My fellow Trenchers,
Being that many of you are some of the most intelligent, well-informed people in this country (if not the entire planet), I have a question for you… have any of you done any serious research on the subject of the Trivium & Quadrivium? And if so, have you been able to apply this principle, and what was your conclusion?
The reason I’m asking is because I have just recently delved into this concept that has been purportedly used by the elites for thousands of years based on – #1. Grammar. #2. logic. #3. Rhetoric. It’s an alternate method of critical thinking, but it’s partially based on abstract concepts which can be difficult to fathom at times…. that is why I’m seeking any information that any of you may have about it. If, however, it is everything my friend claims it to be, it could be an extremely useful tool against our enemies.
I’m including a link for anyone else who may be interested, and any input you may have will be greatly appreciated.
# 1 NWO Hatr
#1, I can’t be of any help on the subject, but I am interested in this method and have opened the link already and will be listening.
I’m almost halfway through the 2nd podcast, Katie. The reason it’s taking so long is that I’m doing something I haven’t done for a few years – taking extensive notes. It’s the way I could possibly endeavor to analyze this new (to me, anyway) concept. But I’m VERY interested, my friend talks about it quite often… and if the elite are ingrained with this method of critical thinking, then it behooves us to use it against them also, if at all possible.
“It’s the way…”
Oops… shoulda been ONLY way.
Damn reefer madness!
Looks like I’ve got some homework to do.
Same here.
I’ll be honest, Mark… it doesn’t look easy.
But I’m a stubborn bast@rd, if nothing else. 😉
I don’t drugz I can’t spell.
But if you need a resource on..
LSD
Mushrooms
PCP
Cocaine
Alcohol
Oxicontin
Cannabis
Loritabs
Percocet
Meth…
I may be a valuable information resource.
AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIKE A SARCASTIC SMART ASS, IN THE DEEP SOUTH, THAT IS A DESCRIPTION OF “COMMON SENSE”…..
Hi #1. I heard a lecture on it a while back. If I remember correctly it ties in with NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) and the origin of words, where and when coined and with what specific intention. I remember the speaker saying that the English language, particularly, was set up with dictates to keep us subservient and that words are codes with inner messages. All of this is supposed to have an impact on behavior. Anyhow, it was way too detailed for me to pursue so I had to let it go. You know how we have to pick and choose these days with all the information out there. I’m sure you’ll keep us posted.
🙂
.
like in law the word “shall” means they better or they are denying a right? (paraphrasing )
like the
“Shall issue ” when it came to our Concealed Pistol Licencing ?
Yeah, just like dat.
Sigh…
.
Galen. That is very true on the english language, and can be proven. English is babel!
Everything is right before us if we care to look.
Thanks, Jolly.
Years ago in a very stony time, my best friend turned to me and said:
“Ya know, words can lie but vibes don’t.”
I can’t tell you how far that has carried me.
🙂
.
Oops, sorry. I should have said thanks “D.”
.
Yes you r correct.
Thats…why enjoy mangaling the English language.
It’s grammar….spelling.
Because it is a construct.
I go by soundz …not spelling…
e.g.
ICU2OK
I 4 get.
I am 4U2.
English…is one of the gutter languages.
Considering there was a time when humans communicated by thought.
It is a common slave language.
So masters can communicate to their slaves.
Oh I almost forgot…
And fk elves…!
It’s an inside joke.
I’m referring to Jeff Sessions.
Gnomes r kewl though.
There not like elves.
it is language that has deceived and enslaved us
Galen – The trivium is simply a process for effectively breaking down information: it is Who, What, Where, When, Why and How.
I’m sure you’re right and I’ve much to learn about it. The lecture I heard online, and can’t remember who gave it, connected it with intelligence programming through language. I guess, like so many other things, an original premise can get hijacked and morphed. Well, we reap what we can to assist our understanding of all that affects us.
.
“Anyhow, it was way too detailed for me to pursue so I had to let it go.”
That’s what I was thinking when I first heard of it, galen. However, once my interest piques to a certain level… anything is possible.
Ten years ago I never would have dreamed I’d wake up some day to discover how overwhelmingly I’ve been lied to my entire life.
About virtually EVERYTHING!!! 😡
Seems like this is the way to go. I’ve been interested in the trivium for a couple of years, though I don’t feel that I have grasped the whole of the process. There appears to be some deception from some teachers, as they change the order of learning in many cases. This is definitely a system of thought that used to be commonly taught that has been obscured to keep us from learning how to think. Here are links by Jan Irvin, which I have found to be extremely helpful. The first is a course that Jan put together for everyone.
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
Jan’s youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/GnosticMedia/videos
The fallacies (a good starting point:) http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Good luck to us all!
“The fallacies (a good starting point:)”
That’s what I’m right in the middle of, Bob.
There’s a helluva lot of logical fallacies out there.
“…have any of you done any serious research on the subject of the Trivium & Quadrivium?…”
No research, serious or otherwise, but I have heard of it.
“…this concept that has been purportedly used by the elites for thousands of years based on – #1. Grammar. #2. logic. #3. Rhetoric….”
As I understand it, it’s just a method of teaching, and not just for elites. but it was a general educational philosophy that centered on these three basic foundations from which all other learning could branch off of. (math, for example, would fall under “logic”…..politics and history are “rhetoric”….all language skills are “Grammer”
But I could be wrong. Please continue with your research and educate me when you have it figured out. ..Thanks
The one room schools of early America were apparently based on the trivium. The little children focused on grammar, the middle aged children focused on logic, and the oldest children focused on rhetoric. The older groups of children would help the younger ones to learn what they had formerly been working on.
