Arts of the Trivium, Grammar, Hall of the Liberal ArtsI found out about The Trivium from a guy called Jan Irvin who, like me, is very interested in the history and mythology of entheogens, but unlike me has written quite a few books, such as The Pharmacratic Inquisition, The Holy Mushroom, etc. His friend, Richard Grove and others began a movement under the title Tragedy and Hope (T&H), inspired by Gene Odening, all about a classical form of learning which they claimed has been suppressed from the masses by the very elite who are learned in it. So the T&H team take it upon themselves to introduce as many people to this lost learning, The Trivium, in order--they say--so that we will know the tricks being pulled by the elite and their puppets, politicians, media and so on, but also so that we too can use this classical form of education to be able to see through all the propaganda coming from the very system this elite has created.
The Three Laws of Learning
The word “trivium” comes from the Latin prefix “tri” meaning “three,” and the Latin root “via” meaning “way,” or “road.” The word literally means “the three-fold way or road.” The trivium refers to the three stages, or ways, of learning that coincide with a child’s cognitive development as he matures. We should begin an in-depth look at the trivium--the three stages of learning--by reminding ourselves that the trivium is not some arbitrary theory of teaching methodology or new fad of learning philosophy. Rather, the trivium was developed by long trial and error, through the observation of the ancients in the way children learn during the whole course of their instruction from young child to young adult. They realized that time after time, they followed three stages in the learning process. They simply pointed out what was obviously there; what God had designed: that there are three stages, which they named Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric; and they progress in that order. Think of Sir Isaac Newton. He didn’t invent the three laws of motion (God did that when He created the universe), but after careful observation, he defined them by stating what was already there. So it is with the trivium. We might even call the trivium the three laws of learning.
So there above is a summary of the Trivium. But the hidden premise of what is being said, to my ears, at least, goes like this: 'We 'the peasants' are shortchanged because our 'superior masters' have withheld the most important ways to learn from us, and thus we are basically dumb; and in order to be as clever as them we need to learn what has been suppressed from our education, the Trivium, but not fall into the trap many of them have, which was to lose their hearts in the process', and take pleasure in feeling superior, and oppressing those they felt superior to.' Something like that.
Now, as I said, Richard Grove, one of the founders of T&H created a website and forum there for debate, and I joined, and my first question was titled 'My Critique of the Trivium'. It was my right to question it, if, as these people claim, we must excercise our critical thinking....right? So I was doing, and I was a member there for a few months, debating about my question with some of the other members who wished to participate in the inquiry.
The other day Jan Irvin posted a video link to my thread of of talk he had done on the Trivium and I viewed it, and I took many notes, and spent a great deal of effort critiquing elements of what I felt needed challenging.
In my critique, I happened to say that the Trivium promotion seemed to me like a cult. After I posted this Richard Grove quickly replied (he had never responded in my thread till this time), saying that he was the one responsible for the words Jan was reading from a projected computer screen in the video, and I should talk with him about it and not "attack" Jan. I said I wasn't attacking Jan, and asked him to reveal where I had. He couldn't, because I had just been responding to some of the points Jan was making.
Richard then told me off for my use of the term 'cult', and asked me why I said it. I told him that what he said, and his tone, further led me to sense T&H as being like a cult. Cult leaders and followers rarely like any questioning of their beliefs. Next thing he banned me which meant I could not even view the message boards, I also could not gain access to my own text which if I did, I could then past to my own documents, and present in my blog. I privately emailed him to ask if I could save my efforts I had typed in my thread, but got no reply. So there you go. Censored, and thrown out of their cult, and I cannot present my own efforts there, here in my blog, as I am not allowed. This is typical cultist behaviour. Once ejected you must have no contact with other members, or even your own property.
