David Harriman interview, pt. 1 – “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap” – #111

Share


This episode is an interview with David Harriman, part 1 “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap” and is being released on Monday, May 2, 2011. My interview with David was recorded on May 01, 2011.

David Harriman earned his Master’s degree in physics from University of Maryland, and his Master’s in philosophy from Claremont Graduate University. He has worked as an applied physicist and he is editor of Journals of Ayn Rand. His book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, presents Leonard Peikoff’s theory of induction as it applies to the physical sciences. Recently, he has co-founded Falling Apple Science Institute (with Tom VanDamme), a nonprofit that is developing a unique science curriculum based on the inductive method.

Falling Apple Science Institute
http://www.fallingapple.org

The Logical Leap:

Order here
Or help support Gnostic Media by ordering here: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/reading/

Please also listen to this Peace Revolution episode IN FULL:

The Philosophic Corruption of Physics:
http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-12T08_45_48-07_00

  45 comments for “David Harriman interview, pt. 1 – “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap” – #111

  1. May 2, 2011 at 6:56 am

    A study of astronomy & astrophysics must include
    the work of Kristian Birkeland, Immanuel Velikovsky,
    Halton Arp and Wal Thornhil. Maybe Mr. Harriman
    will address the Electric Universe in part 2?

    see: http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm
    http://www.holoscience.com/index.php

    • Jan Irvin
      May 2, 2011 at 7:48 am

      It’s not a study of astronomy. It’s a study of the history of INDUCTION in physics, that must cover astronomy’s history as astronomy is founded in physics. Rather than focus on what the show must or mustn’t cover, focus on what it’s about.

      • m.e. godward
        May 4, 2011 at 9:18 am

        A slight misunderstanding on my part.
        this is from wiki-

        Technical uses of INDUCTION:

        In philosophy, logic, and computer science:
        * Inductive reasoning, used in science and the scientific method

        In physics:
        * Electromagnetic induction in physics and engineering

        So maybe the history of ‘philosophic induction’ or
        ‘inductive reasoning’ in physics would be clearer.

        As Mr Harriman states-
        “Fundamental theory today is the manipulation of
        mathematics, with very little physical understanding”

        I could not agree more with this statement.
        The folks pioneering the electric universe
        deal with repeatable, scalable, labratory
        experiments, not mathematical theory, thus a
        ‘physical understanding’. Ergo, I would like to
        hear what he thinks of this emerging discipline.

        As always, I do appreciate the show.
        Plenty of food for thought. thanks

    • Ashley Wildman
      August 15, 2012 at 5:30 am

      Would be interesting if you interview any of these people Jan. I find the electric universe model fascinating to say the least. Keep up the good work on the podcasts i’m an avid listener and soon to be supporter.

  2. temetnosce
    May 2, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    These links might be helpful as background material:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
    http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=inductive

    The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great resource.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 2, 2011 at 6:15 pm

      Yeah, though we should note that these articles seem biased in exactly the direction that Harriman was pointing out.

      • May 13, 2011 at 9:48 pm

        I bow down humbly in the prenscee of such greatness.

  3. ranenb
    May 2, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    I plan to listen to this interview tonight. Everything I’ve heard about Harriman’s ideas and the little bit of reading I’ve done seems to tell me that he has a hard left-brain approach. I’m just wondering whether having him on your show is merely an exercise in critical thinking, or if your changing your tune. I say this because altered states of consciousness prove many of the aspects of quantum physics that Harriman seems to oppose, to those who give stock to entheogens anyway. I will tell you what I think tommorow. Please don’t tell me never to comment untill after I have heard or read the material, and JUST answer the questions. If the questions are irrelevant, just ignore them.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 2, 2011 at 8:00 pm

      Everything is an exercise in critical thinking…

    • oats tao
      June 4, 2013 at 4:09 am

      you said ” altered states of consciousness prove many of the aspects of quantum physics” if you have an altered state, how can that prove anything? It’s a contradiction. I can see unicorns in my dreams. Doesn’t make them real.

  4. Trade Mark
    May 2, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    “Philosophy is the walk on the sliiper rocks ceral box Religion
    A smile on a Dog”

    • Jan Irvin
      May 2, 2011 at 8:00 pm

      Edie Brickell

    • Gene
      May 4, 2011 at 10:18 am

      Sorry for the post but even though I make well… ODD comments and am evasive, still hate ignorance. Liked the interview but have no comment on it…

      Interesting, but this line on lyric tells all we need from her “shove me in the shallow water before I get too deep” I think that is not the direction to go if you want truth, freedom and peace. Time to end the crazy if you know what I mean!

