The Trivium Method vs. The Classical Trivium: A Briefing by Kevin Cole / History… So It Doesn’t Repeat (Interview)

KevinCole-sm

 

Notes, Links, & References for “The Trivium Method vs. The Classical Trivium” (recorded February 17, 2013)

  1. 1m “The Great Chain of Being and the Organic Unity of the Polis” by Kevin Cole (Winter 2013)
  2. 2m “The Trivium Method” by Jan Irvin and Gene Odening @ Gnostic Media dot com
  3. 3m “The Trivium Method of Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving” vs. the innate method of learning, and comparing it to how the Classical Trivium (as a method of institutionalizing individuals) has historically been used prior to the 21st century.
  4. 4m History of the Classical Trivium is the history of the Great Chain of Being, useful in shaping cultures. The Great Chain of Being is defined in classical terms.
  5. 5m The concept of “balanced” government and civil society itself, The Ominous Continuity of the “education” system we know as schooling
  6. 6m The changing of terms as a means of gaining power over unwitting minds
  7. 7m The Occulting of Knowledge to create Power
  8. 8m Legacy of 2,500 years of the Noble Lie being used to create Power
  9. 9m Romantic Nationalism & Germany vs. Limited Government System, continued definition of the Great Chain of Being (3 estates)
  10. 10m Caste System, Divine Right of Kings, and the Classical Trivium; specifically the artificial scarcity of the “7” liberal arts
  11. 11m Enkyklios Paideia and the Caste System, Arnold Toynbee “it allows each empire to be immortal”
  12. 12m Great Chain of Being and the Classical Trivium in context of Organic Unity
  13. 13m United Nations Charter provisions, Positive and Negative Rights, staying knowledgeable about the first principles and jury nullification, Thomas Jefferson and First Principles
    1. Article 29: 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
    2. Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
  14. 14m Logical foundation of Negative Rights, Irrational foundation of Positive Rights
  15. 15m Definition of Organic Unity
  16. 16m Scott Buchannan quote on the Classical Trivium to create Organic Unity, Cardinal and Ordinal structures of the story (Buchannan was a Rhodes Scholar)
  17. 17m Definitions: The Auctors, The Polis, The Polity, Episcopal, hierarchical structures of authorities, Anglicanism (Church of England)
  18. 18m Comparison and Contrast the Trivium Method vs. the Classical Trivium, 7 Liberal Arts, Plato, Aristotle, educational philosophy and Isocrates,
  19. 19m The “general education” of the inscribed circle of the Enkyklios Paideia, foreshadowing Fichte and Hegel of the Prussian Education System
    1. encyclopedia (n.) 1530s, “course of instruction,” from Modern Latin encyclopaedia (c.1500), literally “training in a circle,” i.e. the “circle” of arts and sciences, the essentials of a liberal education; from enkyklios “circular,” and paideia “education”.
    2. According to some accounts such as the American Heritage Dictionary copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia.
  20. 20m plunder v. production and human livestock, classical Trivium as a system of creating production to be plundered… farming plunder
  21. 21m Latin education and the Divine Right of Kings, organic unity and feudalism, legitimizing the great chain of being (methods of authority), using the battlefield and education to subjugate individuals for lack of Knowledge.
  22. 22m Legitimizing the storyteller as the authority of the day, group-think, authority to control human resources. Any citizen can become an individual through learning habits of self-reliance
  23. 23m “Authorities” (educators, sophists) define the “Grammar” of the Classical Trivium, thus making the “Logic” a belief, not an understanding. No knowledge is necessary for belief, in fact belief is often what fills the void created when Knowledge is absent.
  24. 24m Unified systems of knowledge, cybernetics and the ship of state (Plato), first principles and common ground (Logic) necessary for linguistic communication. The use of these ideologies to create state systems.
  25. 25m Richard Haklyut and Queen Elizabeth, propagating organic unity as “natural”, even though it depends on people ruling over others. Scott Buchannan papers from Harvard University, “Poetry and Mathematics” (foreshadowing role of Rhodes Scholars)
    1. Richard Hakluyt (c. 1552 or 1553 – 23 November 1616) was an English writer. He is known for promoting the settlement of North America by the English through his works, notably Divers Voyages Touching the Discoverie of America (1582) and The Principal Navigations, Voiages, Traffiques and Discoueries of the English Nation (1589–1600).
  26. 26m Dorothy Sayers and removing the myths to get to the facts of her claims, Reinhold Niebuhr, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Milner Rhodes Roundtable Group, secularizing values to continue organic unity
  27. 27m Dorothy Sayers quotes in favor of British Empire building and Cecil Rhodes / Milner Roundtable Group and Organic Unity
  28. 28m Origins of the systems which create and facilitate organic unity, cybernetics, using the knowledge of self-learning to dissect the history and identify the contradictions of our public educations
  29. 29m Gnostic Media interview with Gene Odening, how the human being learns, removing the dogma from the process of learning for one’s self
  30. 30m Asking substantial questions and using a method to find valid answers consistently vs. the Classical Trivium (prescribed “Grammar”, mandated “Logic”, rhetoric which reinforces servitude)
  31. 31m Isocrates and literacy as a form of slavery (i.e. sophism) until the reader learns how to identify reality and remove unreality (i.e. logic).
  32. 32m closed systems of learning to maintain the city-states, aristocracy, and ruling class to manage the polity (public); educating the kings, adopting education systems to gain power over the polity, dichotomy of control, creating knowledge gaps to create “power”.
  33. 33m focus on significant and substantial, discard the arbitrary, dismiss the irrational. Sayers’ biases and the basis of Christian Homeschooling in America.
  34. 34m Sayers’ system as the “closest to the perfection of Plato’s Republic” – Freemasonry
  35. 35m Christian Homeschooling and predefined grammar, infecting the logic by not asking preliminary questions to identify that which exists, reality from unreality (Sayers’ seeds of irrationality)
  36. 36m History of Ideas in relation to the Trivium Method contrasted to the Classical Trivium and the history of creating organic unity
  37. 37m The Classical Trivium, Freemasonry as a feedback mechanism for creating organic unity through empire, “Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism (1717-1927)” by Jessica Harland Jacobs
  38. 38m “Origins of Freemasonry” by Thomas Paine,
  39. 39m Johann Joachim Christoph “J.C.” Bode, Nicholas Bonneville, Philo’s Reply to Questions Concerning His Association with the Illu… by Jeva Singh-Anand, Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution (1792) translated by Marco de Luchetti,
  40. 40m King Elfwad, Charlemagne, and the origins of the word “Trivium” by Alcuin of York
  41. 41m Ancient Greece, systems of preserving itself against surrounding piranha states
  42. 42m Enkyklios Paideia created by Isocrates preserves organic unity until Thomas Jefferson recognizes what it is, and what it does
  43. 43m Scott Buchanan and Stringfellow Barr (Rhodes Scholars) and Freemasonry, origins of “Classical Trivium” revival veiling the Enkyklios Paideia
  44. 44m filling in between Isocrates and the Freemasons, Jesuits and the Ratio Studiorum, which was rejected by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Ratio Studiorum as continuation of organic unity under godhead of theology.
  45. 45m Thomas Jefferson (post-revolution) goes to William and Mary and has the Classical Trivium removed from the curriculum, breaking the mechanism of British perpetuation of their organic unity
  46. 46m Thomas Jefferson addressing the Educational Perennialists of his day, accepting the theory before inspection, condemnation prior to observation, “putting your logic before your grammar” as Jan Irvin says
  47. 47m Education as a tool of creating culture, its how the state reproduces itself, “reality” filtered through he prescribed rhetoric of the state,
  48. 48m Ignatius Loyola, Alumbrados, the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola as the origins of the esoteric organic unity progressed by the Jesuits, various flavors of organic unity (various empires through time), sacrifice of the individual to the state
  49. 49m Bavarian Illuminati, Thomas Paine, Nicholas Bonneville, and connections to the origins of America, May 1, 1776, Adam Weishaupt (1911 Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Illumati), Baron Adolph ‘Philo’ Knigge as Weishaupt’s #2 in the Bavarian Illuminati
