Vinny’s NUTShell: Jan Irvin www.GnosticMedia.com This show makes me feel stupid and enlightened at the same time.
Jan Irvin is an author and critical thinker to rival any other, his discovery and dispensing of the Trivium.
It’s meant to give people the power to figure out what is true from what is fiction in any situation by asking the simple questions like:
Who, What, Where, When, Why and saving How, for last.
www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com
http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/2012.html#ixzz28M4wiW59
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:49:49 — 50.3MB)
Wow Jan,
Thanks so much for your concise treatment of “the whole thing”
For a guy with the flu I’d hate to contemplate your ability under sound health.
With so much monkey poo flying about the past few weeks it is refreshing to hear the importance of the trivium
underscored around your other works.
I hope everyone coming here may use this interview as a 101 before flying off the handle.
I guess the truth doesn’t come easy unless you’re sitting on a pillow and making shit up.
Get well soon
An instructive podcast, Jan. I learned a few things, and made a couple of connections:
That the X-Club was an allusion to Ezekial. I wonder if the “X Men” comic book/movie phenomenon is a similar allusion, a form of predictive programming. After all, the X Men are literal supermen, and the opening narrative of the first X-Men movie talks about a leap in evolution.
That the idea of middle class kids going off to trip, whether in Amazonia or Berkely, in order to be mind-controlled, may have been around a long time: the Elusinian Mysteries may qualify as such a movement.
That there are two schools of sophists, good ones and bad ones, hence my prior confusion on the term. I need to read up on them!
Finally, if I may be so bold, a suggestion for improving your “rhetoric”: you might want to consider going easy on the phrase “you know.” One or two would go unnoticed by the listener; twenty might cause a little irritation; by the hundredth it would start to approach the pain threshold of some listeners. You know?
An Outbreak of Fear and Paranoia in the Psychedelic Mushroom Community
Simon G. Powell http://www.realitysandwich.com/paranoia_psychedelic_mushroom_community
I put in several comments already about Simon’s latest on Jan. Enjoy everyone and just now starting this new podcast interview.
Jan if you have the flu – for me three bulbs of garlic reverse all symptoms. Lots of cayenne, vinegar, etc.
Yes, Drew, I’ve read both your and Simon’s unsupported claims against me. I had already replied in another thread. Here’s my reply:
Incredible… Simon either doesn’t grasp what he’s reading, or he started on page 23 and ignored all of the research and citations. So many fallacies of omission.
For instance, he completely ignores all of Bruce Adamson’s research, and all of my citations to the CFR archives at Princeton on the entire JFK assassination. His quote about the Morgan family, et al, was cited in the Prof. Andrews Archives from Yale and that was also very detailed in the article. Nope, no acknowledgement of any of that. No acknowledgement of the Hall Carbine affair, nor the Bertrand Russell missives – completely omitted – as well as Wasson’s decade long working relationship with Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda. No mention that Wasson co-authored the Stock Exchange Act – especially in light of all of the recent economic scandals. He completely avoids that I published primary documents on Wasson’s involvement as a chairman to the Council on Foreign Relations. He ignores the coinciding publications of Valentina’s article, that’s omitted, and that went out to 12 million news paper subscribers that same week, the publishers of both happened to work with Wasson, or his boss, who was Skull and Bones. Why was all of this omitted?
Also, I get a kick that Simon quotes Tommy of all people… the most unlearned of all in the trivium. “The trivium is used to debunk conspiracy theories” Sad, sad, sad.
Tommy is an internet troll that does nothing but go around the internet and cause trouble, misquote and distort everything he comes across. That Simon would cite him without fact checking him is absolutely hilarious and further reveals Simon’s incompetence and inability to fact check a single citation.
The trivium is a systematic method of verification. It’s not to debunk anything but poor research and unsubstantiated fallacies… that Simon completely relies on in his screeds, so of course he’s going to distort what the trivium really is – otherwise he’d have to face his own constant use of fallacies – from Latin: fallare – to Lie.
I explained that to Simon in my email. He ignored all of it. Also, I had sent Simon my citations regarding Bruce Adamson to his Facebook account, though he seems to have intentionally ignored the citations there too. He also quotes Tommy on his analysis that my only support of Wasson’s involvement with the JFK assassination is George de Morhenschilt. This, again, is a lie and an omission of the citations.
On Simon’s comments regarding Kennan, this, again, is hilarious, as at first Tommy went around the internet claiming that Kennan had denied joining the Century Club and NOT the CIA, when in fact I had quoted the letters to cite his recruitment that it was in fact the CIA. After a dozen mentions to Tommy, he finally admitted that he distorted it all. This of course was also omitted by Simon and Tommy. But then, after I had pointed out that Tommy had repeatedly distorted the contents of the letter, then Tommy came out with this updated distortion (thoughtlessly quoted by Simon) that Kennan was against the CIA, which Tommy had omitted that Kennan was complaining to Wasson about these issues as to why he was refusing the recruitment to the CIA, but of course this, again, is omitted. Neither Tommy nor Simon bothered to ask me for the letter, nor has either of them quoted it – as it would reveal them as completely incompetent or lying. Simon’s repeated quoting of Tommy there is in fact a straw man arugment – not using any of my citations – and Tommy blatantly distorts the letter and doesn’t at least quote my reading of it at all. Why didn’t either bother to ask for the letter? And why did neither of them quote me? Because it doesn’t fit with their distortions, omissions and lies of my work.
I get a kick out of the fact that nearly every comment on Reality Sandwich is ad hominem attacks, wild accusations, and unsupported claims – but hardly any seem capable of going to my site and reading my article and seeing if Simon is even telling the truth – which he’s obviously not. It would take all of Simon’s fans but a few minutes to discover that his entirely misleading them and lying to them and is in fact repeatedly distorting my work.
But I actually don’t think that Simon even read my article, even though he claims here that he has. Maybe he read only the conclusion or a few paragraphs at the end – where, for instance, he took my quote out of context from the end of the article, pretending as though the entire article didn’t provide 70 citations supporting those claims with great detail, and instead he simply cited Tommy’s distortions! Gasp! He’s not even capable of getting primary documents and relies on an internet troll for his work.
Come on folks! Anyone who’s intelligent enough to read my work for themselves will know that Simon’s, Tommy’s, Jonny Enoch’s supposed deconstructions of my work, don’t in fact, even address my work or what was said – AT ALL. These are complete distortions – lies.
Anyway, fricken hilarious. Simon just keeps burying himself deeper and deeper into his world of incompetence.
Also, as I pointed out previously to Simon, he could have just called the librarian at the Century and asked for the documents, rather than making up wild speculations and conspiracy theories about me. That’s just incredible that he’s too incompetent to call the librarian there and ask.
Even the title is an appeal to ridicule and ignorance…
I told Simon that he’s promoting ignorance when he distorts information and promotes fear against people who might otherwise read my work on its own merit. I won’t bother with further response. I’ll just take all of the free advertising from Reality Sandwich. Anyone who’s intelligent enough will just read the work themselves and know that you’re all lying. As I told Simon the other day:
“Condemnation without Investigation is the Height of Ignorance” – Albert Einstein
- who Simon quotes extensively in the opening of his book. Indeed, pure irony.
Simon’s psittacism is rather sad, as is his blind ignorance of ponerology.
I’m still undecided if Simon is just completely incompetent, or a sophist liar.
Shakes head and walks away.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/paranoia_psychedelic_mushroom_community
I looked through the comment thread on that article, and it is embarrassing nonsense, like jeering school kids. Again and again, this or that supposedly different person claims to have examined all of your claims and they all fell apart, but fails to give any examples. I wouldn’t even get angry about such silliness.
What even sadder is these morons who actually think that Simon addressed anything in my work… Drew, for instance.
I have also read through the RS thread. Many issues, many digressions. Some of the comments are sharper than others. I actually think Simon writes better than he talks, but clearly misses the main argument and refuses to understand the relevance of following it in detail. My own view is that it is essential to trace these connections, if only to expose the CIA-Vatican comfort zone, whilst casting the whole background “history” of Christendom into far greater and deeper perspective.
Joe Atwill has blown a big hole in the religion racket, and the knock-on repercussions of his excellent work will be colossal. We must keep vigilant.
Drew I have read through quite a bit of your stuff, and find your ideas interesting if sometimes convoluted and a bit difficult to follow. So I think you may be interested in
David Clarke (Editor), Eric Clarke (Editor) 2011 Music and Consciousness: Philosophical, Psychological, and Cultural Perspectives; OUP Among the contributions is an Ayahuasca essay by Benny Shanon.
I too admire the work of both Shiva and Ho, so we have much common ground there. Your legitimate concerns about Mae-Wan Ho’s comments on “engineered” algae may be warranted but her emphasis was on the benefits of oxygen augmentation http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Photosynthetic_Bacterium_Converts_CO2_into_Petrochemical_and_O2.php
also, there are non-gmo methods being trailed http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_trent_energy_from_floating_algae_pods.html
This all ties in to the Reinventing Fire approach of Amory Lovins, and others like Lester Brown’s “Plan B” ~ http://www.earth-policy.org/
On realitysandwich you allude to the Dunbar number “People naturally organize subconsciously through these hubs just as the normal “tribe” of interpersonal relations is 100 people – about that number.” So far as I am aware Robin Dunbar estimates this number of optimal group association to be 150.