      And the quote goes ” philosophy, is the top on a cereal box, religion, is the smile on a dog” then ” philosophy, is a walk on slippery rocks, religion, is the light in the fall” Catchy tune, timely even if it is from 1988, this is when I was finishing my study of the bible and other myths in comparison, at 11yrs old. As we are in the shallow end of the pool with the 3yr old’s turning it yellow or radio active green rather!

  5. david llewellyn foster
    May 3, 2011 at 4:04 am

    Jan and David, hullo.
    Thank you both for a challenging first half. It is impressive to hear David fielding so many difficult questions so ably, and you can sense the effort he is putting in to answering. This makes for stimulating listening in such profoundly learned “territory”. It is clearly impossible here to indulge in a long comprehensive comment, so for the sake of brevity and clear focus I’d like to suggest an arguably Daoistic & vernacular approach to these exponentially complex issues, by first invoking the pre-eminent William James, who emphasised the holistic value of philosophical “vision” in his pellucid lecture series “A Pluralistic Universe.” When we get through logic-chopping, once all is said and done, there remains to be asked, to what end? Your listener “Ranenb” makes a relevant observation above. Our philosophical tradition in the West, famously summarised by Whitehead as little more than a footnote to Plato, has only recently begun to engage seriously with entheogenic experience in the baffling context of QED – whence I naturally defer to Feynman, who in his celebrated lectures insisted that we do not really know what it all means, only that it works. Fine, so what should we do with this empirical, mathematically precise knowledge? Dare we re-conceptualise civilisation in the fashion of George Braque’s cubism, to escape the habitual monotonous predictability of the cliched Hollywood reality-script perhaps, as Rob A Wilson advised? Indeed, why not? That exceptionally brave opponent of GMOs, biophysicist Mae-Wan Ho, envisages organic life as Quantum Jazz. Truly phantastic.
    Which leads me to another salient question: why are there almost no women philosophers? The murder of Hypatia seems to have set a sinister precedent for 1500 years (qv John Lamb Lash.) Half our human potential is being effectively ignored, as the Turkish reformer Kemal Ataturk noted so perspicuously in the 1920’s. Alright, Ayn Rand is arguably an important thinker, but not exactly a philosopher. Should we call Mary Daly a philosopher? What about Suzanne Langer? Vandana Shiva? Susan Stebbing? Women scientists seem to get some (reluctant) acknowledgement, but philosophy seems to remain a boy’s game. Which brings me back to Karl Popper, whose work I admire. As David’s book is about Peikoff’s theory of induction, I assume we’ll get to Popper’s ideas (re Hume, Kant, Newton particularly & the pre-Socratics – indispensable in my view) in due course. Incidentally, on the strength of what I’ve heard so far I’ve ordered a copy of Ominous Parallels, & plan to read The Logical Leap.
    Just 3 other quick mentions worthy of inclusion:
    Rice art historian & classical philologist Thomas McEvilley’s extraordinary Shape of Ancient Thought – Comparative Studies in Greek & Indian Philosophies, that took him 30 years to compile, great background; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4553155406381622401#
    the remarkable Lithuanian Neoplatonist scholar, the late Algis Uzdavinys for his inspired exposition of Greek philosophy in the context of esoteric praxis, embedding classical discourse within the initiatic experience of the Ancient Mysteries; http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/authors/Algis-Uzdavinys.aspx
    ecologist Robert E. Ulanowicz – ground breaking ideas reflecting the shift in perspective from physics to process biology; http://www.amazon.com/Third-Window-Natural-beyond-Newton/dp/159947154X
    Trust this is worthwhile; many thanks Jan & David – eager to hear part 2 now…then listen to it all again!

  6. rehod
    May 3, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Not to be rude, but I absolutely abhor Ayn Rand. To put it bluntly, I believe that given the same political circumstances, and political power, she very easily could’ve been a female Hitler. However, I’ve listened to Jan Irvin enough to know that he’s very intelligent and I doubt that he would interview someone if they didn’t have something to offer. In other words, is there something to be learned from someone who subscribes to Rand’s disgusting thought processes? Rand followers are not exactly the cream of the crop, imho…Greenspan, Goldman Sachs, and more than likely all of the banksters in general, teabaggers, and lots of other odious people.

