## comments

We’re on a fast track to something hereabouts, and I had always thought there about three shoes ready to drop.Â One has dropped, I await the other two.Â In the meantime, I floated about and noticed a cutesy bit of writing, as I scanned down their latest offerings, with the dateline of LPAC to the late 18th century… don’t quote me on that, because I was distracted by something more amusing on the sidebar.Â “The FACTS on Duggan”.Â Hovering right next to it was the recent article about how Nancy Pelosi is an asset, or in the same blood-stream, as Joseph Kennedy.Â I’m not sure this is a good juxtaposition for them if they want to spell out their spin on Jeremiah Duggan, but I don’t know how something like that can be avoided.Â (And wherefor are their *Kronberg Facts*?Â Coming any day now, I suppose.)

FACTNet is back up, and somewhere amongst there I find this bit:

*There’s some distress in the org over Molly Kronberg’s interview with Chip Berlet, along the lines of “How could she?”*

No kidding.Â Probably moreso than I can really comprehend.Â By way of an answer, one can look to the the second part of the exchange between “res republica” and Molly Kronberg.

res republica:Â * Marielle, I respect your perspective. However, I would never have discovered List and Carey, or appreciated the genius of Benjamin Franklin without the work done by the best of the writers Ken published over the years: Spannaus, Chaiken, Salisbury. Or alumni like Robert Dreyfus. LaRouche, on the other hand, always needed a good editor, although I’m sure the problem is he would never permit it. IMO he hasn’t written much that’s new and interesting since Dialectical Economics. On coherence. If the ideas are not coherent, why I am able to guess LaRouche’s reaction to world events (whether I agree or not) before I open up the website or see the street sign. From its own points of reference, it holds together as a way of thinking. My real point is that people who feel that they wasted their time are over-estimating the value of much of what we “normal” working folks have done over the last 15 years. Apart from creating islands of sanity and joy in our families, friends and local communities, not much (at least for me, except I keep hacking away). Enjoy your freedom and the rest of your life without looking back with regret.*

Marielle Kronberg:Â *I’m not likely to “enjoy my freedom and the rest of my life without looking back with regret,” since my greatly loved husband, the most important person on the planet to me, along with my son, was driven to suicide by LaRouche.*

*As for Spannaus, Chaitkin, etc.–if you want to read something decent published by a LaRouchie, read Ken’s stuff.*

*And as for being “free” of LaRouche–I’ve been free of him for decades.*

*Ken’s death didn’t give me any kind of freedom, it made my distaste for and disapproval of LaRouche into something far more visceral.*

Which has a way of putting this comment in perspective:

*What a shame that the LaRouche cult is being hounded in the manâ€™s twilight years. One supposes heâ€™ll be quickly forgotten when he snuffs it. *

Which I take as a sort of “He brought us laughs with that ‘Queen of England'” thought on the value of Larouche as a curiosity. Â A criminal enterprise that throws out kooky tangeants is still a criminal enterprise.Â In other news:

*LaRouche supporters distributed literature outside the Ciccone Theater, where the debate was held, saying the attacks on Johnson amounted to a “public lynching.” A man and a woman were escorted from the theater after accusing the forum’s moderator, Record editorial page editor Alfred P. Doblin, of bias for writing a column that took Johnson to task for contributing to LaRouche.*

*Later, a woman was ejected after she accused the forum’s sponsors — The Record and the League of Women Voters of Bergen County — of acting like a “lynch mob” for allowing a question about Johnson’s ties to LaRouche.*

*When order was restored, Johnson said he was initially intrigued by LaRouche’s allegations of “corruption in the pro-war actions of the Bush administration.”*

*“I now see that supporting this individual has hurt a lot of people, so I apologize for that,” he said. “And I ask people to look at my record, look at my character, look at my reputation. After that, I’m moving on.”*

*One of Johnson’s Republican challengers, Wojciech Siemaszkiewicz, said he was “surprised at Johnson’s lack of judgment,” adding he was stunned that Johnson, an Army Reserve officer and former Englewood police officer, “just allowed everything to pile up and blow up in his face.”*

I gather that Johnson would … just as soon that the Larouchies… disappear.Â He’s having a hard enough time as it is.Â In other contortions of this news item, Eliot Greenspan offers his piece.Â (Memo to self:Â google ‘Eliot Greenspan’.)