Now rhetoric, in particular, which is the means to convey one’s ideas effectively, is preserved for those attending the more elite private schools.
Thanks, Bob.
Now I’m interested and want to look into it myself.
I only hope that I actually can figure it out, JR.
Here is a quote from the podcast, by Egyptologist Gerald Mason (great last name, eh?)… “They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.”
This was under the ‘Argument from Authority’ logical fallacy.
Unimpeachable statement.
Never heard of this, though I will be investigating to become aware.
I studied physiology and became a Hypnosis in a past like years ago, but I found the answers are in the study of “The Egoic Mind” read everything you can find, you will find the jews to not talk much about it, but they use it in everything they do (Marketing, TV programing, MSM and education) to its fullest power, they are masters at this ego game!
Have studied and delved into it.
Not sure what you are wanting to know.
For my ethics I consider logic the most useful if one desires to be ethical.
Grammar and rhetoric is mostly, as Galen said, a type of NLP (which was derived from govment agents following Erickson) programming.
Rhetoric is much like Erikson’s covert hypnosis, persuasive talk. Any one who says covert hypnosis doesn’t work is ignorant of the facts. I know it can work with the proper pattern interupts and timing. I personally consider such tactics unethical.
This is untrue- All three are necessary for understanding
Grammar is simply “The Facts”
Logic is “The Understanding”
Rhetoric is “Applying/conveying knowledge and understanding”
I like the simplicity of this, Bob, as well as the common sense. Thank you. Now why the hell did some make it so complicated? That’s a trap of academia; it’s so overdressed.
.
They are hiding the trivium from us… I can’t believe how hard they are spamming this topic! I called in Jan, but I’m not sure he is going to show. I plan on hitting this topic hard!
I’m not surprised, Bob. My main concern in posting this was the possible blowback from the enemy… it has the appearance of some of their ‘secret knowledge’ that they definitely wouldn’t want divulged.
If they’re attacking, I would take that as verification/confirmation of it’s authenticity & effectiveness… as well as being highly detrimental to their peace of mind. 🙂
Bob,
I don’t reply often for this reason.
You miss my point. Only Grammar and Logic are necessary. Here is a highlight.
Rhetoric, requires Logos, Pathos, and Ethos, or persuasion, only works until the party you are talking to hears a more persuasive argument. “In classical Greek rhetoric, there are three basic approaches–three “rhetorical appeals”–one can use to make a convincing argument. They include these three items: Logos (using logical arguments such as induction and deduction) Pathos (creating an emotional reaction in the audience).”( Want to learn more? When you get someone emotional they are no longer Logical.)
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/resource_rhet.html
An if rhetoric was required for ” Applying/conveying knowledge and understanding,” Henry wouldn’t have been able to say what he did below about the best book was one which simply said Logic!
Logic, no amount of rhetoric, can dissuade one who is under the truth or living in Logic.
As a hobby I used to study etymology. It goes back to what I stated about English being babel. An example, people think they own property yet look at the deed where it says tenant, and based on lack of knowledge, or application of Logic erroneously think tenant means owner. Rhetoric was used to appeal to emotions and influence society to think that if you pay for land it doesn’t matter the deed says tenant, or tenant in common, you own it. Don’t pay your property tax (lease payment) and see if you keep it.
Rhetoric is used to influence someone. The reason I disagree with rhetoric: From oxforod: “In Rome, rhetoric was the art of making persuasive discourse, and its pursuit typically involved the mastery of rhetorical principles and the application of political speaking.” Oration. Oration is a long drawn out speech that hammers home a point again and again in persuasive (to me deceitful ways). Listening to an oration, especially today with such shortened attention spans is one of the best ways to be influenced.
Notice “the art of making persuasive discourse…rhetorical principles… political speaking.” Notice those key words. Watch politicians and then one gets and idea of what is required.
When one searches deeply and comes to the knowledge of what is required for persuasive discourse; to persuade means to induce or influence someone; then one can understand my stance.
Want some of those tactics?
Notice number 3 in the first link. If you get someone emotional they are no longer logical.
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/five_canons/five_canons.htm
This one. How to be right even when you are wrong?
http://changingminds.org/techniques/general/being_right/being_right.htm
The one above here is used by the MSM constantly.
There is a reason the Bible said to, “stay away from sorcerers.” There is another word study. 🙂
So… are you claiming the trivium concept in invalid?
No. I am simply saying Rhetoric isn’t what we think it is.
I agree with the other two.
Listening to rhetoric is how society has gotten to the point it is.
#1NWO
Rhetoric works.
I am trying to convey years of research in a short space.
If one will stay in Logos, and Ethos, in my personal opinion it becomes something other than rhetoric, but when one gets into Pathos, appealing to the emotions, that is when it becomes unethical to me.
The links I posted will give a greater understanding of what rhetoric is.
I helped someone out of a cult type environment once. I heard and saw all the tactics they used to keep them locked in a mental conundrum. The link on how to be right even when wrong above….they used all those and more. Always appealing to emotion and giving long speeches (rhetoric) especially Pathos.
I tried pulling that person out with more long speeches. The only thing that worked was using Logos and Ethos. Making them use their mind, and to me unless you use Pathos as well it ceases to be rhetoric.
You’ve obviously done some research in this field, whereas I’ve only scratched the surface. I will be keeping this post in my e-mail for future reference, but I will have to thoroughly investigate the entire trivium method before I can even think about any related side trips.
“Bob,
I don’t reply often for this reason.
You miss my point. Only Grammar and Logic are necessary. Here is a highlight.”
