LaRouche: »Det vigtigste spørgsmål, som mennesket star overfor, er, hvilke er de eksisterende potentialer, på hvilke menneskets fremtid beror? Hvilke er de videnskabelige opdagelser, der må gøres af den unikt kreative art, som er menneskeheden, og på basis af hvilke vi kan skabe en sand og vedvarende fremtid for den menneskelige art?«
Engelsk udskrift:
WHAT ARE THE EXISTING POTENTIALS WHICH MUST BE
DEVELOPED IF WE ARE TO GIVE MANKIND A FUTURE?
LaRouche PAC International Webcast
September 30, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon! It is September 30, 2016.
My name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our
weekly LaRouche PAC webcast on Friday evening. I'm joined in the
studio by Jason Ross and Benjamin Deniston of the LaRouche PAC
science team, and via video by Diane Sare and Michael Steger,
both of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
We spoke with Lyndon LaRouche just a short time ago, and Mr.
LaRouche's opening remarks are as follows: He says, "The most
important question facing mankind is what are the existing
potentials on which mankind's future depends? What are the
scientific discoveries that must be made by the uniquely creative
species that is mankind on which we can create a true and
sustainable future for the human species?" Not a practical
question, but a truly scientific question in a truly scientific
sense. Now Mr. LaRouche's remarks come right in the wake of the
absolutely victory, the deafening defeat that we have delivered
to Barack Obama with the resounding override in both Houses of
the United States Congress — both the Senate and the House — of
Obama's veto of the JASTA bill. It's widely acknowledged that
the LaRouche Movement, those of you who are watching this
broadcast here today, played a central role in that victory
alongside the 9/11 families. I think it's clear that the
courageous and consistent and sustained leadership of Mr.
LaRouche himself on this, has delivered this historic defeat of
Obama.
Now we know, as Obama's disgustingly arrogant response to
this override that was handed to him demonstrates very clearly,
where he said, "This is the most embarrassing moment in the
history of the United States Senate," and so forth; you're
dealing with a narcissist here. And a narcissist, when delivered
this kind of defeat, is very dangerous. And we're seeing the
danger of the escalation to the point of nuclear war of Obama's
personal desire to confront both Russia and China; the refusal to
allow the peace process in Syria to work. And also the total
breakdown of Deutsche Bank, number one, and the entire rest of
the financial system. It's been said that this is a zombie bank
walking which is creating a zombie economy; this is way worse
than the Lehman process. So, the next step is obviously the
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall.
However, as Mr. LaRouche was emphatic today — and we are
going to have his remarks written up and circulated widely for
you to read verbatim — the solution to this is not a practical
question. We need to throw in the garbage can all the failed
ways of thinking; and we need to create an entirely new outlook
on mankind's relationship to the Universe. So, we're going to
have a somewhat in-depth presentation and discussion on some of
those questions here today. We thank you for joining that
discussion, and hope to have full participation. So, I'm going
to hand it over to Ben to get that discussion started.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: I think Mr. LaRouche definitely raised
the bar in our discussion with him this morning; and I think it's
a very apt and useful intervention into the way many people are
thinking about the situation, because as you said, we've had a
huge victory with Obama being just slammed on his attempted
treasonous veto of the JASTA bill and protection of the Saudis.
So, this is a major victory, but coming out of the discussion
with Mr. LaRouche, I think it's a victory for our cause as a
movement that Mr. LaRouche has uniquely created; and our mission
as a movement, which is to move mankind forward from the highest
level. This is not just a victory in terms of DC politics; it's
not just a victory in terms of party debates and the normal terms
of politics people think of in the United States today. It's a
victory in terms of our mission as an organization to go from the
highest historical, scientific level, understanding what the heck
is mankind on this planet. What are we trying to do; what is our
mission as a species here? That's what we're fighting on; we
have to deal with these kinds of issues, and we have to defeat
these terrible forces that are holding mankind back — Obama is
exemplary, the Saudis are exemplary. But victories against these
evils are victories for the cause of real progress; real economic
progress as Mr. LaRouche understands it.