  50. 50m Bavarian Illuminati as intellectual group fighting against organic unity and divine right of kings in Europe. “Philo’s Reply to Questions Concerning His Association with the Illuminati” Reply by Jeva Singh Anand reveals the personal conversations between Adam Weishaupt and Baron von Knigge prior to Knigge’s resignation from the Bavarian Illuminati and the promotion of revolutionary publisher J.C. Bode.
  51. 51m Thomas Paine’s references to Samuel Prichard’s “Freemasonry is based on the foundation of the Liberal Arts” quote, Illuminati as a system trying to do away with the state, Isidore of Seville and the creation of civil polity by limited education
  52. 52m Bavarian Illuminati vs. Religion and the State, Freemasonry as the genitalia of the state and the injection of organic unity throughout indigenous populations, Illuminati plans to use for the state to reproduce itself via taking over Freemasonry.
  53. 53m the Strict Observance Lodge of Freemasonry in Bavaria, Degree Systems above traditional York Rite degrees, transcending nationhood. Reinhard Koselleck’s “Critique and Crises : Enlightenment and the P… (published by M.I.T.) on Freemasonry and creating organic unity
  54. 54m Original members of the Illuminati influencing American education, The Ultimate History Lesson with John Taylor Gatto
  55. 55m Juxtaposing internet lore vs. actual artifacts and evidence of the Bavarian Illuminati, similar to Jesuits in seeing value of controlling education, 1610 Wood Manuscript (The Hiram Key by Lomas and Knight)
  56. 56m Individual Liberty based on that which exists vs. irrational illusions of Authority, Bonneville, Jefferson, and the unknown history of Bavarian Illuminati influence in America’s origins.
  57. 57m Social Circle Freemasonic Lodge, papers published by J.C. Bode of the Bavarian Illuminati, promoted after Knigge’s resignation, connections to Prussian education.
  58. 58m Johann Fichte’s references to Johann Pestalozzi’s organic unity method of schooling and creation of the Prussian education system, giving birth to Romantic Nationalism as opposed to the Jeffersonian ideas of nationhood.
  59. 59m Milton Peterson’s works on Thomas Jefferson, rejection of classical forms of the Trivium as being connected to the Great Chain of Being, i.e. a caste society subjugating individuals to illusory authority
  60. 1h1m ideas of creating a balanced government based on first principles subject to existence, not dogma; derivative proofs of non-aggression undermined by changes in education system which Jefferson feared, J.J. Rousseau, John Locke, The Meaning of Meaning, particularity and universiality, from Charlemagne through to the 21st Century.
  61. 1h5m Jefferson displacing the Classical Trivium at the University of Virginia, Jefferson laments genocide of indigenous languages and loss of etymology.
  62. 1h6m encryption of language enables selective power transfer
  63. 1h8m how to preserve the first principles which inspired the Constitution
  64. 1h10m Ben Franklin’s education in the liberal arts and secret societies
  65. 1h11m parallels of Isocrates and Freemasonic organic unity, “Builders of Empire” as blueprint for how Freemasonry assumes authority throughout the world
  66. 1h14m philosophic corruptions of reality, claims of authority break down under scrutiny and defined terms, taboo to discuss because you might perceive the ruse of organic unity
  67. 1h15m Thomas Jefferson displaces classical Trivium as being tied to the Great Chain of Being
  68. 1h16m Legacy of Alcuin of York, creating a duality in Christianity, “othering” of the natural world, Basil Bernstein’s work on the classical Trivium, Noah Webster, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Emerson and Thoreau, Rousseau’s social contract, liberal arts as chains of garland flung over reality, Bavarian Illuminati
  69. 1h17m Epistemological cartoons instead of getting into the details and artifacts, Techne (Technology) as a Craft to propel Culture (see: Freemasonry), Thomas Paine quote on education and knowledge of language vs. knowledge of things, Syntax and Statecraft in history
  70. 1h18m Destutt De Tracy “Elements of Ideology”, science of ideas from Condillac’s Statue of Man, solidifying a science of ideas to map out human resource control
  71. 1h19m Destutt De Tracy: how to define and identify in order to think clearly and progress to understanding
  72. 1h20m Prussian Nationalism, Hegel and the obsolescence of the Divine Right of Kings and “Authority” in general, discovering that life is not how we were taught it is as a result of the Prussian education system changing America away from natural rights liberalism
  73. 1h21m systems of natural rights and state education are not compatible
  74. 1h22m unitary education by congress is in direct contradiction to the founding principles of America, collectivism, pre-amble missing from Constitution, ambiguity therefore included unnecessarily
  75. 1h24m Classical Trivium imparting language without defense against unreality, thus creates a system of control
  76. 1h25m without defense against unreality, society becomes skewed and actions in conflict with needs of survival, as a result of Enkyklios Paideia introduced into England by the Venetian Black Noblity
  77. 1h26m Webster Tarpley’s 1981 article on the Venetian Black Nobility, how to fill in the blanks when history has been purposely omitted, creating cognitive dissonance
  78. 1h28m Wilhelm Wundt and the “Clockwork Orange” mentality of treating people as mechanical toys, to be manipulated; and how asking questions is the key to circumventing Wundtian control systems
  79. 1h30m Frederick the Great and the Gymnasium of Prussian Education, Obama’s recent references to the value of Prussian industrial training
  80. 1h31m John Taylor Gatto’s “Underground History of American Education” referring to Prussian indoctrination methods being used in America, Prussian principles displace American first princples imparted in Constitution
  81. 1h32m Prussian education creates a strong nationalistic fervor, at behest of “national” interest, parallels between Nazi Germany and America today via the Prussian education system
  82. 1h33m Frederick the Great, Freemasonry, Education, and Illuminati connections; going after our youngest through compulsory schooling, creation of schooling in America by secret societies
  83. 1h34m Frederick the Great May 1, 1786 creating constitutions of Freemasonry, similar degrees to draw people into the Illuminati plan by imitating Freemasonry
  84. 1h35m Reworking masonic texts to re-present the ideas to foment revolution, Amis Reunis, Lodge of the Nine Sisters, and the Social Circle, French Revolution, Congress of Wilhelmsbad, Baron Knigge and the attempts to recruit powerful figures into their stable of talent. Hegel, Herter, Mozart, Goethe, Zeitgiest (spirit of the age)
  85. 1h36m origin myth of the Nine Muses / Nine Sisters lodge of Freemasonry in France
  86. 1h37m Rev. George Washington Snyder letter to George Washington, Oct 24, … regarding the Bavarian Illuminati, spores dispersed into America, Anti-Freemasonic Party to drive Freemasons from power
  87. 1h38m Cecil Rhodes and fellow Freemasons creating British organic unity via a Secret Society based on the methods of the Jesuits (Ratio Studiorum)
  88. 1h39m Ben Franklin and the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, representing the Nine Muses (9 liberal arts) as set down by Martianus Capella, Destutt De Tracy, Voltaire members of the lodge, Jefferson’s rejection of their first principles, Positive vs. Negative origins of Government
  89. 1h40m Napoleon rejected the first principles as Jefferson did, Destutt De Tracy deposed from his educational system, Grammar, Logic, & Ideology (instead of rhetoric)
  90. 1h41m Jefferson’s own contradictions (not perfect) but noted the success of America dependent on independence from British linguistic controls
  91. 1h42m Cecil Rhodes and the Jesuits, organic unity common to plans of monopoly, power, and empire, tracing back to the Indian (of India) monitorial schools (pedagogical control of group by authority at the front of the room), another brick in the wall as the craft of masonry
    1. Cecil John Rhodes PC, DCL (5 July 1853 – 26 March 1902) was an English-born South African businessman, mining magnate, and politician. He was the founder of the diamond company De Beers, and an ardent believer in British colonialism, he was the founder of the state of Rhodesia, which was named after him. He set up the provisions of the Rhodes Scholarship, which is funded by his estate. Rhodes and his legacy are memorialized in the 1966 textbook “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time” by Dr. Carroll Quigley, professor at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service.
  92. 1h43m Cecil Rhodes goal to change American Constitution to bring America back under control of Britain by rings-within-rings, using Rhodes Scholars to create organic unity.
  93. 1h43m Cecil Rhodes plans grow roots in America, proliferating Anglo-Saxon Nationalism (everyone else was a “barbarian”)
  94. 1h44m Equal rights only for “civilized” men (positive rights) vs. natural rights inherent to all human beings
  95. 1h45m Cecil Rhodes Last Will and Testament, seeking to decontextualize the history and create amnesia in the American polity