By the way, I posted a link to Tobias Churton’s Crowley Bio book-launch on http://fulllotusqigong.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/revisiting-wanderling-after-he-writes.html with some relevant observations, did you see that?
I see no point in allowing ourselves to be digressed into childish controversies, as it is more productive and intelligent to cleave to the principles of sound scholarly method.
We should not ignore the fact that Simon says “I should point out that I have told Irvin that I will issue a public apology if his conspiracy ideas about Wasson, Alan Watts, McKenna, et al, turn out to be true beyond all reasonable doubt…” Who decides “reasonable doubt” still remains an open question however. That does not detract from the point though, which is to examine the facts.
Drew, you have a go at Richard Dawkins, and I realise where you’re coming from, but remember one thing, he always advocates evidence-based conclusions. That is what this business is all about, evidence. What we may infer from empirical facts is a question of personal judgement and philosophical sophistication, but should not be corrupted by prejudice or (re-)conditioned opinion. So let us not allow personal agendas to distort that high purpose, for after all is said and done, it is a noble aim to seek the Truth and not condone or perpetuate sophist lies, however “noble.”
Check out some of the ads on that site. They are peppered with phrases such as:
“The Evolver Network”
“Human Transformation”
“Evolution for Your Ears”
And if you do a search on “teilhard site:realitysandwich.com” you get 44 hits. The articles have lots of narrative going on about the time singularity, noosphere, and related ideas.
And evolution (note the ads on the front page), and human transformation.
[valley girl imperonation]
When I saw that I was like, ho lee shit..
[/valley girl impersonation]
Wow… what a convoluted post by Simon, and the thread of comments…
It’s ad hominem all over the place. Like this was a popularity contest. Why bother dealing with facts?
I think many of these Simon’s followers would be shocked to listen to your earlier podcasts Jan, and find out that you were fighting shoulder to shoulder with Jack Herer on the Hemp movement, and interviewing all these scholars on pshychedelics. I suppose you don’t like to toot your own horn, nor indulge in the fallacy of authority and let the research speak for itself, but these people would be shocked if they knew more about you.
On a related note, I started to wonder if there is a connection between cognitive dissonance and neurology.
It seems to me that using the Trivium to attempt to unveil reality to a peron that has been conditioned to produce their conclusions based in authority and fear based self-preservation instinct, doesn’t work in most cases. So I am perplexed, and wondering why this happens. And the answer I keep coming up with is ‘cognitive dissonance’.
So I wonder if there is a connection between cognitive dissonance and neurology. In other words, is cognitive dissonance a conscious and explicit decision to ignore a piece of information that threatens my view about the world? Or is it an automatic reaction that I’ve been indulging in?
If we consider the Hebbian theory (cells that fire together, wire together). Can this be used to explain the way people misuse their cognitive faculties?
If the Hebbian theory is key to explain addictive behaviours, then can we venture to suggest that people are “addicted” to putting their logic ahead of their grammar? Neurological pathways have been created and consolidated for many years, starting with parents passing on to their kids fallacious logic conclusions, then reinforced by schooling, media, counselors, role models, celebrities, billionaires on TV, doctors, priests, politicians. All of this, which some people call the Matrix, or the Construct. It all reinforces corrupted logic and fallacious thinking. So it acts as a “fix” for peoples’ “addiction” to corrupted thinking.
So for example, when some annoying friend hassles us about fluoride in the water, it creates discomfort. If our friend used the Trivium to present this information, then it creates huge discomfort, because we’ve been exposed to a foreign way of using our brain, and our brain is just not “wired” to operate this way (in the same way an addicted person will go through withdrawl discomfort when quitting his favourite fix).
What do addicts do when they feel this pain? They go for another fix. In the same way, when we are exposed to the Trivium, we want a fix. We need it. So we go to the Matrix to find it. There’s always going to be some commercial, some politician, some charismatic media clown, some dentist in the case of fluoride, something to appease the discomfort in my brain. Those brain cells are back in place now, everything is fine again. I can now reject that information and go back to sleep.
Interesting theory, Marcos. Yes, I agree that it’s cognitive dissonance. It could be looked at from a few angles, however.
There are these incompetence studies:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1999-15054-002
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~ehrlingerlab/Ehrlinger_et_al2008.pdf
http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html
The other is just the conditioning itself. This is their CONDITIONED response in the face of facts and evidence. And you’ll notice that even those who claim to have read it and disagree with it, are never able to actually provide something from the article that was wrong – without their taking it out of context or ignoring the citations.
And interestingly, it’s these same types who refuse to go over the information point by point who then accuse you of refusing to accept critical feedback. But it never occurs to them that they can’t give critical or constructive feedback yet on something they haven’t studied! And then they approach things as an emotional loon with all of their beliefs and agendas to protect – screaming all of these things like Simon, Jonny, et al, that bear nothing on the research what so ever. But yet, if I ban them and ignore their rants, I’m the one who’s unbearable. Yeah, it creates a ton of cognitive dissonance for them.
Another unchallenging interview, still looking forward to the one with an unbiased, objective host. Your recent rounds on alternative ‘guerilla media’ has been a who’s who of mealy-mouthed shysters, all about turning a profit over telling a truth. Shameful, but enlightening as to how generic, wet and ineffectual they all are. Looks like entertainment, conspiracy consumerism is a booming business.
Considering your comment is coming from someone with their own agenda to protect, you really shouldn’t be criticizing others.
http://alchemicalarchives.blogspot.com/
Just because you thoughtlessly worship McKenna as your lord god, doesn’t mean the hosts are shysters. It just means that you have your own agenda to protect first and foremost, or you wouldn’t make comments like this.
If you yourself have some questions, simply ask them, rather than trying to post your underhanded comments. Again, I get that you worship McKenna.
By the way, at the risk of either saying something that is already known to people here, or of being a little too far out: The alchemy-is-a-metaphor-for-spiritual-development paradigm is a nineteenth century invention. It is NOT ancient.
I know people will say this is a bit of a departure for me but:
Applying non-contradictory identification to the corpus of alchemical writings, reveals that there was a core of people who gave a consistent description of an actual Philosophers’ Stone, not a metaphor for spiritual development, an actual technology, and wrote about their method of doing so.
The non-contradictory identification is what has drawn me into looking at this with an open mind. The Philosophers’ Stone might turn out not to exist after all, but it is an engaging puzzle.
My point here is that if it does exist, then there is the likelihood of a crossover to the co-opting, disinformation conspiracies in the gnosticmedia.com space.
http://www.thebookofaquarius.com
(It’s non-commercial, and I get nothing for mentioning it)
The Emerald Tablet of Thoth/Hermes Trismegistus is dated to between the late 1100′s and early 1200′s, and is largely considered the beginning point of western alchemy. However, this information can be seen much earlier by studying the Egyptian civilization, as well as the masters from the east that were already well versed in the subject matter before the CE. The first forms of alchemy were based upon spiritual laws tied to the natural world. There was no mention creating a material representation or literal form of the Philosopher’s Stone until the material alchemists came into being much later.
Interestingly, the first material alchemists still followed the spiritual process, but chose to perform physical tasks that mirrored the inner work- “As above, so below.” In many ways, this lies at the heart of western ceremonial magic of the Golden Dawn, the Rosicrucians, and all of their permutations.
Alchemical concepts can be seen openly in Sufism. Abū Ḥāmed Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī’s “The Alchemy of Happiness” was written shortly before his death in 1105. The Persian mystical tradition clearly predates Sufism, however, so the origins of alchemy as it was initially created as a spiritual practice stretch back to pre-Zoroastrian times. The Magi of Persia were required to study alchemy.
Alchemy was also at the heart of Mithraism:
http://www.thedyinggod.com/mithraism-and-alchemy
“”These truths are obscurely represented by the teaching of the Persians and by the mystery of Mithras which is of Persian origin. For in the latter there is a symbol of the two orbits in heaven, the one being that of the fixed stars and the other that assigned to the planets, and of the soul’s passage through these. The symbol is this. There is a ladder with the seven gates and at its top an eighth gate. The first of the gates is of lead, the second of tin, the third of bronze, the fourth of iron, the fifth of an alloy, the sixth of silver, and the seventh of gold. They associate the first with Kronos (Saturn), taking lead to refer to the slowness of the star; the second with Aphrodite (Venus), comparing her with the brightness and softness of tin; the third Zeus (Jupiter), as the gate that has a bronze base which is firm; the fourth with Hermes (Mercury), for both iron and Hermes are reliable for all works and make money and are hard-working; the fifth with Ares (Mars), the gate which as a result of the mixture is uneven and varied in quality; the sixth with the Moon as the silver gate; and the seventh with the Sun as the golden gate, these metals resembling their color.” Origen. Against Celsus, (Contra Celsum), 6.22)”
Therefore, essentially, the alchemists employed the language of chemical procedures as allegory. Transmuting lead into gold implied the purification of the soul. This process was represented by the transmutation of lead, the bases form, and the subsequent removal of its impurities until gold was achieved, also represented astrologically as ascending through the six planets, culminating in a
vision of the Sun, symbolized by gold.”
