Newton and the Mill

There are two examples of the Ancient Context (i.e. the Mill) of which I want to share.

The first is Kepler. Kepler was of the old order of total calculations and the ‘passionate devotion to the dream of rediscovering the “Harmony of the Spheres.”‘ (This can also be seen in Bach.)

But let us consider Isaac Newton. While I am not a fan of Keynes, his description of Newton displays his source of genius soundly:

Newton was not the first of the Age of Reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual world rather less than 10,000 years ago. Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty- just as he himself wrapped the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

Newton was fascinated with alchemy and other things that modern scientists would be embarrassed by. But Newton saw through that ancient context which allowed him to detail the laws of Nature to us.

Now, imagine Isaac Newton in a Matriarchal School today.

“Isaac, nothing is connected. The stars are things. Myths are separated from everything else. Nothing is in order. No art is mathematical. In fact, we cannot define art. We cannot define ‘literature’ except to include a sample from all political classes from women, to various minorities and political movements. As for ‘music’ we have tribal chants for today. Who needs Bach when you have Britney Spears? And besides, Bach couldn’t dance.”

In an era of peace and of plenty, this is the obvious reason why there has been no ‘greatness’ come from the Humanities in nearly a century. This is also the reason why many politicians today seem so weak. The food for statesmen is the humanities. Churchill devoured them. Lincoln could turn a phrase and, like him or not, could state his positions eloquently and decisively.

George Washington, at Valley Forge, would hold a play (keep in mind Congress had banned plays for the military) of Joseph Addison’s “Cato.” “Cato” was a play about a successful Roman general having his victory and retiring as a farmer, something Washington took to heart and so defined a nation.

One of the main reasons for the epidemic of weak men is the weakening of the humanities. What is a man to draw on for strength and wisdom? Freud? In the old days, they turned to the masterpieces. The saying: “Poets are the legislators of Mankind” did not emerge from nowhere.

Newton and others could use the Mill to get the ‘ancient context’ when they needed perspective or wisdom. The Feminists cannot co-exist with such context. This is why the gate they entered the University had to be the torched humanities.