Question: How are you doing, Lyn. I'm from the Baltimore-Washington region. This might be riding off what you addressed before, but I think most of us are here to change the conditions of this world; and, throughout history, you have dark ages and renaissances, and revolutions that are created by youth movements. And, as we say that empires always fall, however, even in periods of history where the course of civilization had a high potential of discovering truth, they've also fell backwards as well. At one of our East Coast Monday night meetings, we were discussing the potential of destroying the intentions of evil, in its entirety, and having a perpetual revolution. Which gets to the question of, what is evil? Can you address that?

And also, as a bonus, I would love to hear from you on the question of making spiritual exercises.

LaRouche: That's why I've treated Plato as spiritual exercises, and why I started from this Gauss example. Because the Gauss problem in 1799 goes directly to it. It goes to it in two ways: It goes to it, because it deals, identifies as the target of Gauss's attacks, a method expressed by, especially d'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, which is the essence of evil, as we experience evil in modern science, as empiricism; as the denial of the existence of the human, in knowledge, by insisting that everything is mechanistically more or less determined, as reductionists define it.

Now, the other reason I use that, is because it refers to a previous state of society, that is in pre-Euclidean Greece, in which the Pythagoreans and others, especially as indicated by Plato, demonstrate exactly the same principle, which Gauss addresses positively, in his attack on d'Alembert, Euler and Lagrange: That is, the principle of cognition. Or, what becomes in mathematics, the principle of the complex domain. This is already fully understood, in a different frame of reference, that of constructive geometry, by the Pythagoreans, Plato, and so forth. Contrary to Euclid, contrary to all the formalists.

So, what's happened in modern society, we have changed, under the influence of empiricism and related kinds of reductionist belief, into a degenerate culture, including mathematical-physical culture, which is degenerate, in the by and large. There are a few exceptions here and there, and they're very important to us. But, my concern, also, is to use that, is to say, "Look, there is no difference, in terms of knowledge, in terms of the nature of man, between physical science, properly defined, and Classical art, as properly defined. There is no duality, between science and culture, as it's commonly put--doesn't exist. If you say, "Culture exists independently of, and contrary to, science," that's not true! Absolutely false. Because the nature of human ideas is the same. Therefore, if you have an idea in culture, it is of the same essential nature, as in physical science.

The only difference is, is in what we call physical science, we're concerned with the treatment of the relationship between the individual mind and nature, outside of man--man's relationship to nature, as seen by the individual member of society. Whereas, in what we call culture, we're dealing with man's relationship to man, in society's dealing with what we might call the environment.

So therefore, the questions have a different form, but the notion of the idea is the same. And the notions of the ideas about man's relationship to nature, are, by their nature, transformable into expressions of society's relationship to nature, and of man's natural relationship to man.

So, that's where we stand. Once we have that conception of man, and my belief is that our youth movement can achieve that--that is, not instant knowledge of everything in the universe, but knowledge of that, as knowledge, rather than opinion or  "repeat after me" sort of opinion. Knowledge of that gives our members, especially our youth, a sense of an independent, personal identity, a social identity--what is denied most of these youth, and that's what they're clamoring about, is the fact that their parents' generation accepted a degeneration of the notion of man, as an identity, and imposed that condition upon their children, who are in the 18- to 25-year group now.

What do you have now? As I said, you have the American patchwork family, of the "now" and "no future" generations. How many marriages in the family, or quasi-marriages? How many changes of sex, from time to time? How many step-sisters and step-brothers, in that family relationship? What kind of relationships, wondering in and out of the whole family structure? What changes and conditions of community are occurring in that? What sense of abandonment, or adoption, are involved in that?

So, what you have is the generation of the no future generation has been subject to economic conditions, to a condition of meaninglessness, to a threatened state of existence, to an impaired sense of identity, in which  the young people of that generation require, a solid, hard sense of "this is my personal identity." And my intention, my principal intention, with the youth movement is that: Is to point to things, which will enable young people, working together and solving their joint problems, as opposed to just their individual problems, to bring their individual problems under control, by having a joint experience of the solution to the individual problems of each.

-30-