December 7th, 2007 at 4:50 am

Earnest,

This will be quite short. Hopefully there will be time for more later.

Whether Lyn’s use of Riemann’s thought to better understand physical economy is “original” or not is not a question of importance to me. It is more important that it appears to be valid, useful, important and necessary in the context of the present historical crisis, and that Lyn is the only visible force attempting to organize the population around these principles you take to be “obvious”. That, IMO, is plenty to earn him a well deserved place of honor in history. He need not also be “original”, although it is fine if he is.

I’m sorry your relative had a bad experience. Joining a disciplined combat-oriented organization attempting to change the fundamental axioms of society under the leadership of a powerful personality is not for everybody. That is part of why I never joined. But what Lyn is doing is right and necessary, and whether I’m a member or not, I respect and support that.

I think that’s it in a nutshell,

-Steve

December 7th, 2007 at 8:51 am

Steve,

I thought you said you were NOT a member? Hard to believe.

Have you been lying, and on the blogSphere no less?!

Honesty is a good policy, and not very difficult when the communications are anonymous.

In any case, please tell me how an understanding of Riemann’s work is in any way “necessary” to have an understanding of why/how the carrying capacity of man is not fixed or that man is not a beast.

Do you actually KNOW anything about Riemann’s mathematics or are you simply spouting slogans? What happened to Cantor and his transfinite ordinals? Long ago, THIS was necessary for a FULL understanding of economics.

I agree that “Lyn is the only visible force attempting to organize the population around these principles” (i.e. using Riemann’s name and original work to promote HIS own reputation), but the world is filled with individuals and organizations that know fundamental economic theory, are fighting for economic progress, and are committed to the common good.

That the “Org” is so centered on ONE SINGLE PERSONALITY is not a healthy sign. Elsewhere, this is called a “cult of personality”.

Wouldnâ€™t it be better to organize around a set of principles, instead of one person’s personality?

What will you do when the great leader dies?

Evidence is plentiful that LaRouche’s contribution simply consists of analogies. This is indeed useful, pedagogically, but it is NOT a scientific discovery.

To claim otherwise is fraud, a charge that LaRouche directs towards many fine scientists who actually HAVE had original thoughts, original work.

There is a large world out there, filled with people who want to make a change and improve conditions here on earth. Why isolate yourself in such an extremely closed sect? Almost all of the members who were around thirty years ago, spouting the same line, have now left, or have been purged by Lyn, like discarded dirty laundry.

Your great Org does not have a pretty history. You might study THIS history first, before talking about the historical crises. There has always been a crisis at LaRoucheTown. It is going on 24/7/365/366. THIS is the MAIN operating PRINCIPLE!!!

You sound like you just read the morning briefing. I look forward to your confessions, soon to be posted on FactNet, when it all collapses and you admit that you, too, were conned by very elementary “parlor tricks”.

Actually, I would prefer to be shown wrong and shown a demonstration of why/how LaRouche’s use of Riemann work is “neccessary” for anything other than promoting himself among ignorant young people.

What happened to the transfinite ordinals? They used to be the key elements!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 22nd, 2007 at 12:53 am

Earnest,

Sorry I have been long getting back here. If you still follow this thread, here is my response.

I said before that I am not a member, and I will say it again because it is the simple truth. I’m not sure what was in my post to mmake you think otherwise. Indeed, my post contains the explicit comment “That is part of why I never joined.”

As to why Reimann’s contribution is necessary, it’s hard to talk about that without explaining how Reimann fits into Lyn’s work. Moreover, my own understanding of that point is hazy at best.

I’ll try to give some explanation as best I understand it. It is not guaranteed to be accurate.

The most basic element of Reimann’s work, expressed in his habilitation thesis, is the statement that the curvature of space is a physical question to be determined by empirical observation and that space cannot be axiomatically considered “flat” apriori.

Now Lyn uses this concept to attack the assumption of “linrarity in the small”. What does this phrase mean? Well, look at this whole issue of approximating a circle by successive polygons. If space was “linear in the small”, this process could actually work. You would reach some degree of “the small” where there was actually no difference between an infinite set of very small straight lines and actual curvature. This would imply that there was no such thing as “curvature” as a distinct species – only a derived quality from straightness. To say that space is not “linear in the small” is another way of saying that curvature exists as a species distinct from straightness.