This is the point of rhetoric D, one of two fallacies in the statement above. Rhetoric reveals CONTRADICTION, ergo you go back to grammar and logic and repeat until there is no more contradiction. It is like a vortex: you go through grammar to logic to rhetoric again and again until no contradiction remains. I’m enjoying this argument, so I am going to ask a friend to check my work here and give comments. I will also spend some time exploring your links. Thank you.
Here is my friend’s response to your original comment which I got before I responded to it at all (way back when:)
“Nonsense. General grammar is who what where when. Rhetoric is the explanation – how. Logic is why – on its own is sophistry. Mind control.”
Furthermore, here is an example of sophistry using only logic that I remember from school:
1. A ham and cheese sandwich is better than nothing.
2. Nothing is better than world peace.
3. Therefore a ham and cheese sandwich is better than world peace.
I think the controlling factor here would be appetite. If you’d just finished gorging yourself on steak, a ham sandwich would not be better than nothing.
There is something better than world peace, say for instance, world peace without poverty or hunger.
Facts stand alone and math and physics will not allow them to be changed. Rhetoric is subject matter opinion and it is easily separated from the facts.
D, from reading your comments, I deduce that you are not willing to emotionally MANIPULATE an individual over to your point of view which stems from a Christian morale, which, imo, is worthy of commendation.
Henry Shivley: “Rhetoric is subject matter opinion and it is easily separated from the facts.”
Yes.
Katie: Thank you.
One of the coolest books I have ever owned was a little book, found it at a yard sale, think I paid a quarter for it. It was a little book about the size of a pocket bible, had a leather cover, one word on the front of it. Logic.
One of my sons has it right now, all have read it and every word in it makes absolute sense and cannot be argued with. It is the logic of logic. I understood every word in it because there was no way not to.
I have used the principles in that little book to conduct my mind ever since. It is how I know the Bill of Rights is absolute fact and absolutely cannot be touched without committing an act of insurrection.
Going to have to see which one of my sons has that old book and see if there is the equivalent somewhere online.
It is a little book that takes a long time to read, but when you are done, it is not like you read a book, it is like your mind has been adjusted. 🙂
Henry, if and when you get the name of the book, I’d like the title to be able to locate a copy. Thank you.
ditto
“one word on the front of it. Logic.”
EofTS, okay, duh. Thanks. Alright, how about the authors name? This is a way less lame request. 🙂
Yeah, I put logic right up there with freedom. I’ve been played by those who distort it. Narcissists who muddy the well and twist things around: gaslighting. Very scary people, but they teach a lot.
.
I’d be interested as well, Henry.
Provided the author’s last name doesn’t end in ‘stein’, or some such.
LOL… j/k. 🙂
May I point out you are a master of rhetoric Henry? 🙂
as well as logic 🙂
There is a FB group…And John Taylor Gatto has a utube vid on Trivium.
It all ties into Memetics, or reality manipulation. It is done by many religions(religion is just a tool to them). If you desire to dive into it look to the heebs and how they use it to subvert the world. THIS is just the surface. as it goes back thousands of years. They love to brag, as people are oblivious to such things, and they keep sheeple distracted with thousands of tools, and language is just one. It is a simple system, but as you all can see very effective, and yes it can be used in reverse..
Untrue-
The trivium is simply a way of effectively analyzing information and exposing fallacies. I have no idea why anyone honest would come up with stuff like this… must be deception.
You sure have a way of bringing out the trolls Hatr! I’ll start sharing info on this topic.
“You sure have a way of bringing out the trolls Hatr!”
He’s always had a knack for “sniffing” them out and bringing them out. LOL
🙂 😀
😀
I’ve no trouble believing what the bastard (poster above, ha, the name carries weight) posted. Anything good can be stolen and used for nefarious purposes. But thanks for bringing it back to basics, Bob. Reminds me of the environmental movement, initially about clean air, water, soil, not littering. And bam! Now it’s in the wrong hands and control is the order of the day. Guard the good. Reclaim the basics.
.
It’s a gift, Bob.
I think.
The bastard:
I’m impressed. Doesnt happen often.
If you would be so inclined I think i might enjoy conversing with you privately if it could be arranged to get one another’s contact information.
First thing came to mind for me seeing those words trivium & quadrivium was Edgar Cayce readings on Urim & Thummim….Exodus 28: 15-21. But there is no relation. Very good study though. Math is fun The Golden ratio…mean…Fibonacci whatever that number of proportion at 1.618 opens up debate for divine intelligence. A circle drawn or carved on any surface is a sphere or globe or ball in 3 dimensions. A square drawn or carved on any surface is a cube in 3 dimensions….A triangle in 3 dimensions is called a tetrahedron. That’s where people freak out.The 3 stooges sang Swinging the Alphabet.
You left out one…
https://youtu.be/BVo2igbFSPE?t=1
Flee, did I hear right? You’re doing an Internet live-stream this evening at 9pm eastern and will break this down for us?
🙂
.
Yeah…it will be on…
IthinkIknowEverything.com
Be nice now …
Or I’m gonna fall off my roof again.
And I’m not gonna get up this time.
In fact…
I’ll make my final post to the Trenches.
“I’m Dead”…no more free jokes flee!
That should make quite a few people happy at least for a few seconds.
Now …as Henry would say…
Back to business… and now…
A word from our most outstanding sponsors.
I listened in Flee, and watched it. Brilliant!! And you got it all done in 9 minutes. Now there is no more confusion on planet earth.
🙂
.
UR killin me….
Cheers…
Jenner Manning 2020.
“Making America Great Again By Manning Up”…
Bang…..!!!.
Oh sht…!
I just shot myself in the foot…!!!
I’m killin myself tonight.