    • Bruce
      May 3, 2011 at 6:22 pm

      I agree. It’s hard to get past the Rand associations and take a person seriously knowing that’s their ideology. But I tried to set that aside and just listen.

      • Jan Irvin
        May 3, 2011 at 6:49 pm

        But isn’t that the whole idea of critical thinking? To not use fallacies: killing the messenger, guilt by association, poisoning the well, hasty generalization, etc?

        Harriman’s lecture The Philosophic Corruption of Physics is quite the mind blower. You should really check it out.

        • Bruce
          May 9, 2011 at 11:06 am

          I did listen to it, I listened before I commented. As I said, I set aside the Randianism and listened with unbiased ears.

          • June 29, 2011 at 7:21 pm

            This makes everything so cmoepletly painless.

    • Charlie Prime
      June 7, 2011 at 8:15 am

      Greenspan, Goldman Sachs, the banksters, and teabaggers are *not* followers of Ayn Rand’s objectivism.

      When you see America’s fascist economic system being characterized as “capitalism”, “Laissez-faire”, or “free market”, you know you are being lied to.

      Consider what might motivate a person to lie to you in this way.

      • Jan Irvin
        June 7, 2011 at 9:16 am

        Charlie, you’re correct. Even in Adam Curtis’s new film *All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace* tries to pin the whole thing on Rand in part one, but then he admits that Greenspan folded to the politicians and bankers rather than keeping to Rand’s objectivism. So if he folded, then how, exactly, was that Rand’s objectivism? Doh!

        There’s a whole lot of lies going on out there. Rand’s biggest problems, as I see them, are: 1) she studied history through rose colored lenses, ignoring the works of people like Carrol Quigley, Antony Sutton, etc. Painting a rosy picture of how the elites got rich, all-the-while ignoring the elite’s drug trade (like the British Crown’s opium trade, Rhode’s diamond fraud, John Perkins’ Economic Hit Man, etc.) This history flies directly in the face of Rand’s view of how the rich got rich. 2) Her sexual repression issues are blatant – ala Wilhelm Reich – and the heroic John Galt (Aristotle) figure to rescue her and carry her away. 3) She put her logic before her grammar, in other words, she had the trivium out of order.

        These issues do not negate her LOGIC, however, they do negate her application of logic to politics and economics simply for the fact that she didn’t properly gather her data/grammar before making assumptions regarding politics and how the rich got rich. With that in mind, one can use her logic after properly applying it to grammar/history to come up with valid solutions/applications for many of her ideas – the proper use of objectivism WITH the proper application/order of the trivium.

        Leonard Peikoff has the exact same problem with his conclusions regarding politics and drugs and the like. In his lectures he always bashes LSD and the like, clearly without experience through his own 5 senses. Nor has Peikoff studied the hundreds of published studies on psychedelics, violating entirely his own objectivist views – leaping to a conclusion by putting logic before data/grammar. His opinions of how to attack (and kill) people in the middle east, because everyone’s an enemy and the like, for instance, are likewise based on putting logic before properly gathering data/grammar. Ie, he’s got the trivium out of order.

        These are not issues that can’t be seen through and corrected in application for one’s self, but they should be made aware that they are there.

        Always put grammar BEFORE logic! How can you base your logical conclusions (understanding) without proper knowledge of the information you’re dealing with? Such notions are completely absurd!

        I think Harriman is a brilliant researcher, though I hope he’s able to navigate his way through these errors of his predecessors. (Though he’s probably already got Rand’s sexual suppression issues licked.)

        Lastly, I DID bring up the book *The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein* to Harriman and he was unaware of it. I followed up after the interview and sent it to him, but he never responded. This, again, seems to be the same repetition of putting logic before grammar. Let’s see what he does with the information, as the author of that book clearly has a firm grasp on induction. But if Harriman doesn’t put his grammar first, he’ll fall to the same trap.

    • Bob Flynn
      September 8, 2011 at 10:49 pm

      I don’t recall Hitler advocating for individual rights, or judging people as individuals instead of members of a group.

      I also don’t recall Hitler advocating a separation of state & economics, similar to a separation of church & state.

      On the contrary, by my admittedly limited understanding of Hitler, he advocated state-control of the economy (with token management by the private sector) and justified this on a collectivist (Aryan) ethics & epistemology.

      Reason/Individualism/Capitalism vs. Mysticism/Collectivism/Statism

      They really couldn’t be more different. If anything, the rise of the “religious left” would be a much more apt comparison.

    • Jimmy Ringo
      September 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm

      “To put it bluntly, I believe that given the same political circumstances, and political power, she very easily could’ve been a female Hitler.”