Personally, I find the original form of alchemy much more interesting than distilling urine, or as some material occultists, robbing graves to consume bits of the dead for their experiments (to eventually be consumed). I find purely material alchemy to have no balls, whatsoever, but I can understand the draw. No inner work is required at all. It’s the lazy man’s illumination through darkness. And I have always found that path to be fairly weak and impotent, but hey, material alchemists are responsible for the modern pharmaceuticals we have today, so at least there’s that.
I’ll take tantra and yoga over drinking year-old piss any day of the week. But if you decide to pursue this incomprehensibly vulgar interpretation of the Philosopher’s Stone, I have only one request: please, please, please, film it. And, if you are fortunate enough to survive, let us know about where drinking it took you.
Hmm, appeal to ridicule.
Yes, the starting matter is urine, but only because, as far I understand it (and I’m just a beginning student of this area), it is more convenient. The intermediate products, and the Philosophers’ Stone are nothing like urine.
Some people will run away screaming at this point, and return to their TV (UK Channel 4, probably): appeal to popularity, ridicule, and ignorance.
By the way, as an aside: many people drink their own urine as a health practice, it is nothing to be frightened or horrified about. There are no microbes in it.
Much of the nomenclature of alchemy, and especially the names of the equipment, are Arabic. Indeed, the earliest extant European works came to us by a similar route to the Greek philosophers tracts: by being translated into Arabic and then later back into Latin. The Turba Philosophorum being a good example.
There is also Chinese and Vedic alchemy, but I’m even less familiar with that.
The Hermetic philosophical principle of “as above, so below” does indeed imply a fractal nature to reality, so yes, there are spiritual implications. But by the same token, you can’t dismiss physical alchemy as a mere metaphor for spiritual practices. The abundant use of metaphors by the alchemists obscures their communications intentionally.
I hope I’ll be forgiven by doing a Jan here and suggesting that you read the book (at the site that I linked to) before mouthing off about it.
And pictures: there are many on the forum, of home lab setups.
Returning to my original point: Your response is what I was talking about: About 1800 the old alchemy stopped, or went further underground, and we get a tidal wave of “spiritual” narrative seemingly intent on diverting the attention of serious students, scholars, and regular people, in a manner not totally unlike the way that the CIA-inspired psychedelic movement, and perhaps organized religion itself, co-opted interest in the virtues of magic mushrooms.
I don’t think you are fully grasping what I am trying to help you to understand, robert42. Alchemy, from its inception, was a spiritual practice, with the ritualized use of the base metals and elements used as symbolic talismans. And that practice predates purely physical alchemy by literally thousands of years. If anything, true alchemy as spiritual practice has gone underground, not the other way around. You assertion as to a co-opting of spiritual alchemy circa 1800 is conjecture. Many who may call what they are doing spiritual alchemy or true alchemy certainly aren’t practicing anything close to any of the original forms, at least at the mainstream level. However, there are many who practice forms of alchemy that predate your timeline by thousands of years. I, myself, have studied Sufism and its form of alchemy for over 10 years.
Alchemy, much like many spiritual practices of the past, has gone through a process of being literalized and reduced in potency via the dark ages. When the Templars returned to Europe from their studies in India, Persia, and China, they brought with them the foundation of “western occultism”. Being that the masses of people in Europe were without any viable form of education outside of the Church, the first practitioners of the original forms of alchemy reduced it to a purely physical exercise as a means to pursue temporal power. There are direct links, as I have stated, between the early physical alchemists of post dark ages Europe and the modern medical establishment. In my view, that’s where physical alchemy will take you. If that appeals to you, great, but like I said, please film yourself drink the fermented pee.
And I am well aware of the benefits of urine in the healing process because that’s the field I base my career upon. Fermenting it over a year and adding base metals, then consuming it, sounds profoundly bizarre to me. I don’t have the opinion of this practice as being vulgar because of its origin or ingredients, I have the opinion of its vulgarity because it completely and utterly misses the point of the alchemical process. In short, it is akin to handling snakes or drinking strychnine due to a literal interpretation of allegory in the Bible.
No addition of base metals. Once again, you have not done your grammar.
From Chapter 19:
“The White Stone can then be “fermented” with silver in order to stabilize it and make it capable of withstanding higher heat. You can think of this as trapping the life-energy inside a material body (the silver.)
The White Stone can be subjected to higher heat, which will mature it into the Red Stone. The Red Stone must itself be “fermented” with gold.”
So *silver* is “base metal?” Oh, thank you for enlightening me, oh great alchemist!
Physical silver and gold certainly aren’t base metals. Silver and gold *solutions* are, indeed base compared to physical silver and gold. But again, silver and gold are metaphor in the original forms of alchemy, and literal to modern western physical alchemy. In physical alchemy, the practice is reduced to a lab experiment. Your misunderstanding of what you interpret as the original form of alchemy led to my comment. That seems to be a subject that you have a great deal of difficulty addressing at this point, given that the study of the history of alchemy utterly destroys it.
You and your ilk try to make them into metaphors, but the fact is that there is a consistent description, that emerges after comparing and contrasting the tracts, of an actual product and the method or methods of its production.
You have conceded that Hermetic principles imply that, while there are spiritual implementations, there are also (what you would term “vulgar”) physical implentations. The genuine alchemists (that is, the ones that seem in agreement across many centuries) are describing such a thing, and it is an unnecessary multiplication of theories (as Occam would say) to suppose that their consistent but blatantly physical descriptions all just happened to be about the same “spiritual,” “internal” interpretation.
Fact is, if the Philosophers’ Stone exists (and I’m not a “believer,” just a fair-minded, mild skeptic who is willing to give it a full examination) then its widespread release will be the most important event in history. It will change many aspects of the world we live in. We will have a lot more pressing concerns to deal with than satisfying some Internet ignoramus demanding a video.
And if it does exist, and we find it, then it WILL be released and disseminated as widely as possible. Now go tell that to those other people of like mind that you associate with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGOF_In9BM&feature=related
Yeah, I would imagine our agendas clash. Mine being to share information freely and yours to profit and beg for paper while riding on the bones of the dead.
You’re absolutely right Jan, I have a shrine to Lord Terry in my garden and believe he will descend from the clouds on December 22nd to save the faithful while condemning you to the company you’ve created for yourself. At least my god is greater than the god your disciples have toadied around.
If I were alive in the late 1920′s, I wouldn’t have needed to read, Mien Kampf and refute it point by point to tell you Adolph’s idea’s were that of a mad man.
Notice how these McKenna guys are ONLY capable of name calling and making baseless accusations? Why is every one of them incapable of dealing with the research? They’re an emotional mess.
Notice his red herring to Hitler… just ridiculous… always character attacks, never any honest reflection of the research nor deconstruction of it.
Just lies, name calling and attacks.
Go believe in your 2012 nonsense and gods. Incredible the blindness zeolots have to their religion. These McKenna followers are no better than your average right-wing Christian psychopaths.
The use of Mein Kampf as an analogy to the fact that it’s unnecessary to go point for point over your work in order to dismiss it, was just that. The red herring is your claiming it as a character attack in order to dodge a valid argument and to try and weasel out of addressing it.
Do you not realise how ridiculous you came across, harping on about name calling and attacks while doing the exact same thing?
Theblimp, what “valid argument” involves not examining any of the evidence? Please explain.
@robert42
I at no point said it, “involves not examining any of the evidence” I would not be here having this conversation were that the case. For the third time now in this thread for all you trivium slaves, the argument was for the lack of reason to go point for point over Jan’s theory in order to recognize it doesn’t hold water.
“If I were alive in the late 1920′s, I wouldn’t have needed to read, Mien Kampf and refute it point by point to tell you Adolph’s idea’s were that of a mad man.”
Poor analogy. The difference is that Jan’s character is not the issue that you’re contesting. Instead, you are denying the facts about the connections and agendas that he has documented. Comparing Jan to Hitler, as a justification for not looking at the facts, is a very weak ad hominem.
I’m not comparing him to Hitler, I’m suggesting that it’s not necessary to go point for point over somebodies works when it has such obvious gaping flaws in it. But that’s fine if you want to hide from this while Jan hide’s behind you. It answers my question as well as reveals your tactics, thanks.
Try this, Jan has claimed Terence’s idea of a call for voluntary population control as proof of his promotion of eugenics. As Terence’s idea doesn’t concern racial or genetic purity how can this be eugenics and how can Jan not know the meaning of the word he is accusing someone of?
Also, why would someone promoting eugenics have this to say during a similar rap on voluntary population control to the ones Jan loves to transcribe, after a question from the audience on…eugenics?
Q&A @3:54:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YNdBpYh1eA
Blimp, ignoring the citations and not studying them doesn’t mean they don’t add up.
You clearly ignored the citations to the UNCED video, the 4th World Conference, Julian Huxley’s own books on Humanism, transhumanism – that is eugenics, and Terence Clearly says he’s a humanist as well as a feminist and transhumanist. Transhumanism was developed by Julian Huxley. Modern humanism was developed by Julian Huxley. You furthermore ignore the citations to Karen of Girl Writes What on feminism, and how feminism also sells eugenics. This was all in the citations that you ignored.
You seem to have a very narrow perspective of what eugenics is, probably from ignoring and not studying the provided citations in the article – to begin with.
