descartes, and Kant in particular, we human beings have lost something which our educated and literate forebears had command of. For example, when you speak of the word "metaphysics" today, people shudder, whereas our literate ancestors, several centuries ago, had no such problem. They understood that metaphysics was a branch of scientific knowledge, an area of certainty. How did it come about that this is no longer the case, bears directly upon this question and bears directly upon morality as expressed in economic policy, as I shall demonstrate. Kant, and Descartes, but take the case of Kant as an example, admitted that creative scientific discovery exists; that creative scientific discoveries have occurred. But he said, like Descartes, that it is impossible for the human mind to describe or represent the process by which these discoveries are made. The active creativity of the human being is to be treated as a mystery; that we have no way of accounting for it, no criteria to apply to determine what is creativity, what will foster it and what will not. Similarly, these fellows denied that the creativity in the universe at large could be understood, rendered intelligible. The very existence of the universe is unintelligible, and by implication, it is also the case, that from their line of argument, we cannot define an intelligible definition of the difference between living and dead matter. The problem is a very simple one. If we attempt to represent the world as Francis Bacon, as Galileo, as Decartes, as Newton, as Kant and others did, it is impossible to represent human creativity; it is impossible to represent a represent a process of universal creation; it is impossible to render an intelligible distinction between living and dead processes. You can only assert that it is living, in the case of living processes. I have devoted most of my life to that question, first in refuting Kant, who said that creativity is unknowable, and who also said that morality, esthetic and other morality, cannot be determined in an intelligible way. Out of Kant, and neo- Kantianism, and followers like Savigny, came the immorality and rise of Satanism in the 19th and 20th centuries; came the rise of modern liberalism, which is actually the portal, the gateway to Hell. Not only can we represent this process of creativity; not only can be understand this fundamental difference between living and non-living processes; but we can draw certain general conclusions of policy from them. On the one side, it is easily apparent, or used to be apparent, before 20 years ago, that scientific and technological progress, solves human problems, enables more human beings to live, increases productivity, and makes possible increases in the standard of living of the average individual. This permits human beings to survive, as by medical progress and so forth, in ways they could not survive before. From the material standpoint, the material advantage, and the material support of life and the conditions of life, by scientific and technological progress, were obvious to us at least 20 and more years ago. But in the more profound, or what some would say today the more aspect of this proposition, is not so easily grasped though it is more fundamental and far more important. When I as an individual, for example, make a contribution to fundamental scientific knowledge, I am not acting as a beast, I am acting as something much higher than a beast--I am committing the universal act. If I contribute, as an individual, to scientific knowledge, to man's understanding of the lawful ordering of the universe, I am increasing the power, potentially, of every living human being. I am increasing the power of future human generations, who will supersede anything I discover, but they will supersede it by standing upon the brick of contribution which I have laid, for all generations to come. I have also reached into the past, because to discover something today, means to honor the possiblities put into our hands by those who have come before us, and to fulfill, to help to complete that which previous generations have given us. As a child, or a grandchild, or a great grandchild, fulfills the possibilities provided by the ancestor, so we who in the present contribute to the future of mankind in this way, also honor and contribute to the fulfilment of the lives from the past. What does a parent lay down his or her life for, for a child or a grandchild, except the certainty that they create the possibilities for the development of the society, the nation, and humanity, through their children, their grandchildren and their great grandchildren. How can a person die with a smile on their face, a smile of contentment in the goodness of their own life, unless they know that life, in principle, has contributed something which will bear fruit in generations to come. Therefore, what is the function and technological progress, in particular? What is the function of creative art, in particular? Through these means, and related means, such as the creation and development of children, in all their potentialities of intellectual character possible to us, we rise above the animal, the beast. We become truly human. We rise to universal acts, we solve the Parmenedes paradox, in the way in which Nicholas of Cusa described in , we conquer the paradox of distinction between the individual and the unversal. We become with the universe, an instrument of the universe, we become a servant of universality. We contribute to the development of this capacity in ourselves and those about us. We exist to improve the power of self-development of mankind, the power of lessening the imperfections of mankind. That is what it is to be human. All the tangible, material things we contribute, however necessary as well as useful, they pass. The foundations we lay, crumble as future generations lay their foundations upon our crumbling contributions. What remains permanent, what is durable, what is timeless, is only that which we do, which fulfills the possibilities supplied to us by our forbears, and which lays the foundations for the future. These kinds of questions show more clearly what is immoral about the society of our time. Every individual human being who is born, even those who are brain damanged from birth, who can sometimes show us human qualities in even their smiles in certain circumstances, each of us has a potentiality for good, for participating in universal acts, in the furtherance of universal acts. Each newborn human being is , has a precious potential. When we say, that there are too many of them, that is a lie. There are not too many human beings, there could not possibly be too many human beings; we could not make too many human beings. Moreover, each human being is potentially a source of contribution to all humanity. We have moral responsibility, or we become as nothing, to make possible the development, to the fullest possiblity, of the moral and intellecutal potential of every newborn human being. That is our existence; that should be our sense of identity, that we find in each of us, our own choice of profession by which we devote ourselves to fulfill that responsibility. We are going to make a contribution to help the development of every human being who has been born, so that human being has the possbility of making a more significant commitment to a universal act. If we undertand that, then we have bridged this false dichotomy between the material and the spiritual. There is no dichotomy. The one is the means to the other's ends. The material means enable us to support life, to devote energy to the development character and intellectu of the individual. The material means enable