What is the relevance to economics? I have no direct professional knowledge of that field, so in what follows I am accepting Lyn’s word on it and attempting to represent what I take to be his views.

As follows:

The methods and models of modern professional economics make the assumption that economic space is “linear in the small”. Their methods of approximation are on a par with making a circle out of very many very small straight lines. In a space “linear in the small”, this would work fine. In real life it does not. People need to understand this, or they will continue to be mystified by the “magicians” and effed in the rear by the invisible hand.

As to why organize around Lyn’s person, rather than abstract principles. That is the question of leadership. Movements in history which have accomplished larce ans noticible results have tended to be personality centered. Note the great religions, revolutionary movements, military campaigns, founding of nations, etc. Almost all are associated with the name of one or a small group of leaders. That’s just how that works.

I like to compare it to Chistianity. Modern preachers would have you believe that the “name of Jesus” is some kind of miraculous passport to a “salvation” which guarantees you preferred treatment in the afterlife. Not meaning to give offense to those of conventional religious views, but I don’t think that’s the point at all.

Some years back some of us supporters were in a local chapter in an area that had no full-time members- so we would try to organize occasionally. And most of had this big problem with the “L Word” (LaRoche) We were all scared to say it, because we feared the reaction. Think those early Christians didn’t go through something simlar or more so? That’s why tha name of Jesus meant so much to them that they would undergo martyrdom rather than disrespect it. Not because they sought eternal bliss in an afterlife, but because they realized the crucial issue that effective organizing around principles requires acknowledgement of the leader who embodies those principles.

To organize as though principles esist in some abstract sense devoid of combat and leadership in that combat is foolhardy at best and outright lying at worst.

All for now,

-Steve

December 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Yes, Steve, I do check in here now and then. I wondered what happened to you.

I remain mystified about the technical items that you speak about.

I suggest that you review the LaRouche literature, and study the various tracts issued over the years about polygons and circles.

For example, it is true that one can approximate the area of a circle, to ANY degree of accuracy, using circumscribed polygons. The greater the number of sides, the greater the degree of accuracy.

It is also true that, for every such polygon with a FINITE number of sides, it will never BE a circle — it will always consist of straight lines with no curvature.

But LaRouche lunacy enters into the picture here. Again, I suggest that you review the past literature. Years ago, when Cusa was a big deal, the following argument was made:

As the number of sides of the approximating polygon increases, the resulting object becomes LESS and LESS like a circle BECAUSE the number of points increases (the points are where the straight-line segments meet). The claim was made that such an object actually DIVERGED from the circle, because of these points!

This is indeed true in a very technical sense. Note, however, that it represents SOPHISTRY of the highest order. Why? Because as the number of sides increase, the ANGLE between every two adjacent sides DECREASES. The resulting object becomes more and more SMOOTH — more and more like a circle. Indeed, if you were traveling around such an object, it would be VERY difficult to know when you arrived at such a “point”.

Indeed, in the limit, as the number of sides goes to infinity, the angle between adjacent sides goes to zero, so the â€œpointinessâ€ goes to zero. LaRoucheâ€™s example is completely inane. It is bullshit.

I do not have the links handy, but I can assure you that this (most obvious) observation â€“ the above objection — was NEVER made by a singe LaRouchie. They all ranted and raved about how the polygonal approximation became LESS and LESS like a circle, because the number of points grew larger and larger.

But the points become LESS “sharp” and the resulting object does, in fact, become smoother and smoother.

This babbling about â€œlinearity in the smallâ€ is simply nonsense. It is a con of Lyn’s — it is a phrase devoid of meaning. The parabola defined by the function y = x^2 is also never (completely) linear in the small. So what? The whole line of thinking (if it even rises to the level of thought) is boring beyond measure.

There are truly interesting problems connected with non-linearity. LaRouche is lost when it comes to explaining even the simplest of these problems. His examples are meaningless nonsense. He is stuck on words and phrases. He does NOT communicate ANY meaningful ideas. THIS is evident by YOUR many disclaimers about how you donâ€™t really understand what he is getting at. If he was any good, the concepts and examples should be crystal clear.

But this is his trick. By saying nothing, albeit obscurely, young people seem to think he is saying â€œsomethingâ€ deep and profound.