Please don’t come here and attack me for your own ignore-ance and incompetence at studying the provided material. You furthermore ignored the database and all of the citations provided there, as well as the video I made explaining how to go through all of that. The weak mentality of someone, like you, who would ignore all of the research and citations and then come here attacking – rather than asking questions, shows that you’re only here to protect your agenda, your cult, and this nonsense neo-Christianity you worship called the 2012 movement, developed by a CIA agent – Prof. Michael Coe at Yale, in his 1966 book on the Maya, another citation you ignored.
If you’re incompetent to study the provided material, again, don’t come here attacking me for it. that’s simple common sense.
It amazes me that right in the quote of Terence on humanism and feminism, I cite, literally, right in the middle of the quote, the citations to Karen and Curtis Duncan, but somehow you ignored them, even when they were emphasized – which would have very clearly explained these very points you thoughtless raise without studying the provided material that will expand your narrow perspective of reality.
What does this say about your ability to check the citations, as Robert pointed out to you, when you were making your irrelevant name calling and false associations to Hitler? Are you stupid? Show how the citations are wrong by studying them! Not ignoring them and name calling like some intellectually deficit child. Again, don’t project your own incompetence on others. Please go through EACH citation and show how they’re wrong and why don’t explicitly explain the research as you claim. If you’re incapable of showing how the citations are wrong that you’re ignoring, then you’ll be banned from posting here again. We’re simply not interested in people who ignore work and attack and name call out of their own incompetence, stupidity, and ignorance. Thanks.
CITATIONS YOU IGNORED WITH YOUR IGNORANCE:
“Huxley’s “X Club” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Club) they created academics who would promote Darwin’s ideas (not coincidentally, spin offs of this “X-Club” include the X-men comic series (on eugenics and evolution) and Fourth World comics (on mind control) by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby – the “Forth World” being tied to the UN’s Agenda 21 (See the UN’s website – http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/) and (UNCED) Fourth World Wilderness – “battle for the mind” – conferences (http://youtu.be/JUdgiehz9dU).
On contemplating the idea of why Sir Thomas Henry Huxley would name his club the “X-Club” that was used to promote Darwin’s theories and eugenics, it hadn’t originally crossed my mind that I had done a lot of research on the topic of “X” for my first book, about 8 years ago. In Astrotheology & Shamanism, pp. 152-153, we wrote:
“X marks the spot” is common symbolic usage. In fact, it is universal symbolism. The mark is associated with the perfect man in Psalms 37:37. “Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of man is peace.” The mark of the archetypal “perfect man” is the cross. The cross is an upright X. In Ezekiel, a mark is set upon the foreheads of selected men in Jerusalem and all other men, women, and children are to be slaughtered.
Ezekiel 9:6
Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.”
[...]
Wrightwood, California.
21 October, 1949
Dear Mr. Orwell,
[...]
May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution?
The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.
[...]
My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.
I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.
Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government.
***Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations.***
Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism.
This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years.
But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.
Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
~ Aldous Huxley [emphasis added] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111440/Aldous-Huxley-letter-George-Orwell-1984-sheds-light-different-ideas.html
The Brain database – with more than 6000 citations – why did you ignore this?
http://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-675
“This would be tremendously salutary to our problems. I’ve never heard it advocated even by the most radical, lesbian feminist, yada yada. I’ve never heard anyone say male birth should be limited. But it obviously should. And through amniocentesis* and this sort of thing we can steer ourselves toward a population with the predominance of females and those females should have only one child. And 75% of those children should also be female. And I don’t consider myself a gung ho feminist. I mean, ***I’m a feminist*** [feminism has been entirely disproved - by women - see my interview with Karen of Girl Writes What], but I don’t read the literature, or try to understand all of the factions and theories. ***AS A HUMANIST I advocate a reduction in male birth.*** It just seems obvious that that’s the way to go [regarding the current practice of poisoning the male population, see my interview with Curtis Duncan]. If it doesn’t seem obvious to you then let’s have an a public debate about it, and at least make it part of the rhetoric of the culture that this is an option for people to think about.”
McKenna – notice the citations to Karen of Girl Writes what and Curtis Duncan right there? If you didn’t study them and then claim my research doesn’t support the claims without addressing these citations, then you’re bold faced liar.
And what is all of this feminism and humanist stuff? Please listen to the following interviews:
My interview with Karen of Girl Writes What:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/karen-of-girlwriteswhat-interview-the-femanist-fallacy-146/
My interview with Curtis Duncan:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/curtis-duncan-interview-the-conspiracy-to-feminize-males-masculinize-females-149/
After you’ve listened to both of those interviews, I think you’ll be fully well informed to see what McKenna’s agenda is.
Again, please try not to follow your typical nature and not ignore the citations. Then you won’t have to go around acting like a mental retard online name calling and making baseless accusations for the simple fact that you’re LIKELY too stupid to have even read the article, just like Simon and the other twits.
Sadly, none of it goes any distance in proving McKenna was promoting eugenics. If you can’t answer my questions, that’s fine Jan and if paranoia pornography is how you get off these days, crack on. There’s no point in trying to reason with a conspiracy fundamentalist who has Alex Jones like egomania and aspirations. The best of luck building your new church, I’m sure it will be a great success and filled with wonderful people. All the famous, fear based ones are built on equally shaky foundations.
It’s great that such a scholar as yourself has to resort to name calling and attacks, making baseless presumptions and fallacies, even resorting to threats of physical violence when people don’t respect your authoritah!
You will make a fine holy man for your new disciples.
I see the error of my ways, Lord Jan. Please forgive me and thank you for saving the psychedelic community and the future of the world. 50% of all my future earnings will go into the gnosticmedia collection plate.
Shabba!
In fact it goes all the distance in proving McKenna was promoting eugenics. You’ve entirely failed to show how they don’t, as you’ve not even bothered to listen to them. Please go point by point and show how they fail to do so when they address exactly what McKenna was promoting. You’ve no need to hide. Just listen and show how, exactly, they don’t address eugenics, humanism, transhuanism and feminism. This is exactly what they’re about, and exactly what McKenna promoted, in that talk and in his books, also cited on this website already. You claimed that my citations don’t ad up, then you made some wild crazy claim to Hitler – entirely failing the onus of proof. When it was pointed out to you that your points are irrelevant, you can only name call that I’m a mad man, due, somehow, to your own incompetence.
Yes, I called you incompetent and ignorant. To ignore the citations provided is ignorance (IGNORE – ANCE), not an ad hominem. To point out your incompetence to check the citations is your incompetence, not an ad hominem. Here are some incompetence studies, already posted on this page, that you also ignored – that show exactly how you’re incompetent:
There are these incompetence studies:
Citations and facts don’t need holy men, but blind followers in 2012 and other idiocy certainly do, hence you have a website distributing your cult propaganda. And when anyone questions your religion, you go out and name call and ignore the citations and go on the attack, for the simple reason that this is YOUR religion, as you’ve already admitted.
If you create questions that are entirely irrelevant to what’s here, and when you’ve entirely failed to show how the provided citations are wrong, then why would someone bother with your questions. They’re IRRELEVANT and are do NOT pertain to the discussion as they’re a straw man argument as you refused to study the citations that explain these very facts! Duh! Just saying they don’t go any distance without quoting or showing how is absurd and irrelevant. Learn to use your brain. That’s what it’s for.
Had you been honest enough with yourself to listen to those talks, to put your own EGO aside, you’d have seen that your points here were addressed already in regards to your very narrow understanding of eugenics, and would have been clearly answered. Again, ignoring the citations that deal with your off topic and IRRELEVANT questions, is, in fact, what doesn’t go the distance… Obviously you’re afraid to listen to them, and that’s why you ignorantly claim that they don’t go the distance – as then you’d have to change your definition of eugenics if you actually had a clue what it was and how it works.
1) Eugenics does not have to be about race, it is MORE often about CLASS. As this is about CLASS (ELITES AGAINST POOR – AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY STATED – TO YOUR STRAW MAN LIES) racial purity is in most cases IRRELEVANT. EUGENICS programs come in many various forms, as well covered already on this very website. I already very clearly stated that your understanding of eugenics is very limited – that you also ignored. For instance, it can be done by diet, such as with wheat consumption – see my interview with Dr. Davis, and low fat – see my interviews with Sally Fallon, or allopathic medicine – see my Dr. Glidden interviews – just for starters. But ignoring these interviews that disprove your narrow understanding won’t make your case. You’ll have to show how they’re wrong, point by point, without your guilt by association or appeal to ridicule fallacies “conspiracy fundamentalist” “Alex Jones like egomania” – rather than name calling like an incompetent 5 year-old, with all of your empty character assassinations, simply man up show how the citations are wrong. If you can’t, then just admit you’re 100% incompetent and apologize and post it here and to your website for all the world to see.
But what does name calling like a retard “trying to reason with a conspiracy fundamentalist who has Alex Jones like egomania and aspirations” – have anything to do with my research? Absolutely NOTHING.
When you say “reason”, doesn’t reason require not acting like an emotional twit and being able to go over the research point by point? How is it that you assume name calling LIKE some mental retard is somehow reasonable? That’s ridiculous. Could you show me where you’ve been “reasonable” in any of your posts? Could you show me where you haven’t distorted and omitted the very citations that address the very claims that you lie about and say they don’t? Why do you need to lie about the citations any way? How could you possibly know what they address before you’ve heard them? That’s just stupid. Are you stupid?
