Jan Irvin is the author of The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity, host of the podcast show Gnostic Media, and webmaster of Trivium Education, a website which teaches the ancient arts of Aristotelian Logic, and Classical Rhetoric.
General Grammar, Aristotelian Logic, and Classical Rhetoric comprise the first three rules-based subjects of the 7 Liberal Arts and Sciences. As these disciplines are learned and practiced together, they form the overarching, symbiotic system for establishing clarity and consistency of personal thought called the Trivium.
General Grammar
(Answers the question of the Who, What, Where, and the When of a subject.) Discovering and ordering facts of reality comprises basic, systematic Knowledge
Formal Logic
(Answers the Why of a subject.) Developing the faculty of reason in establishing valid [i.e., non-contradictory] relationships among facts, systematic Understanding
Classical Rhetoric
(Provides the How of a subject.) Applying knowledge and understanding expressively comprises Wisdom or, in other words, it is systematically useable knowledge and understanding
- http://www.triviumeducation.com
In the 2nd hour of today's show, Chris Tolland interviews Irvin on his research and insights in many subjects.
In the first hour of today's show Chris joins us for a relaxed discussion on life, the economy and politics in Australia.
I hope you enjoy the show!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 49:29 — 16.1MB) | Embed
The interviewer was ill-prepared, but you carried the interview very well, with only occasional grunts of acknowledgement from the interviewer.
When Jan went over the Trivium it got me thinking about the frame problem in AI. With the Trivium we have a systematic method for removing contradictions, but in applying it to the world around us we have the dilemma of deciding what is relevant to do research on given the limited time we have available to spend doing research. How do Trivium adepts deal with this problem?
Obviously you’d apply it to what ever topic you’re working on, and using it, by removing fallacies, etc, gets you to the core of your topic far more quickly freeing up huge amounts of time. In actuality, we waste our lives believing in false beliefs, rather than spending a few hours looking them up and correcting our beliefs, saving hundreds or thousands of hours of wasted energy. So your “dilemma” is self imposed.
I definitely think it is worthwhile stripping away false beliefs but on the other hand there is surely a “rabbit hole effect” isn’t there? Once we start where does it end, how many false beliefs do we have to eliminate before our lives aren’t being wasted anymore?
how many false beliefs is it worthwhile keeping?
“how many false beliefs is it worthwhile keeping?”
I’m going to frame that and hang it on the wall above my desk, Jan.
“Once we start where does it end”
It ends when all that is left is the truth.
Thanks for listening, Robert. I regret not having prepared better.
I had a lot of topics I wanted to broach – espscially wanting to get to the 7 Liberal Arts – and knew little of Jan’s writings on enthugens nor his book. Jan really gets rolling and has a lot to talk about! I really want to see his knowledge web PC application. He’s slick and quick with i, so much so that it’s like a brain extension just sitting there ready to slip into, to get the EXACT quote, or that EXACT date and time of some historical event.
On finding what’s worth researching, time limitations and the rabbit hole effect:
No false belief is worth holding. It would be a much better world if people could make the admission ‘I don’t know’ rather than always saying ‘I dont believe that!’. It’d be less fearful, more rational and sensible world IMHO.
And all the media mind games and dumbing down of education creates a sort of lost child ambivalence in peeps who stumble into the doorway of the rabbit hole. Straighten up, grab a map and read whatever takes your fancy. PLUS – GIve up television – you’ll find hours of free time straight away.