I respectfully suggest that you spend more time over a FactNet, reading the real life examples of how Lyndon LaRouche uses these elementary parlor tricks to get uneducated people to help support him, so that he doesn’t have to do any real work of his own (other than bullshit people about science).

January 9th, 2008 at 3:02 am

Earnest,

Sorry I have been coming here less often of late. Finally we have a topic where we might have a good solid disagreement of substance. I’m pretty sure I grasp why Lyn thinks the polygon approximation to a circle (and by implication, any curve – including the parabola – the circle is merely the best known classic example of the issue) is incorrect. When you create a true circle it is created by a generating principle (like the simple school construction using a pencil on a string tethered to a fixed point. That generating principle is what makes a circle a circle. Any object that has some other generating is not a circle because it does not partake of the principle by which a cricle is produced.

It should be clear that the generating principle of a many sided polygon is radically different from that of the circle. Thus, no matter how closely you can get such an object to resemble a circle in appearance, it will always be a radically differnet species of object – because it represents an entirely different principle.

And isn’t Lyn’s whole thrust epistemologically to get people to rely less on appearances (“sense ceretainty”) and see underlying principles which are not immediately visible to the senses and must be known by cognition? Is this a bad thing?

Sorry you find this boring. But I suppose not everyone finds the same things to be of profound interest. And surely one opinion on that score is as ghood as another (not).

As to Factnet I really don’t care how many people are there whining that Lyn did them wrong. And I only care marginally whether or not he may have actually done them wrong. We are imperfect beings – even Lyn, though I know there are members who would disagree on that point. We all do and have done and will do bad things. So he may have done some wrong to some people. That does not make him an evil hearted individual. Surely what mistakes he may have made in his behavior toward some of his associates, if in fact such claims are even legit, are outweighed by the great good he is struggling to acheive for all humanity.

And in closing, the issue of linearity in the small is neither trivial nor irrelevant. This is perfectly clear to me. Sorry it is not so to you.

-Steve

January 10th, 2008 at 12:02 am

Steve,

What is the “generating principle” that produces the number 2?

Here is one principle: simply add 1 to 1. Indeed, using the generating principle of always adding one, we can obtain ALL the positive integers.

But what about producing 2 by addding the following: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32…?

Is there a difference in the result and/or in the generating principle?

Question: If the number of sides to the regular polygon that approximates the circle goes to infinity, then the length of each side must go to zero. But what is left? How is the resulting object any different from the circle itself?

It would appear that if the sides are no longer sides (because they no longer have ANY length, they CANNOT be sides, by definition). It seems that they have become points — the very points that comprise the circle itself.

Infinity is fun. Surely you have heard of Zeno’s Paradox. If not, then look it up. Try to argue that infinity is an abstract concept or that it has no relevance to the above examples and the discussion about circles and lines and linearity and Lyn and Lym…

Cheers,

Earnest One

March 21st, 2008 at 2:22 am

Earnest,

Perhaps you are no longer checking in on this thread. It has been a very long time. But I’m here for a minute and I’ll try to answer.

I’m not sure what Lyn would say about the following, so I’m speaking more for myself than for him. But I think I’m somewhere in his ballpark with my views.

When you add the infinite series you reference the number 2 is not produced. Why? Because the process cannot be completed in the real world. If that were the actual process by which the number 2 were produced, there could never be two of anything, because we would have to carry out an infinite number of operations to arrive at 2, and an infinite number of operations cannot be carried out. Surely we can imagine them – but we cannot perform them.

When you suggest that the number of sides of a regular polygon can “go to infinity” there’s a similar problem. You could never construct an actual object with an infinite number of sides because you would have to perform an infinite number of operations. You can imagine doing this – imagination is wonderful – but that doesn’t make it real.

At any point in the process of adding sides, you never have a circle. You only have an increasingly many-sided polygon. The question of what would happen if you could continue this process “forever and a day” is irrelevant – because the day after forever never comes. You NEVER can arrive at a circle via the process you advocate. It’s polygons – all the way down. There is no “flip point” where you get tired and declare that (say) a googleplex of sides is “close enough for government work” and you might as well just declare the durn thing a circle. It still ain’t no circle and it won’t never become no circle.

Hope this clarifies things.

-Steve

March 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Your remarks clarify little, Steve. I think you are confused.

HOW do we KNOW that 1 +1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … = 2?

We are not simply imagining the result — the result is real! We KNOW the result. It is not a guess.

The same principle holds for taking the derivative of a function. You can never, in reality, do all the infinite steps, but yet the answers can be known with complete certainty.

It is, therefore, hardly an “imagination-ONLYâ€ situation.

Exact answers to technical questions are based on ideas such as these.

THAT is the proof that such methods are real and concrete. No amount of digital processing and computation will EVER give you the exact answer to the following question: “What is the area under the curve defined by the function y=x^2, between 0 and 1.

But calculus says that the answer is EXACTLY 1/3. And the answer is obtained by using one’s mind in an imaginative way, similar, in many respects, to the example that I posed.

You need to argue using infinity, and by doing so, truth emerges.

How do you account for the fact that we can compute the above integral exactly, yet the method used is based on thinking of infinite series and infinite quantities (small and large) in “ONLY” an imaginative way (your words and way of thinking, not mine)?

Again, the EXACT result can be obtained for a huge range of questions and technical problems where approximating calculations would never ever give you the real answer.

How do you account for this paradox, this seemingly anomalous situation?

It appears that the imagination, properly employed, can bring one to reality.

April 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Earnest,

I think you have missed my point. The infinite series does NOT equal the conventional result. It would – were it possible to complete an infinite number of arithmetic operations. But this is not possible. I repeat – The day after forever never comes.

By raising the issue of “imagination” I am not implying that the computation is “incorrect” in some technical sense – that the conventional value is “wrong” and some different value is to be preferred. If one grants the assumption that one could perform an infinite number of operations, then the answer is the correct. What line in the realm of imagination is the idea that an infinite number of arithmetic operations could be actually performed. It has not happened and it will not happen.

Certainly it is true that the fiction of an infinite series is a useful computational device. It can, at least in principle, give you numerical values for various characteristics of curves to any desired degree of approximation. What it will never tell you is what that curve actually is – what species of object it belongs to. For that you need to know the generating principle. And an infinite series will never generate anything but approximations. And the “approximate objects” are not at all of the same species as the object being approximated.

Now as to why you can get an exact result using an infinite series, I don’t know because I don’t know how such a computation is conducted. But I will tell you that any “infinite” approximation to a parabola will never create an actual parabola – even though as a computational device it may enable you to answer certain factual questions about the parabola accurately.

So, I think you have not even understood what the issue is, since your response doesn’t seem, as far as I can tell, to address it.

Best wishes,

-Steve

April 10th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Steve,

Well, yes, it does appear that you understand very little.

It is an interesting â€œfactâ€ that we can somehow â€œknowâ€ that the sum of the infinite series 1 + 1/2+ 1/4 + 1/8â€¦ = 2, yet we neednâ€™t perform the actual computation.

How can we obtain the answer? And know it with absolute certainty!

You neglected to mention anything about the derivative and the integral and the â€œfactâ€ that we know that the area below the curve y =X^2 between 0 and 1 = 1/3. These are amazing results, based on using the human mind.

This precise number 1/3 is based on using The Calculus, and one doesn’t need to perform an infinite number of measurments or calculations to understand that the answer is exact. Indeed, one needn’t do a single measurement.

We can know the values of the derivatives of many functions, yet we neednâ€™t perform an infinite number of calculations to obtain these answers, answers that are akin to your problem of approximating the circle with polygons. Yet you regard that process with disdain, as if it had no purpose

The fact that one can know the exact value of the tangent to a curve without actually performing an infinite number of arithmetical operations (each one providing a closer approximation to the ACTUAL tangent at a precise point) is a very interesting phenomenon. This, and other such results, are the basis of the current high living standards, and the fact that we could go to the moon.

We can use the concept of infinity and, with deductive reasoning, etc., produce results that are exact, without having to actually compute an infinite number of arithmetic operations. The simple fact that we can obtain such results WITHOUT actually doing the computation is THE thing of interest.

Your objections are a bit childish. Our imaginations AND logic AND reasoning permit progress in science. Exact results can be obtained, merely by using one’s mind.

You mention the parabola. But this is defined by the function y=x^2. What on earth is an “actual” parabola?

If you produce two of them, in the “real” world, they will never be identical. Therefore, how would you ever “know” which one is the real one?