Another great preliminary explanation:
Thanks, Bob. This made it a bit more palatable, digestible. I’ll have to listen several times if I want to get it down. Jeez, Trench University really has some hard courses. I hope I pass.
🙂
.
I found Flee’s presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsgExTttJ2Y
🙂
.
If grammar has anything to do with this, I will definitely look into it, being a writer and all, and being someone who would love it if the rules of proper grammar are still being followed. Everyone sucks at grammar (even me) sometimes, but way too many bloggers think poor grammar is a badge of honor.
Well I’ve investigated this as grammar, logic, and rhetoric in the past when I was home schooling my kids, but I did not know it was called trivium. Sorry. As for grammar, it isn’t that grammar has not been taught in the past (IMHO) but the problem with grammar and language is this–who gets to decide what “proper grammar” and “spelling” and language is? It has always been the elites, right? So then anyone who says language and grammar is neuro-linguistic programming (which when I was getting my psych degree I also investigated…again you are right, Galen. Because in its origin, the English language is THE definition of NLP, since it is one heckuva conglomeration of languages designed for the elites to control everyone else.)
Example–in the old days in public (meaning private, elite) English schools (grammar and otherwise), a particular style of English speaking was taught that WAS NOT taught in “lower class” schools where local accents or dialects were taught which, of course, would “keep” the “lower classes” in their low state, since only those speaking “proper English” would be recognizable as members of elites. Then after WW2 all schools in England (I spent some time there in 1970 and asked questions about their education systems), most schools even in poor areas began to teach “representative pronunciation” (RP) which made it harder for the elites to keep everyone else down. But this changed again in the 80s or 90s when the “comprehensive” system replaced the “secondary modern” or “grammar” school system, and local accents and dialects were again promoted. Some local accents/dialects have completely different grammar rules, so that if one abides by local grammar rules instead of “Queen’s English” type stuff (a system again promoted by elites) it tends to keep the “lower classes” down as it did before. so the question is this–WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW and WHY gets to decide what the rules should be?
As for logic, if the elites had any clue on logic they wouldn’t have come up with crap like Common Core and wouldn’t put their own pocketbooks ahead of keeping those who support them (namely, humanity) able to continue to support them. And if the Talmudic Jewry section of the elites had any logic they’d know that after they kill all the Gentiles, who’d they kill next? Themselves? But that’s what happens when you’re the Synagogue of Satan!
Rhetoric? Yep, that’s a hard one since I ask rhetorical questions all the time! 😉
That’s some background there, DL. I could see a parallel with the entertainment industry, especially old movies of the 30’s and 40’s. Who spoke in what manner and who lived in what circumstance. Lavish homes and servants. “Proper” English and slang. Our own personal caste system. They sure do like to keep us separated.
But we can’t be fooled much longer. The toothpaste is outta the tube. I wonder how The Queen’s English says F YOU.
Oh, do you know what an Englishman says in full English accent at the peak of love-making?
“Well then, I believe I’m arriving.”
🙂
.
I know that John Dee, sorcerer to queen Elizabeth I set out with a group including his protege Francis Bacon to double the size of the English language around the mid 1500s. No doubt our language was set up to be the language of the JWO. They call English “Dog Latin” in the courts you know, so we are handicapped by our language.
My supposition is that the Shakespeare plays were the product of this work, though I don’t think this is one of the main theories about who he actually was.
I think the best definition from dictionary.com for Grammar in terms of the Trivium is:
7. the elements of any science, art, or subject.
(as I said before: who, what, when, where)
On a side note… – There are writing style analysts in England who assert that much of the work credited to Shakespeare was in fact written by Marlowe. It’s a contentious and on-going argument. Maybe one of those conundrums we’ll never know the whole truth of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#The_%22Shakespeare%22_argument
.
I wish to thank all of you Trenchers for your input so far on this (ball of spaghetti is how Henry would put it… it’s going to take some serious unraveling… for me, anyway) subject. I suspect it may be an important one.
Actually, without knowing, I have been researching this topic for quite sometime, as a matter of fact, currently, I have many windows open in the hopes of getting to them for research and not losing the links. This concept isn’t new and has come before under many names. Please refer to Plato’s allegory of the Cave, our language and education has basically evolved to describe illusion as opposed to looking at the illusion to derive fact or truth. Group influence and group mindset is the key innovation of a predictable society.
paradigms
Paradigms shape how something is seen and how it is understood; however a paradigm should not be confused with a theory, which is an attempt to provide an explanation for something.
In choosing a paradigm for their research all researchers must account for personal bias.
BAM
@ Henry: “There is something better than world peace, say for instance, world peace without poverty or hunger.”
I would think peace would preclude poverty and hunger. No?
.
I’d say this is the point Galen… Without grammar, one is not defining one’s terms. Without rhetoric, one is not debating and searching for or exposing contradiction.
All I know is I’ve always loved grammar. Actually it was so logical to me. I love every aspect of it, even though I sometimes get it wrong.
Once I read that Mark Twain hated the semicolon and thought it superfluous. I, on the other hand. love it, use it often, and understand it’s importance. Would love to share a cold one with Twain. Save the semicolon!!
.
ps: Bob, I don’t understand everything about rhetoric but from what I do, it is the Grand Poobah of getting one’s point across. I guess it can be used positively or negatively.
Aside: Dang #1, look what your started. Now get me outta here.
🙂
.