As he said earlier today, real economics as he understands
it, is very different than what normal people think about
economics. It's not just about money issues, or even production
or products or something like that; but if you're talking about
economics, you're talking about the human species. You're
talking about how do we progress; how do we move mankind forward?
Progress for mankind has always been, and will always continue to
be if we continue to exist, fundamental creative revolutions in
what the human species really is. It's not about how much you
produce, the productivity of your labor force, how much credit
you're spending, how much money you're putting in. Those are
components, but if you're talking about real, fundamental human
progress, economic progress, the core goes to how is that mankind
uniquely completely changes the nature of his existence on this
planet in this Universe more generally? That's something mankind
does; the entire history of mankind, when we haven't been held
back by empires, oligarchical systems, degenerate ideologies as
we have largely dominating today. Mankind's nature is complete
revolutions where in effect, it's as if we really create the
human species anew on a higher level. So, that's our mission as
mankind today; that's what the fight is today.
From the discussion and Mr. LaRouche's emphasis, he is
emphasizing that this has to be upfront and center. That's what
we're fighting for; that's our mission on this planet. That
means science; that means real science. That means going into
space; that means what China is doing with their lunar program.
Bringing mankind into the Solar System as a real creative force
in the Solar System in the way mankind has never done. What
China's doing with their lunar program, their current focus on
the lunar far side; a completely mysterious area in many degrees.
A region that is absolutely unique in the immediate vicinity
around the Earth; that will give us completely new insights into
the Universe more broadly. These are the kinds of pursuits that
enable mankind to come to these new, higher levels.
One thing I wanted to put on the table today, a subject
that's been a longstanding discussion with Mr. LaRouche and our
science team, is this issue of the Galaxy, the galactic system.
This defines a new frontier, the new domains of scientific
revolution that are the substance of what mankind does to
completely transform his existence. I think it's apt in the
context of this victory to assess what these new future
discoveries can be; what we should be looking towards. Because
as he said earlier today, it's not just about repeating something
you've done before; it's always something fundamentally new. And
the Galaxy is something fundamentally new, really. We don't
understand how the Galaxy works, and we know coming to a higher
understanding of that — a real scientific understanding of that
— is the kind of thing that will transform what mankind is in
the most fundamental sense in this Universe.
So, we're living in this galactic system; and again, this
determines more about our lives here on Earth than people tend to
realize. This is still a very slow realization; only a handful
of the population — small layers in the scientific community —
are really pursuing and presenting that. The conditions here on
Earth that we live in and experience are not Earth conditions;
they're not even Solar System conditions. They're galactic
conditions. Just to highlight one example we've discussed
before, we're living in a galactic climate. If you look at the
Earth as it exists today, the largest scales of climate change
that occur, are a function of our relationship to our galactic
system, for example. We're used to the Earth as it is today.
For much of modern civilization, the Earth has been relatively
similar to how it is today; but the conditions that we experience
now are a function, to a very large degree, of our current
galactic relationship.
For example, we've cited that on very long timescales, the
motion of our Solar System into and out of the Galaxy's spiral
arms, for example, determines some of the largest variations we
see in the climate record. The reason why we have ice-caps at
all, for example; you look at a map, you see Antarctica, it's
covered in ice. You ever see it not covered in ice? You ever
gone to the islands of Antarctica and visited lakes there, fished
on Antarctica and seen the wildlife there? No, no human being
has ever experienced that; it used to be like that. It used to
just be a land-exposed continent like the other continents. Why
is it not like that now? Because of a function of our galactic
position, we're in a large-scale glacial period that the Earth
periodically goes through as a function of our galactic
relationship currently. So, the conditions that we experience,
that we're used to, that we see on Earth, are largely a function
of these larger processes; that being just one example.
We had discussed on one of the New Paradigm shows recently,
a new paper that came out that demonstrated this in a new way.
