What is the Difference Between Humanity and Animals? What Kepler, Cusa and Shakespeare Can Teach Us

Excerpt from a June 14, 2013 webcast

Lyndon LaRouche responds to a question concerning a recently written paper, "What Was Acutally Genius? Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare." A short excerpt of the paper is published below. 

A Thesis:

I. The Human Mind

From this point on, in this report, it is now most essential to be clear about the very special qualities of importance which must be recognized as we bring our attention to the very special character of the added subject-matter which I introduce from here on. To begin that enterprise upon which we are now so embarked, henceforth, the crucial, actually revolutionary question to be asked on the matter of science, is: "What, for example, should have been recognized as proof of the distinction of the human mind, in contrast to the mere brain of a creature of a respectively human, or lower living category of existence?" On that account, we must emphasize the fact of the relatively inferior quality of judgment based on any set of functions which are confined to the bounds of subjects attributable to the action of what is "conventionally" defined as being merely the living biological brain in-and-of-itself.

That relevant distinction in my reply to that question, is, that the evidence of the quality of absolutely superior, authentic discoveries of an efficiently living, actual mental principle which defines a human mind, are those discoveries which are ontologically distinct from what were merely conventional, but pre-existing sorts of relevant earlier discoveries. That required precaution, is not confined to actual discoveries of what are truly universal principles. On this same account, the inferior agency is "the credulous over-estimation of the mere brain as such." The latter, in general, is a subject to be treated as being excluded from the ontologically distinct, higher, reality of the "actual human mind."[4] The two should be recognized as distinctly separate, but interactive, respectively higher, or lower categories contained in a circumstance of conflict, as I shall show here now.

For example: William Shakespeare also made the most relevant point respecting relevant human knowledge on this fact, in his own fashion.[5]

So, as in the case of the appropriately chosen examples of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, the discoveries of truly original physical (or comparable) principles, were, in such instances, frequently discoveries of solutions for problems of certain universal principles, principles which were great accomplishments on their own account; but, which, have, nonetheless, been accomplishments, as for all the best among us, which have remained largely unresolved on crucial points. I mean, as I shall explain in the following argument, that we now require a far more aggressive standard for solutions of these apparent categorical contradictions. These were solutions which had not actually existed previously in knowledge, until the appearance of a thoroughly unique discovery which was presented at a time when the discoveries of the predecessors had been outdated by a discovery of a new, uniquely original conception of an actually new principle which had then been made and shown as an introduced relatively new principle of action.

This solution which I have just referenced, appears, to the best of present evidence, but only in the rarely actually understood, categorically higher faculties of the human mind. As I shall show, through successive layers of steps, the most crucial elements of the actual evidence which I shall present, layer by layer, and step by step, as the false belief in a notion of "sense-certainty," is at the root of every false presumption of certainty which is common to mankind. The knowledge is ancient and yet rare; but, the successive discoveries of Nicholas of Cusa and of Cusa's follower Johannes Kepler, present us with steps into a clear understanding of the foolishly systemic error embodied in the belief in "sense-perception" as "self-evident." I shall now continue to emphasize that distinction, but step by step, in this present chapter and its sequels. The case, as you should be able to discover, on due reflection, is already essentially provable as a properly defined fact, as I shall show the essentials of the matter later in this present chapter. More relevant qualifications will follow after that.

Obviously, this point of mine requires more than some simple explanation. It is a point which I introduce progressively as within the remainder of this chapter.

First, on account of the point which I have just introduced here above, I present the following.

Truly original discoveries in physical science, such as the discoveries of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as in his De Docta Ignorantia, would be brought better into actual reach by, most notably, Cusa follower Johannes Kepler's extensive work in presenting and defending the actual intention underlying the notion of vicarious hypothesis as that was accomplished by Kepler himself, or, as that just-stated intention is supplemented by the related functions assigned to metaphor in Classical artistic composition. The customary, popular, but mistaken interpretation of Kepler's stated reading, is wrong as a matter of principle.

It is essential to recognize, that the experience of the human mind's function of sense-perception, must not be treated as "self-evidence." For guidance on this point, we should turn our attention to the subject of a true metaphor.

For the case of metaphor, take as an explicit example, the subject of the dramas of William Shakespeare, as in his exemplary introduction of the crucial principle of the Chorus in his King Henry V. Or, similarly, in the exact-same formal ontological principle introduced to Classical composition which has been central to Friedrich Schiller's Wallenstein Trilogy, and, now at a few centuries' later time, Wilhelm Furtwängler's most extraordinary achievement, in his celebrated post-World War II direction of Franz Schubert's Ninth Symphony. Such is the record of all the great discoveries expressed as both science, and, or, great Classical composition and its performance. It is such originally unique discoveries, and related performances, which mark the distinction of creation from the mere entrails of deduction.

The supplementary conclusion which those just-stated observations require, is of that nature which is properly considered as a noëtic generation of the actual discovery of new physical principles, or, comparable achievements in Classical artistic composition which identify the rigorous employment of the term, creative (e.g., original) discovery: the plant had died, but the offspring of the already created future still flourished.[6] Such an apparent allegory, marks the essential distinction of the human mind from the beliefs which might be attributed to the beasts, or, otherwise, crucially impaired systems of human opinion.

I have thus, just stated the notion of the case. Now, I explain as follows.

The particular distinction of the human mind, as distinct from the mind of inferior living species, lies, for our consideration here, at the roots of modern European civilization of science and its history. It is to be recognized as that creative impulse which, ostensibly, is expressed as the best of our present quality of knowledge: I mean that known characteristic which distinguishes our living human species as distinct from all other presently known, other living species.

This same is the characteristic which, to such effect, empowers the human individual mind's choice of implied creative opportunity. It does that, uniquely, as an individual species, if it were to be shown that we have seized the opportunity to become as if qualitatively, an individual of a virtual new species (relative to the "static" principles of relatively lower, "earlier" states of a species of life) in his or her own characteristics: that, rather than as a merely new variety of the same species as such independently. I.e., an intrinsically noëtic quality of the development, or self-development of the individual human personality. This is a condition, which, when it is successfully imposed on the ability to embody a new species of functional individuality is a "creative personality."[7]

It is to be stressed in defense of the type of case as presented here this far, that: each individual person should seek, in oneself, a meaningful contribution to the growing roster of enrichment of the human species in its ontologically fruitfully, extended totality.

Some Pieces of Explanation

As I have emphasized this on earlier occasions, there could be no competent insight into the implications of more advanced considerations of Solar-System space, without recognizing a certain fact already known specifically to such notables in history as Johannes Kepler and William Shakespeare: I mean Kepler's discovered principle of vicarious hypothesis[8] and the related case of his contemporary's, William Shakespeare's working-principle of Chorus, as that was first publicly demonstrated "experimentally," in the course of Shakespeare's King Henry V.

Pedagogically, King Henry V is the more convenient point of reference for our immediate use here, since it, as like all truly Classical artistic composition, reflects a practical and generally fundamental principle of human psychology. The same relationship to progress to be found in cases such as the role which Shakespeare assigned to Chorus, also applies to Friedrich Schiller's Wallenstein Trilogy, or, to the Preludes and Fugues of Johann Sebastian Bach, and to Wilhelm Furtwängler's unique achievement in effecting a profoundly insightful quality of direction of that most remarkable achievement, his post-World War II performance of Schubert's Ninth Symphony.

The difference between truth and "sense-certainty," is that sense-perceptual processes are merely matters of the whims of those undeserved beliefs which are, in fact, as Shakespeare demonstrated in terms of his King Henry V, merely shadows cast by sense-perception, not the so-called "real thing." This distinction is first presented to us in an efficient way, only once we recognize that sense-perception is merely sense-perception, as Johannes Kepler echoed Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, and just as William Shakespeare presented, wittingly, the meaning of what is merely sense-perception, rather than efficient cause. The experience of truth lies not in mere sense-perception, but, rather, the recognition of "the factor" of the certainty of sense-uncertainty, precisely as Kepler actually defines vicarious hypothesis, and as Shakespeare does with his emphasis on the universal principle of sense-uncertainty, as Shakespeare's use of Chorus accomplishes the same intention for effect.

True science and true Classical artistic means, are the common feature of the highest generally known category of truly creative science. That is the practical meaning of "Classical artistic composition in both physics and artistic composition."

"In other words," it is the belief in literal "sense-certainty" which is merely the shadow of what it is actually not. To attain the actual truth of a matter of content, we must shift the emphasis from sense-perception, to recognize that it is the sense-perception which is actually the mere shadow of the event, and not the insight of the organ of truth.

Sense-perception by human individuals, is to be considered in the manner that Kepler followed Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, with the developed and stated principle of vicarious hypothesis. Or, consider the location of the root of intended meaning in J.S. Bach's sets of Preludes and Fugues: the principle of metaphor has the same implications as is embedded in the method of Bach. All actually competent expressions of the intention of the Classical composer, are to be located similarly: located in the concept of the intention, or meaning of the actually Classical composer or performer. Thus, Franz Liszt and his followers, are not only inherently lacking in a true compositional intention worth actually mentioning: they substitute their chosen "literalness" of intention, for a reality which exists as reality only in the same "place" as the adduced intentions of Cusa, Kepler, Shakespeare, et al. It is the motive, the motivating intention, which is the truth expressed in the willful human action. Perhaps, the courts of law might finally recognize the inherent fallacy permeating the presentation of what is conventionally preferred as evidence. The evidence is potentially clear, even absolutely clear, if what we have stated above were recognized, and then turned around properly to make the actor the evidence, and, often, the pleading of the actual crime.

As the two sets of preludes and fugues of Johann Sebastian Bach demonstrate the point in practice, it is the performance made according to the intention of Bach himself, not a merely "selected," "mere interpretation" of a "faithfully served" printed score, which defines Bach's intended meaning, however honorable the printing of the score itself. The principled characteristic of my argument respecting the reading of Bach's work, is to be fairly recognized as to truth of intentions by insightful consideration of the transcendent true creative genius of Wilhelm Furtwängler's heretofore, absolutely unique quality of authoritative direction of the post-World War II particularly great, culminating performance (among all of even his own deliveries) of Schubert's Ninth Symphony. That specifically unique edition of Furtwängler's direction of that subject ranks as the greatest definition on the frontier of the Classical musical principle.

Respecting Furtwängler's great achievement then, the systemic character of the inability of even relevant great talent to express itself in such a fashion as Furtwängler's delivery of the great version of his unique achievement in that specific performance of the Schubert, attests to the reality, that something comparable has, apparently not yet been achieved again in music, since. We must consider that fact as due less to the Classical principle of composition and performance, than that Furtwängler had been the last director capable of challenging the relative deficiency of the capabilities of even those only relatively best, who found themselves incapable of daring the scientific quality of discovery of principle, whereas what Furtwängler himself had achieved in that marvelous work was, historically, a "swan song" of musical creativity for nearly a century to this date. The present times of presently living generations, have been the bequest of the age of President Harry S Truman; unlike those who actually remember either Furtwängler or Franklin Roosevelt, the present generation lives, instead, morally, in a virtually dead new dark age.

In point of fact, since the age of Truman and Churchill, or the age of the current trash-bin quality of British minister Tony Blair, others did not dare challenge the decadence of their own age seen in the manner of fraud and butchery which Blair continues to wield from his connections as an utterly shameless virtual master of Satanic horrors now inhabiting the ruling British cabinet of U.S. President Barack Obama. The cause of sanity among the trans-Atlantic company of nations is no longer actually civilized; the would-be modern Neros, or their would-be successors, have been lately those most visible among the reigning trans-Atlantic and related nations.

The hope must be, that more leaders in the U.S. government might come forth to regain their own lost honor.