LOL… had no clue, galen, but that is exactly why I posited this question here, I knew Trenchers would have some answers, if anyone would. 🙂
A world at peace is again subject matter, open to interpretation, and that is the point, like poverty, a relative term, or hunger. A person can have a roof over his head and food on the table but still be a slave. As the definition of peace would have to come down to the individual to be defined, the idea of world peace would be a misnomer, impossible to gauge, thus it is all rhetoric.
spot on dear Henry
Many of the dilemma’s and ideologies being presented to the general populace fail to consider, Human Nature. World Peace can only be achieved and maintained through force. The God of the Machine, “is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery. If he wishes to help ‘humanity,’ the whole of humanity must be in need. https://www.sott.net/image/s16/325390/full/hegelian_dialectic.jpg
The idea of the statement of world peace is what is an impossibility. For a constant state to exist across the board would require seven billion people to be thinking exactly the same way at exactly the same time. In short, the standard is an impossibility, as no two of us are alike and one person’s happiness is another person’s misery. Word salad.
Peace doesn’t belong to the world, it is an individual state of being. Maybe we should define Natural Law first?
Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
https://jim.com/rights.html
Lumpy,
“Peace doesn’t belong to the world, it is an individual state of being.”
Isn’t that what I just said?
“Maybe we should define Natural Law first?”
Do you know who you are talking to?
“World Peace can only be achieved and maintained through force.”
Excuse me, but isn’t that EXACTLY what the NWO is currently attempting to achieve???
HOW THE HELL CAN THERE BE ANY ‘PEACE’, IF IT’S BROUGHT ABOUT BY AND MAINTAINED THROUGH FORCE?????
That’s MY definition of SLAVERY!
Interesting point, Henry. Leaves me wondering if we are, in fact, slaves to semantics and interpretations and bound to existentialism. But still, we reach out and hope for understanding. Sometimes we succeed.
Me thinks the head has no seniority over the heart. Just like Trenchers, they are a team.
.
i believe that in order to truly understand, one must first allow the history to provide direction. Consider this, http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html The Delphi Technique
A Sociological Philosophy of Education, published in 1928 by the MacMillan Company, Ross L. Finney, Assistant Professor of Educational Sociology at the University of Minnesota, wrote the following about what should and should not be offered to students:
“If leadership by the intelligent is ever to be achieved, followership by the dull and ignorant must somehow be assured. Followership, quite as much as leadership, is, therefore, the crucial problem of the present crisis…”
Few of the explainers have revealed the possibility that you are not being properly taught because the Globalist world management system does not want you to know too much.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Intelligent_Students_NWO.htm
Note, I have replaced the term NWO with Globalist in the premise of progress. Remember, most of this is just food for thought, but I’m presenting is as research material.
https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-utopias/
Again, presented for research and to show differing views.
If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril. Sun Tzu.
I’ll digress from here.
Interesting… you FAILED to address MY question to you.
Hardly surprising, however.
I might have missed it, this thread is getting rather difficult to keep up with. If you were referring to the one where you stated slavery, that was exactly my point. Otherwise I am sorry I missed your question. Most of what I’ve posted are from articles that I have found.
O.K., I misread it the first time. I might need to lighten up on MNT.
Apologies.
I doesn’t really matter, but thank you appreciated.
@Henry: “Maybe we should define Natural Law first?”
“Do you know who you are talking to?”
Ha! I had the exact same thought. Like asking a fish if he knows about water.
🙂
.
Actually I really don’t have the slightest idea of who I might be addressing, this is the Internet. I’m not trying to offend anybody, just sharing some of my thoughts and some interesting articles that I have found. This has been a very interesting topic for me for sometime, maybe my enthusiasm got the best of me. Effective communication is an art and even more so on the internet since face to face portions of communication are lacking. Also this is really the first time that I have commented beyond single posts.
It’s not your fault if you didn’t know, Lumpy. Henry, who owns this site is (and has been for many years) a powerful voice on The Bill of Rights and The Common Law/Natural Law. One could say he’s a scholar, in that he teaches relentlessly what these are and their importance in assuring freedom for everyone. So that’s why there was reaction. It was kinda funny. Hope this clears it up.
🙂
.
PS, Lumpy. This might interest you:
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/bill-rights-common-law-explained/200821
.
Thank you, I’ll listen to them.
The main point is entering a group, once you have to defend your self due to informative links and need or want of learning, 2 factors come into play.
1 your posts are the focal point not for their content but rather as the key to the group.
2 As soon as one is solely defending, the preservation of the site/and comments becomes relevant in ensuring the consensus of the group isn’t compromised, nothing worse than have the attentions directed at what is considered an outsider troll. At that point the lessons and ability for learning are diminished. From here I’ll continue to be a spectator, and maybe give my one line observations from time to time. Nothing is really my fault as nothing is really the fault of any here, you don’t know me either. We all lose, I finally finished the trivium vids posted and had done some research, which was very interesting and enlightening enforcing much of my previous research. There are no definitive answers or sources without research and study of historical background. There are no fits all solutions, if that is what one is searching for.
Lumpy, I work to be an individual, and I’m sure many here do, too. Consensus comes only after much consideration and sometimes it never comes. Over the years, having suffered the slings and arrows of on-line communication I’ve learned to (when necessary) agree to disagree, and find a way to still be who I am. And what’s that ole’ saying, “Ya can’t please all of the people all of the time.” Thanks for your input. Honesty is a good thing to bring to the table, and yeah, we never know who’s sittin’ next to us.
🙂
.
I’m gonna look at it soon, but I got to tell ya.
I’m only smart enough to know how stupid I can be.
More than likely I’ll be saying “Huh?” before you can say, ____.
(Laughing)
I wish you well in your pursuit, #1 NWO Hatr.
Thanks, Hal. This is my first major research attempt since I began posting on FTT back in 2012.
Looks like I picked a doozy, too.
Life is simple! Or at least, it should be.
To be honest, Hal, the last time I remember life being simple was in the fifties.