Simply calling someone a fundamentalist to dismiss their work and citations in ignorance, and stupidity, and then running around falsely claiming that the citations don’t refute the work is again just ignorance and incompetence – lies on your part.
Again, if you’re a reasonable human being, you’ll be able to go point by point through the citations, with quotes, and show how they’re wrong or how they don’t relate or go the distance. So far you’ve been completely, 100% unreasonable and unable to back your claims. A person who uses reason should have actual reasons to back their claims, who what where when why and how, and NOT intellectually bankrupt name calling that simply reveals you as entirely incompetent.
- fooling people into not reproducing by giving them intentionally invalid information, such as with McKenna – who very clearly states that he wants GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL POLICIES IN PLACE THAT FORCE THESE THINGS – THROUGH TYRANNY – WHICH YOU ALSO IGNORE, but being that this is also covered in detail in the Huxleys books, whom McKenna admits to having based most of his ideas of this on, your failure to read his own stated influences that cover this and your clueless straw man argument only further reveals your own incompetence…
Falsely Claiming that Terence only wanted voluntary population reduction is to ignore his one words – again, you’re own IGNORE-ANCE:
The ONLY way Terence could implement this is with tyrannous government policies and more statism. No enlightenment there. Just delusions. Yours and his. This was all covered in the citations that you ignored – while you were too busy name calling and protecting your religious saints.
“Trivium slaves” Do you even know what the trivium is? When people say things like this they sound so incredibly stupid. Again, more name calling rather than addressing the facts. No surprise there. You guys can’t address the facts. All you can do is attack everything EXCEPT the work and citations. Sucks to be you. Wait until you realize what a dupe you’ve been. Then you’ll have all of the cognitive dissonance and guilt for your actions here. Until then, the cosmic giggle is all mine.
“But what does name calling like a retard “trying to reason with a conspiracy fundamentalist who has Alex Jones like egomania and aspirations” – have anything to do with my research? Absolutely NOTHING.”
“…name calling like a retard”
“…retard”
You silly sausage.
That is all. Goodbye Jan and Janites, thanks for all the LULZ.
See the word LIKE, it was emphasized INTENTIONALLY. That’s why you needed to truncate the quote to make it work for your lies.
Saying you act LIKE a retard is not saying you ARE a retard. Huge difference… So do you think you could stop acting LIKE one and address the research and citations like a reasonable, rational human being? Or are you only capable of re-acting out of emotion LIKE a religious zealot?
All these guys can do is distort. They’re incapable of reading what’s right in front of them – even when they quote it. Incredible. This guy is completely incompetent… and notice he’s got to part with an ad hominem as well, revealing his incompetence. At least he’s smart enough to know when to retreat. Maybe the seeds have been planted and he’ll wake up one day and learn how to read the citations.
poor fella. Anyway, go run with your tail between your legs. Good bye… you McKennaite… he didn’t even see the irony in his blind following of McKenna. How utterly sad.
Cut and paste, son. Easy to doctor your original comment when you own the site. Sad.
Nice try, except you already quoted it. Fool. Take off.
I know I quoted it. I’m saying the word ‘like’ isn’t highlighted in the screen capture I have of your original post, before you went back and doctored it. Goodbye, you pathetic little man.
Nothing was doctored. It is now how it was in the original. You’re the pathetic little man, grasping at straws to cover your lies, distortions and inability to check ANY citation. Try not to project your incompetence on others with your baseless accusations and name calling. Those who resort to slander, rather than reason, are the losers. That’s all you’ve been capable of here. We’ll save your posts for austerity.
I’m a bit confused about: who-what-where-when(grammar), when(logic), why(rhetoric).
Because how it works for me is: who-what-where-when(grammar), how(logic), why(rhetoric).
‘How’, to mee, seems to describe logic: how do the parts of the car fit together. How do the who, what, where, when relate to each other in this specific context. An example would be the study of history: Who, what, where, when describe the actors, the places, the methods and chronologies of history or: the grammar. Logic would be: how does everything link/fit together. When we’ve done the logic part and we can see how everything fits together, we can start to begin an explanation of why things were done in a certain way. Why do they put these hormone like substances into the food. Why do they put this crap in the air. Why is it prohibited in some European countries to talk about certain parts of history.
For example, we have grammar on Terence McKenna, Aldous Huxley and the Esalen Institute. If we don’t apply logic on our grammar and we jump to conclusions, and we ask the question: ‘why did McKenna propagate a radical feminizing of the culture’, it would be virtually impossible to come up with a valid answer to that question. It’s only when we figure out HOW the grammar fits together, HOW Terence links to Esalen and links to Huxley/nasty agenda’s, that we can really answer the ‘why’ question satisfactory. So to me, the why question always comes after the how question. Do I overlook something here?
Apologies, wish I could edit above post. I made an error in the first line, it should properly read:
I’m a bit confused about: who-what-where-when(grammar), why(logic), how(rhetoric).
Hi Henk, just go back through everything in the trivium study section. You may also want to re-read Joseph’s book.
Will do, I mainly focused on consciously putting processing in the middle of my thinking process and learning to spot logical fallacies until now. I studied zero rhetoric yet. Reading Joseph’s book again was already on my list.
Henk,
It seems to me like you’re confusing the ‘how’ of rhetoric with the ‘how’ of grammar.
The ‘how’ in rhetoric answers how best to communicate something from one mind to another.
The ‘how’ in grammar answers how the actors in your play did whatever they did.
These are two different things.
For example if you were telling someone a story about two men who dug up a ditch with a shovel, the ‘how’ of the grammar would be ‘with a shovel’, whereas the rhetorical ‘how’ would be how-best-to-describe-this-scene-to-your-friend, so that he understands this reality you’re attempting to explain to him.
I think it’s just that simple.
Sill, don’t you mean the how in *logic* rather than in grammar? The grammar stage of the trivium is about gathering the sense-described facts, which is why we use who, what, where and when, for that stage.
“Sill, don’t you mean the how in *logic* rather than in grammar? The grammar stage of the trivium is about gathering the sense-described facts, which is why we use who, what, where and when, for that stage.”
@robert42
Would not answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ also gather facts? For example if you traveled to the store I could ask how and why you traveled to the store.
“Would not answering ‘how’ and ‘why’ also gather facts? For example if you traveled to the store I could ask how and why you traveled to the store.”
That would gather facts about the store-goer’s claims. So, in response to the questions “WHO says he went to the store?” or “WHO says that he went to the store for that reason?” one would reply: “He told me so, himself.”
The how and why, in the trivium sense, and in the six “w”s and one “h” sense, are questions in an internal discussion, which is why it was commonly known as the “dialectic” stage of the trivium.
By taking the words into a different context, you have, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not, equivocated their meanings.
“That would gather facts about the store-goer’s claims. So, in response to the questions “WHO says he went to the store?” or “WHO says that he went to the store for that reason?” one would reply: “He told me so, himself.””
But I am not asking who says he went to the store, I’m asking ‘how did you go to the store’, and ‘why you went to the store’.
If you went to the store by car and for milk, these are simple grammatical facts and are permissible under the realm of grammar.
“By taking the words into a different context, you have, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not, equivocated their meanings.”
I don’t believe so, because the ‘how’ in grammar relates to gathering the facts whereas the ‘how’ of rhetoric relates to the effective communication of said-facts. The ‘how’ being answered in grammar is how someone did something. The ‘how’ being answered in rhetoric is how to most effectively communicate the who-what-when-where-how-why facts. How you went to the store is ‘by car’. How you most effectively communicate your adventure to the store may be simply (to toddlers), abstractly (in a scientific paper), rhythmically (at a poetry competition) and so on–two very different contexts.
Actually I think the explanation on the triviumeducation.com title-page is somewhat misleading and could be clarified by stating:
Grammar: ascertains the who, what, why, when, where, how
Logic: evaluates the ‘why’
Rhetoric: answers how best to communicate the grammar from mind to mind
… or something similar.
‘How’ someone did something, and ‘why’ someone did something are facts, thus they need to be included in the ‘knowledge’ section (grammar).
Logic doesn’t answer why, it evaluates the why.
Rhetoric doesn’t answer the how of a subject, it answers how best to communicate the facts/grammar from one mind to another.
I was tunneling on semantics trying to get a better grip in communicating what I have learned (and still learning by the way), about the Trivium. I have no trouble using the Trivium spotting logical fallacies in my own thinking and of others, I probably still miss a lot, especially in my own thinking.
What got me caught up in this ‘problem’, was a metaphor Jan used to describe the Trivium, as a car. Grammar is the parts of the car, logic is how the parts fit together and rhetoric is the user manual. Right after I read that metaphor, I saw the ‘who/what/where/when/why/how’ and thought about it with the car metaphor in mind. Because ‘how the parts fit together’, implies how. My sloppy thinking caused me to not see at that moment that the user manual describes HOW to operate the car and and the logic of ‘HOW the parts fit together’ tells us ‘WHY’ all these parts together form a car. I’m sorry for having added to the confusions, it’s clear to me now. Although Jan is right I need to do more study because the Trivium does not end with logical fallacies.
Interesting question.
Why is enquiring into motives, while how is enquiring into the mechanism by which something happened (is happening, will happen).
