May 17, 2000

BUCHAREST

OCCASION: Presentation of the book “THE LIBERTARIAN DOCTRINE - THE CONCEPTUAL REVOLUTION AND THE TRANSCENDENT CENTER”;

Writer: TUDOR GEORGESCU;

PRESENT MATERIAL: The Word of Professor LUCIAN IORDĂNESCU;

I feel honored to be in front of you and as any man in such a context, I am touched by a certain emotion.

To be more precise, concise and not boring, I will address you several words, reading them. As Motto of this compendium, I propose a quote from the work: “NON MULTA SED MULTUM” or in an adapted translation, - Let us credit quality instead of quantity -

Presenting myself the way Tudor perceives me, as his spiritual master, I live a profound joy for I have noticed that he is no longer dependent on another will, he does not live any more in the shadow of another thought. He became himself. The way he presents now he is neither good nor evil…, HE IS! Beyond good and evil, there is evidence. Now he is evident.

From our viewpoint, of the others, Tudor Georgescu may seem more than a nonconformist, he can be perceived as a rebelled one. This way he starts his work. In preface he categorically maintains: “I am an ultra-libertarian, a man of the right wing”. How far extends Tudor’s right wing, is not hard to notice. When his discourse formats the idea of “cultivation and protection of liberty”, knowing that protection constitutes the attribute of a social system, becomes evident that, Tudor’s right wing, in its virtual extremity, already touches the left wing. And then, is Tudor any longer a rebelled extremist?

Definitely, NOT! Even if he reasons that liberty “is a negative concept”, for it tends to an infinite spatial extension, he intuits by paralogics, beyond the required rigor of libertarian behavior, the existence of an anarchical form, which is named LIBERTINAGE. Let’s memorize this extravagant form of the feeling of liberty.

When he speaks about the conflict of interests between the free entities, he concludes that such interests, in order not to chaotically manifest themselves, impose that individual liberties be interactive.

This, already, supposes rules and principal laws that are right and moral, without being conceived to serve a class, a group, a clan or a clique.

When Tudor uses the expression “liberal democracy”, he tends, in soul, towards the principle of intrinsic knowledge. We understand, this way, that democracy does not mean the leveling of personal values and the cyclical functionality in disarray of the individuals of a social structure. True democracy, means knowing the hierarchy of values and the acceptation of their functioning on specific levels. Never the foot will tell the brain that, living in an organism where all the components are equal from the viewpoint of personality, so, democratically defined, then “Me, the foot, I will depose my candidature to your function, you brain!”. It would be ridiculous.

In his work, Tudor develops the idea that true liberty supposes knowing fundamentally one's own value and its utilization only in the effective time and place, by entitive defining.

Synthesizing Tudor Georgescu's libertarian concept, we reach exactly in the ascendant center to which he makes reference, even in the entitling formulation. Here, I refer to the fact that, God himself, the creator of the whole Universe, told man: - I quote from the Bible - “Man, I put forward you two ways; Good and Evil, Life and Death. Choose good so that you may live!”

This way, the supreme Divinity, implanted in man, according to his capacities, the characteristic of Godhead. This is WILL… Free choice… The power of His determinism, infinite, is, in this case, only a manifestation of guidance, one of counseling. The ultimate decision, on the way he will travel onwards, belongs in exclusivity to the man.

From here we reach information. This means knowledge. In his work, Tudor Georgescu, by the descriptive way of handling information, suggests us that there are two ways of knowledge. These are: the knowledge by derivation, which Adam and Eve obtained in the Garden of Eden and the knowledge by integration, which should have preceded the knowledge by derivation.

I will give an edificatory example in this sense. Let’s imagine we would wish to know what is that an automobile, how it works and what is it composed of. Appealing to the method of derivation, we should tear it apart ensemble by ensemble and piece by piece. We will melt even its metallic components, in order to find out by spectrometric methods their chemical composition. All our information we will write down with rigor.

In the end, if we will intent to rebuild the automobile, we will find it impossible. By extending this method to a human being, you image what it would result.

Appealing to the integrative method, we will ask the creator of the automobile, to tell us how it works. We will find out in succession the physical structuring principles, of mechanics as dynamics, and the conceptual engineering. Then, from images and schemes we will find out what is that an automobile, without needing to dismember it.

What Tudor Georgescu underlines in his demarche on knowledge, is that it has absolute value only in dynamics. The information stocked in potential has no usage vigor but, only, capacity of possession on a benefit of inventory.

I do not want to easily pass over a chapter of the book that connects two states which determinate themselves reciprocally. Libertarianism and spirituality. Even if he maintains that: “in theory the libertarian doctrine does not influences the spiritual sphere”, subsequently Tudor, is coming back on the concept of libertarian doctrine, defining it as being not only a functor of logical-political operation, but even an emulative factor of the spirit, which cannot express itself if it is not free.

It clearly results from this perspective that the feeling of religious liberty transcends the ritual aspect of any belief. And, when I say belief, I understand the large aspect of the term, that of conviction, which largely surpasses the sphere of churchly mystique. It is not a coolant phantasm of libertarianism, of being concessive from a rational viewpoint, in its rapport with behavioral aberrations of the kind of pornography, prostitution and homosexuality.

Let’s not forget that, in conformity with the Divine principle, beforehand remembered, man chooses alone the way he follows. And if God is concessive, then, to no man, structure of system is permitted to institute itself in an arbiter. The only social conduct norm, as a fundamental form, is that, by our behavior we should not to aggress anybody. This is the defining principle of liberty of manifestation in any nature.

And as a corollary, pertaining to both reason and intuition, about the fundamental state of each individual of being free, Tudor defines this concept according to the esoteric principle of existence, only by intrinsic value. This way it is structured the hierarchy of values, the primordial Universe. In the top exists the elite, but not of those with bank accounts, but of those with circumvolutions.

In the second part of the book we already enter the world of illustrative and demonstrative exegesis. This way the assertion transforms itself in theorem.

Beyond the soul characteristics that determined Tudor to stop on the profound feeling of liberty of existing in the earthly world, we find his work formatted after the principles of a manual. It was and it is needed to know and to understand what means liberty in conception, what means libertarianism in integrative applicability and what means the libertinage as altered form of the funciary egoism, which leads to savageness.

The book of Tudor Georgescu realizes with fullness this desiderate. I rejoice from all my heart for the realization of this work and I live together with him the satisfaction of the accomplished fact.

Thank you for the amiability of listening to me.

PROFESSOR,

Lucian Iordănescu