      To put it bluntly, you’re a fucking idiot, who cannot reason beyond: “Hitler had extreme views; Rand had extreme views; Rand could be Hitler.” Anti-Objectivists have no arguments left, if they ever had any, just perverted ad hominems.

  7. Jan Irvin
    May 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    What David Harriman is discussing is observing via the 5 senses, then processing the information to gain knowledge, removing the contradictions to have understanding, and then explaining the laws of your discovery to others with clear and concise rhetoric. He calls this induction.

    We generally call it:

    5-3-4

    5 Senses + (grammar-logic-rhetoric = the 3 of the trivium) + (math-geometry-music-astronomy = 4 of the quadrivium) + plus philosophy

    Or, as a systematic method, we could call it the 7 liberal arts.

  8. rehod
    May 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Thank you! Sounds good. Excellent presentation on the trivium at the Free Your Mind conference, btw…learned a lot!

  9. May 3, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    What a relief. The “primacy of consciousness” notion that I create reality is too much responsibility. I’m glad I can go back to thinking that trees are trees.

    The Gnostic Media crowd knows that cracks do open up in the tapestry of reality, allowing a glimpse into something/somewhere that doesn’t map to the conventional laws of nature. But better to take Newton’s approach and admit, “I don’t know.”

    This is really fantastic stuff. Time flew for me listening to Harriman’s 6-hour “philosophic Corruption of Physics” lecture. He has a gift for communicating abstract concepts to the lay audience, and engages his audience with his humble, earnest approach. Can’t wait to hear part two!

    • Jan Irvin
      May 4, 2011 at 9:44 am

      I couldn’t agree more, Dave.

  10. tOM
    May 6, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Here’s an article that demonstrates the need for critical thinking in
    the social sciences, the destiny of mankind may depend on it:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2010.01214.x/full

    How big is the lie? here is Chomsky’s take on the current situation:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noam-chomsky/us-global-power_b_851992.html

    • david llewellyn foster
      May 9, 2011 at 3:07 am

      tOM – thanks for these two very interesting links – truth is, the situation is looking quite dire for the US, time to brace for grave impending consequences. In my view the “eighties” were the point of no return when colossal mistakes were made, so having sown the wind – we must expect the whirlwind. The rest of the world is clearly not exempt, but all of the America’s have colossal environmental & social problems and together with the precipitous US/China debt situation, the “deep politics” of Orwellian military adventures, shifting sands in the Arab world & a global food bubble about to burst with a water crisis exacerbated by climate change and transgenic pollution…well, it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to snap the picture. Big changes are imminent.

      • tOM
        May 9, 2011 at 2:52 pm

        good summary! the rate of change is exponential, genocide and
        ecocide, the breaks have failed, we’re about to slam into
        the wall.

  11. Tom
    May 9, 2011 at 8:32 am

    I have a similar background as Harriman – degrees in Physics and Philosophy. I am just getting to the end of part I. I have no firm conclusions yet, but my sense is that at least some of his criticisms of Kant may not be very well founded. You have to look at these guys in context. Philosophy had evolved to the point where Hume concluded – we cannot know anything. Kant pushed back and concluded – yes we can. Harriman acknowledges this, but he seems to criticize Kant’s acceptance of Hume’s challenge on Hume’s terms, where Kant was fairly creative and sound in taking on Hume.

    I am not sure yet whether Kant extended this debate to placing irrational restrictions upon practical scientific investigation, as seems to be suggested. I still need to see the case for this. My (perhaps unfounded) assumption was that Kant kept these realms separated in his analysis. The main dividing point being what practical axioms do we accept as true, though they cannot be strictly proven. Kant did take some liberties with his views on Ethics. But who does not? Answer: John Rawls.

    An important background to the philosophical debate of the Era was the role of God and spiritualism and nature of human consciousness. Some of the comments above correctly identify the notion of transcending the material world as an important concept at play.

  12. Paul
    June 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    Hello from podcast land, where we listen to everything a little late.

    Mr. Harriman tells a story about Leonard Peikoff in which he asks his Physics teacher, “Who was the first physicist?”

    When the teacher replies that there was no first physicist, Mr. Peikoff replies, “Well, was the second physicist the first?”

    While this is a funny story, I would like to point out that the august title “Physicist” is applied arbitrarily by academic/political consensus, and it really is a silly question to ask who was the first. If we want to say that Moses was the first physicist, then we can do that. It all depends on political will. Last year Pluto was a planet, this year its not. Just like that.