Demonstrating more clearly that the conditions of the atmosphere,
the water cycle, the cloud systems — which play a huge role in
climate — are being hour-to-hour, day-to-day affected by this
galactic influence. Even just a one-day perturbation of that
galactic influence, you can immediately measure the effects. So
when the Sun gets more active and shields the Earth from this
galactic radiation effect for just the course of a couple days,
within days after that, you can measure changes in the cloud
cover, changes in the water cycle of the atmosphere. So, this
galactic input, this radiation, this effect of what we call the
atmospheric system of the Galaxy, is a continuous input that
determines the conditions we experience here on Earth.
That's just an opening example to start to get people to
think about the fact that we're part of this much larger system.
We're not living on Earth and there's some galaxy out there;
we've living in the galaxy. The galaxy is what we're a part of.
It's a larger system, but the point is, it's a larger system we
don't yet understand. To draw an analogy, it's like looking at
the Solar System before the time of Kepler. The Earth was part
of the Solar System, but it was not understood; we did not
understand the principle of the Solar System. It took a real
creative revolution, a creative discovery to understand that. We
have not yet done that for this larger galactic system. We have
not yet gone through the type of creative discovery that really
elevates mankind to a new level of fundamental relationship to
the universe by understanding these higher order principles of
the galactic system.
A lot can be said, but just to point to another example, we
have some sense of the Solar System's orbiting through the
galaxy, moving through the galaxy. We have some sense, according
to the records, that that determines climate change; potentially
evolution, the development of life are also things that have been
related to the relation of our Solar System to the galaxy. Those
are large topics I'm just citing; a lot could be said on this.
We have a sense of these records, and the relation of these
records; but the actual fundamental basic principle governing the
orbit of our Solar System around the galaxy, or any star around
the galaxy is not understood. We don't even understand the basic
principles of the orbital relations of stars in the galaxy. This
has been cited as a reason to invoke this whole investigation of
so-called "dark matter"; it's another subject that would take
some time to get into. But the point is, we can't even explain
the orbital periods of stars around galaxies with our current
understandings of the way galaxy are organized and the principles
governing galactic systems.
Not to be too linear about it, I think it's worth drawing a
direct relation to science and astronomy before the time of
Kepler. Where, for example, you had the attempt to extrapolate
from prior conceptions, prior knowledge, a certain way of
modelling the Solar System and explaining certain observations.
You had models of the Solar System done by Ptolemy, done by Tyco
Brahe, done by Copernicus — something people may be more
familiar with. But in a sense, all of those attempts to explain
the motions of the planets, to explain the Solar System at those
times, were extrapolations from a certain assumed method of
thinking the way the universe functioned.
What Kepler did was fundamentally different, by actually
making a discovery. He didn't just extrapolate, extend further,
prior conceptions of how the solar system worked — how they
thought it worked, how they assumed it worked, based on certain
assumptions. He introduced a discovery, something that {he}
generated, uniquely, as a creative thought, and that was what
allowed mankind to know the solar system, not an extrapolation
from observation, not an extrapolation from data, but an actual
{discovery}.
I think that really goes to the core of what Mr. LaRouche
has spent decades trying to address, which is that issue of {real
creative discovery}, as opposed to {description}, as opposed to
what gets discussed often as science today, which is much more
empirical descriptions of observation, maybe coming up with
certain formulas or certain descriptive relations that describe
phenomena, {versus} the idea that there is something
fundamentally {different} about what the human mind can generate
as a completely new idea, which does not come from the
observations, {per se}. Kepler is a very good example of that.
Einstein is a very good example of that.
That's the kind of thinking that we need, if we're going to
move the human species forward. I think that's Mr. LaRouche's
point. We're at a point now, where, if we're going to move
mankind in his natural, creative, human direction, it requires
these kinds of revolutionary discoveries of the very fundamental
organization of the universe. That does not come from the type of
so-called "science" that's often taught today, which, I think, is
why Mr. LaRouche is highlighting Einstein as such a {critical}
figure at this point, one of the last people who really had an
insight into this fundamental difference between real human
creative discovery and mere description, mere observation. A lot
can be said about that.