  96. 1h46m Cecil Rhodes’ band of merry men, bring in Prussian ideals via Rhodes Scholars, creating a spacial-temporal consciousness shift
  97. 1h47m Carroll Quigley’s books addressing Rhodes and organic unity (Evolution of Civilizations, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, The Anglo-American Establishment), Porter Sargent’s books on the same topic
  98. 1h48m Clarence Streit’sUnion Now” plan to merge America with Britain, Andrew Carnegie’s “Triumph of Democracy”, Linus Pauling’s “Union Now” speech, Harris Wolford of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), Rhodes Roundtable group seeking to create a union of democracies, origins of Globalism, collaboration between Rhodes Roundtable, Rockefeller, Carnegie trusts.
  99. 1h49m undoing Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”, to reverse roles and undo common sense to say America is subservient to Britain
  100. 1h50m Clarence Streit, Stringfellow Barr, and Scott Buchanan, (all Rhodes scholars) reviving the Classical Trivium, indoctrinating Anglo-American values and organic unity
  101. 1h51m Rhodes Roundtable supports “Union Now”, via Pilgrims Society, also seeking Organic Unity with Britain, origins of Apartheid in South Africa, Jan Smuts and Wholism as the philosophy of the British Empire (plunder rebranded as freedom)
  102. 1h52m “Union Now” as a Fabian Society for Federalists to create organic unity, Embers of World Conversation (Buchannan), origins of The Great Books of the Western World with Richard McKeown
  103. 1h53 Marshall McLuhan and I.A. Richards work on the Classical Trivium, James Bryant Conant
  104. 1h54m Poetry and Mathematics by Scott Buchanan (Rhodes Scholar) rediscovers the Classical Trivium, John Erskine, Nicholas Murray Butler, St. Thomas Aquinas, Great Chain of Being, and Mortimer Adler and logic existing within systems, Dr. Randall Hart “Classical Trivium” book
  105. 1h55m John Erskine bringing selective reading into the U.S., Woodbury and the X Club (see: Huxley), Matthew Arnold and Cecil Rhodes
  106. 1h56m Alfred Zimmern, William Benton, Benton and Bowles Advertising trending organic unity
  107. 1h57m “Union Now” and the liberal education at St. John’s University and the University of Chicago, Leo Strauss, Neocons, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and the origins of the Great Books of the Western World
  108. 1h58m Legacy of Cecil Rhodes, Pilgrims Society, RIIA, CFR, and creating organic unity in America
  109. 1h59m Arthur Balfour, Cecil Rhodes, Baron Rothschild and Palestine; Pilgrims Society as Anglo-American Alliance to usurp national government of the U.S. vis a vis Organic Union
  110. 2h re-branding British Empire as part of organic unity and role of St. John’s university in revival of the Classical Trivium within the Anglo-American tradition.
  111. 2h2m “Fat Man’s Class” and William Benton, J. Walter Thompson Company, Denise Sutton’s “Globalising Ideal Beauty: How Female Copywriters of the J. Walter T…”, De Beers Diamond Cartel, behaviorism (via John Watson) included to manipulate populations
  112. 2h3m Encyclopedia Britannica bought by William Benton vs. The Great Books of the Western World, Benton worked with R. Gordon Wasson, Bank of International Settlements
  113. 2h5m Benton and “Fat Man’s Class” sought to proliferate sophism into the business community, Henry Luce’s support, “The Romance of Commerce and Culture”, Walter Paepke, importation of Prussian/German culture into business and politics, boxing up our culture to bring concensus by de-individualizing and holding conflicting thoughts is the norm.
  114. 2h7m Great Books of the Western World and Eugenics, signers of the GBWW project (several Union Now supporters & Rhodes Scholars among other collectivist groups seeking organic unity for Anglo-Saxon Establishment power structures)
  115. 2h9m Society for the Cincinnatus and the ominous continuity of these ideas, Mirabeau as a member of the Social Circle, hereditary orders to create organic unity, Walter Paepke as founder of the Aspen Institute which funded the GBWW, founded on commemoration date of Goethe, ex-Bavarian Illuminati; origin of Aspen’s popularity and the Noble Lie
  116. 2h10m Leo Strauss at St. John’s University as a Scott Buchanan Scholar
  117. 2h11m GBWW to impart culture to common man, a scarcity not circulated in 70 years, a legacy of organic unity being propagated via Classical Trivium
  118. 2h12m Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (Rhodes Scholar, Harvard), Power and Interdependence
  119. 2h13m London School of Economics (Fabian Socialist institution), Rothschild family funding LSE
  120. 2h14m “The Real New World Order” (Foreign Affairs Publication) by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Office for Policy Planning, CFR driving organic unity
  121. 2h15m “The Real New World Order” is published by the Council on Foreign Relations
  122. 2h16m David Rockefeller, Memoirs, p. 505 quote, Admiral Chester Ward on CFR quote from Barry Goldwater biography “With No Apologies” chapter 33 “Our Non-Elected Rulers”
  123. 2h17m H.G. Wells, Fabian Socialist, Open Conspiracy, Island of Dr. Moreau, organic unity through Eugenics (see: G. Stanley Hall quote on organic unity in “NEA: Trojan Horse”), erasing of national borders, ethically responsible to control the many, “The Shape of Things to Come” by H.G. Wells
    1. H.G. Wells’ most consistent political ideal was the World State. He stated in his autobiography that from 1900 onward he considered a World State inevitable. He envisioned the state to be a planned society that would advance science, end nationalism, and allow people to progress by merit rather than birth. In 1932, he told Young Liberals at the University of Oxford that progressive leaders must become liberal fascists or enlightened Nazis in order to implement their ideas.[35]In 1940, Wells published a book called The New World Order that outlined his plan as to how a World Government will be set up.
  124. 2h18m Technocracy to control the thoughts of the polity, C.K. Ogden and I.A. RichardsThe Meaning of Meaning”, imparting of Liberal Arts to create civil polity, language as technology to control polity
  125. 2h20m Inherent rights (negative rights) vs. Positive Rights (arcane laws of governance and authority), “Fire in the Minds of Men” by James H. Billington (Rhodes Scholar & Librarian of Congress), the need to preserve oral traditions and the attack of our culture to manipulate our perceptions, thus to create organic unity, the use of cybernetics to wage psychological warfare, using the mind as the harness of human resources, Stephen Biko “the most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor are the minds of the oppressed.”
  126. 2h22m Ludwig Wittgenstein, I.A. Richards, and manipulating language to control perceptions in cybernetics, Macy Conferences of cybernetic applications, and “New Criticism” to decontextualize historical documents, thus re-defining liberty by separating literature from history. Rhodes/Milner Roundtable participation in supporting “New Criticism” and decontextualizing history to create organic unity; which evolved from the Prussian Nationalism which preceded it.
  127. 2h25m Frank Aydelotte (Rhodes Scholar) on Classical Trivium and Organic Unity, “spelling” to use words to further “liberty” in British terms.
  128. 2h26m Lord Percy v. Thomas Jefferson,
  129. 2h27m Arnold Toynbee and analogical reasoning using the Classical Trivium to promote British organic unity
  130. 2h28m Eugenics, Rockefeller, and organic unity vis a vis “The Molecular Biology of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation… (M.I.T.)
  131. 2h29m Frank and James Angell, G. Stanley Hall, and others instrumental introducing the Prussian education system into America, John Taylor Gatto’s work, Max Weber and scientific dictatorship
  132. 2h30m Population Control, Eugenics, and the Rockefeller “Science of Man” project rebranded as “molecular biology”, Linus Pauling’s support of Lily Kay’s book, Mr. and Mrs. Pauling support “Union Now” and other Anglo-American plans of unification, Delphi Technique of mind control, managing consent, Walter Lippmann
  133. 2h32m Rockefeller “Science of Man”, Edward Alsworth Ross’ “Social Control”, mapping the individual to destroy individuality, Lily Kay unmasks the eugenic agenda of the elites, culling the polity to create organic unity. Artificial scarcity of technology, planned economies (Agenda 21)
  134. 2h33m SUMMARY: By changing the terms and definitions throughout history, the theme of controlling the polity by means of irrational means has thus far been successful. Our voluntary servitude to ideas which are unreality, continues to be the problem; learning and asking substantial questions and finding valid answers continues to be the solution.
  135. 2h34m Kevin Cole’s closing statement, the logic behind the liberal arts education, slavery vs. free minds, the perpetuation of organic unity throughout time to create slave vs. free dichotomy. In America rights were inherent, not because you’re become a subservient slave to the state.