    I am now a HUGE fan of this podcast. Amazing. Incredible. Brilliant.

    Keep it up.

    Paul

  13. Larissa
    September 9, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Fascinating podcast, thanks for posting it! I have just started reading “The Logical Leap” and I cannot wait to get through the entire thing! In terms of the philosophical argument here, it is important for readers/listeners to focus on the *main point* – being: what is inductive knowledge, how does it qualify as a valid source of knowlegde and what are its proper mechanisms. This is specifically applied to the field of physics because the natural sciences are basically inductive sciences – they are the establishment of general principles based on observations of particular events/phenomena. To understand how induction works in science, you need to understand induction in general, which is essentially the task of epistemology – i.e., of philosophy.

    Now, for those who have posted here with ignorant comments such as “Ayn Rand was not a real philosopher” and “Ayn Rand was basically like Hitler’ (you know who you are) – I challange you to (a) back up your statements with facts and concrete examples referring to her explicit ethical and political philosophy – this requires that you actually go and read her works – which leads me to challange (b) check your premises – you will find that this is necessary, since, by virtue of actually researching the topic, you will find your slanderous biases to be false. Ayn Rand was very much a philosopher in the proper sense – she outlined a comprehensive and explicit system of thought which covered metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. In terms of the “branch” of the school of her philosophical system, Objectivism, one could say that it could be characterized as Neo-Aristotelean. And, within her philosophical system, she advocated the exact opposite tennats to Hitler – individualism versus collectivism; capitalism versus socialism/left fascism; objectivity and rational thinking as one’s *only* source of knowledge as opposed to Hitler’s fervour for “gut feelings” and racialistic/nationalistic intuitivism.

  14. Jan Irvin
    September 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Here are a few videos that support David Harriman and reveal that quantum physics and the big bang are gobbledegook.

    Universe: The Cosmology Quest:
    Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2827896363014586265
    Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1966820922322808100&emb=1&hl=en

    And also Thunderbolts of the Gods:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGGTrAKSJDo

    • Ashley Wildman
      August 15, 2012 at 7:10 am

      Excellent videos. Glad to see them linked here on the forum.

  15. Shane
    April 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Will you upload this interview to your YouTube channel please?

  16. valiantx
    July 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    I think Hume has been misunderstood about his statement of the ‘why’ and how man can never know the world. He was trying to allude that reasoning, logic, and rational thinking filtered what the senses experienced and thus man could never truly see reality for what it really should be. Children ask ‘why’ because they too have be acculturated into the deluded mindset that affects older humans, a schizoid perception of reality and what Julian Jaymes called the bi-cameral mind – left to their own direct individual experience with nature, if ever possible, I doubt children would fall prey to this psychological dilemma i.e. the druids, shamans, taoists, etc. In short, what does the word ‘why’ implies or infer anyways… and it’s simply this, that it is an abstraction humans create in their mind to resist their sensations they’ve experienced from reality; to escape or split from the real.

    Then Kant, who himself was an apologists for the dichotomy between the philosophy schools of the Rationalists and Empiricists, is right that human can never know the world as Hume had implied, but I believe his assertion that the delusion of the human mind is okay to live with is irrational to me; then again, Kant may have positioned himself in such a philosophical stance because if one knows that they live in a delusion, then there is in reflection the fact the real does exists beyond the human mind, which Hume stated that our senses are the bridges between the whole phenomenon of the external reality. Yet I say, if humans never become aware and understand true reality, and continue living in a internal maya or delusion, how can anyone be ever able to live in sync and wholly with nature? Quite crazy in my opinion. I agree with Harriman’s explanation that Kant said scientists were delusional, their mathematics play in part to it, and have themselves insulated their minds from the external reality. More over, is it not a practicing principle of scientists to ‘remove themselves’ from the experiment? Quite illogical, because the only way anyone could possibly even do this was to never exist at all!

    Overall, a very enlightening interview Jan and David.

  17. BrettB
    August 17, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    After having listened to the 6 hour lecture that Harriman gave and listening to this interview, I basically conclude that the MAIN DETRIMENTAL ERROR that Kant and his various followers made was essentially TOTALLY THROWING AWAY all of Newton’s brilliant discoveries rather than simply criticizing them and as Harriman mentions in the 6 hour lecture, to take the concepts that Newton developed and explore them more deeply. The way I see it is that there is much more to what reality is than what Newton discovered but as long we are inside of a human suit, his laws apply! I can’t help but think that Kant at some point in his life was standing near a cliff or on top of a tall building or something and realized that he had better not jump off.