I know that philosophers will debate about this, some saying that “how” is an immediate cause while “why” is a higher level cause, and then wrangle over degrees of ultimate-ness of causes. Whatever, I don’t consider that a productive path to go down.
It’s good enough for me to say that why is about the cause of a result, and how is about how the why acted to cause the result.
I also observe that “how” is necessary to the rhetoric stage, while “why” is optional, because at the rhetoric stage you already have an understanding of why something happened. You are not asking why the thing happened, you know. But you *are* asking *how* you can explain your understanding to others, or *how* you can use your understanding to effect change in the world.
At the logic stage, you are *always* asking *why* a result happened, since *something* had to set things in motion at some arbitrary level of ultimate-ness. And you are probably also going to ask *how* in order to rule out contradictions, because you might that the answer is “no way, no how!”, i.e., that a particular chain of alleged facts, or particular alleged facts, are impossible.
As you noticed, it’s to bad we can’t edit our replies once they’re committed. I should have added that why is optional at the rhetoric stage because you might ask *why* you are trying to communicate your understanding. For example, I’m writing this *because* it helps my understanding, because the stages of the trivium can loop back and repeat.
Thanks for the clarification. This was just sloppy thinking on my part in hindsight. ‘Why’ is optional makes perfect sense, you can explain why something happened but in order for a user manual to be effective, it would suffice to explain how the thing works (or should be operated). I understand the trivium to the extent of using it as mental antivirus in spotting logical fallacies.
Chapter Six of Wisdom’s Odyssey: From Philosophy to Transcendental Sophistry by Peter A. Redpath 1997 — http://books.google.com/books?isbn=9042002050 Excellent discussion on what became of the Trivium. It’s in the google book preview.
Jan — listening to your Trivium talk. You say Logos means ratio but actually the real esoteric meaning for Logos is “seed of fire” and “creative essence.” To quote my masters thesis “The first four divine number ratios (1, 1:2, 2:3, 3:4), equivalent to the vital energy of Taoist qi gong, are considered the “seed of fire,” the “creative essence,” and “logos,” by Pythagoreans.” citing Grandy, David. 1993. The Musical Roots of Western Mathematics. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies V (1/2): 3-24.
So Jan you cite Albert Pike on the Pythagorean triangle 3:4:5 — actually this is a NeoPlatonic construct from Archytas — a fake Pythagorean. So 5:4 is the major third music interval as the cube root of two. 4:3 or 3:4 is the Perfect Fourth music interval. This was a materialistic extension of the Logos as real alchemy. Archytas needed to double the cube precisely.
I don’t recall having done that, much less ever calling it the 345 triangle. Try not to continually distort my discussions and facts. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNJXuM2H4Rw&feature=player_embedded It’s in your speech here — you cite Albert Pike Masonic teachings of the Pythagorean triangle with the 3 as the trivium, the 4 as the quadrivium and the 5 as the crown. I’m saying that this teaching of Pike is a cover-up of the esoteric teaching of the Logos as “creative fire” alchemy from music harmonics. For further corroboration: Professor Michael J. B. Allen in his essay “Marsilio Ficino: Daemonic Mathematics and the Hypotenuse of the Spirit” published in the M.I.T. Press book Natural Particulars (1999).
I tried finding the original quote — you might have said Manly P. Hall instead of Albert Pike. Or possibly Albert Mackey although I doubt it.
Yeah I got it — 16 minutes in – you post this slide: Albert Pike’s book Morals and Dogma page 861 proclaims the Royal Secret of the Sublime Prince is found in the understanding of the Pythagorean 5-3-4 right-angled triangle. The five representing the five senses, the three is the Trivium, and the four the Quadrivium. O.K. so my point is that actually the secret esoteric meaning of that is from music theory with the meaning of the Logos as the Tetrad 1:2:3:4 and it was extended by Archytas to 1:2:3:4:5. This was a lie spread by Plato and then spread through Europe by John Scotus Erigena and later by Marsilio Ficino. It is the lie of logarithmic math as exposed by Albert Barlett’s lecture: Arithmetic, Population, Energy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrvGDRLT7A So 5:4 was the original “cube root of two” value from the major third music interval. My book has the details on it from Archytas. Free download on filejumbo or just scrib free read it here http://www.scribd.com/doc/98048510/Alchemy-of-Rainbow-Heart-Music
Ok, well you’re posting here and saying that I’m referencing Pike in this talk, which is completely off topic. Yeah, we may have talked about that a couple years ago. Citations of what you’re talking about would be helpful. Talking about a video from years ago and then saying its here is a bit of a frantic jump. Also, it’s always 534, not what ever you had.
Jan you focus on the trivium in this interview thread and so I am pointing out that Pike giving this esoteric origin of the trivium is from NeoPlatonic philosophy that is actually a cover-up conspiracy of the real Pythagorean philosophy. You say that 5:4:3 as a Pythagorean triangle is not the same as 3:4:5 as a Pythagorean triangle. Actually the order of the numbers is directly the essential point in determining the commutative property or non-commutative property. It takes a lot of information to understand this so I’m glad at least you have probably stumbled onto a crucial clue to the truth of the Logos. Archytas use of 5:4:3 for irrational-based geometry had this intention, to quote economist Michael Hudson on the fake Pythagoreans cited by Pike as the Trivium origin:
“They have been likened to the Free Masons, in that they served as a kind of Council of Foreign Relations or New World Order…. Archytas developed the musical scale into a political metaphor for the scales of justice. What gave music this imagery of social balance and just proportion was the ability of its mathematics of harmonic (“geometric”) proportions to serve as an analogy for how inequities of wealth and status rendered truly superior men equal in proportion to their virtue — which tended to reflect their wealth. By this circular logic the wealthy were enabled to rationalize their hereditary dominance over the rest of the population.” Professor Michael Hudson’s essay, “Music as an Analogy for Economic Order in Classical Antiquity” in Jürgen Backhaus (ed.), Karl Bücher. Theory, History, Anthropology, Non-Market Economies (Marburg:Metropolis Verlag, 2000): pp. 113-35
Drew, rather than rehashing old shit here, please keep it in the trivium study material. Thanks.
As we have repeatedly stated, the trivium has always been used for control. In fact, Pike has it out of order. We only cited them as an example of such. We’ve gone through this for many hours years ago. This forum is focused on the Wasson/McKenna material and modern mind control and only cites the trivium as a systematic method of critical thinking. Again, don’t cite stuff from 3 years ago as if I talked about it in this episode. That really bothers me when people conflate things as you repeatedly have. Besides, after your lies and distortions and your repeated inability to back your statements against me with Simon, et al, leaves me rather annoyed with your lack of cognizance. If you’re going to derail this conversation, then your out of here. I’ve already given you several warnings – each of which you’ve failed to comply with and substantiate your claims.
The square root of two comes from 9:8, the major 2nd music interval, cubed as the tritone music interval, aka the Devil’s Interval. So there is a deeper issue here about the commutative principle with Archytas — again my research was corroborated by math professors Luigi Borzacchini and Joe Mazur. My book has a chapter devoted to it but it’s still unclear. So then I got critical feedback on abovetopsecret — the Devil’s Chord thread I started — and that has more details on the non-commutative logic secret to the real Logos as alchemy.
I had written a reply to Tommy’s distortions again, but it got lost. Having to rewrite.
But I should point out that NO PLACE did I say that Kennan worked for the CIA – I very clearly said he REFUSED recruitment, which of course Tommy distorts, and again, notice how he refuses to quote what I read on Red Ice, as it entirely exposes him as a fraud and liar. Furthermore, Kennan was behind the Marshall Plan, Operation Mockingbird, and Operation Paperclip. What does Tommy mean when he says that he committed no crimes? And these guys operate above the law. Tommy wants you to believe that he’s got the inside scoop on Kennan’s actions and emotions, all the while ignoring the hundreds of pages of personal letters I have of the guy. Kennan’s promotion of capitalism, etc, is irrelevant to the facts presented.
But Tommy again lies when he claims that I said Kennan would work for the CIA, as I’ve already very clearly explained this to him and others many times, which can be heard on Red Ice, that he’s in fact distorting everything said – as that’s what he does, he’s a troll.
Kennan was in fact an OSS agent, the precursor to the CIA.
Tommy tries to play down the Hall Carbine affair, and how that plays into current international banking and politics, as this is the very origin of the Morgan’s banking empire, which Wasson covered up, and in my opinion, that and his work with Bernays for a decade shows that this is what earned him his vice presidency of JP Morgan bank in charge of propaganda.
Tommy’s ignorant that Wasson’s boss also funded the Bolshevik revolution – see Douglass Reed.
Next Tommy presents a straw man / red herring argument on JFK – presenting what he thinks the arguments are, ignoring the 11 books I cited to Bruce Adamson, and then claims he doesn’t “believe this theory” – when it’s nothing I presented in the first place – another straw man — another of Tommy’s distortions and lies. Again, he presents NOTHING that I presented, and this is an entire STRAW MAN argument.
Rather than quoting, as I already pointed out to do, he claims to have gone by memory, not putting grammar first, and then continues on with his distortions. Why not quote NOW? He fails to mention that he had to be told this more than a dozen times as he went around the internet spreading his lies intentionally to forum after forum. Kenna’s previous ideals are irrelevant to the facts that he clearly stated he would work for the CIA and president directly, but not for the CIA – as well as his involvement in bringing Nazi criminals into the US. Tommy wants everyone to believe his appeals to emotion, all the while ignoring Kennan’s history and own letters.