  37 comments for “The Trivium Method vs. The Classical Trivium: A Briefing by Kevin Cole / History… So It Doesn’t Repeat (Interview)

  1. John
    March 6, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    To be honest, this upset me quite a bit. This shed light on the enormous amount of bullshit about the classical trivium that was spewed for a few years by Gnostic Media and Tragedy And Hope.

    Here are some questions I have for you:

    What form of education, if not the classical trivium, is taught to the “elite?” It seems that all of your previous claims about the trivium being taught to the “elite” was pure conjecture.

    If we are inherently free, why do we need a “liberating” education?

    Why was Gene Odening so misinformed about this? Why should I, after watching this video, continue to use the “trivium method” which is now so clearly a misunderstanding of the true classical trivium on the part of a “self-taught scholar?”

    These are only some of MANY questions that need to be answered. I’m sure I’m speaking on the behalf of many others who feel the same about this issue. There’s been a lot of conjecture and bullshit, and we demand answers.

    • March 9, 2013 at 6:36 pm

      We have ALWAYS explained that the trivium was used for mind control. If you haven’t caught on to that, you weren’t paying attention. There was 3 years of grammar alone that had to be done to flush all of the misapplication of the trivium out. Gene has always explained from day one that it was used for control. He never said it wasn’t. That was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of releasing it! To level the playing field for EVERYONE! If you want to be controlled by those who misuse it, then don’t study it and live in ignorance. It seems you weren’t even paying attention to what this video had to say, as the video explained that what Gene has put forth is the first time it’s been used for FREEDOM. Can you show us were we haven’t said it was used for control by the elites?

      The point of learning the liberal arts, the point of learning to ask who what where and when before you determine why is so that you find truth, and not to be mislead by myths that have been spun by the sophists to control us. We have long explained that truth in the trivium was replaced by Deus, or God, and religious agendas. We’ve explained all along how this is done. Of course the elites MISUSE this, that’s why you need to learn it the right way so that it can’t be misused against you. You’ve got to use your head. You’ve got to think, you’ve got to ask who what where why why and how – always.

      What Kevin fails to explain is that simple forms of control, like putting logic before grammar, are the misapplication of the trivium and not its true form.

      Try to watch and listen to the video all the way through before you leap to emotional responses.

  2. March 10, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    The only thing that matters is investigation and detection of all things tangible through your five senses. Once data or Grammar is DETECTED through your five senses, placed as close as possible in a contradictory free environment should you believe it. or talk about it. Too many assumptions on all sides of the ball. Only then should you open your damn mouth or actually believe it. All this other stuff, in my personal and humble opinion (door is always open) is mostly speculation and personal six sense stuff.

    • March 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      We should never play the status quo game of ASSUMPTION (the sixth sense lie). That makes us the same as all the tyrants throughout history…selling a sixth sense belief to the people. If it can’t be proven through the five senses…then it doesn’t deserve our rhetoric. Just stay on the course guys of organic thinking and elevate and respect the five senses. The answers will start to become obvious. Challenge all six sense beliefs. Hold them accountable for proving their rhetoric. That’s how you lost me to a degree…example: discussing mushrooms and how it takes you to a higher place…six sense stuff. But brother I still love you :-). I”m a Philly Guy to leaving in VA. Never give the sixth sense crowd a pass. Then the lie dies. Remember, no man has ever proven a sixth sense, but they always think they have.

  3. Tidesson
    March 12, 2013 at 7:14 am

    The trivium…deals with the five senses. Where I have heard this before?

    Oh yes, Descartes.

    Nothing new under the sun.

    • March 13, 2013 at 1:00 am

      uh, no, this is actually the antithesis of Decartes if you’ve ever studied him. Decartes has long been disproved by the trivium itself. It would be really nice if people would learn to study things before they judge them from sheer ignorance.

  4. Tidesson
    March 27, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    To make the assertion that one, like myself, is in ignorance, because I happen not to agree with your trivium idolatry is a judgment itself. It’s fine to make judgments, just don’t pretend to be exempt yourself.

    Carry on with your biblical trivium. And remember folks…live by the Good Book, er…the “trivium.”

    • March 30, 2013 at 7:29 pm

      What you’re doing using fallacies, or lies, to judge things you haven’t studied. It’s also committing argumentum ad ignorantium – arguing from ignorance. Learning to QUESTION things and THINK is hardly idolatry. That’s some pretzel logic there.

      Rather, you’re afraid that you’re own idolatry will be crushed without the lies, fallacies, you tell yourself. No intelligent person attacks something he hasn’t first studied, and no intelligent person would call the simple questions of how we gather all information in the universe – who what where when why and how – idolatry. Does that make any logical sense to you? Of course not. Not to anyone else, either. But for some reason, because you choose to argue from ignorance, this is your argument. To you ignorance and stupidity and lack if study and removing lies, not thinking, not trusting our own 5 senses is good; while thinking and the trivium and asking who what where when why and how before you judge something is bad! It’s idolatry says you, without a single example, without a single minute of study, without even making logical sense.

      If you could explain how asking who what where when why and how, and learning to study things before we judge them, is idolatry, that would be great. But is idolatry not based on the ignorance of things you worship? Is that not then a contradiction in your theory?

      But to say that learning to question things and study them before we judge them is idolatry is just absurd. Your own statements are proof of your actions and lack of study. I make the assertion based on logic, and you make it based on ignorance and fallacies you tell yourself from fear – such as “idolatry” which is just an ad hominem attack – a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, as is your “Carry on with your biblical trivium. And remember folks…live by the Good Book, er…the “trivium.””.

      The sad thing is, Joseph, is that you’re too caught up in your own lies to realize that the trivium exposes the very type of thing you’re falsely claiming without any evidence that it is. Had you’d studied it, you’d understand the onus of proof and how to remove such lies as you provide here from your own thinking. It doesn’t teach you what to think, Joseph, but simply how to ask questions, gather data and remove the fallacies or lies from our own thoughts before we express that information to others. Certainly if the trivium was actually idolatry, you could just study it and provide a cogent argument exactly how this is so, rather than making vacuous ad hominem attacks without even having the cognizance to study first what you attack. Maybe this type of “thinking” passes with your friends, but not around here. Here we have the intelligence to study things in depth and understand them before we attack them, and we have the brains to know that name calling only shows the weaknesses in your thinking, and not any proof of argument as you presume.

      This is why you feel upset when you’re called out for such behavior, and trying to justify your own ignorance. But through your thinking with fallacies you can’t see that you’re only burring yourself deeper.

      But right now you only feel threatened and that’s why you need to lash out and name call about things you’re entirely ignorant of. The very premise of the trivium itself prevents any idolatry, but again, you didn’t bother to study the video upon which you commented and made your empty attacks – no irony there, as the trivium is all about studying something before you judge it. Yours is like the position of a judge in a court of law who actually refuses to listen to the case or study any of the evidence before he makes a judgment. Would you accept the judgement of a judge who decided your guilt on a case that you knew you were innocent of without ever hearing your case? Of course no intelligent human being would accept such a thing, but yet this is exactly what you propose.

      Carry on with your appeals to ridicule, your argumentum ad ignorantium, and thinking ignorance is intelligence. When your poor thinking skills finally effect you or your loved ones, maybe you’ll finally learn what having the common sense to study before we judge really means.

  5. Tidesson
    April 1, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Jan Irvin, you might as well cut and paste what you just wrote to me for anyone else who “hasn’t done the research” and is “mind-controlled and ignorant.” I’ve seen you splurt this out a dozen times now.

    Sure, you can make the claim all day long that I am appealing to arguments of ignorance, and therefore ignorant (circumstantial ad hominem) – as long as you make-believe someone hasn’t done their homework because someone supposedly doesn’t agree with you.

    In fact, I’ve looked at everything you have on the trivium, and you cannot prove at all that I “haven’t read, haven’t studied the material,” as you quite clearly haven’t been to my house to observe my doing so. The onus of proof is on you now to substantiate your claims that I “haven’t studied or read the material.”

    I have long ago exposed your trivium nonsense. I have people now who have thanked me from clearing up the Irvin hype out of their minds.

    Your real, honest to god, root of the problem is quantum physics. A trivium, that relies heavily on the five senses, cannot hold credence any further. Such a criterion is not fixed and solid, as already dealt with in ancient times, such as in the works of one Sextus Empiricus’ “Against the Logicians.” Which by the way, I will make the claim YOU haven’t read it fully, since you don’t agree with me. If you had, you would be on the SAME PAGE with me. Yes, the onus of proof is on me to make that claim. You have to make yours first.

    Do us all the favor, and stop using David Harriman/Ayn Rand material to disprove quantum physics. Interview/publish material from quantum physicists themselves. One goddamn interview from an Ayn Randian doesn’t do much good. Better yet, if you have the evidence contra to quantum entanglement, pop me an email.