    Great interview Jan. Looking forward to part 2.

  18. MarkDuran
    September 13, 2012 at 11:14 am

    I found Leonard Peikoff’s book “The Ominous Parallels” in a dollar bin at a local book store about three weeks ago. Hearing this amazing interview, and devouring Mr. Herriman’s 5 hour lecture courtesy of the Peace Revolution Podcast, reminded me of my purchase, which I kind of forgot about.

    This book is a must read on this subject, the writing is superb, and it starts paying off with valuable/relevant information at once.

    As far as the STATE AS A RELIGION goes, here’s what Mr. Peikoff describes on page 35, in the first chapter of “The Ominous Parallels,” as Hegel’s Philosophy of what the state is:

    ” The ethics and politics which Hegel derives from his fundamental philosophy can be indicated by two sentences from his PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT: “A single person, I need hardly say, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole. Hence if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it.”
    Hegel’s collectivism and state-worship are more explicit than anything to be found in Plato’s writings. Since everything is ultimately one, the group, he holds, has primacy over the individual. If each man learns to suppress his identity and coalesce with his fellows, the resulting collective entity, the state, will be a truer reflection of reality, a higher manifestation of the Absolute. The state in this view is not an association of autonomous individuals. It is itself an individual, a mystic “person” that swallows up the citizens and transcends them, an independent, self-sustaining organism, made of human beings, with a will and purpose of its own. “{A}ll the worth which the human being possesses,” writes Hegel, “all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State.”
    The state-organism is no mere secular entity. As a manifestation of the Absolute, it is a creature of God, and thus demands not merely obedience from its citizens but reverential worship. “The State is Divine Idea as it exists on earth.” “The march of God in the world, that is what the state is.” The purpose of the state, therefore, is not the protection of its citizens. The state is not a means to any human end. As an entity with supernatural credentials, it is “an absolute unmoved end in itself,” and it “has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.”

    {end quote}
    This ties in with Larken Rose’s work, as well as Dean Clifford’s exposure of the CAFRS I believe; and I think even your work with exposing the influential interests that motivated the psychedelic movement (“we’re all one” and shit). Of course it all ties together; once you can recognize A REALLY IS A, you can start eliminating contradictions. Which you have done (Jan) and have helped a lot of people to do the same I’m sure.
    As far as I’m concerned its a case of cognitive dissonance as well, and Orwellian DoubleThink where the state is protector of individual rights and at the same time can be the spiritual corporation that gives human existence meaning (which is to collect and obey authority).

    Thank you Jan for your podcast and all your hard work, continues to be an amazing resource of the most important information.

  19. dana shetterly
    October 1, 2013 at 10:08 pm

    Just wanted to say David’s evaluation of Einstein’s math is wrong. Unless of course we can suddenly devide by zero.
    Here’s several the mathematical proofs of his garbage. There are also several logical proofs relativity is garbage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA

    Einstein’s first paper “On Matter and Motion” contains ZERO footnotes.

    Finally there ARE NOT many experimental confirmations of relativity. There is much much more evidence that it is correct.
    The supposed first confirmation of “gravitational lensing” performed during a solar eclipse was somehow done on a rainy day according to the diary of the experimenter.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QttqBuRg5B0

    Science is riddled with fraud and fraudsters. Relativity is full of holes and needs many patches. I.E dark matter, dark energy, etc…

    • October 1, 2013 at 10:40 pm

      Please study the full lay out in David’s book and the linked Philosophic Corruption of Physics lecture. No, it’s not incorrect. You’re misrepresenting his argument. Please study it in full.

  20. Tom Hall
    January 7, 2014 at 5:23 am

    Harriman’s complete lecture “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics” is now available for $4.49 at https://estore.aynrand.org/p/387/the-philosophic-corruption-of-physics-mp3-download

  21. Omaraven Hurst
    July 6, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Looking forward to listening to both parts of this as I’ve enjoyed his book but sadly, Jan, reducing the argument to “Quantum Physics wants to say there is no truth’ as I’ve seen you do in a number of instances online, serves neither to represent David Harriman nor yourself as a Trivium practitioner. And this IS an ad hominem ‘attack’ because in this case, it’s your summary representation of a complex of issues that ‘afficts me’.

  22. Omaraven Hurst
    July 6, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Doesn’t make you a bad poyson though :P

Leave a Reply