I just want to cite one more example, before getting into
maybe some discussion about this. Recently we just got, I think,
a very interesting new, initial, preliminary of many of the stars
surrounding us in our galaxy. This comes from the so-called Gaia
satellite. What that Gaia satellite is doing now, is mapping very
precisely the positions and the motions of a billion stars
surrounding us. We'll have to wait a few years for the full map
to be created. But this is a very exciting, very interesting
mission that's going on right now. We're going to have a map of
the motions — direct observations of the motions and the
directions — of a billion stars surrounding us. This is going to
give us the best observational data we've ever had about how our
galaxy functions, how any galaxy functions, really. We're going
to have direct measurements of a substantial — still small, but
substantial — sections of our galactic system as a whole. We
will then be able to measure, with more accuracy than ever, how
things are moving, where things are moving, what structures are
there, how different structures are moving.
But, if we don't then continue to then put the emphasis on
the issue of actual creative discovery, that's not going to do
the trick. That's going to take us one step. I think the most apt
comparison is Tycho Brahe had made the most accurate observations
of the motions of the planets up to his time. But when he tried
to explain the solar system, and how the planets moved, he just
had another iteration, based on the same assumptions as his
predecessors, as Copernicus, as Ptolemy. Even though he had the
data, he didn't make the "discovery," to put it in very simple
terms. Kepler did. Kepler was able to use that same data to
actually make a discovery. He needed the data to do it, but it
was something that {he} was able to generate in his own mind,
that was the discovery, that was what allowed mankind to really
change the way he exists in the universe, by moving to an
understanding of the {principles} organizing the galactic system.
I think these are the kind of examples and reference points
that we can look to today, for the kind of challenge we are
facing now. We're part of this galaxy. This galaxy represents
higher-order principles of organization of the universe as we
understand it — the universe that we're a part of. Mankind,
uniquely, can discover these things, but only when we recognize
that it's not just coming from observations or descriptions, but
it is the issue of something unique about the human mind and
creativity, that is the real substance of science.
I'm certainly no expert on Einstein, but Mr. LaRouche has
put a large emphasis on the importance of Einstein's work. As far
as I understand it, [Einstein is] one of the last — if not the
last — leading scientist who really waged a fight on this issue,
who really had some insight into the fact that there is something
remarkable about the fact that the human mind can come to know
the fundamental, unseen, organizing principles of the universe. I
haven't seen Einstein reflect on his own work in this way, but I
think it's rather interesting to just look at his work and the
implication of his work on Relativity, where he shows that your
basic ideas of space, of time, are not the way the universe is
organized. To take it maybe closer to Mr. LaRouche's work, your
sense-perceptual interpretation of the universe does not give you
a direct understanding for how the universe is actually
organized.
But there is something within mankind that's not from
sense-perception, that's not just from observation, that's not
just from descriptions of data, some potential that mankind has,
to come to know the causes, the principles, that are not
accessible to sense-perception. At the very heart of it, that is
the substance of what enables mankind to be a unique species on
this planet. We talk about economics and growth and progress. It
is those kinds of revolutions, not economic growth, [but]
complete revolutions in what mankind is and what mankind can do
on this planet, [that] fundamentally transforms the nature of our
existence.
If you look at what level of society existed 1000 years ago,
2000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, to today; that's not just an
incremental process of finding and exploiting new wealth, or
something. That [progression] is a function of complete
revolutions in the very fundamental way mankind relates to the
universe. That is our mission today. That's something that's been
attacked and written out of science, written out of education,
largely, today: this critical issue of actual creative discovery.
Again, I think Mr. LaRouche has defined this and illustrated
this better than anyone else I've ever seen: the intimate
relation between {that} process and what really moves society
forward, what really moves mankind forward.
The challenge that Mr. LaRouche put to us today, I think, is
that we're at an historical moment. This is an historical
victory. It's not completed, it's not over. There's still a
{major] fight going on. But this opens up the potential to
actually have some positive solutions. But those positive
solutions are not what people normally think about, in terms of
"positive solutions", in society today. It's not just about
taking on the banks and giving some of their money to other
people and redistributing the wealth. We're fighting on a much
higher level. It's about how do we actually move human society
forward, and what does that mean? That means these kinds of
issues: the genius of Einstein, the genius of Kepler; looking to
the new areas — the galaxy, the far side of the Moon.
I know that's a very brief and general coverage of a lot of
stuff. But I think that's some of the framework that we should
discuss, because I think that's the real challenge we have,
uniquely, as this organization — the LaRouche organization — to
fight on that level. I'm sure that other people have some
thoughts, but I think Mr. LaRouche definitely intervened with a
very provocative and challenging focus today, and I think this is
maybe a way to open it up and get the discussion going.
DIANE SARE: I just wanted to take a couple examples, because
it is very provocative. In Einstein's letters, he makes the
point. He said, of course there's a place for empirical evidence
in science, but the more important the discovery, the smaller the
role of empirical evidence is. When you think about, for example,
Kepler, or his conception of the universe — which is a real
challenge to think about what each one of us is, potentially, as
a human being, and a great deal of faith in Reason, or what it
means to be created in the image of the Creator — Kepler had an
idea in his mind of a view of the solar system from the vantage
point of standing on the Sun, as if you were on the Sun at the
center, or slightly off-center, since we donât have circular
orbits of the solar system.
Now think about, in his day, what that looked like. Not only
had we never gone to the Moon, we didn't even have an automobile!
I mean, you're talking about the 1600's. So, how is it that
Kepler has a conception of the solar system, as if perceived from
the Sun? And then his ability, in his own mind, to develop a
conception of what that would mean, in terms of the relationships
among the planets, which Cusa, who was even earlier and did not
have the benefit of Tycho Brahe's observations, yet Cusa had a
certain very clear hypothesis, simply through Reason, about the
way that the solar system could be ordered or had to be ordered,
just based on his ability to try and think as if he were the
Creator. How might the Creator of the universe think about what
this is?
Similarly with Einstein, we had a discussion on one of the
Thursday night Fireside Chats. The caller clearly had read
Einstein, and he said this seems more like an essay or a
philosophical discussion, than what he would typically think of
as "hard science," because, similarly, Einstein was dealing with
Reason. In other words, we have not, so far, had a train that
goes anywhere near the speed of light, and if one did, I'm not
really sure how well you could see it, if you were standing on a
bank, trying to watch what was going on in such a train.
But Einstein was able to construct "experiments" {in his
mind}, which may have been provoked by something was observed or
a phenomena that was not explained. The other thing that he said,
which I found very provocative; he was writing a letter to a
friend of his who was, I think, a physicist, and he said, "You
know, I really admire the work that you do, because the best you
can get, in scientific experiments, is 'Maybe.' That is, you can
get an outright 'No,' like you have a hypothesis, you try to
construct it, you try to demonstrate it, and the thing flops, and
then you know that the universe definitely doesn't work {that}
way. But, you could construct an experiment, and then you get the
result that you're hypothesizing, and then you say, Okay, well it
seems that, perhaps, the universe does work {this} way." And
Einstein then, of course, says that "The best you get is a
'Maybe,' which always will ultimately will become a 'No,"
because, as science advances, then, ultimately, you will discover
that what seemed to be true in your initial hypothesis, actually
is not the whole truth at all."
Therefore, Mr. LaRouche's challenge to us today about
developing new types of science. In other words, there are
principles which, even to conceive of them, would require a leap
beyond, and then the ability, almost, to look back on ourselves,
as if from above, or as if from some future point, to determine
what should be the next step.
JASON ROSS: I really liked what you had brought up from
Einstein about how discoveries will rely less on empirical data;
you had brought that up as something that he was saying, because
it's a great example. None of the things, many of the things he
predicted, it's not that things had been observed and no
explanation was available, which he then came up with an
explanation for. He did some of that. But the other thing he
did was to forecast events occurring, forecast scientific
experiments that could be performed that had never been seen
before. People couldn't explain why Mercury's orbit moved the
way that it did until Einstein; that was already a problem. But
nobody had seen light bend around the Sun and wondered why it
occurred. Nobody had noticed that the kind of light emitted
changed depending on the gravitational field it was emitted in.
These weren't problems that needed a solution; they were things
that Einstein — from very simple principles — realized would
have to come about.
I think another thing that's very important about him is
that he was active in many other fields. In other words, he had
a very pervading sense of justice and of honesty, a disdain for
authority in the sense that he should come to his own conclusions
about things and then stick with them once he came to them. This
is what made it possible for to do things like discard the
notions of space and time that people had. This wasn't an easy
thing; it was a difficult concept to get, it was shocking to
Einstein as well. But he realized that it had to be the case.
He also was very adamant in his day — see, people alive and
maybe some of our viewers can recall this; during Einstein's
life, he was known as an outspoken political figure. He made
commentary on political events all the time, and as far as the
coverage that he got in newspapers, a lot of it was about what he
did with science; but a lot of it was about his stands on things.
For example, he said that academics should just refuse to testify
at the McCarthy hearings. He said, "Don't use the 5th Amendment
as an excuse, use the 1st! You should be able to say what you
think and discuss ideas without being called to account by the
government for it. What is this, Nazi Germany?" He saw the
anti-Communist crusades being conducted as being very similar to
something he saw in Germany; where the Nazis began by taking out
the Communists.
OGDEN: It earned him a very extensive FBI file.
ROSS: Yes, an 1800-page FBI file, full of mostly crap.
Well, if you're trying to make someone good look bad, you're
going to have to fill your file with a bunch of crap. It was
astonishingly incompetent by the FBI, although maybe it's par for
the course for them.
The other thing, take racism, for example. This is
something that he spoke frequently about; that he made an
exception to his general tendency not to go to ceremonies at
colleges to get honorary degrees. He had had enough; he found
the ceremonies sort of obnoxious. But he made an exception to go
to what billed itself as the first institute for higher learning
for blacks in the United States — Lincoln University. He went
there to get his honorary degree and lecture on relativity and on
racism. So, he was a committed overall person, who also had his
standards — I'll bring up one more topic — in music and
culture. His use of the violin is famous; his affection for
music is well-known. He played his violin at events, benefit
concerts. Once when he was asked to give a speech, he said, "You
know, I'm going to play my violin instead; I don't really have
anything to add to what the other speakers said." So, he pulled
it out and performed.
He lived at a time — think about this — the early 1900s,
the first half of the 20th Century. This is a period that Lyndon
LaRouche has identified as a willful destruction of culture —
both in science with the replacement of science by mathematics,
and culturally after the death of Brahms by a changing basis of
what it would mean to be culture or to be music. Where anything
goes, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", which invites the
audience to join him in a murder of a virgin to satisfy the gods,
is considered to be art in just the same way that Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony, the {Ode to Joy}, the sense that all men are
brothers, is art. So, a rejection of reason in the domain of
culture; a rejection of reason in the domain of science.
I'll just end with one example on that, which is the field
of quantum study; where Einstein, although really pioneering the
field of quantum physics, towards the end of his life was seen as
an outcast because he held to the notion that fundamentally the
universe is real and that it's reasonable. Those concepts were
rejected in what became prevalent quantum mechanics, by his
friend Nils Bohr, for example; who said that because of what
seems to be a lack of determination or of cause when we look at
processes in the very small, we would have to abandon that
concept. We would have to abandon the concept that there is a
real world independent of our observations. In a very crude way,
what becomes science, is going right back to what Ben had
mentioned about Tyco Brahe; science is set back to the idea that
what can we say about things that we observe. That was the view
of Heisenberg, for example. What can we say about observations
we might make? And throw away the idea that there's something
real underneath it; something real that's susceptible to human
reason and that should make sense to us as a human-like idea; the
same way that was attacked in culture. So, I think those are
several other reasons that Einstein absolutely stands out as a
scientific genius and as an incredibly moral person, who allowed
his convictions and his honesty to guide in other fields as well.
Who didn't limit himself to being a scientist, but in fact used
the notoriety he received from what he had done in that field to
advance other causes that he thought the world needed to take on.
MICHAEL STEGER: Yeah, I think you'd be hard pressed to find
someone, if they're a scientific genius, if they're not of a
higher moral quality. The discussion so far I think has been
very relevant, because over the course of the last 30 days, we
have clearly gone into a different period. We are at a point
that mankind has never been before. That's not simply from the
standpoint of a timeline perspective; we are at a qualitative —
these last 30 days have seen a qualitative transformation in the
condition of mankind. But that cannot be measured from past
events; it can't be measured based on anything mankind has ever
experienced before. It has to be measured on where we're now
going to take this new condition of mankind. What is going to be
the direction? What is the scope or perspective of mankind's
actions in the universe? What new discoveries, what new
principles will be discovered that create the conditions for
mankind to substantiate and develop an entirely new human
species? The level of coordination on this planet now among
nations is of an extraordinary level; one that's unprecedented.
That major nations on the planet today have a capability of
coordinating the most broad and in-depth scientific and
technological revolution that mankind has ever seen, among
billions of human beings. That is something that is beyond
unprecedented; it is a fundamental shift in the universe itself.
This recent expression of humanity within the US Congress only
typifies what more is possible; because we are now in a
condition. What China has established with its space program,
and the capability that you have within the major nations; you
see endeavors by India, by Russia, by nations of South America,
Africa, Europe. And really a revival of the United States
towards this question of what is mankind in the universe. These
bigger questions ultimately, in the pursuit of discoveries as
we've seen with Kepler and Einstein, ultimately have to shape the
policies themselves that coordinate the development of our nation
and of mankind as a whole.
This New Silk Road perspective is now becoming an entrenched
factor for a growing majority of the population on the planet.
Over 4 billion people are already encompassed by the policy.
This will likely take another billion people out of poverty over
the course of the next 20 years; and that would be at a slow
pace. If the United States immediately moves under these kinds
of financial breakdown circumstances that are ongoing now; this
system — as Mr. LaRouche said yesterday — the crash is on.
It's coming; it's here. It's not something you have to argue;
it's not something you have to look for indications. It's
practically right in front of your face; that's partly why most
people can't see it. There is that quality of shift, and under
these kinds of circumstances, the question does come up. We are
looking at, that what we know of mankind thus far is
insufficient; we have to call upon the creative scientists and
artists of our society and of the world to participate in a
re-conceiving of mankind's new future. I think this is really
the endeavor; if you look at individuals like Brunelleschi or
Cusa.
We had a discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche a few weeks
ago. This question of, it almost seems as if it comes out of the
blue; a new quality of human identity emerges. Something that no
one had ever even conceived of before, and yet once it's
introduced and takes hold, it seems as if it's the most natural
characteristic. Yet, it's a fundamental leap. The characteristic
of mankind since the Italian Renaissance, the level of population
growth, the potential density of mankind on this planet and in
the universe fundamentally changed; it's an undeniable empirical
fact that that had happened. Yet, the cause of it was the
unleashing of mankind's new creative potential. I think that's
the responsibility that we have as a nation and as a species for
the future of mankind; to unfold that characteristic of mankind.
I think what Ben raised on the galaxy ultimately captures it;
because as the Solar System did for Kepler, the galaxy today
presents that next unfolding of the universe in its discovery for
us. We are at a new era of mankind; and we must move so rapidly
to consolidate that potential, because it's something that
requires constant creative input and discovery. It will never
rest on its own. It will require from this day forward, a higher
quality of creative thought than mankind has thus far been
capable of generating.
I think as we probably all agree, Mr. LaRouche has been the
key figure in initiating this potential and this possibility.
But it's something that really lies upon all of us to continue
and to advance. So, I'll leave my comments there; perhaps there
are some other thoughts.
OGDEN: One of the things that Jason mentioned, the role
that music played as an integral part of Einstein's identity, is
something that can't be overestimated. I think it's often very
underestimated, even though it's a well-known fact among some
circles. I think the other thing that cannot be underestimated
is the role that the music program that's been initiated by Mr.