    • April 1, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      Yes, I may as well have cut and paste, because having a cogent conversation with you about the actual material that you repeatedly lie about that you’ve actually studied is like beating my head against a wall.

      Stating that you’re arguing from ignorance is not an ad hominem. Nice try. But in fact, ignorance is a state of being, and defined by one who chooses to ignore, so therefore it’s not an ad hominem even if I called you ignorant, which i did not. You’re putting words in my mouth. Nice try. This type of fallacious thinking that you do here would be helped if you’d just study the material.

      I asked you for specific examples of how who what where when why and how are idolatry. You’ve provided nothing. Had you actually studied the material, you wouldn’t sit there and try to make an argument without supporting it, and you wouldn’t act so immature as you do regarding it. Simply provide some examples of how it’s idolatry.

      Rather than attack David Harriman, etc, just show how his work is wrong. Is that so hard for you? It’s just common sense. You don’t need to use an ad hominem against them, rather than just focusing on the material David presents. I’m not using Rand material, I’m citing Harriman specifically. Why do you need to poison the well and name call? That’s childish. Are you a child? The interview is to get people to study the entire lecture and book, so that they have an understanding of all of the research. Had you actually studied the trivium, you’d know not to use senseless attacks on the author rather than focusing on their work as you do.

      You’d not call questioning idolatry as you do. Yopu’re afraid and you’re having your religious beliefs and irrationality questioned – and without quantum physics you’d have to face the facts of your irrationality. Maybe you have studied the triviuum, and you’re simply too incompetent to grasp it. That’s certainly a possibility, but rare. Either way, you’re acting irrational and you’re not supporting a single claim you make, as someone who had studied the trivium would be able to do.

      So since you’ve studied all of the trivium material, you’ll have absolutely no problem showing how it’s idolatry and how it’s wrong, with citations and specific quotes to the material – as the trivium itself teaches you to do. If you’re incapable of doing so, then you have proved that you’re a liar yourself and have not studied it.

      Likewise you may do the same for Harriman’s work and go through the 10 hours of audio and his book and just show how it’s wrong – with quotes and citations to the work in full. Obviously an interview isn’t designed to be the work itself, you have to have the cognizance to follow up on the interview and study the whole work yourself. That’s the whole point of interviews – to bring attention to the work itself – the book and lecture, which the interview was even titled after. That’s a no brainer that the interview is not meant to represent the book and work in full. Any intelligent person knows that.

      But you’ve provided no intelligent reason for dismissing Harriman, not one single error pulled from his work. You ignore every single point he presented, and then use a red herring to material that he specifically already addressed in the work you ignored to debunk him. That’s some serious pretzel logic. If you’d actually study his work then you wouldn’t need to argue from ignorance and you wouldn’t need to commit arguing the arbitrary and you’d be able to back up your claims rationally, rather than acting emotionally and name calling. But you very clearly feel threatened by the material, and that’s why you have to name call.

      It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
      Mediocre minds talk about events.
      Small minds attack people.

      Your very actions themselves prove that you’re ignorant of the trivium, even if you studied it, and your heavy use of fallacies to dismiss things proves you haven’t studied the trivium all on it’s own, either that, or you insist on being irrational regardless, like a dog chasing its tail.

      But obviously the onus of proof falls on you to show how the trivium is idolatry, and how your ignorance of Harriman’s work, and your lack of citations proves its somehow wrong. That’s just absurd – especially when you make circular arguments right back to the very material and ideas that Harriman addresses specifically.

      Try not to name call like a little child to dismiss Harriman “Goddamned interview from an “Ayan Randian” doesn’t do much good.” Duh. That’s why you were to read the book and hear the full lecture cited, and go through all of the material in full and not kill the messenger and use fallacies like “Ayn Randian” to do your thinking for you. Do you always allow lies and name calling to lead your thinking, rather than actually thinking?

      It’s such poor logic that you’ve exemplified here that is also proof that you’ve studied none of the material in depth. Did you study all of the lecture series on logic? No, I bet you didn’t, simply because the intro to logic was from a Randian, so rather than hearing what the person had to stay, you were so full of yourself that you killed the messenger and didn’t bother with it. Did you study all of the books listed? No, certainly not, as your irrationality itself and inability to substantiate a single point you make is proof of this.

      Simply take the onus of proof and post up your quotes and show us how it’s idolatry and how Harriman is wrong.. . quotes… nothing short of this. No red herrings to other research in ignorance of what Harriman specifically addressed. Give us quotes by him in full context of ALL of his work and then show how his points are exactly wrong. Ignoring the full lecture and book is not justification for making a faulty argument – as you did on Facebook a couple weeks ago. You’ve got to use some common sense here. The trivium will help you filter the fallacies out of your thoughts and help you to actually study the material so that you may provide us an intelligent argument based on the actual material with the required quotes that substantiate your unsupported claims and childish name calling.

      It’s time to grow up.

    • Andrew
      February 16, 2014 at 7:17 pm

      Contrary to what Jan says and/or thinks Harriman says and, apparently, contrary to your understanding of Harriman, he does not “disprove”, dismiss or negate quantum physics. This notion is a complete distortion of what Harriman said in the intereviews with Jan Irvin.

      • February 16, 2014 at 8:26 pm

        Hardly. Please study his entire 6 hour lecture series, and his book. Which I’m sure you did before posting this, correct?

    • Andrew
      February 17, 2014 at 4:18 am

      I don’t know why I can’t reply directly to Jan (there’s no reply button) but maybe this will fall into the right place.

      Jan’s reply to my first comment: “Hardly. Please study his entire 6 hour lecture series, and his book. Which I’m sure you did before posting this, correct?”

      Hardly, eh? That’s a vague enough response to mean anything, I suppose but clearly you’re disagreeing with my previous statement?. Yes, I’ve listened to the entire 6 hour lecture series but I have not read the book.

      However, it was quite clear from the lecture series that you were posing disinformation, or more likely, misinformation (out of ignorance as opposed to intent) all over your message board, regarding Mr. Harriman’s views on quantum mechanics so, I took the easier step – I emailed him myself.

      Unfortunately, I can’t locate my initial email with the question but here’s his reply:

      Dear Mr. xxx:

      My view of quantum mechanics is briefly summarized in last chapter of The Logical Leap.

      Of course it is not a fraud; the mathematical formalism is valid (as far as it goes). But post-Kantian philosophy has influenced the interpretation of the theory in disastrous ways.

      David Harriman

      So, now I suppose you’ll say that Mr. Harriman has not studied his own material or some other ridiculous statment?

      -Andrew

      • February 17, 2014 at 5:45 am

        You seem to be confusing quantum physics with quantum mechanics. Which parts of his work was I misrepresenting? Which part of the 6 hour lecture, or book?

    • Andrew
      February 17, 2014 at 5:54 am

      How do you, specifically, differentiate between quantum physics and quantum mechanics?

      • February 17, 2014 at 5:56 am

        This is explicitly made clear in McGowan’s book and research and 6 hour lecture series that you claimed to have listened to. Maybe go back over it again so that you’re not making false accusations all over the internet?

        And that you could confuse all of this is… while attacking me… wow.

      • February 17, 2014 at 6:00 am

        “Contrary to what Jan says and/or thinks Harriman says and, apparently, contrary to your understanding of Harriman, he does not “disprove”, dismiss or negate quantum physics. This notion is a complete distortion of what Harriman said in the intereviews with Jan Irvin.”

        Would you please stick to the exact points of which things we’ve distorted, and my interviews with Harriman, as well as in his book and lectures. How did you conclude that he doesn’t disprove or negate quantum physics? Did you study the 2 interviews and the 6 hour lecture series carefully? That you could come away from that lecture series claiming that he doesn’t disprove or negate it tells me that you didn’t listen to it AT ALL.

    • Andrew
      February 17, 2014 at 6:38 am

      I’m talking about David Harriman, I don’t know who “McGowan” is. Assuming you’ve made a mistake with the name, quantum physics and quantum mechanics are generally used interchangeably and as far as I know, based my exchange with him, Harriman uses them as such.

      I have seen, rarely but I have, seen physics used as “theory” and mechanics used to denote “hard science”. Again though, it’s my understanding that Harriman uses them interchangeably. And no, like yourself, I’ve not committed the 6 hour lecture to memory.

    • Andrew
      February 17, 2014 at 7:19 am

      “Would you please stick to the exact points of which things we’ve distorted, and my interviews with Harriman, as well as in his book and lectures. How did you conclude that he doesn’t disprove or negate quantum physics?”

