Beyond Your Current Sense-Perceptions: What & Where Is Your Mind? - Part 3 | WPN World People News

I. The Fundamental Principle

Thus, respecting what I have said here thus far: my authority respecting the subject-matters which I treat throughout this present report, rests upon my fairly unique record of successes as a forecaster of crises and kindred classes of phenomena in modern economy. This is especially so respecting leading cases from among the trans-Atlantic economies, up through relevant recent times, since 1956-7. The distinctions to be made on that specific account, are to be considered case by case, in one sense, as quantitative, but, taken, in another sense, as a series of relevant, critical events, which are qualitative, thus matching the character of expressions of a physical-scientific principle.

The world, especially the trans-Atlantic world, is at this very moment, gripped by the worst financial crisis in modern history: most probably, this very week—unless something which would be almost beyond belief were to intervene.

Everything which is critical respecting the principled features of my record of performance as a forecaster in modern economy, is to be found in the wake of what threatens to break out this very week of my 89th birthday—the birthday of the most successful forecaster of my own generation. Meanwhile, the errors of what have been my putative, professional rivals, have left nothing of their doctrines standing under the virtually terminal conditions of the great trans-Atlantic breakdown-crisis presently in motion.

The issues thus posed, belong among the qualitative matters of physical science, rather than a merely quantitative one. My present proposal for a general, physical-economic recovery from the presently "crashing," trans-Atlantic "breakdown crisis," is the design which defines the specific, science-driven achievements waiting to be gained now on this account.

The Challenge Now Before Us
The greatest specifically contemporary obstacle to progress within the bounds of what is widely accepted as modern academic science, is to be found in the empiricist's mistaken presumption, that "the five so-called principles of sense-perception" have actually defined a presently accepted opinion respecting man's presumed power to regulate both man and nature by means of certain intrinsically pathetic "a-priori" presumptions. As I have emphasized in the preceding, prefatory arguments heretofore, such claimed powers belong to the domain of fantasies, at least essentially so.

One should not have been surprised to discover, that the most familiar form of even tragic follies, would turn out, in the end, to have been what had passed widely for the failures of the popular fantasies which inhere in what is called, ironically, "common sense." Take, for example, what I have just cited as the case of widespread belief in the "popular" so-called "five" common senses, as the most typical, and the most commonly celebrated of those systemic errors of judgment.

To illustrate this point, consider the proofs presented by the original, modern discoverers of the true principle of universal gravitation. For that purpose, take, once again, the cases of, first, the astronomer Johannes Kepler, who was the first and only presently known discoverer of this principle, and, then, add the similarly ironic genius expressed in the related, masterful achievement of that great physicist, Albert Einstein, who, later, adduced from Kepler's work, the crucial principle of the notion of the universe as "being finite but not bounded."

The considerations posed by the successive discoveries made by those two, leading modern physical scientists, should now lead in promoting the attention among us, to what may come to be considered as the most crucial of the modern contributions to the advancement of science in the time of those still living today. The following argument identifies the principled nature of the issues involved.[8]

Take the case of the great fallacy which is lurking in modern physics at this ironic moment, today. This is to be located as a systemic error of presumption which mistakenly treats sense-perceptions (e.g., the "five as such"), as being a primary fact of applied physical science. Kepler's discovery of gravitation, and Einstein's hereditarily related views on a finite universe, a view which is not bounded, are combined as being virtually explicit on the point I present here today.

To begin our approach to developing the case which I have just introduced in that fashion, consider some ancient precedents for the same class of problems. Consider, for example, the instance of the sheer fraud of what is called "Euclidean geometry." That, like all pseudo-scientific frauds of what is termed "a-priori-ism," depends upon hoaxes such as both "Euclidean geometry" and the silly, but greatly admired notion of "an original five senses."

The attempts to premise the evidence of physical phenomena on measurements and related implications of the notions of sense-perceptions, especially as associated with deductive methods, pollutes physical science through attempts to mistreat actual physical principles with what are actually the shadows cast as phenomena such as sense-perceptions, that in defiance of the best of the ancient Classical Greeks, and, later, of the scientific method associated with the legacy of such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and including the particular work of Johannes Kepler's method in the discovery of the principle expressed in respect to the intermeshed notions of a vicarious hypothesis and of the actual discovery of gravitation.

Among all of the a-priorist forms of expression of the indicated errors in the use of the notion of sense-perceptions, the most urgent now are those expressed with presently embittered irony in a reductionist's radically reductionist, simplistic attributions to the word "time." On this point of a systemic conflict between the notion of experimental physical science and that of formal mathematics, we are confronted with the essentially existential battle between the influence of a reductionist mathematician, such as that of the tribes of the followers of the hoaxster Bertrand Russell, and the actual experimental, leading modern physicists such as Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Dirichlet, and Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein.

What I have thus just said, so, here, in this present chapter, thus far, is not only true, relative to any contrary opinion; it is fully correct as to what it claims for itself, but, if it goes no further, remains, presently, as customarily, dangerously incomplete; it is, even, sometimes, brutally misleading, not for anything which is thus said, but for what could be awfully problematic in respect to what remains to be left unsaid. The case of the evil Bertrand Russell and his Twentieth-century generations of dupes of such as Russell's depraved Cambridge school of "systems analysis," is, as I have already emphasized here, a most relevant, clinical case-in-point. Otherwise, the same ruinous tendency menacing the world, especially the trans-Atlantic world, at the present moment, may be classed, from much earlier times, as the conflict between the "a-priorism" of formal mathematics, as since the wretched a-priorism of a lying Euclid, in contrast to the relative sanity of a truly physical science.

The issue to be put forth here, is of the nature of the essentially functional differences among successive variants from among a series of living species. That is to emphasize, that the evolution of the species within the domain of a relative set of successive, ostensibly rival species, presents us, as now, with what is in some very meaningful way, the deadly opposition among what are to be considered as successive species among a sequence of what represents, functionally, deadly rivals trapped in a common ruin.

Such are the distinctions among oligarchical modes in human societies, as in mutual opposition to a society ordered in a manner coherent with the original U.S. Federal Constitution, or, perhaps better considered as within the opposing, inherent state of conflict defined between marsupials and mammals.

The Brutish Empire
The British Empire of today, is a true expression of the legacy of a "Third" Roman Empire, and also the greatest of the enemies of civilization walking and stalking the planet presently.

That is, for example, exactly the nature of the conflict between a society consistent with the British monarchy (a vicious form of the broader oligarchical pestilence) and the original Federal Constitution of the United States.

However, this conflict has an alternate implication: it portends a society reaching a state comparable to the fatal decadence of British imperialist's control over the British imperialist system of "Governance" which has recently gobbled-up the Western and Central European continent. This "gobbling-up" process, presents us with a system rooted in the same oligarchical principle which has continued to dominate the ruling, oligarchist systems of Europe over the span of a ruling imperialism in Europe from the fall of the Persian empire, through to the present smell of the onrushing doom of the British empire today.

This British imperialist legacy copied, most notably, from the ancient Roman Empire, has become standard for the ruling system of Europe since that time to the time of the disintegration of the European imperialist reign of the British empire, a system which has reigned in and over Europe, since the first establishment of the Roman Empire in the inherently depraved, social systemic features of "governance." This empire is presently, inherently doomed to being more or less totally destroyed by the mere virtue of the fact that it is such an inherently imperialist system of "governance."

That is precisely the augur of the doom which would, very soon, bring on a great genocide of mankind, if the present British power over the economies and political systems of the trans-Atlantic region, were not eliminated from the world stage during the immediate period now just ahead.

True, there have been great values included among the advances in European cultures, but, excepting, chiefly, the case of our United States, the achievements of European cultures have been usually contained within the shackles of the still-unbroken legacy of a Roman imperial reign, an imperium which has been customarily a ruling power over the nations of Europe and beyond, since the Roman empire was first established among the sexually and otherwise notorious goats of the Isle of Capri.

All of the great accomplishments of a superior United States over those imported European afflictions suffered by that which has been our United States, have been menaced, and often set back, as if tragically, by failures brought upon the world by an imperialist tyranny associated with the cause of civilization by forces which have been organized by the continued tradition of the presently extended Roman empire, that through the now currently tragic reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

To refer to that kind of systemic conflict which I have just summarized, now brings to our attention the sign of what is presently threatened, as the onrushing, near-extinction of no less than the overwhelming majority of the trans-Atlantic peoples, as a present threat which might be, beyond that, perhaps even a prelude to the early extinction of the human and other species. This were the immediately threatened situation, unless certain changes which I had prescribed, as in July-August 2007, were installed in the United States, immediately, now.

That case should serve as an illustration of the same principle of threatened relative, or even inevitable mass-extinction which the present conflict between the British oligarchical and American Constitutional systems were sufficient to threaten, or even bring on very rapidly, at this present moment in time.

That much said on that particular account, turn now to consider the specific, scientific underpinnings of such a state of conflict.

The Scientific Principle
All the leading aspects of physical science presently relevant to the foregoing matters, should be situated in a view of an alternative, prospective continuity of physical-economic progress. This should be referenced to the succession summarily represented by the successive achievements associated with the contributions of Bernhard Riemann and Russian Academician V.I. Vernadsky, achievements through the progress of physical science, to what is the proper reality of human life.

That just stated here, is not the "final word;" it is the anteroom to a higher-ranking, more profound consideration. That higher consideration, is the fact that neither the physical domain, nor the notion of time, are respectively independent "factors." Scrap the silly category of "space." The implication is, that putative domains of neither physics nor physical time, are truly independent factors; only the living process of physical-time, exists. The implication is, as I have repeated with increasing emphasis, that, in this universe, the essential form of existence and its existences, could be nothing different than that view from the parapet of physical time.

The fact is, that, when the relevant facts are taken properly into account, and the type properly identified as the "creative principle" is expressed approximately as the creative powers of the human mind, those creative powers are to be recognized as the reflection of a single principle of creativity; that arrangement only typifies the reigning universal, immortal principle which rules mankind's world.

At such physical times, we should view the subsumed domains of the life of plants and animals, and of, also, what is attributed as being the non-living domains, as under the higher, subsuming reign of the domain of the highest of the notions of living processes, a reign reflected in the notion of the actual mind of a representative of the human species. I speak, thus, of the domain of that principle of mind as such, which is associated with the conception of a truthful image of the reign of the principle of the human mind, the mind which suggests the awesome reality of a Creator.

That much said here, thus far, we are confronted, as I have just stated this point earlier, with the indication that the act of creating does not exist independently of the Creator. The latter two, are but one and the same.

Some Considerations
Discuss this point a bit. Consider some "handy illustrations" presented here and now, so that I might illustrate some relevant aspects of what might be identified as "ironies of sense-perception," or, were it better said: self-deception.

Take the case of the names employed to indicate the media within whose bounds human action is presumed to act upon what is believed to be the universe. Consider, for example, the fictitious, and silly, terms employed in defining the medium of human action upon the universe as expressions of a concert of "space, time, and, matter." In the first case, "space" as such does not actually exist as it is customarily assumed to exist today. That is to emphasize, that "space" is filled up "as if to the gills" with the medium of universal cosmic radiation; the notion of "discrete matter in space," is a dubious sort of notion.

That is not to deny, even in the least degree, the "efficiency" of the physical processes which the scientist and other relevant parties are required to consider. The source of the relevant ironies of what had been recently current conventions, is the fallacious presumptions bearing on the designs employed for customary or comparable habits. The root of such difficulties is located in a misconception of what we are generally accustomed to identify as "time as such."

Admittedly, for many, these statements by me are shockingly novel conceptions, albeit fundamentally valid preferences. This signifies that we are obliged to venture to swim into what many would regard as "strange waters." They are, none the less, the domain of realities. Continue this process as follows. Weave the subject of "time" into this, in the following manner.

Come and play with me on the following blend of subject-matters, some to tease the mind, and some to indicate the location of proofs: but, all to a common end.

What Is Time?
If you wish, you may view what I am about to say now as "speculative;" then, for that case, consider the snare which traps you once you were tempted to play with what might appear to be merely a harmless bit of what seemed to have been "speculative" play. It is now appropriate to sense yourself as captured by the lure of physical time.

Let "time" be the measure of physical action. Now, attempt to measure existence in time; how might you escape that embrace which united the two? Whence did that "time" come into existence, except by that which measures it? "Space-time" can not be the union of something which might be compared to a union of two variable magnitudes; try to disentangle the union of the two without losing the existence of both! Time, which is inherently to be measured as action in, and of physical processes, and time, whether relatively forward, or otherwise, measures—e.g., "measures"—physical processes. That might appear to be a silly thing to say; but, it is precisely the honest silliness of the appearance which attracts, and, perhaps, entraps our imagination; "imagination" regulates the way in which we must act.

Months back, I presented the idea of a notion of apparent reversal of the direction in physical time, that as implicitly an intended refutation of the notorious folly of Pierre S. Laplace respecting the concept of simple-minded time. There has been a study of the implications of such a view of the function of what is fairly measurable as a notion of a case of a reversed physical time by a notable associate since that time. Only the applications of explicitly physical cases, are convenient for elementary studies of this case; but, the lure of the matter becomes, as Alice said, "curiouser and curiouser."

Source: Executive Intelligent Reivew