Note: This is an incomplete, un-edited pre-release.
THE PRINCIPLE OF METAPHOR1Cf. Johannes Kepler’s “Vicarious Hypothesis.”
This March 14’s The Weekly Report had introduced a new, abruptly revolutionary conception to the Basement team’s science repertoire: a conceptual element which is to be identified as a topic which I have named “The Creator Principle.” Thus, it is my intention, henceforth, that that theme should be an included premise on which further developments of that series will be presented here.
On Friday evening, March 16th, I had stated my intention to act on behalf of what would be background supplied in preparation for the coming, next edition of Wednesday, March 21. That will provide new background material added to the caption of “The Creator Principle.” More was left to be added to those remarks, as, in part, presently here .
During that Friday late-evening occasion, I had illustrated the ironies of that notion, by reference to “five leading examples.” I had presented those references as exposing types of fallacies which need to be presented as notable systemic errors of widespread presumptions: errors which are to be emphasized as being illustrations of those principles which need to be presented most urgently at the present stage of developments.
The following five cases illustrate the typically systemic fallacies to be identified:
- The absurdity of the notion of “sense-certainty. as such;”
- The related absurdity of the notion of the existence of simply “elementary” objects as subject-matters;
- The fallacy of the allegedly customary notion of a necessary orderlng when it is defined as within the bounds of an experience which is presumed to be determined as in correspondence with presumptions of sense-certainties;
- The relatively familiar, but false interpretations of what have been treated customarily as“elementary” notions of “time” and “space,” each wrong in definitions, and also wrongly considered as each for themselves.
- The fallacious presumption, that the universe is organized by the sensed sequence of what are presumed to be: elementary orderings, a presumption according to which, what are actually fallacious, but, are nonetheless treated widely, by incompetent opinion, each as ostensibly definable as causes and effects of the type which is to be considered, correctly, as by-products of already discredited notions of time-for-itself and space-in-itself.
Respecting those five illustrative cases:
The commonly mistaken presumption, is that the possibility of a knowledge of truth might be found in those actions through which the human will might appear to have successfully ordered as an often chosen, but actually erroneous, deductive reading of intentions. Such nonsense as that is to be found within the terms and effects located within the span of what is widely presumed to be the known universe, a mistaken reading which is met even from among many who are. otherwise, justly considered as leading scientists. The fifth example stated above, is most crucial for our reconsideration here, because it appears to be, still, presently, the most widely and stubbornly presumed.
All of these considerations which I have just outlined above, must be obviously requalified. This must be done, to meet the requirements of truth, and to do so in terms of principled categories’ requirements for the purposes of a presently necessary redefining of intents and effects within the resumed “bounds” of the variously knowable and known features of the universe.
The concluding section of Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, is exemplary, if presently incomplete on this account.
All of those misguided views which I have just typified as requiring improved choices for what are sometimes regarded as “fundamental definitions,” lie implicitly within, but also beyond the outlined scope of our Basement team’s Weekly Report of March 14, 2012.
All of the corrected conceptions applicable to the aforesaid conditionalities, can be aptly situated as I, for my part, am preparing to emphasize during the coming weeks. Those conceptions will be, implicitly, matters of underlying principle which had been a previously launched principle within the works of Nicholas of Cusa and his properly selected followers, such as Johannes Kepler, and, also, through the most essential work of Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Vladimir I. Vernadsky: especially the ontological implications of the leading work of Einstein respecting the fallacies of space-time, and, as by Vernadsky, most emphatically, respecting the ontological principles of both life per se and of demonstrably human creativity per se.
Notably, everything chiefly associated with the respective work of both Ernst Mach and Bertrand Russell respecting these subject-matters, has been, as our team will show, vicious, oligarchically motivated, even thoroughly vicious fallacies, and intentional outright frauds: such as the cases for today’s implicit candidates for a new parallel for a “KT destruction” - like victims of a viciously stupid belief in a fraudulent, so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
Even if we limit the essential distinctions among elementary types of phenomena to those situated among those identified as “matter,” we must emphasize an ontologically fundamental distinction between what is usually classed as “ordinary matter,” on the one side, and the contrary qualities such as those of life, or human creativity, on the other. The former (“matter”), and latter (“living”) qualities of existence, are opposites, as they also are comparable, even if they are only roughly drafted first impressions, to a “rough” sense of the distinction between “matter” and “anti-matter.” Better said , both the specific category of life and Vernadsky’s conception of the human creative will, are of crucial, ontological significance on precisely this point, as they exist only in the character of as if opposing directly the accustomed notions of states of “matter.”
Otherwise, neither the principle of life, nor that of specifically human creativity, can be adduced from the mere existence of what is called “notion of non-living matter.” The action life and human creativity express, as a matter of principle, are similarly oriented phenomena, expressed in a sense of direction opposite to that of non-living impulses.
In other words, the distinction between the two, the latter categories, life and human creativity, are of a categorically higher rank, in the sense of absolutes, than anything which might be presumed to be merely, opposing states of physical being nature when regarded ordinarily with respect to existence otherwise.
As a matter of fact, as I shall emphasize that here:
It is the principles of life and human creativity, respectively, which reflect the essentially “voluntary,” governing principle of the universe, as directly opposed, in the sense and effect of their intrinic form of action, to the customarily preferred, merely apparent, false viewpoint of non-living “sense-certainty.”
This, as I can show (and, have shown sufficiently for our purposes at this point in the account) virtually “explains everything:”
It is the evidence of the ostensibly “delayed” effect of the actions represented by the resulting demonstration of creativity as such, which conveys the true sense of that which human creativity expresses. It is that evidence, as of the delay between the act of the discovery of a new physical principle, and the first realization of the applied action of such a discovery, which supplies the real sense of the direction of the universe, rather than what might be attributed as intrinsically akin to kinematic “physical” effects.
The powers of life, and, especially, of human life, are higher than, and opposite to what is otherwise recognized as “matter.” That which is neither living, nor cognitively defined as creativity, is not truly universal—it is merely, from a well-informed human standpoint, “mortal.”2As some might have been adduced, ontologically, from the Christian Apostle Paul’s exceptionally celebrated I. Corinthians 13.
The notion of a relatively finite “speed of light,” is a related, but also profoundly contradictory consideration, that difficulty being chiefly a product of the speaker’s lack of insight into the nature of the scientific implications of the apparent (for most, up to the present date) of the profound nature of the actually ontological characteristics of the subject-matter, when that subject were treated as a subject of a truly relativistic approach to a modern physical science.
The issue so posed can be stated, otherwise, as “what causes what?”
That action which creates and lives, is of a higher order of existence, respectively, than that which does not.
The crucial issues for treatment henceforth, might be summed-up as follows. Begin, for this purpose, with the complexity of the ontological implications of the most crucial discoveries by V. I. Vernadsky.
If the terms “existent” and “existence” should not be employed to represent what is intended to serve the intention of what was merely a product of rhetorical sloppiness; those terms should be employed to distinguish what we should recognize as the quality of the reality of an actual process of creativity in the Universe, wherever such a distinction is to be chosen. Both the concept of either “true creativity” and “products of life as such” are the subject-matter, are the relevant distinction, which defines the “proper measure” of a proper sense of such “reality.”
That which expresses the true originality of a generated discovery, is, therefore, the fact which defines “reality.” Thus, “creation” is the absolutely superior expression of reality, and “life” is an implicitly located in a universal sub-stratum of creativity per se. Thus, human life is the highest rank of the reality of products of life actually known to us, inasmuch as it represents the highest form of known expression of the generation of both life-forms and the higher condition of reality which the human personality creates willfully.
Any development within the universe which precedes the effect of actual creativity within the universe, is a reality. Human beings are implicitly creative, but only a relatively few have expressed that quality willfully. Recently, actual creativity, occurs, thus far in history, as often illustrated by its tendency for rarity under societies today, as since the diminishing ration of actually creative Americans since the immediate and related effects of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
Hence, the effect of the actually creative powers of the human mind, which always precede, in each instance, an actual such effect of human creativity within the universe, defines that domain of realities. The crucial question posed by such a consideration pertains to our obligation to effect a process of true discovery, whether we have acquired a correct sense of the principle underlying the notion of “anti-matter” which has been justly proposed for consideration by Alfred Einstein and his co-thinkers.
We have thus, an intimation of a notion of “anti-matter.” It is practically valid within the range which present knowledge demands as such a notion. Indeed, that notion of “anti-matter”, taken that far, is well defined in itself. It is proven sufficient for providing the proof that space in itself, and time in itself, are not the inherently higher principles of the universe. The prospect of travel from Moon to Mars, under optimal thermonuclear impulsion, within a week’s lapse of time, has settled the leading questions which might have been previously posed respecting both “space” and “time.” The presently remaining question, is: is that the limit of our prospective knowledge of related experimental effects?
That much said, it states what is otherwise the already included crucial point adopted by the Weekly Report’s notion of time, but it also portends substantially more soon to come. Certain highlights are to be emphasized at this time.
That is to emphasize certain ponderable implications, for both better and worse, of the background of specifically human progress thus far. The foremost experimental fact of immediate relevance here, is the unique role of the willful human dependency on the function of “fire” in the characteristics our species’ ability to acquire and sustain that progress of the human species which clearly distinguishes mankind from apes.
“Fire” means, for this case, all simple forms of fire, and also the role of successively higher qualities of energy-flux-density in permitting the continued existence of the human species, through the development of human continued existence’s successive states of dependency on burning of wood, charcoal, coal, petroleum, into nuclear-fission, thermonuclear fusion, and the forms of “matter/anti-matter” combustion which presently depend upon the nations associated with Albert Einstein’s “E=mc^2.”3Some recent tendencies in behavior of the Crab Nebula formation creates temptations.
That is to emphasize, that mankind has no natural destiny, as a fixed species; that is to say, in an attempted form of a fixed species of behavioral existence: evolve in an upward development of a species, or pay the price of the extinction of our species. Mankind is designed, in respect to a natural potential for performance, to existence as a super-species, a species specific to the Solar System and of the galaxy which that system inhabits: a creature specifically designed to act in the likeness of a universal Creator. It would be tantamount to a crime against the intention of Creation, not to seek to fulfill that intention.
There is nothing actually conjectural in that conclusion. The essential form of a definable categorical evil in human social behavior is already demonstrated in the form of the oligarchical systems such as the original Roman Empire and its reincarnations as the Byzantine, Venetian/Crusader, and the New Venetian imperial system known as the British empire of the Queen Elizabeth II who demands her monarchy’s stated, qualified system of mass-genocide, the urgent reduction of the world’s human population, from seven billions persons, to one billion or fewer.4Contrary to the manifest commitment of the Creator, the British monarchy and its currently operational North American puppet, President Barack Obama, have demanded a reversal/extinction of human progress, in favor of degading the human species to less than species unfit to exist, in accord with the presenty manifest decrees of that Queen and her puppet, President Barack Obama.
That argument is virtually self-evident in terms of the bare facts of the historically defined situation on this planet thus far; but, before approaching the most general consideration to be achieved in this matter, certain groundwork must be supplied, as follows:
Scientific progress through creativity is expressed as a progress effected in either discovery of what are qualifiable as experimentally demonstrable “universal principles,” or, by the will to drive efforts in the direction of both such discoveries of principle, as such, and, also, their practical realization. It is notable, on that specific account, that the world’s rate of scientific progress has been slowed, and, since the close of the 1960s, at an accelerating rate of decline in physical economy, most rapidly since the regimes of George W. Bush, Jr. and, at the very highest rate Barack Obama and the present ration of prospective U.S. Presidential candidates. Under Queen Elizabeth II and her puppet, President Barack Obama, the greatest rate of relative collapse has not only been reached, but is verging toward an extinction which would occur in any case, unless the present trend in the economies of the world’s current trans-Atlantic regions were not now abruptly reversed.
The actuality of creativity, when defined as I present the matter here, leads us to certain discoveries which seem to change everything for those who have looked into themselves with sufficient depth.
Therefore consider the exemplary argument of the Philo, the contemporary and associate of the same also known as “Judaeus.” For Philo, and presumably the leading Christian figures of his own time, such as Peter, the embodiment of evil was the properly infamous Euclid, whose doctrine was premised on the presumed death of a God to be known as a “Creator.” It were fairly said that Euclid was a Hitlerian-like Friedrich Nietzsche of his own time. The common argument shared by Euclid and Nietzsche was the axiomatic presumption that the “Creator of the Universe were already dead.” Indeed, all the known work of Euclid was premised on the systemic presumption that a Creator did not exist (or, were “deceased”). Thus. for example, the damage to the intellect which Euclidean geometry fostered among young minds was epochal even during my experience of my own youth.
If we examine the case in broader terms of reference, it must be fairly said that the so-called “Second Law of Thermodynamics” would have been rightly considered as plainly “Satanic,” as being the consequences of belief in that so-called “Law” attest for today’s society: a faith in the consequences of death, rather than faith in the potential consequences of a human life having been lived.
Instead of preparing to die, truly human individuals should be devoted to what they are participating in creating as mankind’s future. Otherwise, the horrid stench of the corpses of Nietsche and Euclid reign as the eternal despair with the devotee of Euclid shares with the likes of Friedrich Nietzsche, and, in practice, the astonishingly comparable likenesses of the Emperor Nero and President Barack Obama. Such is the legacy of the ancient Roman Empire and the British empire of the present time.
The truth lies in a human creativity whose practice is rooted in the existence of life as such.
For precisely the reason of those same factors which I have stated here this far, without a virtually immediate reversal of the trends since the collapse of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and the launching of what was to become the nation-states of Europe toward puppet-status under the British Empire, we will continue to plummet, consistently, toward disintegration.
The most obvious considerations are two. First, that even with a halt to the trends in economic policy, the entirety of the trans-Atlantic sector of the planet, is doomed to a careening into worsening disaster. The degree of that trend into disaster is now worse than at any recent time since the establishment of the United States as an innately progressive economy of a republic, especially since the close of World War II, but the rate of collapse has been accelerated again, since the establishment of the new order imposed on the trans-Atlantic region by the “Euro” agreement established under the dictatorial agreement imposed upon continental Europe by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, by which I have British proof of the status of France’s Francois Mitterand as a British puppet, and the habitually sickly whimpering of the U.S. President George H.W. Bush, who was the son-of-a-Bush, Wall Street’s Prescott Bush, who had bailed Adolf Hitler out financially, that for Hitler’s early rise to the position of dictator, that done on orders from the British United Kingdom’s head of the Bank of England, Lord Montagu Norman.5Adolf Hitler was brought to power in 1932-33 as the German dictator, by the British empire, through the actions of Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England. Norman operated through the agency of the Wall Street firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman, which was the channel used by Norman to rescue Adolf Hitler from personal bankrutpcy, and rise to power, through the agency of Prescott Bush, the same who was the father of President George H.W. Bush, and grandfather of President George W. Bush, Jr. Mitterand, like France’s Napoleon III, was also a British puppet.
That case of the combination of British and Wall Street authors who created the rise to the Nietzchean-like ideology of Germany’s Adolf Hitler, is still, presently, a current source of the stench of evil radiating from the monetarist system of the British empire, its Roman imperial precedent, Wall Street’s lackeys, and the evil of a Euclidean-rooted theology in modern science still today.