      You have claimed quantum physics is a fraud. You use your interviews with Harriman and the lecture series to back up your assertion, though you never say where he says it’s a fraud. I’ve shown you personal correspondence that shows he doesn’t view it as fraud.

      • February 17, 2014 at 8:57 pm

        Obviously, if you’ve studied the prerequisit trivium studies material, and gone through the Harriman interviews, 6 hour lectures, and book, you’ll see clearly that it IS a fraud. However, you have to actually study the material. It’s not for us to say it’s at 59min and 20 seconds, or what have you. The material is for you to study and UNDERSTAND. I’m not here to hand hold you, nor to take your abusive accusations. Your name calling makes clear that you’ve not even studied the prereq trivium material on which website you sling false accusations and name call.

        Study first, think, remove the fallacies from your own thoughts, and consider what the information is saying. You start at the beginning, the trivium, and work your way through. If you’re skipping ahead, you’ll be so caught up in your own fallacious thinking, and you won’t have an understanding of the logic principles, to even grasp what Harriman is discussing. That’s why the website makes clear to study things in order.

        But if you’re looking for sound bites and name calling and someone to do your thinking for you, this isn’t the place for you. This is a study website. If you haven’t done your studies, then don’t put your failures on others.

        Take your agenda and religious convictions down a few notches and take in the work. That’s what this website is for. On page one of trivium studies, you’ll see that your name calling and unsupported false, accusations is the first sign that you’re actually intellectually bankrupt. The choice is yours to use these tools, or lash out at them. Ignorance will get you no place.

    • Andrew
      February 18, 2014 at 3:55 am

      “You seem to be confusing quantum physics with quantum mechanics.”

      To be clear, again. These terms are interchangeable.

      Getting back to this statement of yours, “And that you could confuse all of this is…”

      Could you clarify what I’ve confused.?

      “I’m not here to hand hold you, nor to take your abusive accusations.”

      Nice straw man. Clearly, I’ve never asked you to hold my hand. Why would I? Abusive accusations? You have claimed quantum physics is a fraud. You use your interviews with Harriman and the lecture series to back up your assertion, though you never say where he says it’s a fraud. I’ve shown you personal correspondence that shows he doesn’t view it as fraud.

      “Your name calling makes clear that you’ve not even studied the prereq trivium material on which website you sling false accusations and name call.”

      Name calling? Point out one place where I’ve called you a name. I have studied the material, not that it’s an antidote to being wrong.

      False accusations? Do you deny calling quantum physics a fraud? Do you deny that you’ve used your interviews with Harriman, his book and lecture series to back up your assertion? Do you deny that Harriman doesn’t blanket quantum physics as a fraud?

      “Study first, think, remove the fallacies from your own thoughts, and consider what the information is saying. You start at the beginning, the trivium, and work your way through. If you’re skipping ahead, you’ll be so caught up in your own fallacious thinking, and you won’t have an understanding of the logic principles, to even grasp what Harriman is discussing. That’s why the website makes clear to study things in order.”

      No matter how many times you repeat things like this, It doesn’t satisfy as an answer to what are really, pretty simple questions. “Grasp what Harriman is discussing”? Did you read the part where I quoted him as saying, “Of course it’s not a fraud”? That’s not difficult to grasp.

      “But if you’re looking for sound bites and name calling and someone to do your thinking for you, this isn’t the place for you. This is a study website. If you haven’t done your studies, then don’t put your failures on others.”

      Nice set of straw men there. Clearly, I didn’t ask for sound bites, or someone to do my thinking for me. Nor am I sure what “failures” you allude to. And again, where have I called you a name?

      “Take your agenda and religious convictions down a few notches and take in the work. That’s what this website is for. On page one of trivium studies, you’ll see that your name calling and unsupported false, accusations is the first sign that you’re actually intellectually bankrupt. The choice is yours to use these tools, or lash out at them. Ignorance will get you no place.”

      If I have an “agenda”, it is only for you to answer some simple questions. Do you believe that the whole of quantum physics is a fraud? Do you use your work with and Harriman’s own work to back up your assertion?

      “Religious convictions”. As I’ve never mentioned anything pertaining to religion, I can only assume this is an appeal to ridicule.

      Again, please point out the name calling.

      “Unsupported, false accusations”? How many more times does this need to be gone over? I claim that you call quantum physics a fraud and that you use David Harriman’s work to back up your assertion. I also claim that David Harriman does not think quantum physics is a fraud and have shown you a personal correspondence with him, detailing this – it’s pretty straight forward.

      “Intellectually bankrupt”? Do you really think triviumeducation.com is a wise place to post ad hominems?

      It’s okay to over-stretch yourself Jan, people do it all the time. It’s also okay to be wrong, people do it everyday – happens to me all the time. It’s also okay if you believe that quantum physics is a fraud – some of it or every bit of it. If I may be so bold though, I’d recommend not using Harriman’s work to back up your assertion that all of quantum physics is a fraud or at least qualify it.

      • February 18, 2014 at 9:06 pm

        Overstretch myself? Hardly. It’s clear you’ve no interest in studying anything but leaping to wild conclusions. Not only did I claim Quantum Physics is a fraud, but I provided you 10 hours of audio and a book, and the trivium studies which prove it, and the citation to his book which you haven’t read – this very website to be taken in IN FULL. Study the trivium information so that you can understand it yourself, rather than sending loaded question emails that change the subject of quantum mechanics vs. quantum physics.

        “Contrary to what Jan says and/or thinks Harriman says and, apparently, contrary to your understanding of Harriman, he does not “disprove”, dismiss or negate quantum physics. This notion is a complete distortion of what Harriman said in the intereviews with Jan Irvin.”

        You’ll still failed to provide a single example of how I’ve distorted what harriman said by telling people to study it, and for calling it a fraud. It is a fraud. Disasterous ways means what is taught and told is BS. maybe that’s too hard for you to comprehend in all your hair splitting.

        You’ve yet to provide a single example of what was a distortion. You again confuse quantum mechanics and quantum physics.

        Here’s Harriman’s reply to you:
        “Of course it is not a fraud; the mathematical formalism is valid (as far as it goes). But post-Kantian philosophy has influenced the interpretation of the theory in disastrous ways.”

        The mathematical formula is valid (as far as it goes) – as far as it goes, the math … that’s it… the map is not the territory. All of the philosophy and all that goes with it, “has influenced the interpretation of the theory in disastrous ways.” This is why you continually confuse quantum mechanics with quantum physics.

        Once you understand the onus of proof which is laid forth in logic and the trivium, and in Peikoff’s material who helped him write it, you’ll see how it is fraudulent, regardless if the math is correct – which means nothing. Again, the math is based on fallacious thinking. It’s a false picture of reality – a fraud.

        OF course your question was also loaded to him, as you asked him specifically about quantum mechanics and not quantum physics, and he answered you appropriately. So nice straw man question.

        When things are based on lies and mysticism, and fail the onus of proof and are sold to society as reality – it’s a fraud. If you want to split hairs between the math and interpreted in disastrous ways for the last 90 years, all the power to you. The conclusion is the same: it’s wrong.

        Again, you’ve entirely failed to point out one single quote that I’ve misrepresented in any way. To summerize 20 hours of work in a word – fraud, is just a summary, and it has ALWAYS been followed with STUDY his work. Now did you study the trivium material first, and then follow into Harriman’s work as is laid out on this site and Gnostic Media, or no? Did you read his book? Or no? Which parts of all the phoney Kantian interpretations of Quantum physics aren’t totally bullshit, a fraud? When garbage like this is sold to the masses for 90 years, creating new age religions and hocus pocus around them, the best descriptive word is FRAUD.

        Anyway, go back to your hair splitting over disasterous and fraud. My goodness. The entire thing is BS either way. If you want to create pretty mathematical formulas that don’t reflect reality just to go off into endless possibilities of nothingness, totally arguing the arbitrary, all the power to you. But QP entirely fails the onus of proof and logic itself. People like Amit Goswami who sell it as a religion and new age bullshit for the CIA’s Esalen Institute are the definition of FRAUDS.

        Maybe study the trivium BEFORE you leap into all your false conclusions, your straw man questions, etc. You see, under the trivium, you’d study all the work here first, take it in and think first.

        Here’s your abusive accusation: “This notion is a complete distortion of what Harriman said in the intereviews with Jan Irvin.”

        Again, take things in context of ALL the work we’ve put here, all of which goes in order. Did you start at “START HERE” or did you skip the entire thing. What of Harriman’s lecture and book on Quantum Physics didn’t reveal it as BS?

        You’ve not given a SINGLE example.