At the Tragedy and Hope introduction to the Trivium given by Gene Odening, he starts with this quote: Trivium and Quadrivium Cliff Notes by Gene Odening:
Now, as I said, Richard Grove, one of the founders of T&H created a website and forum there for debate, and I joined, and my first question was titled 'My Critique of the Trivium'. It was my right to question it, if, as these people claim, we must excercise our critical thinking....right? So I was doing, and I was a member there for a few months, debating about my question with some of the other members who wished to participate in the inquiry.
The other day Jan Irvin posted a video link to my thread of of talk he had done on the Trivium and I viewed it, and I took many notes, and spent a great deal of effort critiquing elements of what I felt needed challenging.
In my critique, I happened to say that the Trivium promotion seemed to me like a cult. After I posted this Richard Grove quickly replied (he had never responded in my thread till this time), saying that he was the one responsible for the words Jan was reading from a projected computer screen in the video, and I should talk with him about it and not "attack" Jan. I said I wasn't attacking Jan, and asked him to reveal where I had. He couldn't, because I had just been responding to some of the points Jan was making.
Richard then told me off for my use of the term 'cult', and asked me why I said it. I told him that what he said, and his tone, further led me to sense T&H as being like a cult. Cult leaders and followers rarely like any questioning of their beliefs. Next thing he banned me which meant I could not even view the message boards, I also could not gain access to my own text which if I did, I could then past to my own documents, and present in my blog. I privately emailed him to ask if I could save my efforts I had typed in my thread, but got no reply. So there you go. Censored, and thrown out of their cult, and I cannot present my own efforts there, here in my blog, as I am not allowed. This is typical cultist behaviour. Once ejected you must have no contact with other members, or even your own property.
At the Tragedy and Hope introduction to the Trivium given by Gene Odening, he starts with this quote: Trivium and Quadrivium Cliff Notes by Gene Odening:
For if you [the rulers] suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves [outlaws] and then punish them ~ Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), Utopia, Book 1
On the surface it looks like some kind of compassion being given, by a member of the aristocracy, to the 'lower orders' , but looking deeper into what is saying shows otherwise. It is exactly the same as the totally decimating the independent communal life of other indigenous peoples, like the Native Americans, the Australian Aboriginees, e.t.c., and forcing their children to go to western schools, the same schools people like John Taylor Gatto have shown are designed for the purpose of constricting consciousness and real learning, and then, because of this oppression, children and adults naturally lose a sense of meaning to their lives and cut off from the land and sense of community and spirituality often may turn to drugs, alcohol, 'crime' and so on. This is exactly what happened to the indigenous people of Europe, driven off land that had been privatized, and driven to 'crime, and then some big wig appeals to another higher-up big wig to show 'mercy' and let them know what they 'know'? In other words, the very same mindset that are so 'well educated' they have totally lost their fukin soul condescend to imagine that what they have 'learned' must be of help to their impoverished victims?! Hmmmm what a proposition hey?
Such as that was what I was exploring in the thread at T&H message boards, though I did it in a polite way, never using a swear word. Amongst ofther things, I was warning T&H's idealistic trust in the initiation into the 'higher learnings' of the Trivium as a way to challenge the ruling elites maintanance of oppression down the generations, which down-plays emotion and defies reason and logic, as it seems to me the very dangerous 'learning' we need to rather avoid, and not encourage for ourselves and our children--cause it aint done the super-rich much good ---the ones who have been schooled in the Trivium??
And also the very promotion of it undermines other forms of knowledge and learning that many ordinary people would naturally have had, and have, when not brutally oppressed by these 'superior learned elites'! In its promotion this implies an undermining of natural innate organic intelligence which indigenous peoples always have.
In Jan's videod talk, he was saying (or rather reading what someone else had written on a projected computer screen, having to drink copious amounts of water to keep keeping on reading) how those not schooled in the Trivium and its knowledge of grammar, and logic, and rherotic do not know how to converse in a 'sensible manner'. This reminded me of a guy, Stefan Molyneux , who makes videos on Youtube, and also has a popular podcast.
The first video of his I really liked, and so subscribed to his channel. In a later video he says he graduated in philosophy, and that in philosophy you are trained in logic, and how many of the comments he receives disagreeing with him about various things he says in videos, from people not educated in philosophy, and thefore not properly understanding logic, were known 'in philsophy' and by him--as "noise", and said scrunching up his nose, " so please dont waste yours and my time challenging the points I make until you know HOW to adequately challenge them logically? This seriously put me off him. But Jan said more or less the same in his talk!
When I was pounced on by Richard back at T&H forum, demanding I explain points I had said, which I tried to, he suddenly said that anything I say from then on he is going to see as 'spam'--yip, 'noise'. So what do you say to that? To that mindset you are a noise-spammer, and he also accused me of being too "emotional". Now, hah, this is also a classic-learning attempt to shame anyone that challenges what they have learnt is their 'superior intellect'. 'Emotions are looked down on, and those who have beared brunt of this judgement from self-acclaimed 'rational minds', particular to most patriarchal traditions, down the ages, have always been women, and the 'poor': Hare Krishna: The exam
Such as that was what I was exploring in the thread at T&H message boards, though I did it in a polite way, never using a swear word. Amongst ofther things, I was warning T&H's idealistic trust in the initiation into the 'higher learnings' of the Trivium as a way to challenge the ruling elites maintanance of oppression down the generations, which down-plays emotion and defies reason and logic, as it seems to me the very dangerous 'learning' we need to rather avoid, and not encourage for ourselves and our children--cause it aint done the super-rich much good ---the ones who have been schooled in the Trivium??
And also the very promotion of it undermines other forms of knowledge and learning that many ordinary people would naturally have had, and have, when not brutally oppressed by these 'superior learned elites'! In its promotion this implies an undermining of natural innate organic intelligence which indigenous peoples always have.
In Jan's videod talk, he was saying (or rather reading what someone else had written on a projected computer screen, having to drink copious amounts of water to keep keeping on reading) how those not schooled in the Trivium and its knowledge of grammar, and logic, and rherotic do not know how to converse in a 'sensible manner'. This reminded me of a guy, Stefan Molyneux , who makes videos on Youtube, and also has a popular podcast.
The first video of his I really liked, and so subscribed to his channel. In a later video he says he graduated in philosophy, and that in philosophy you are trained in logic, and how many of the comments he receives disagreeing with him about various things he says in videos, from people not educated in philosophy, and thefore not properly understanding logic, were known 'in philsophy' and by him--as "noise", and said scrunching up his nose, " so please dont waste yours and my time challenging the points I make until you know HOW to adequately challenge them logically? This seriously put me off him. But Jan said more or less the same in his talk!
When I was pounced on by Richard back at T&H forum, demanding I explain points I had said, which I tried to, he suddenly said that anything I say from then on he is going to see as 'spam'--yip, 'noise'. So what do you say to that? To that mindset you are a noise-spammer, and he also accused me of being too "emotional". Now, hah, this is also a classic-learning attempt to shame anyone that challenges what they have learnt is their 'superior intellect'. 'Emotions are looked down on, and those who have beared brunt of this judgement from self-acclaimed 'rational minds', particular to most patriarchal traditions, down the ages, have always been women, and the 'poor': Hare Krishna: The exam
“A woman cannot for example make decisions of her own, only a man, preferably her husband, can do that for her. This is because a woman is also considered more emotionally driven than men, and she cannot be considered to make rational decisions. The view of women is thus highly paradoxical in that women are considered weak but dangerous at the same time."
Try and question the authoritian androcentric elite, which fancies itself ever so rational, and beyond the body, nature, and emotion, and you become all they fear, and deny in themselves. This Richard guy would not admit his attack on me was in any way emotional~~~ohhh noooo.
So, in other words, I am already seeing in their attitudes what I was originally warning about in my critique. 'Higher' learning can be a dangerous game, because it implies you gonna look down on others not privy to it!
So, in other words, I am already seeing in their attitudes what I was originally warning about in my critique. 'Higher' learning can be a dangerous game, because it implies you gonna look down on others not privy to it!