And I can barely remember that far back. 🙁
Ya know, Hal, I thought about your words all day and you are so right: life should be simple. Sometimes I hate all the complexity and just wanna cruise. Sigh…
Thanks for being real, real as it gets.
🙂
.
Done researching and am ready to address this response.
Henry Shivley says:
January 23, 2018 at 1:55 pm
Lumpy,
“Peace doesn’t belong to the world, it is an individual state of being.”
Isn’t that what I just said?
Actually, no. I mentioned Human nature, which is the basis for common law derived from Universal and Natural law. The theory of Law is to provide a constant, if within that, a constant cannot be found then a fiction is created as the constant. Quote from an academic study on law, In its various prior social contexts, the common law was a splendidly anti-theoretical contrivance. The reasons are many, but the basic fact stands out above the background of speculative explanation; the distinguishing marks of the common law as an intellectual tradition are its resistance to systematization, “its refusal to consider more than the case at hand.” Common law knows that there are no constants and based on that requires each presentation/issue/case be considered anew.
“Maybe we should define Natural Law first?”
Under Universal Law and Natural Law, there are many unexplainable inconsistencies, Which is where the theory and scientific method is used to enforce and remove all doubt. But when a constant cannot be applied, the fiction has to be created, ie theoretical law and the social sciences. One cannot be represented as an individual under collective fiction. Human Nature isn’t considered, as it isn’t a constant under Natural Law, which would deem the necessity of each case holding it’s own particulars and justify the need for considerations under the rules of common law.
Do you know who you are talking to?
Same with the trivium method, it is theoretical as it attempts to maintain a constant, disregarding Human Nature for fiction in thereby enforcing a constant for the benefit of the collective.
Hope I didn’t come off as argumentative I’m not trying to be a butt, just sharing the research I have found.
“Same with the trivium method, it is theoretical as it attempts to maintain a constant, disregarding Human Nature for fiction in thereby enforcing a constant for the benefit of the collective.”
Disagree.
I refer you to a portion of Bob’s comment at 9:28 on 1/22…
“Rhetoric reveals CONTRADICTION, ergo you go back to grammar and logic and repeat until there is no more contradiction. It is like a vortex: you go through grammar to logic to rhetoric again and again until no contradiction remains.”
The friend who introduced me to this concept says that is correct.
Once all contradictions are eliminated, you’re left with nothing but the unmitigated, unadulterated TRUTH.
Let me display my accolades, titles and accomplishments and see if that will sway your opinions. I’m nothing and have been wrong so many times it would be impossible to list. I have many experiences that have lead to knowledge, there are always contradictions and very few constants. ie, I only have a GED, again academic humor. The one best constant is, I am my best keeper, outside forces always oppose that.
Here is a very interesting liberal arts tool for debate, just presented for consideration and research purposes. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Please view this and use the trivium method to describe what it means. Hint, outside sources and research is the key ya just have to ask yourself the right questions.
Rhetoric by definition is simple, until human nature is applied. The constant here is, we are all different by nature.
Would a successful usage of the trivium method throughout life be viewed in one’s later years as a determining factor in one’s success?
I’ll take Albert Einsteins position on learning, the instructor only provides the proper environment for the student to learn in.
Let me try to explain this in layman’s terms.
My Daughter was taking a psychology course and kept getting graded with D’s. My wife, the College graduate, helped her and the Daughter still kept getting D’s? So in steps Daddy the academic failure, I told her it’s not the material or your presentation but rather your method. Always look to the instructor dissect him/her, your goal is to merely give the instructor what they want. She got A’s from that point on. Most forms of instruction aren’t about education or knowledge, but rather parroting the instructors views/thoughts/opinions accurately. This knowledge was based on my experience. I’ll say here, yes your opinions and views are correct, but within my context so are mine based on my experience. My thought process and problem solving methods are different than others. As far as wrong or right, I’d say my stats are around 50/50. You all here said research, so I did. I have researched many sources and have 23 currently still opened, just in case anybody asks for the research material and wishes to apply the trivium method of who,what,when,where,why and how. Me applying rhetoric.
dialectic, di·a·lec·tic
[ˌdīəˈlektik]
NOUN
the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.
synonyms: discussion · debate · dialogue · logical argument · reasoning · [more]
inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions.
Procrustean, Pro·crus·te·an
[prōˈkrəstēən]
ADJECTIVE
(especially of a framework or system) enforcing uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality.
hy·poth·e·sis
[hīˈpäTHəsəs]
NOUN
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:
synonyms: theory · theorem · thesis · conjecture · supposition · postulation · postulate · proposition · premise · assumption · notion · concept · idea · possibility
philosophy
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
In Greek mythology, Procrustes (Προκρούστης Prokroustes) or “the stretcher [who hammers out the metal]”, also known as Prokoptas or Damastes (Δαμαστής, “subduer”), was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed.
The word “Procrustean” is thus used to describe situations where different lengths or sizes or properties are fitted to an arbitrary standard.
The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.
Gold mine, Thanks # 1 NWO Hatr for posting this topic.
I’m not able to see any copyright violations, the link is in the www, so if there appears to be any violations please remove,
https://media.evolveconsciousness.org/books/consciousness/2012-Trivium-Study-Guide-Version-2-Edited-by-Tony-Myers.pdf
I’m still in the process of reading, I’m very impressed with the context of the message regarding the trivium so far. Here is a youtube vid that has me captivated also,
You are most welcome, lumpy.
My main problem with doing the research on this daunting subject is the limited amount of time that I have internet access, making it difficult to do an in-depth study. I would appreciate any insights you may garner from your investigation of it.
The Trivium is by its nature not learning, but a preparation for learning. The Lost Tools of Learning
Dorothy Sayers
“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think”
― Socrates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes
Trivium Method of Thinking and Learning
The Trivium Method is a recognized aspect of how consciousness processes reality. The basics are described as a 3-step process:
1. Grammar – Input – Knowledge
2. Logic – Processing – Understanding
3. Rhetoric – Output – Wisdom
Before I had found the information above my research had taken me to trivium links ranging from anarcho politics, atheist theology, social engineering, psychology, social activists, etc etc. Bottom line the basic essence of trivium is intent, it can be either used for good or evil means.
Marxists hold society responsible to regulate us. This regulation exposes us to the proper stimuli that will elicit the proper behavior. This stimuli is found only in a communist society that regulates us to be faithful to the collective and to internationalism.
In this context, freedom means virtually nothing. A society that scientifically regulates human development is much like the one depicted by George Orwell in 1984. In Marxist psychology, we are merely evolving animals that need fine-tuning before entering the perfection of the coming world order—an order where all humanity will be perfected. The new order, however, will deprive us of freedom and dignity as do Skinner and all materialist psychologies.
I have a trivium challenge for any willing to discuss yours as well as my methods. This article,
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201311/our-dangerous-blind-faith-in-anything-natural
The trivium method and relevant research brought forth one common denominator, blind faith. Ideology is at the core, which is based on the group consensus. The effect of group demands that truth comes from your need to fit social norms.
This article might be about fallacies of natural remedies, example unfairly comparing medicinal plants from polluted lands as the standard scientific equivalent, but in essence it is pandering to fear.
The key element of this article in my opinion is, Risk Perception Gap. As an offshoot within group ideologies the risk perception is touted as paranoia towards any who don’t support the group ideologies. Therefore this article follows a known paradigm aimed at the collective enforcing the concept of the unknown entity as our best keeper. This paradigm can be applied to any social setting. The group is predictable, the individual isn’t. Therefore the expressed need for sociology and psychology as a standard.
Art is a selective recreation of reality. Its purpose is to concretize an abstraction to bring an idea or emotion within the grasp of the observer. It is a selective recreation, with the selection process depending on the value judgments of the creator. These value judgments can be observed and evaluated via the field of ethics.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.
Truism,
non omne quod nitet aurum est (Latin)
Lumpy, while I appreciate your efforts on the trivium subject, and not wanting to ignore them, I just have to say I am not able to dive deep into the complexity of the explanations. Too many other urgencies that need my time and energy. And as the saying goes, we have to “choose our battles.” That said, please, and in the simplest and briefest way possible, post anything relevant to how the trivium method might in some way help with restoring The Bill of Rights and The Common Law. That is the current urgency. And I really do thank you.
.
The Bill of Right’s is always present, it’s force lies outside of the Collective. Those who wish to force the Globalist agenda upon us are the only road block, the key is be individual, ask questions and demand answers. Many battles have chose me, either I engage, place them on the back burner for later, or just go on my merry way. But eventually everything has to be dealt with in some form, fashion or another. The judicial system has become a big business money making en devour, therefore the fiction has to be maintained and enforced..
Hi Lumpy, you say that the force of The Bill of Rights “lies outside of the Collective.” I would think that “it’s force,” (which by that I assume you mean it’s power), exists everywhere and in all paradigms, and its existence is ever moving out anything that attempts to limit it, or remove it, or alter it, or ignore it. “Roadblocks” actually make its existence show up more glaringly.
You say, “eventually everything has to be dealt with in some form, fashion or another.” Likely true, but no one person can involve his or her efforts in every single battle. That was my point, and it doesn’t in any way diminish the importance of any battle.
Well, just some thoughts, always thoughts.
🙂
.
Thanks for your comments galen.
In reference to the collective, they are opposed to everything and if not opposed in complete denial, lol, Globalists sheez. The true power lies in the Affirmation, Oath of office. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are contracts and the Oath is the verbal agreement, refer to contract law, even State Oath’s.
I’m not ignoring you, lumpy, I’m just preoccupied at the time. Please keep on with the research, you have more internet time for it than I do at present.
I have just recently moved and am still settling in, here is an interesting article.
Paradigm: The word “paradigm” was originally one of those obscure academic terms that has undergone many changes of meaning over the centuries. The classical Greeks used it to refer to an original archetype or ideal. Later it came to refer to a grammatical term. In the early 1960s Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) wrote a ground breaking book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he showed that science does not progress in an orderly fashion from lesser to greater truth, but rather remains fixated on a particular dogma or explanation – a paradigm – which is only overthrown with great difficulty and a new paradigm established. Thus the Copernican system (the sun at the center of the universe) overthrew the Ptolemaic (the earth at the center) one, and Newtonian physics was replaced by Relativity and Quantum Physics. Science thus consists of periods of conservativism (“Normal” Science) punctuated by periods of “Revolutionary” Science.
Paradigm Shift: When anomalies or inconsistencies arise within a given paradigm and present problems that we are unable to solve within a given paradigm, our view of reality must change, as must the way we perceive, think, and value the world. We must take on new assumptions and expectations that will transform our theories, traditions, rules, and standards of practice. We must create a new paradigm in which we are able to solve the unsolvable problems of the old paradigm.
Paradigm Addiction: What occurs when a paradigm and its most ardent supporters are addicted to the paradigm to the point where they lose the realization that they are even in a paradigm at all? Ardent paradigm supporters have equated paradigm survival with their own personal survival, and will manipulate and control a society in order to prevent any social or cultural advancement out of the existing paradigm, ignoring or suppressing public knowledge of anomalies, equating perception of anomalies to “personal abnormality” in order to intimidate populations to remain within the status quo control paradigm. Addiction to a paradigm results in either paradigm death or death of those who maintain the paradigm.
http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/spiritual/inspirational_general/news.php?q=1223609378
I bought the book and intend on reading but cannot find the box it’s packed in, lol.
I get up early, force of habit? It give’s me my me time and allows me to think with out external dilemmas, ie wife making her usual marital demands, lol. Nice and quiet while I enjoy my coffee and wander around virtual reality.
@ Lumpy:
“The true power lies in the Affirmation, Oath of office. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are contracts and the Oath is the verbal agreement, refer to contract law, even State Oath’s.”
Sorry, I don’t understand this in the context of a response to me. Maybe someone else here can interpret. I was just disagreeing with your assertion that the power of The Bill of Rights “lies outside of the Collective,” and I was defending it, saying, The Bill of Rights (sorry for repeating) exists everywhere and in all paradigms, and its existence is ever moving out anything that attempts to limit it, or remove it, or alter it, or ignore it.”
Hope this clears things up.
.
Natural law and natural rights exist everywhere. The Bill of Rights was an after thought to ensure that natural rights, solely based on human nature, “shall not be infringed.” 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9_user.html#amdt9_hd1
As the Constitution is a contract between We The People, and those entrusted to adhere to the power of the people based on the laws of nature, ie Oath affirmation. This conversation as well as the comments, demonstrates one of the contradictions of the trivium, which places knowledge above experience, we are different. “Sociology and psychology are the mathematical processes of the discovery of human nature.” There is a flaw in that statement. From here we go to the social contract, I’m obligated to be polite and express my views, and you have the same obligations, which leads us to the end result of the communication, based on our experiences and the disconnect of internet communications, we may never be able to understand each other. There was a study done on comments and replies sections. People will generally not go very far beyond the first few comments or posts, lazy uninterested? We are just talking to each other, there is no one who will partake specifically as to the context of this thread or comments because of the amount of replies, it’s done, dead. No one is going to go further that the posted you tube links in researching the trivium, my comments and links don’t fit the paradigm, confirmation bias, as they appear to oppose the one solution fits all mindset. But in truth I’m just questioning and seeking to further my understanding of human nature. I’m the disease within the state apparatus that Carl Marx spoke of eliminating, lol. I hope you all aren’t afraid to study the works of Marx, Bernays or Alinsky, just to name a few, they are the enemies to be known so we can be the true Guardians of Freedom. Have you ever heard of the Frankfurt School or the Tavistock Institute? If not, then you will never understand beyond the illusion.
Lumpy,
“The Bill of Rights was an after thought to ensure that natural rights, solely based on human nature, “shall not be infringed.” 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Bill of Rights was a bit more than an afterthought. It is the maximums and procedures for the common law. It is how we prosecute our lives through our authority as free individual nationals.
The Constitution is a contract between we the people and our servants. This isn’t rocket science, the contract is breached, hence the authority granted via the contract reverts back to the grantee, the people. And that goes for all the state contracts too.
You are quite arrogant in your psychoanalysis of our discourse, and don’t think I don’t see what you are trying to do. The people on this site are individuals. We think for ourselves. It must be a true fright to you and yours that you cannot convince us otherwise. You are pathetic in your thinking that a hodgepodge of bullshit could lead anyone of us to believe we are being controlled by any other one of us. You are shit. Get off this site. Good bye.
Been expecting as much, Henry. He was straying well beyond the bounds of the trivium/quadrivium question posed here.
Tried to turn it into a MUCH bigger ball of spaghetti than it already is. 🙄
Is anyone else wondering if this thread holds the record for most responses to a post here at the trenches? 🙂
I wasn’t wondering, but did notice it’s been coming up alot, 126 comments to be exact. This one will make 127. 🙂
Not even close, mary. My battery is just about dead, I’ll tell you tomorrow.
You beat the Concert for Diggerdan. (I thought that was the record holder until now.)
I had thought that this one posted by Paul had more comments (it did, but it was just surpassed), Angel.
However, it does hold the record for # of hits.
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/newspaper-clipping-from-oct-13-1975/104739
what a cliff hanger
Couldn’t swear to it, mary, but I believe this article has the most comments of any posted on FTT. It went viral after someone posted it on Fakebook, there was a flood of comments after that.
This one was more fun than a barrel full of monkeys. Even though there was a plethora of comments stating it was satire, people STILL thought it was legit.
Says a lot about Fakebook users, if you ask me.
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/peta-crashes-biker-gathering-not-to-be-missed/27275
yowza! 353
Pretty wild… for something that wasn’t even true, right? 🙄
Well said, as usual, Henry. marx, tavistock and frankurt school are way behind in their ability to influence US, as we are already aware of them and how the trick is done. Not being wormholed into a singular method and it’s principles has zero to do with the Trenches ability to analyze and uphold the Bill of Rights. What a condescending ahole to imply superior intellect based upon that alone. But you’re right again, shit is lumpy.
Thanks, Henry. I guess I got pulled in and was trying to untangle. I think I was picking up on what you stated because right before I read your comment I wrote this and was just about to post it for Lumpy:
“Lumpy, I don’t like the word ‘afterthought’ in this context as it seems an attempt at diminishing. Even though The Bill of Rights was crafted/created its essence exists in the present, in any place or circumstance, and not as you said, ‘outside the collective.’ This is the great innovation and intelligence of man complimenting and protecting natural law. It’s how we have and keep what is ours.”
Anyhow, thanks for the clarification, Henry. And like Hal A. says, “Life should be simple.”
🙂
.