        BTW, you also seem to have missed that QP was developed by racist Talmudic Zionists, one of whom worked with Julian Huxley – eugenics, who also helped create the Esalen Institute where this FRAUD was sold to the masses.

        https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-5165

        Maybe you should look at the work before you decide if it’s a fraud or not. Maybe Harriman missed something in his research or your loaded question that misrepresented the work in the first place.

        But why don’t you discuss how it was all based on Kabbalah magic and Talmudic racism while you claim it’s not a fraud?

        It was and is a fraud, it was created to intentionally miselad the people based on the Kabbalah. This was all laid out had you actually studied the prereq materials – the trivium, quadrivium, etc, as well as the Kabalah, etc.

        I’ve distorted nothing. You’ve failed to research and failed to grasp the ramifications of what’s really going on here, which is all laid out here and in the database.

        Again, until you quote something that I’ve distorted other than claiming it’s not a fraud when it is, then you’ve got nothing. Again, 100% of the time, I’ve always told people to study ALL of Harriman’s work and the TRIVIUM for THEMSELVES.

        Did you do so? Did you study all of the stuff here? No. It’s your failure. No one else’s.

    • Andrew
      February 21, 2014 at 6:07 pm

      Okay, then. I don’t understand why you couldn’t just say, “I am definitively differentiating between quantum physics and quantum mechanics and the mechanics are sound but the cross-over into a broader physics are fraudulent” (or some equivalent thereof). If that is indeed what you’re saying.

      Or, that if, in your usage, mechanics and physics are synonymous, that you part with Harriman on the overall conclusion of his and Peikoff’s work

      I’ve asked you this several times and never received any clarification. in my opinion (of which, I have no doubt you do not care), you could clear up a lot of proverbial noise, if you chose to answer succinctly, instead of always saying go back and study blah blah blah.

      It’s not uncommon in every field of study, everyday, that people, even professionals within said fields, request clarification.

      • February 21, 2014 at 6:08 pm

        I was very clear on these points.

        Did you study the stuff I sent? Even Harriman is clear in his own book on the distinction. Thanks.

    • Andrew
      February 21, 2014 at 6:23 pm

      I respectfully disagree on the clarity of your points.

      I’ve only poked at what you’ve sent, at this point. Mouths to feed and all that.

      • February 21, 2014 at 6:59 pm

        Yes, the trivium is about taking ALL of the data in first, removing the contradictions, and then coming to conclusions. Not the other way around. Many others here have mouths to feed too, myself included, and actually, that’s why most come here – to learn the trivium for their families. If you put logic before grammar, you’re nearly always bound to false conclusions.

    • February 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm

      Tidesson, is this the “debunking” you’re referring to? It starts of with an ad hominem attack in the title – “Inside the Cultist Mind” – which shows the bias of the author before even beginning.

      Then you go on saying “a typical Objectivist trainwreck” while avoiding all his actual arguments and using an appeal to ridicule instead. The logical fallacies are covered extensively in the work cited with Peikoff and here, so that you’d use fallacies to “debunk” is laughable.

      ” it is clear the book has nothing to add to the well-known problem of induction. Nothing, nada, zip, nil, zero, nah-thing”

      This is totally false, as the book focuses heavily on induction and the past arguments and reviews them and their problems in detail. You entirely omit this, oddly enough.

      To further substantiate your arguments, rather than provide a single quote or example of something actually wrong, you resort to more fallacies – this time a guilt by association:

      “My initial impression of “The Logical Leap” is that, like James Valliant’s “The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics”, it’s an epic fail in everything it sets out to do, either as argument, or history, or both”

      Again, you just blurt out a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and attacks, but don’t focus a single iota on the actual work or book or what it even says. It must be tough to have to resort to avoiding every detail in the book and 6 hour lecture series to make this “debunking” – which is really all in all a straw man argument, a total misrepresentation of his work so that you seem like you’ve won the discussion.

      Again, without a single quote or example, you claim:

      “piece of apparatchik propaganda – and even cultist idolatry – rather than seriously examine its long-debunked, vacant and jargon-encrusted arguments.”

      No, all you’ve done is spouted ad hominem attacks and fallacies to debunk something that the entire point of the book addressed – the absolute failure of critical thinking in quantum physics which you so amply demonstrate here:

      Inside “The Cultist Mind: 2

      So anyway, I finally got around to getting a copy of David Harriman’s “The Logical Leap: Induction In Physics”. I’ve been in no hurry because, not unlike Atlas Shrugged: The Movie, everything I’d read about it pointed towards it being a typical Objectivist trainwreck.

      I’ve started into it and already it is clear the book has nothing to add to the well-known problem of induction. Nothing, nada, zip, nil, zero, nah-thing. I will be amazed if I can encounter in it a single argument that has not been made, and debunked, at at least 70 years before and more like 150 – the only detectable difference being that this old wine will have been rebottled in Rand’s obscurantist Objectivist jargon. Hence reviewing it solely for the purpose of examining Harriman’s alleged arguments, though I will touch on these, seems even beyond my considerable tolerance for thankless tasks.

      However, what is interesting is not what the book says, but the way Harriman says it. My initial impression of “The Logical Leap” is that, like James Valliant’s “The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics”, it’s an epic fail in everything it sets out to do, either as argument, or history, or both. But what makes Valliant’s demented tome indispensable is precisely its idiocies; with “TPARC” Valliant unwitting gives us, with MRI-like clarity, a fascinating look inside the Rand-cultist’s mind. “The Logical Leap” appears to offer us the more of the same. Harriman already has impeccable Rand-cultist form, being busted secretly rewriting Rand’s personal notes to make them more Galt-like. The Logical Leap’s shamelessly apparatchik stylings have also proved too much for some of the less doctrinaire Objectivist types, prompting a major Objectischism on its publication. Whether Harriman is as full scale a weirdo (here, here) as Valliant remains to be seen.

      So I’m going to propose, unless anyone really wants any different, that I write more about how this book functions as a piece of apparatchik propaganda – and even cultist idolatry – rather than seriously examine its long-debunked, vacant and jargon-encrusted arguments. I’ll also probably do this as a series of notes as I proceed rather than do a full blown review. It’ll be more fun that way.”

      The trivium is all about learning to study things BEFORE we conclude what they say, and remove our name calling and guilt by associations and biases in the work to take it in before we ever judge it. By your review, it is clear that you’re avoiding using the trivium and critical thinking in the process.

      Thanks.

  6. Tidesson
    April 1, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    Irvin, I haven’t the time to post ad infinitum every citation and evidence thereof pertaining to debunking David Harriman classic physics. Not on a measly comments section.

    Why don’t you read material by quantum physicists and actually state why they’re wrong on your comments section if you deem it that important.

    You’re small potatoes, I haven’t the time.

    Well, just for your pleasure, I’ll give you a little look at a blog post from an author who, like me, has read and reviewed, critiqued Harriman’s work, specifically his “”The Logical Leap: Induction In Physics”

    http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2011/05/inside-cultist-mind-2.html

    I would have made the same comments this guy made via my own research on quantum entanglement. Just as a fly requires only a little flyswatter to deal with the little itch on my back, the comments fly gets the same treatment.

    Again, why haven’t you interviewed quantum physicists? Please let me know when you get around to it.

    If I can’t use the term “Ayn Randian” on you, don’t use the term “Kantian” on me. You’re one to talk…

    By the way, I don’t have a Facebook. It’s probably another person who has also stumbled onto the root of your errors.

    I don’t need to address earlier claims of idolatry, as it was simply a meme to draw you in.

    As in, since you have STILL not addressed anything of Against the Logicians, I can assume you still haven’t read the material. Do the actual study and then come back.

    • April 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      Uh, yes you do. You’ve provided NOTHING but NAME calling to substantiate your arguments.

      I don’t need to post up material on quantum physics, as that’s a red herring to the points here. I’ve already provided the onus of proof in the very material you refuse to study in full.

      I could care less of your excuses and more name calling: “You’re small potatoes, I haven’t the time.” – as it’s clear that you’re entirely incapable of supporting YOUR arguments. I don’t need to post up things on Quantum Physics, as that’s not MY argument, it’s yours, duh. But since you’re the one arguing that Harriman is wrong, the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU, and therefore YOU’RE REQUIRED to substantiate your claims – and no one else. This is the simple reason why people in court are considered innocent until proven guilty as it’s on the one MAKING THE CLAIMS TO SUPPLY HIS EVIDENCE. You’ve supplied nothing but name calling.