Tommy also wants you to believe that Kennan didn’t already work with Wasson and Dulles at the CFR and Century – both already cited to primary documents.
But being that I NEVER EVER claimed that Kennan would work for the CIA, his comment here: “your claim that Kennan said he would work for the CIA, is incorrect. Man up and admit it. You made a mistake, it happens, it’s not a big deal. No need for you to name call, and make other bogus claims about me.” is completely absurd. This is Tommy’s own error, his own lies and distortions, which he then falsely tries to put on me. This is shear idiocy. Simply listen to my red ice interview and you’ll hear that in fact Tommy’s lying and distorting the facts intentionally – yet again. That’s all he does. Tommy is completely untrustworthy.
Next Tommy goes into an appeal to ridicule, trying to put his constant aggressive internet attacks on me. What he won’t admit, however, is that he’s personally initiated every single instance of problems with him over the last 2 years. When ever there’s some ruckus online, you’ll be sure to find Tommy in the middle of it. Notice how he also doesn’t attack Simon or the others for their blatant ad hominems and distortions of my work.
I had written a reply to Tommy’s distortions again, but it got lost. Having to rewrite.
But I should point out that NO PLACE did I say that Kennan worked for the CIA – I very clearly said he REFUSED recruitment, which of course Tommy distorts, and again, notice how he refuses to quote what I read on Red Ice, as it entirely exposes him as a fraud and liar. Furthermore, Kennan was behind the Marshall Plan, Operation Mockingbird, and Operation Paperclip. What does Tommy mean when he says that he committed no crimes? And these guys operate above the law. Tommy wants you to believe that he’s got the inside scoop on Kennan’s actions and emotions, all the while ignoring the hundreds of pages of personal letters I have of the guy. Kennan’s promotion of capitalism, etc, is irrelevant to the facts presented.
Tommy’s mention of the Christopher Knowles’ idiocy is funny too, as Knowles refused to read my work and then said that because Lyndon Larouche came up with a similar theory 30 years ago, that I had somehow plagiarized LaRouche, even though my article was on Wasson and LaRouche didn’t even mention Wasson to my knowledge. When I asked Knowles to support his accusations of plagiarism and how my article on Wasson pertained anything to LaRouche, he couldn’t, and then yelled that I wouldn’t take his criticism – of my article that he hadn’t even read. And besides, if someone else did the research before is entirely irrelevant. What should be brought into question is how would LaRouch and I come to similar conclusions from entirely different research? I address this already in my video, but of course Tommy ignored this – and also ignored the fact that Knowles, like Simon, Jonny Enoch and the others, REFUSED to read my article. This idiocy of citing someone’s opinion who REFUSES to read the work is just hilarious and complete incompetence. Knowles argument was based entirely on ignorance and guilt by association and he entirely failed the onus of proof to give a single quote to substantiate his claims. I hadn’t even heard of LaRouche’s book until Chris’s attack and I got the book only a couple weeks ago – still unread.
But Tommy again lies when he claims that I said Kennan would work for the CIA, as I’ve already very clearly explained this to him and others many times, which can be heard on Red Ice, that he’s in fact distorting everything said – as that’s what he does, he’s a troll.
Kennan was in fact an OSS agent, the precursor to the CIA.
Tommy tries to play down the Hall Carbine affair, and how that plays into current international banking and politics, as this is the very origin of the Morgan’s banking empire, which Wasson covered up, and in my opinion, that and his work with Bernays for a decade shows that this is what earned him his vice presidency of JP Morgan bank in charge of propaganda.
Tommy’s ignorant that Wasson’s boss also funded the Bolshevik revolution – see Douglass Reed.
Next Tommy presents a straw man / red herring argument on JFK – presenting what he thinks the arguments are, ignoring the 11 books I cited to Bruce Adamson, and then claims he doesn’t “believe this theory” – when it’s nothing I presented in the first place – another straw man — another of Tommy’s distortions and lies. Again, he presents NOTHING that I presented, and this is an entire STRAW MAN argument.
Rather than quoting, as I already pointed out to do, he claims to have gone by memory, not putting grammar first, and then continues on with his distortions. Why not quote NOW? He fails to mention that he had to be told this more than a dozen times as he went around the internet spreading his lies intentionally to forum after forum. Kenna’s previous ideals are irrelevant to the facts that he clearly stated he would work for the DCI and president directly, but not for the CIA – as well as his involvement in bringing Nazi criminals into the US. Tommy wants everyone to believe his appeals to emotion, all the while ignoring Kennan’s history and own letters.
Tommy also wants you to believe that Kennan didn’t already work with Wasson and Dulles at the CFR and Century – both already cited to primary documents.
But being that I NEVER EVER claimed that Kennan would work for the CIA, his comment here: “your claim that Kennan said he would work for the CIA, is incorrect. Man up and admit it. You made a mistake, it happens, it’s not a big deal. No need for you to name call, and make other bogus claims about me.” is completely absurd. This is Tommy’s own error, his own lies and distortions, which he then falsely tries to put on me. This is shear idiocy. Simply listen to my red ice interview and you’ll hear that in fact Tommy’s lying and distorting the facts intentionally – yet again. That’s all he does. Tommy is completely untrustworthy.
Next Tommy goes into an appeal to ridicule, trying to put his constant aggressive internet attacks on me. What he won’t admit, however, is that he’s personally initiated every single instance of problems with him over the last 2 years. When ever there’s some ruckus online, you’ll be sure to find Tommy in the middle of it. Notice how he also doesn’t attack Simon or the others for their blatant ad hominems and distortions of my work.
Tommy tries to pretend that I’ve deleted and ignored people who’ve read my work and give constructive feedback. Again, this is a distortion as I’ve ONLY banned people who slander and name call, create straw man arguments and don’t deal with my work AT ALL – just as Tommy, Simon, Jonny, etc. Jonny’s initial contact with me was a 3 page attack on me and my work that he’d never read – it’s posted here somplace. Simon, obviously never read it either – as he admitted, and then was still incompetent, after he claimed to have. Though I don’t believe he really ever did read my work, as his “debunking” solely relies on the utter incompetence of Tommy. Their attacks bear nothing on my actual work and what was really written.
Tommy flips the burden of proof upside down as well. He wants me to prove that my citations are legit, in other words – not a fraud. He wants me to prove a negative, which is of course impossible. In logic, as in a court of law, those who are making the accusations must support them. It’s up to him to support his claims that they’re anything other than legit, and being that he can just call the libraries and archives and get the documents, he’s got ZERO excuse, and therefore his accusations are unfounded and arbitrary and are automatically dismissed.
He claims I’ve wrongfully interpreted some, but he’s incapable of quoting me and showing how without creating entirely bogus arguments – and again, this is why he didn’t quote what I read on Red Ice as it exposes him as a fraud or entirely incompetent.
Tommy furthermore tries to cite his video and his 8 fallacies – of which I entirely refuted him, showing how he didn’t even know the basic definitions of the fallacies, and then he again regurgitates that here. See my FB wall for a complete debunking of his nonsense here.
But as Tommy’s never seen, nor asked, for ANY of the documentation, he’s got no grounds to stand on. His application of logic and the trivium is a complete failure. Notice how he claims that I flipped my lid, when he intentionally distorted and suppressed mine and others debunking of him and his 8 fallacies. If he was interested in an honest discussion, why suppress everyone who refutes his nonsense and then strut around like a pigeon playing chess, knocking over all the pieces and then claiming victory? It’s just completely moronic. But again, anyone who wants to see how completely incompetent Tommy and Simon are, only need to hear my Red Ice interview and read my articles for themselves. Tommy’s and Simon’s incompetence will become immediately apparent.
Tommy thinks criticism of my work comes in the form of straw man arguments, ad hominems and distortions, when in fact, as these guys all admit that they’re incapable of going point by point through my work, and Tommy’s refusal to quote shows that in fact they’re not even addressing my work. If they were intelligent to read it first and go point by point over the citations, without intentionally distorting them, then I’d be happy to do so with them, to go through their counterarguments – but the whole of them, even with invitation, are incapable of doing so. This is why they just spread their unfounded and un-cited lies online. They have NEVER ONCE attacked what I actually wrote, but their own delusional creations of my work, and then they go around claiming that “you cannot take any criticism at all. So very hypocritical of you. In fact every name you call, and every accusation you make, is actually what YOU do and are.”
Again, their attacks have NEVER addressed MY work and what it actually said. EACH of their so called “criticisms” are 100% distortions of my work. And when I delete and ban their lies, this is what they come up with to distort the facts of reality and their own incompetence.
But again, that Simon would quote Tommy is the biggest laugh of all, as Tommy’s one of the most incompetent people I’ve ever had the displeasure to know.
Feel free to post this over there. I won’t waste my time. You can’t soar with eagles when you flock with turkeys.