LaRouche and others who are on this discussion here today, has
played in changing the United States. One thing that's very
clear, is that nobody really expected this great victory that
occurred this week to happen; it kind of came out of the blue. I
don't think that the Obama White House really expected that
Congress was going to grow a spine and stand up to him and
deliver this kind of rebuke. I don't think the Saudis were
expecting that they were going to have to pull out $5 million and
all the stops and try to intimidate Congress at the very last
minute. Where did it come from? I think it's an ingredient that
people might not understand when they have their heads in the
practical world of politics. And it's very much what happened
two weeks ago up in New York City. A series of concerts of the
Mozart {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals that were
performed by the Schiller Institute chorus; and performed in
memory of the victims of 9/11, but also for the cause of justice.
To remoralize those people who, for the last 15 years, have been
so beaten down by the Bush-Obama paradigm; to remoralize them and
to create that surge of optimism for victory that was required to
secure what happened this week. We know that Terry Strada
herself was involved in and was personally present at one of
those concerts, and gave a very impassioned speech beforehand on
the necessity for securing all-out victory on the fight for JASTA
against Obama. But we were told by some of the members of the
9/11 Families this week, that the sound of those concerts was
still ringing in their ears; and I think that is something that
has had an effect in New York City and a radiating effect across
the entirety of the United States. Which is compounded by the
victory that occurred this week, but it's inseparable; those two
elements. I know, Diane, tonight in New York, John Sigerson —
who was the conductor of that series of concerts — is going to
be giving a presentation on the scientific rigor, the scientific
principles underlying truthful musical performance with the
unique Verdi tuning that those performances were presented at. I
think this is going to be a sort of continual echo back and
forth; the political victories and the musical accomplishments
that have occurred and will continue to occur, emanating out of
the Manhattan Project.
SARE: I think a part of the power of the music is like
making a scientific discovery. When you participate in something
which is actually beautiful in the most scientific sense of
beauty, you are reminded of your identity as a human being. When
we remind ourselves of that principle of what it actually means
to be human, there are certain forms of injustice which simply
are not tolerable. Things that would make us scared on a lower
level if you think of yourself as an animal, or you think of your
life's value being dependent on how much money you earn, or what
your status is in society, or what kind of clothing you can wear;
then you have a lot to be fearful about. But, if you are
reminded that what makes us human, what is actually lasting is a
quality which is invisible; which is both in the domain of
science as Einstein understood it, and in classical composition;
then these other things seem trivial, and there are higher
principles which become far more important. I think that's why
music was such an integral part of the civil rights movement, for
example; where people had extraordinary courage in the face of
extreme violence and torture. Music, explicitly Beethoven, was
crucial in the freedom movements of 1989 when the Berlin Wall
came down. I think it is going to be crucial today for the
United States to come into embodying what our nation was actually
intended to be by the Founding Fathers. Because we are, after
all, a revolutionary republic. You might not think that if you
look at the last two administrations, but the intent of our
republic actually was completely revolutionary; the idea of a
nation which is not based particularly on a land area or a
religion or some other construct, but on the idea of human
creativity as being the generator of so-called wealth. So, I
think that's true. Tonight we'll see what occurs, but John is
very creative; and I think it's very useful that we're going to
develop this process of our musical collaborators not only
appreciating the work that we've done, but beginning to get
insights as to why a group of political organizers would be able
to pull off what is seen by many as a very high quality and
unique quality of performance; which has to do with this kind of
approach to the music, as opposed to the typical, lower level
technical or whatever idea. So, I think this will be quite
interesting, and will further advance the work.
OGDEN: Well, I think that embodies and typifies exactly
what the question that's been opened up today is. I know some of
the work that Ben was presenting was to be a little bit more
elaborated and something that you're working on writing, and I
know will be explored further in some of these upcoming shows
that we'll be doing on this channel. So, this is meant to open
up a lot of questions, and to engage your mind in this process;
not to have the answers to all the questions, but to ask them.
And make these kinds of breakthroughs in terms of the discoveries
that are yet to occur. So, as Mr. LaRouche said, "The most
important question facing mankind at this moment is: What are the
existing potentials which must be developed if we are to give
mankind a future?"
So, with that said, I think we can celebrate our victories,
but we can anticipate even greater victories in the future. I
would like to thank all of you for joining us here today. Thank
you to Jason and Ben, and to both Michael and Diane. Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; and good night.