Question: LaRouche, in your last document, "Insanity As Geometry", you define irrationality as a set of false axioms replacing reality. Then, I was also recalling "Beyond Psychoanalysis," where you define psychosis and that the way to cure psychosis is, you introduce into the mind of the sick person, rebuild it using paradoxes. But, in a bad case like psychosis, where you have no way with proofs, evidence, to return that person to reality, we could find cases of psychosis, which are no longer curable, or geometries of a mind which can not be recovered. Can you talk also, about the difference between psychoanalysis of Freud and the Socratic dialogue?

LaRouche: Well, I believe in Socratic dialogue. There are, of course, extreme problem cases in psychosis, which many of us, and particularly me, don't know how to deal with. But, in dealing with the ordinary problems of mental life, two things are obvious--as in the case of the teacher, teaching a child, which is a good example of this: A good teacher, teaching of children, a good way to think about this. Because, what's the teacher do? First of all, teacher gets, in a sense, the trust in the children. They're happy. So, happiness in the relationship to the teacher. All right, so that builds a certain kind of confidence. Then, if the teacher's good, the teacher tries to introduce the child to something which is not just opinion and prejudice, but discovery, to expose the child to a discovery. And, to come in, with each lesson plan, to give the child experience of a succession of discoveries. Now, as the child develops that ability--or as the adult--then they begin to get more and more confidence in the method of discovery, as opposed to the method of simple past habits.

In the case of psychosis, or in the general case of psychosis--to define it apart from a medical/clinical kind of way, but in a more general way--the problem can be understood from the standpoint of a physical geometry. That is, you have so many assumptions of universal principle, and some of the assumptions will be true; some will not be true. Some will be not significant, whether true or false; and others will be very dangerously significant. So, therefore, when people form judgments, like theorems, as you get theorems in a geometry--say, a Euclidean geometry--the theorems that the mind forms, as long as they're thinking in terms of a Cartesian manifold, will always conform to the axiomatic assumptions of that geometry. If the geometry is wrong, that means that some of the axioms are wrong, or least some of the axioms are wrong. And therefore, in a sense, that geometry is insane, because it's systemically incapable of corresponding to reality.

The same thing is true in the assumptions of society. For example, someone comes along and says, "Free trade is necessary! Free trade is a proven principle." Well, free trade is not a proven principle. Therefore, a society that believes in free trade, is a society which is collectively insane! And it will not survive, if it continues to cling to this idea of free trade, indefinitely. And so forth and so on.

So, generally, what the problem is, we have to think like a good teacher in a school, with children: That there are certain assumptions, of an axiomatic import, which must be developed in the child's mind. If you're good, you're not going to give them arbitrary assumptions. You're going to prove everything you suggest they adopt as an assumption, axiomatically. You're going to have a certain relationship, a loving attitude toward the mind of that child, which encourages the child, to get over the difficulties of mastering that discovery.

The same thing is true of life in general. You have to have a loving attitude toward the people. You have to want to assist them in understanding things they need to know. You can be firm; you can not tolerate nonsense--say, "That's nonsense. I don't accept it." But: You have to be positive toward the person, in a sense of your desire to have them succeed in making the discovery, of a solution to the problem you're presenting to them.

That's, in all normal circumstances, what you do. I've had to do that, of course, in just management consulting practice and things like that. You have a client, or a client's employee, who is an extremely troubled person, and you try to motivate them. You don't motivate them by some fake incentive; you motivate them, by giving them a sense of the importance for them, of knowing themselves as a person who solved this kind of a problem, or who manages that kind of problem successfully. Or, getting them to accept the fact that they have certain difficulties. You know, people sometimes are crippled: A person may have a loss of sight; an impairment of hearing, or another sense problem. They may have a neurological problem. They have to accept the fact, they have that problem. And, they have to define their solution to their problems, by understanding and accepting that limitation, which they can't cure. And, your job in dealing with them, is to help them find that solution: What can they do, despite their problems, which enable them to realize the benefit of being a human being, an effective and important human being. And, that's sometimes the only way we can approach these things--generally.

In dealing with psychosis and so forth, formal psychosis, that is, of the geometry type, or other types. Admittedly, there are times when the mind is so far gone, that it seems to defy all knowledge, all art, all skill, to bring that person back to reality. That's admittedly the case. And maybe we'll make progress in that direction; but, right now, we have to admit, there are cases where we fail.

But, in general, we shouldn't fail, in the majority of cases. And, my view is, that you create a happy society, that even people that are severely emotionally impaired, may benefit from the sense that they're living in a happy society, and that, in itself, may encourage them to come back to reality.

-30-