Jan I will post it over there as you expose Tommy’s lies and clarify what you said about Kennan. I completely agree that to say Kennan committed to crimes is ridiculous — because the Cold War was a fraud as you have pointed out. People in the U.S. do not yet realize the Cold War was an attack on the two-thirds world to maintain imperial economic conditions. This is still true today of course. A person can be individually very nice yet work for a genocidal institution. I spent the day with a distant relative who is a water sanitation expert for the World Bank and he promotes privatization but he’s against water monopolies. I said that the World Bank had billions in reserves and I asked him if Cochabamba was a fluke. He said it was a management problem. I said so it was a Bechtel problem? He said yes. I said well I can believe that but people died from that water crisis. He said yes the management companies should not increase the prices so much. I said that I had protested the World Bank in D.C. and I had been in Seattle protesting the WTO. He said he worked in 110 countries and lived in 70 countries. I asked if he had close connections with the U.S. embassies. He got upset and said he worked for the World Bank but that he thought the U.S. had too much control of the World Bank — 60% share. He even supported ecological sanitation — humanure composting — as good water sanitation. But still this does not excuse the World Bank as an imperial institution and I never even raised the point of how poor countries pay back to the World Bank 13 times, on average, what they receive from the World Bank in loans. I did make a joke about high interest rates regarding some other money matter. The money the World Bank loans primarily goes to huge infrastructure for the benefit of Bechtel and other huge conglomerates to then extract the resources of the recipient nation. For me to have really pointed out the structural issues of the World Bank would have been too much against the atmosphere of a congenial dinner with fine wine, etc. I told him I had been in Venezuela right before Chavez was elected and I had talked to bare footed peasants who said they would vote for Chavez even though they had never voted before. The World Bank worker had lived in Colombia for three years and he said they needed so much security from the drug wars that they couldn’t even drive anywhere but had to fly everywhere. He then said he thought Chavez was a “caudillo” — strong arm boss. But the World Bank worker also admitted that he rarely got to interact with people on the grassroots level in the countries he worked in — mostly it was just with the governments directly and he stayed in nice hotels, and attended banquet dinners, etc. I never even brought up the whole water crisis issue but I did say that I thought human technology was destroying the planet. I never even mentioned how 2 billion people live on $2 a day or less — and so how can the World Bank justify its billions and billions in reserve monies.
Drew: We’re stuck in that contrived place ‘twixt the rock that is criminal culture (so-called, actually christist psychopathology) with its intimidating slick doctrine of Omertà on one side, and the hard corporate flash propaganda designed to engineer “consent” on the other. We can track back as much as we like, but the fact of the matter is “religious hierarchy” is the root cause of the disease. Both sides of the debased coin are sick and obsolete concepts of how to “do business.” You may find Polly Higgins’ legal work inspiring http://eradicatingecocide.com/polly-higgins/
Her recent book is called “Earth Is Our Business.”
In my estimation one of the saner comments on that Simon Powell RS thread was this (quite low down the list…) “Wasson’s connections to the CFR and the Century Club are reason enough to investigate further. Guilt by association is a fallacy, but thinking that someone’s ties to a group like the CFR or the Century Club are irrelevant is quite naive. Associations of power is essentially the formula of secret societies and the powerful elites. Uncovering the associations will lead you to the source of power which is being exerted indirectly through people, consciously and sometimes unconsciously. This is called “hidden hand” control and it is very effective because it confuses the source of power. Something like an act of camouflage.” Tristan Gulliford
Her recent book is called “Earth Is Our Business.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK-ldLwj5q0 I didn’t get a chance to watch the vimeo link I had tweeted from your scholar page so thanks for reminding me. I posted the Metanoia Power Principle doc series on the Reality Sandwich thread. I highly recommend that series – it is must-viewing!!
I watched it all quite a while back on Top Documentary Films. I try to keep up with all the related available material. One of the classics from 1999 is from Adam Curtis “The Mayfair Set” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U-sNn28dJk very English, very revealing, full of irony, of course Britain has experienced colossal change since the sixties. It is virtually unrecognisable in terms of the old ruling paradigms. Some of the very old values that are arguably worth retaining have endured, like hard work, stoicism, community and countryside, but on the whole it is a radically different place with entirely new ideas and ethics, now infused with truly cosmopolitan cultures but also integrated with a revival of indigenous heritage. I believe at last count there were something like 114 separate languages being spoken in London.
So I went to read that thread, originating with the piece written by Mr Powell…..
tedious beyond belief.
Jan, you got them on the run. IMO, when one witnesses this level of over reaction
One is witnessing fear. Fear at it’s most basic, most irrational, lashing out at everyone and everything that confuses the challenged/ scared individual.
Don’t we witness this type of stuff daily, anyway? This irrational spin? The continuous attack mode?
Looking at the psyops used to justify war?
Where the victim is the “aggressor” and the aggressor is the “do gooder”
Simon is waging a battle, but, with who?
Are you going to waste time with such nonsense?
I wouldn’t. But that is me.
The truth will be determined by the individual seeker based on the best evidence presented
If one is rational.
If one is irrational, as Mr Powell continues to display himself to be, and people want to get taken in by all that emotional baggage, they will be.
Just keep doing what your doing. “Dam the torpedoes”
Since we are such a militarized culture….. lol and have a good day, gonna catch the interview
Jan you cited page 861 of Albert Pike Morals and Dogma for the trivium Freemasonic origin. So I looked for the Pike trivium citation and I can’t find it on page 861 of Morals and Dogma. http://eruizf.com/biblioteca/masonicos/albert_pike/albert_pike_morals_and_dogma.pdf
I looked for another edition of the book and that edition is exactly 861 pages long. http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm “This is Albert Pikes’ 861 page volume of ‘lectures’ on the esoteric roots of Freemasonry, specifically the 32-degree Scottish Rite.” Maybe I can find a word searchable edition to find this quote you cite on the trivium.
Hi Drew, I didn’t JUST anything. That was 3 years ago.. .not in this talk. Again, don’t lie. I said keep it in the trivium study section or you’ll be banned. I’m tired of your derailing conversations with irrelevant topics – like Ben does. Not to mention your vacuous character attacks on RS, I could really care less if you ever return.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84698868/2012-Trivium-Study-Guide-Version-2-Edited-by-Tony-Myers The Trivium Study Guide has the Albert Pike quote but I did a googlebooks word search on all of Pikes books — no results for trivium. I also did a word search on Albert Mackey’s books on Freemasonry — no results for trivium.
try grammar, rhetoric, logic. Sometimes you have to think outside the box.
In case you still have trouble searching PDF’s, Drew:
Page 630 of Morals and dogma,
In his lectures, Pythagoras taught the mathematics, as a medium whereby to prove the existence of God from observation and by means of reason; grammar, rhetoric, and logic, to cultivate and improve that reason, arithmetic, because he conceived that the ultimate benefit of man consisted in the science of numbers, and geometry, music, and astronomy, because he conceived that man is indebted to them for a knowledge of what is really good and useful.
Henk the Trivium Study guide says the Pythagorean Triangle as 5:3:4 cited by Albert Pike and Jan says it has to be in that order. I activated the FIND function on the pdf. Thanks. “The number 5 designated the universal quintessence, and Symbolized, by its form the vital essence,
the animating spirit which flows [serpentat] through all nature.” p. 377 Morals and Dogma. I can’t find any mention of the number 5 as the five senses nor the 5:3:4 correlated with the Trivium and Quadrivium. Yeah “grammar” only got two hits – one you already quoted. So this “universal quintessence” as the number 5 — is that not part of the Trivium Study Guide or am I missing something? Again if you can point out the Morals and Dogma citation about the Pythagorean 5:3:4 triangle with three as the Trivium and five as the five senses — it’s not in that book. Maybe some other source?
Henk, don’t bother. I’m tired of Drew wasting people’s time here. Rather than studying the trivium itself, he’s studying Albert Pike and pretending things said 3 years ago where said in this interview. I think it was cited around page 861, so he’s incompetent to at least cite that as well. I’ve got my finger on the ban button here. He’s just trying to mislead people whom are interested in a serious study down his path of Albert Pike shit that was only cited in brief passing.
He pretends to help out here one moment, and then is on other forum slandering and talking shit the next. I’ve told him that if he keeps up his off topic threads that he’ll be banned, and he’ll already been specifically instructed to take this conversation to the trivium study section.
Here’s the quote that I found.. . I just searched the word “grammar” as I already said to. ..
“In his lectures, Pythagoras taught the mathematics, as a medium whereby
to prove the existence of God from observation and by means of reason ;
grammar, rhetoric, and logic, to cultivate and improve that reason,
arithmetic, because he conceived that the ultimate benefit of man
consisted in the science of numbers, and geometry, music, and astronomy,
because he conceived that man is indebted to them for a knowledge of
what is really good and useful.
He taught the true method of obtaining”
It’s out of order here. But try figuring out what you’re talking about study the trivium before you get yourself lost in a mental world of fallacies, focusing on Pike when our only mention was how they take it out of order. Again, as this thread has nothing to do with Pike and the Masons, but with the Trivium, which is grammar, logic, and rhetoric, if you’re incapable of keeping this thread on topic, you’ll be banned. I’m tired of your BS and your inability to do simple research, much less cite things correctly.
I don’t recall that anyone ever cited the 534 to Pike, that was you who brought it up, out of order no less, and you’re the one who keeps beating it to death. It’s a red herring, a non issue. Focus on learning the trivium and learning how to think rather than dwelling on idiocy.
This isn’t the area of discussions of the trivium study guide – as already repeatedly noted. Thanks.