#4, Jan 26: What, Exactly, Is This “Creativity” That Is the True Source of all Economic Value?

Physical economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche has dedicated his life to insisting that it is not enough, to merely assert that value in a successful physical economy is uniquely determined, not by monetary standards, but by the extent to which we, as individuals, and as a society, make creative leaps in our ability to master the principles governing our living, self-developing universe.

Rather, it is our sacred duty as human beings, to investigate, nurture, and master, within ourselves, i.e., within our souls, the nature of this creative capacity itself. And in order to do so, we must learn to understand, and then to speak, the language of poetry, music, and the plastic arts.

One of the most pernicious recent sins against human culture, was committed by the Romantic philosophers Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel, and their follower Friedrich Carl von Savigny, who claimed that there was an unbridgeable gap between the physical sciences (Naturwissenschaft) and the so-called liberal arts (Geisteswissenschaft). This was a direct assault against the great poet Friedrich Schiller specifically, but more generally against everything that makes mankind truly human, since their doctrine seeks to relegate art to the domain of unknowable, arbitrary emotion, guided by animal instincts―sometimes raw, other times merely modified by what they cynically term “a veneer of culture.” 

As a result, today, the true languages of poetry and music, as opposed to the “Brand X” versions that are hawked in popular culture, have been all but buried under more than a century of cultural detritus.

In this class, we will use just a few examples from the domains of poetry and music, to assist you in finding your own entry-point into the beautiful, yet scarcely known, wonderfully “dynatropic” (to use Bruce Director's term) domain of Classical art. We will also touch on the principle of harmonic “well-tempering” as discovered by Johannes Kepler in the action of the Solar System, and as applied by the composer Johann Sebastian Bach, sparking a revolution in musical potential which, just as with fusion power today, is still only in its infancy.

Musical scores (in order of appearance): Schubert's setting of Goethe (sung by Michelle Fuchs), Beethoven's four-fold setting of Goethe (sung by Michelle Fuchs), Schubert's duet setting of Goethe (sung by Michelle Fuchs and John Sigerson), Schubert's setting of Schiller (sung by Frank Mathis).

Showing 5 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Elaine Jenkins
    commented 2019-01-26 00:15:46 -0500
    Elaine from Utah

    Are you going to be talking about the unfolding of the classical music of great composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart? If so will you comment on the following? Thank you.

    I wrote out a basic overview of the developments of the idea portrayed by the piece according to my understanding, as follows:

    1. The introduction of the idea
    2. The development of the idea, the concentration of the idea, example: idea is played in other registers or played by different instruments. The idea may be inverted or an embellishment is added.
    3. An element of irony is introduced, that sounds different from the original idea, at first doesn’t seem to fit, but as you continue to listen you can hear how it fits into the unfolding idea.
    4. This unfolding of the idea has an effect of becoming more heightened as the music progresses, lifting up the spirit.
    5. A sense of resolution that brings in the original idea as it was expressed in the beginning of the piece, but you come away from the music with an expanded sense of the original idea, where it makes sense that the irony that was introduced into the piece (which at first didn’t seem to belong) actually not only belongs but expanded the original idea in a way that makes the piece more beautiful.
  • Jason Ross
    commented 2019-01-25 15:17:54 -0500
    Hi Chuck — thanks for the question.

    Entropy is a useful concept when applied in the scientific contexts it was originally designed for — heat flow, etc. For example, it is used to predict the direction of chemical reactions, and to understand heat efficiencies, among other purposes.

    It is precisely because entropy has been applied to domains far outside those in which it is shown to be valid and useful, that a problem arises. For example, its application to society as a whole is not justified by whatever scientific merits it has. Attempting to apply it to economy is incorrect. The concept of a principle of a universal increase in entropy errs by trying to treat humanity as purely a physical force.

    I’d say that not only is this second law of thermodynamics wrong but so is the first. The revolution in nuclear science revealed a new domain of potential energy that was not known to exist before. In human economic terms, energy is not conserved, but rather was “created” for our use by this increase in knowledge.

    Similar problems sometimes come up when thinking about free will. If the mind can be explained entirely by the brain’s functioning, and the brain is entirely biological, and biology can be entirely comprehended by abiotic physical principles, then it would seem that the only escape from determinism in thought would be randomness (as in quantum processes). Yet free will exists. The trouble arises in assuming the application of principles to a domain they are incapable of explaining.

    Carl Gauss had a lot of fun with this concept in his 1799 doctoral dissertation, which had served as a basis for recruitment and education of young people in the LaRouche Movement under the G.W. Bush presidency.

    This is a tough concept, and I may be unclear. Please let me know what you think of this response — I’m very happy to continue the dialogue!

    Jason
  • Chuck Jones
    commented 2019-01-24 08:47:14 -0500
    Your association seems to be opposed to the concept of entropy on philosophic grounds, and the cultural degeneration you imagine results from it, do you believe science should be censored or subordinated to promoting a more positive cultural outlook?
  • Jason Ross
    followed this page 2019-01-03 13:45:46 -0500
  • Benjamin Deniston
    published this page in 2019 New Bretton Woods Class Series 2019-01-03 13:30:05 -0500