Question: Lyn, you keep putting forth this task to the youth, to take up, and to master, which is the 1799 paper from Gauss. There's a lot of young people who are very intimidated by it, and often find many other things to look into, to study, because they find it--they'll go work with it; they'll try some Gauss, but then, after a while they just put it aside. Do you have any suggestions for them, or any words of wisdom?

And then, the second question is: You said earlier today, that the purpose of the youth movement, largely, in terms of especially the Baby Boomer generation, was to ignite, maybe, this youthful quality again, within the older generation, that they've lost to a large extent.

LaRouche: Yeah.

Question: You've put forth these intellectual challenges, this academy, for the youth. But what do you think, in terms of this challenge being posed to the older members, as well? Because many of the older members have become very stale in their thinking. They talk a lot of politics, they'll read the briefing, but when it comes to the intellectual work, it seems that that's also become a big part of their problem, is that they've become weak on that.

LaRouche: Yeah--it's all quite descriptively accurate. Now, this is the reason I wrote this "Visualization of the Complex Domain." It goes right to the essential challenge. Because, to see with the mind--you have these so-called anhang [ph], in Riemanns Werke, in these previously unpublished manuscripts. They're very famous.

Now, the problem is, is the idea of the concept of the thought-object: One thing is, the thought-object is the idea of, what you can visualize with the senses, and people think of that, "Yes. That is an object." The idea of a universal physical principle, as an object of thought--one that can not be seen with the senses, but is nonetheless known, as an object of thought--is a difficult concept, psychologically--not intellectually, but psychologically.

See, the problem of belief involves what is called "emotion." I mean, when one speaks in German of Glaubvertigkeit [ph], that's what one means, hmm? When one says Glaubvertigkeit [ph], in German, that's what one means. Glaubvertigkeit is not a word for "truth"; it's a word for "passion." "I don't f-e-e-e-l it!" And, that what's this whole meaning of Glaubvertigkeit. So, people believe things they "feel," whether they're true or not. And, don't believe things that they don't feel, even if they're true!

Now, what happens is, in the normal classroom, and in normal conversation, people appeal to "Glaubvertigkeit" in the other person, as a way of talking to them. Whereas, in science, you attack Glauvertigkeit, as unreliable. Hmm? And, that's where the problem comes. And, the modern education system, which is decadent, in the extreme, emphasizes Glaubvertigkeit, not truth.

See, what Gauss does to you, with this paper: He confronts you. What are these liars, Euler and Lagrange, saying--they are liars, they're not just incompetent; they're intentionally fraudulent? See Euler and Lagrange, both like [inaud] did, but especially Euler and Lagrange, they both say, "Yes, mathematically, this works. But these magnitudes are imaginary. Wir haben fuer diese keine Glaubvertigkeit."

So, that is the fraud. The essential fraud, in the argument of Euler and Lagrange, is this fraudulent use of the concept of Glaubvertigkeit. Whereas, Gauss says, "No. If you can demonstrate it, then your belief must come into conformity with what you can demonstrate." That's what I attack specifically, in this "Visualizing the Complex Domain": What is your basis for believing something? Is truth going to be a matter of the emotion of belief, or is the emotion of belief going to conform to truth? And, as I reference this thing, there's a very obvious reason for this difficulty. Because most people do not think they're immortal. They hope that some priest will assure them, they're immortal. But, they don't believe it. They believe the priest is real, but they don't believe the immortality is real.

But, the real question of immortality, is not a question of a taught belief. Someone says, "The Bible says I'm immortal." Crazy. To say that the Bible teaches you that you're immortal, is merely repeating gossip. Do you know you're immortal? Not because you read it someplace. Not because somebody told you that it's a popular thing to be heard believing. Do you KNOW you're immortal?

Well, now, this is very interesting: Because this brings up the question of the sublime, as Schiller defines it. And take exactly the question of Jeanne d'Arc, hmm? The point was, she faced the point, that her mission required her, not to betray her mission, which meant accepting being burned alive. Her courage, in doing that, making that decision, made the first modern nation-state, France, possible. Therefore, as a matter of scientifically knowledgeable fact: She is immortal.

And this, of course, is key to understanding Schiller. That's the essence of everything that I know from Schiller. But, very few people are capable of making that kind of emotional decision. They have the same problem that Hamlet expresses in the Third Act soliloquy of Shakespeare's Hamlet--the fear of trying to face the issue of immortality, as a matter of knowledge on which to act.

That is why anyone who does not think as I do, would be incompetent to be President of the United States, under present world conditions. [repeats] That is why anyone who does not look at the question of immortality the way I do, is incompetent to be President of the United States, under present conditions.

So, the problem we have, is, to recognize that the objection to Gauss's paper, does not lie in the so-called academic formalities, as such. Because, when one understands exactly what Gauss has written, you have an immediate, knowledgeable intimation of immortality; because you have a conception of the truthful knowledge, lies beyond perception, in what Riemann defines as "thought-objects."

And, that's the problem. That's why I wrote the paper, because, the way you get at this, is actually with Classical principles of artistic composition. For example, let's take the great Classical tragedies, when they're not done in Regietheater. When these are done, like the great sublime works of Schiller, what they teach you is a principle, because the member of the audience, with a good, great drama, is transported from a sense of the characters on stage, to a sense of the real characters, in the imagination, the stage of the imagination. Now, the little citizen, sitting in his chair, in the theater, is no longer just a little citizen. If he's looking only at the stage, and thinking only of the figures on the stage, he's still a little citizen. But, if he thinks about the real drama, that which the composer of the drama has put on the stage of citizen's imagination, then the "little citizen" is now a "big citizen," because he is now making a decision, about how heads of government must act, in times of national crisis. He therefore says, "No! No, no! He must not do that!" And therefore, he leaves the theater a bigger and better person, than he entered it.

The same thing is great Classical musical compositions, great paintings: All of these things have the same effects. They lift the mind--Classical art, and only Classical art; and not Classical art performed in a Romantic way, or a Modernist way--only such forms of art lift the mind of the individual citizen to a higher level, called the sublime. The essential function of Classical art, in respect to physical science, is that you must take the physical scientist, out of the position of being an individual, into being a person functioning in society.

-30-