us to develop what we call classical art. Let me take just one more aspect of classical art before coming back to the question of the cupola. Classical art we can be very precise about. Kant in particular postulated the thesis that there are no intelligible criteria of esthetic values in fine arts. Kant's thesis was used in the guise of neo-Kantianism, to rationalize the destruction of art in Germany in particular, through the influence of Karl Savigny, who was probably about as close to Satan as anyone came in the 19th century, if it wasn't John Ruskin in England, who tried hard. Savigny taught, that between natural philosophy, and what he called there is an absolute, hermetic separation, so that the two have no common ground. He used this to justify immorality in statecraft, to say there is no rational basis for judging the consequences of public policy, that it is merely a matter of opinion. We have today, under the influence of the Romantics and the more radical romantics, who were called modernists, it has become popular to say that art is a matter of opinion, of the , that it is a matter of particular moods of particular people and customs of the times. In point of fact, that standards of esthetics for art are as precise as those of science, and sometimes more precise, as Leonardo da Vinci understood. Since the classical Greeks from Athens, mankind has understood that that which we call beauty of form, in art, is that which is comparable with the harmonic ordering of living processes, and human processes in particular. With Leonardo's work, and the work of others, we understand that this distinction between the harmonic orderings congruent with the Golden Section, and those not congruent with the Golden Section, is the difference between living and dead processes. To us, beauty is in first approximation, in form a matter of the forms of healthy living processes. Life is beautiful; death is ugly. Classical fine art, properly appreciated, is beauty. Rock is death. Modernism is death. This coincidence with science on this question, is the key to understand both the human mind and understand the importance of the cupola of the cathedral of Florence. I will just identify this without going into detail. I shall be working on this to the limit of my abilities, as I already am, for as long as possible, until we solve it. Beginning with the work of Cusa, but already implicit in work of Toscanelli and Brunelleschi, the development and understanding of the problem posed by Plato, in a number of his writings, including the , that what we see with our senses, particularly our visual senses, is as but the shadows on the wall of a darkened cave, cast by firelight in that cave. In physics, what Plato has said translates as invariants of conformal sterographic projection. It is a very simple principle of 19th century physics, known before. This aspect of Plato's work on science, was taken up by the Golden Renaissance, to such effect that the genius of the construction of the cupola of the dome of Florence is based on recognizing the implications of that point of Plato's. Brunelleschi among others, says that certain anomalies in the field of vision, are the keys to understanding the laws of physics. On that basis, Brunelleschi, like Leonardo after him, dealt with the problem which we call negative curvature. The way that Brunelleschi solved the problem of constructing the cupola, was based on the use of the which is a form of negative curvature, which happens to be also what is called an isochronic form. I will just skip over these points; you will hear much about them from friends of mine and I in the coming period, but I merely want to identify the importance of this. In the context of this, Cusa and others came with two approaches to understand the laws of physics. What is the universe, the real universe, is a little different from what we think we see with our senses, naively. How can we understand that universe, and how can we adjust to it, work in it? The Golden Renaissance developed a concept called the principle of least action, which became established by people like Fermal (sp?) later, and Leibnitz in particular. All modern physics is based on that work--the work of Kepler is based on that, the work of Gauss, the work of Riemann and so forth. The work of Beltrami, who is our takeoff point, for this particular project, was based in particular on that. Least action means that in the universe, primary action occurs upon that is called the least pathway, and occurs in the least time. The combination of least pathway and least time, a kind of geometric combination, represents a pathway of physical least action, and all action in the universe is based on physical least action defined as the conjugation of least pathway and least time. What Beltrami called attention to, was that in the work of Riemann, who was one of his teachers and collaborators, along with Betti (sp?) that the question of least pathway was very well understood, particularly in a Riemann surface function, is understood by all modern hydrodynamic specialists who worked in that school. What has not been resolved systemically, is the relationship between the least pathway and least time, which involves isochronic curvature, of which the catenary is one form. This is the work I am devoting my life at present, in terms of scientific work: the work of Brunelleschi in designing the construction of the cupola of the dome of Florence, is an application of the solution of this problem, in principle, and therefore, as we step forward through mastery of this connection, this problem of intelligible representation of least action, as we march forward into that, into the mastery of the matter-anti- matter reaction, which us three orders of magnitude greater energy than we have ever had for mankind before, we will actually be marching forward from a principle which is implicitly already embedded in the design of the cupola of the dome of Florence. Therefore as affirming the principle of beauty, the equivalence of truth, beauty, love of God, and love of mankind, as the single principle of classical fine art, so the complement to that is to affirm the same principle in physical science, the same state of mind, the same attitude, and that work of art, that object, that symbol so hated by the Soviet government, the cupola of the dome of Florence, is the second flank. Let us win the battle for the principle of the eqivalence of truth, beauty, love of God and love of mankind, in art. Affirm the intelligibilty of that principle, to bring beauty and its contribution to the development of the character of the individual, back to mankind, and to children above all. Let us at the same time, take the idea of science out of mysticism, bring it back to intelligibility, focus that question of intelligibility on the next breakthrough to be made in general in science for the benefit of mankind. Then let us take the two things together, the affirmation of the principle of esthetics, and the affirmation of the principle of scientific progress, and let us use that, to teach mankind the principle of humanity, that it is not what we do as thing which is important, it is what we contribute to all mankind. It is what we enable one another to do into contributing not simply a useful act, but to living a life which, from whatever its beginning to whatever its end, is a life equivalent to a universal act, a life in which the individual, mortal, fragile individual, becomes an efficient servant of the universal, and therefore can walk through life, and to death, with joy knowing that life is good--that is the fundamental principle.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank