An excellent webcast from the LaRouche group posted last week. An absolute must-see!
They comment on Gödel and Hilbert and make some excellent points regarding the logical positivist approach. Still though, they were wrong to conclude that Gödel’s work meant that “there will always be new things to discover”.
Thus, I have sent them the link to Gödel vs. Wittgenstein, which, I think, is one of if not the most intelligent and brilliant of Hockney’s books, and have implored them to do a review of it in a future webcast discussion.
In regards to their discussion on Kepler, and how Kepler used the epicyclic model itself to demonstrate that it simply did not represent reality and that perfect circles and circles upon circles simply was not how reality was constructed, I used the same technique in my last paper to demonstrate that the climate alarmist model betrays itself in its very own predictions about the way reality should behave.
The climate alarmist postulate of a “radiative greenhouse effect” is false and the mechanism simply does not exist. Just like how epicycles and perfect circular movement does not exist, and that there is something fundamentally different which governs the movement of the planets, likewise, heating from backradiation does not exist and reality behaves in a fundamentally different way than that postulate assumes.
The difference today, as compared to Kepler’s time, is that we already knew that backradiation doesn’t function as is claimed, and so discovering this is not a new discovery (except if you’re a climate alarmist, but they will never acknowledge this either as a discovery or as knowledge which existed already anyway), while the real discovery here is the totally nefarious and villainous treachery which can so easily be used against science and the world’s population to co-opt control over world politics and world behaviour for unknown ends. Do we merely sit back and assume the ends are just?
Does the fault lie with humanity in these various occasions of intrigue, or with those who perform the action itself? If humanity was more aware and if the scientific establishment actually behaved the way it pretended to, then these schemes wouldn’t succeed. However, if these groups wouldn’t perform these schemes, then humanity would never be harmed by them. However, if these scheme’s weren’t attempted, then humanity’s weaknesses would never be exposed and humanity would never have the opportunity to comprehend them and overcome them and become better than them and thus protected from them. However, if humanity never discovers them and understands them and overcomes them, then humanity is simply destroyed.
The Hegelian Dialectic takes no prisoners, and evolution has eradicated the vast majority of species that have ever existed. Under this paradigm, extended material existence is a constant war for survival and you either survive or you don’t. The soul and the spiritual domain are immortal, indeed, but in the game of extended material existence a species is either fit for continued soul occupation and development (Becoming), or it isn’t…or, it’s only fit for lesser souls, further down on the energy spectrum.
If the wish isn’t actually to destroy humanity but to develop it, then the lessons are in fact not lethal to the species; these crazy events and developments are just light classroom lessons to which we’ll eventually be given or discover the answers. If the wish isn’t to destroy humanity but you are accidentally destroying humanity, then perhaps it would be best to just leave it all alone. If the wish is to destroy humanity, then you will undoubtedly be successful.
If thermodynamics, i.e. the behavior of heat and energy, in the material domain below corresponds to that which is above in the unextended domain, then throwing “shit” (i.e. low frequency events and ideas) at humanity isn’t going to help humanity…or anyone else. In fact, this would make humanity the higher frequency species. The only way to raise the frequency spectrum is in fact to provide higher frequency energy. It is a teleological dialectic, a dialectic with draw to the higher frequency future, or to God; it is not an oppositional dialectic, i.e., it is not a dialectic with uncreative de-developmental options for opposition. At least it’s not supposed to be. Perhaps there are two directions for the dialectic: one, where the best of the thesis and antithesis are adopted, and a second where the worst of the thesis and antithesis are adopted.
With climate alarm, and what it has done to both the liberals and the conservatives, it seems that the second, negative direction of the dialectic is at work: the liberals have become much more stupid, and the conservatives have become much more uncooperative. (But at least the conservatives have become much smarter. The liberals are simply the psychopathically lost.)