      I could care less what the other author says, as I asked YOU to go through the work point by point and show how it’s wrong. Why the red harring? Are you scared? Why can’t you support a single one of your thoughts or claims, then name call and make excuses for yourself? – All the while you sit here attacking the very method that would give you the ability to support your arguments…

      This person, like you, can’t deal with the citations and material that Harriman is presenting. This person whom you cited didn’t provide a single quote or example… he just attacked Harriman and Objectivists.. .going back to my previous comment…

      It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
      Mediocre minds talk about events.
      Small minds attack people.

      If you had paid attention to what this so-called review said, he hadn’t even read it yet, duh. But you call this thinking:

      “So anyway, I finally got around to getting a copy of David Harriman’s “The Logical Leap: Induction In Physics”. I‘ve been in no hurry because, not unlike Atlas Shrugged: The Movie, everything I’d read about it pointed towards it being a typical Objectivist trainwreck.

      I’ve started into it and already it is clear the book has nothing to add to the well-known problem of induction. Nothing, nada, zip, nil, zero, nah-thing. I will be amazed if I can encounter in it a single argument that has not been made, and debunked, at at least 70 years before and more like 150 – the only detectable difference being that this old wine will have been rebottled in Rand’s obscurantist Objectivist jargon. Hence reviewing it solely for the purpose of examining Harriman’s alleged arguments, though I will touch on these, seems even beyond my considerable tolerance for thankless tasks.”

      Notice how this person, like you, is biased, and has no ability to focus on anything Harriman presented. He just attacks Harriman himself. And yet you admit that this vacuousness is the same type of unread “review” that you’d write… so you’re admitting that you too would attack Harriman and not bother with anything the book actually says… this is dishonesty and lies.. It’s not a review, it’s a thoughtless, biased, uninformed opinion that doesn’t address a single claim. It’s stupidity. But you’d write the same review… That review is exemplary of your faulty logic and inability to think clearly and to study something BEFORE you judge it – as all common sense and intelligence require. Thanks for providing a cogent example of your lack of critical thinking and your unwillinness to study anything, and your willingness to cite anyone who ALSO has NOT read the work. That’s incredible. Imagine yourself that judge in court who refuses to hear your testimony and already knows everything because there is no truth… you’re guilty because – that’s all. No need for evidence or studying anything, because in your delusional world, you just make it up and lie as you go.

      I’ve started into it and already it is clear the book has nothing to add to the well-known problem of induction. Nothing, nada, zip, nil, zero, nah-thing.

      How do you know you’d have made the same comments, considering that you didn’t bother to study Harriman’s work for YOURSELF? So you’re just a parot to anyone who regurgitates the same points of view without critical analysis? You can’t think for yourself and judge the material on your own? That’s sad.

      Again, I’ve already provided the material and citations and no one has thoughtfully gone through and addressed Harriman’s work in full, and you think that the above actually debunks it via your own ignorance from NOT studying it. If you want to hear a quantum physicist, go listen to Amit Gaswami on Joe Rogan two weeks ago use terms like “magical, matrix, voodoo”, and “can’t be verified” to substantiate his arguments… that’s not science, it’s religion – as Gaswami admitted, “Quantum Physics is the merger of science and religion” – so therefore he can make up whatever nonsense he wants, as he admits nothing can be proved… it’s magic. I have no need to have someone on for the shit that’s been put out for 90 years. It’s time to hear the other side. You need to take the onus of proof as intelligence requires and study Harriman’s work and show how it’s wrong YOURSELF, not this thoughtless regurgitation of someone else’s thoughts who also failed to study it BEFORE he commented. You’ve got to learn to think for yourself… but then, that’s what you’re afraid of, isn’t it..? You’re afraid of logic, you’re afraid to study the points Harriman raises as you think you already know it all. I believed in the horseshit of quantum physics for many years, and I’ve no need to promote their magical propaganda, but you, by force of logic itself, need to support your own arguments point by point and not use begging the question and ignorance and name calling for your position.

      Where did I call you a Kantian? What is a Kantian? What does that mean? Would you provide an exact quote of where I called you a Kantian in this conversation? Obviously you probably can’t provide quotes for that, just like you can provide nothing against Harriman, but a review to someone who also didn’t read it, just as you can’t explain why who what where when why and how is idolatry. But yet you think these actions of yours somehow reflect intelligence. They don’t… this is the absence of intelligence.

      Don’t post again. You’re wasting everyone’s time with your vacuous behavior. If you’d like to go point by point over the research so that we can have an intelligent conversation, ratther than attacking people over things you’ve never studied, then maybe at that time we can have an intelligent conversation. But there’s no intelligence in someone who thinks he already has all the answers and refuses to ever study anything that challenges his fallacious thinking and religious beliefs. You’ve already got all the answers, and you already know the truth – that there is no truth. An irony you can’t possibly understand: to say that there is no truth is a statement of truth in itself, proving the faulty logic on which the entire premise is based.

      But a Kantian is someone who refuses to study things and who believes there is no truth in the world. This was specifically addressed in depth in the materials you chose to ignore and lie about.

      You’re banned. Good bye.

  7. Anne Wilken
    August 1, 2013 at 12:13 am

    I must admit I found your site recently along with T&H, and after listening to the three interviews with Dr. Collins (I did not double check), naturally I felt fear. I was certain my meager research skills could disprove much, nope. Well verifying myself with, as I said minimal skill, to none. Not only did I teach myself a bit I trust my own research over a review. That said, and when I adjusted to my rabbit hole not having a bottom perhaps ever, I am grateful to find why curiousity and logic (based on some other base, er grammar fed to me), I have such a long way to go, but a puzzle piece added tells me worth it. Jan Irvin, Richard Grove, Stefan MOLYNEUX-the first to add missing pieces, Brett Vionette, James Corbett, well point is; the good links and joins as well as the evil, many good people not mentioned but a heartening list. Now, a bit of silliness, the “Good guys” have hybrid vigor, you know with out an imbred “blood line” . It truly has devastating effects on the health, and the paranoia, and psychopathy, grandiousity from minimal imbreeding let alone careful and long term practice. I need to research further, but does that check out for any one?
    Thank You sharing your hard work.
    Very Sincerely!

    • Anne Wilken
      August 1, 2013 at 12:35 am

      Not proof reading is a careless habit of mine. I apologize, in my fragments and run on sentences skipping a few words in the process, I did not leave much coherent, if at all.
      This is a lesson that should be learned, not the first time.

  8. el
    September 24, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    YEA JAN and all the heads…..
    keep making history, boys.

  9. Sergio Rashmos
    November 4, 2013 at 12:41 am

    Tidesson,
    Go to realitysandwich.com.–a place where you will find many individuals who are (much like yourself) loath to using logic. From simply reading your posts, I would hasten to say that you go about living your life flouting reason and evidence; instead choosing mysticism as your metric for truth. I am not trying to disparage you in any way; just thought I’d mention that a man like you ought to be spending more time at realitysandwich.com, and not a place like triviumeducation.com–a place that encourages man to use his mental faculties to the fullest.

    Sincerely,
    RASHmos

  10. November 7, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    7m The Occulting of Knowledge to create Power

    I think this is a key point about the reason the trivium and quadrivium knowledege has never been shared with main population.

  11. djb
    December 9, 2013 at 11:28 am

    Best T and H episode yet!

    Any idea when Kevin’s book will be released? It says winter 2013 in the show notes but I have yet to see any sign of when or where it is available for purchase. Kevin seems to be a ghost on the interwebs. Any links to his email, his publisher, ect. would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks

    BTW

    I highly recommend Arthur Lovejoy’s book by the same title. The subject matter compiled is absolutely essential to an understanding of the philosophical and religious developments up to the modern era. Tough read, but well worth the time.

  12. December 30, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Dear Anne:
    IMHO, this was no accident and you’re spot on! What better method of creating a slave population driven and controlled by delusions of grandeur and fear? This seems to be our Creators ‘safety valve’ but the “Fire and Forget” model on Earth requires intervention, from time to time

    “the “Good guys” have hybrid vigor, you know with out an imbred “blood line” . It truly has devastating effects on the health, and the paranoia, and psychopathy, grandiousity from minimal imbreeding let alone careful and long term practice.”

    ps: Here’s information that is MUST know; we’ve had revealed their entire mathematical structure and it cannot be debunked!
    (They’re not happy about this either!)
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%23tc33&tbm=vid

    Here are the Key THREE!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf3umEke8vk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHt327HSqb0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-LBozkDrDY

    http://dragonspaw.blogspot.com/2015/11/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *