Question: Lyn, I'm from the Baltimore office. You've outlined a lot, in the sense of the nature of man, and this idea that the universe actually has this anti-entropic principle--I'm not sure you can call it self-perfection; so, in looking at things like the Bill of Rights, you have this statement, where these Founding Fathers (if we can call them that) said, "Experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves of the evil." So I seem to find this paradox, where you have a universe that's self-perfecting, you have the nature of man, that is to strive toward that which is truly human with creative reason--yet, you have a situation, where even some of the most learned men in our history, recognized that the tendency, or the direction is that mankind is more willing to suffer.

In an anti-entropic system, it wouldn't seem that that is a universal, but that that is a progression that can be broken. So, if you can elaborate on that?

LaRouche: First of all, this is not the natural condition of man. The natural condition of man, is that which conforms to human nature, and human nature is distinct from the bestial. So, this is not the natural condition of man.

Again, just to respond to the previous question, on this question of how do you deal with various subjects, which seem to be conflicting for your attention during the course of the studying, working day: You have to have a standpoint, which is independent of trying to interpret what other people say. In other words, you have to know who you are. I've always perceived--at least now; I've progressed to that point more and more over the years--from who I am, and what I know and believe, rather than trying to find my identity in terms of what other people think they believe. So, I'm a very tough, independent cuss on that point; which makes me much happier, and gives me much more confidence in not worrying about other people's problems, in that sense. I can take other people's problems more easily in stride, because I've got my own mental, moral, intellectual house in order.

Now, to have your own house in order means, you have to have an understanding of man, as I understand man: I know that I'm dealing with a society, with people I've had experience with over five generations, and, actually, six generations of Americans, and some others. So, I know something about mankind, in my experience with them. Mankind has not been living up to his actuality, his potentialities, at any time in my experience. And yet, from what I know of mankind, I know what the potentiality of mankind is, my conscience, my sense of identity is located in what I know what mankind is, and should be--not what he always acts like, how he acts, but what he should be: which is mankind's true species-nature, mankind's true identity.

My concern is to bring into being, or make a contribution to that end, to a behavior of man, which is more in accord with his true nature, his true goodness as a species. And that takes some doing. Others have, before me, have sought to do something like that, more or less, and have experienced the frustrations of having to deal with man, as they encounter him, and the contrast between man as he is normally encountered, and man as his nature destines him to become. That's what the problem is.

Now, what are we trying to do then? We're trying to create a development within society, which takes into account the problems which cause people to be less than they are; and to try to induce, in society, a shift toward becoming what they are: which is what they should become.

Now, you realize that the major problem in society, is the legacy of a long history of mankind, in which most people were treated by a few people, as human cattle--either to be hunted or to be herded and culled. Thus, most of the cultural legacies, passed on from generation to generation are, you have to accept the fact that you are an animal; not because you should be an animal, but you're an animal. Why? Because the people who run society treat you as an animal, and you have to learn to survive in that society. Therefore, you have to accept the fact, that you are merely an animal! You may have spiritually something else, in your mind, but, day-to-day, work-to-home, home-to-work: You are an animal.

And, that is what most of these cultures are. And, as these cultures have trained the personality, and as this problem of mankind--of man treating man as less than man, which has induced cultural currents, which are the predominant heritage of mankind, in terms of bulk of heritage, most cultures stink, because they are loaded with this tradition, of accepting the fact that most people are treated as human cattle, herded by other people. That's where the problem lies.

I don't accept it. I don't accept anybody living that way. I don't accept their idea of their identity as that. It's not that. They have no right to be that way. They may be like that; they may be conditioned to be like that; it may not be the result of their own will: But they have become like that.

So, we're always struggling, in society, against that kind of problem. So therefore, the problem lies, as follows: If some of us know, that this is the case, then is it not an implicit obligation for us, to do those things in society, which result in a change in the needed direction, toward man as man is? Rather than trying to accept man, as what he manifestly seems to have become, under the conditions, the impact, of this long legacy, of man using man as cattle.

That's the problem. That's the essence of the matter.

So therefore, my definition of man is the only one I accept: That's the definition of cognitive man, a Platonic conception of man, as I've described him. I don't accept any other definition of man. But I do recognize forms of degeneracy and decadence, which have been imposed upon human behavior, which some people mistake, for the essential nature of man. And, for me, having that clearly in view solves the problem. It doesn't make man perfect, but it solves the problem, as far as my ability to cope with the situation in society. [applause]

-30-