skip to Main Content

(START HERE) Gene Odening interview, Part 1 – “The TRIVIUM Method” – #049 (+ video)

Gnostic Media’s 1 Year anniversary show!

Tonight’s show is an important one. Without it, it’s hard to build on the information presented in the other shows. Here we begin to learn about learning, logic, critical thinking, Hegelian dialectics, Plato, the Trivium, the Quadrivium, the 7 liberal arts, and many other facets of human cognizance.

My guest is Gene Odening.
This is the story of the 3 successive stages of the “Philosophic Life” which almost all of us live. Some of us live it consciously, others, not so much.
Gene’s story is one of good fortune. Early in adolescence he was given the tools to recognize and to pursue the Philosophic Life, which he undertook to do, not as a vocation but as a serious hobbyist. This is part of what the talk is about, defining those tools and following time-tested ways of applying them.

Gene lived through the first part, the Stage of Preparing For Life, in a fashion which the ancient Vedic Sages called: “Learning by grazing through the fields of the Brahma (the Creator God), in sobriety, and with a guru”. He even had his own guru!

When he was 20 years old, he began the second part, the Stage of Receiving From Life. This is when he began his vocational career and started his family life. Life was good. He and his wife traveled many parts of the English speaking world scouring the libraries in particular; she reading her beloved fiction; he in the reference and antiquarian sections. His quest was to find out what Money was. Money is a very elusive thing. As ghostly as it is, it takes up much of our life’s time and energy. By happenstance, in pursuit of its secrets, almost all other known topics come into view for a closer examination, including Philosophy, a treasure beyond measure.

As he reached the age of about 56, he had the realization that he was now in the final stage, the Stage of Giving Back To Life. This is when one should properly become the elder advisor, not ‘offering’ advise, but giving of it freely when asked. It is also the time of beginning one’s journey through mentality. This is the time of: “Examining a life which has been worth living”, as the Greek sage Socrates counceled.

Or play / download the audio only:

This Post Has 56 Comments
  1. First of all, I’d like to thank you for sharing this learning system. I think it’s very interesting and exciting.

    But, secondly, I’d like to call you out on your use of a straw man argument to dismiss people who believe in Jesus because of the witness of, as you said: “one book”. The bible (which means books), regardless of which version (or perversion) you may be referencing, is comprised of more than one book. Most protestant bibles contain 66 (a curious number) books; the Tyndale, 74 books; and the catholick (spelling on purpose) 73 books. All of the books in the Old Testament section prophesy of and or display types and shadows of the Messiah to come. All of the books in the New Testament testify that Jesus (actually Yeshua) fulfilled those prophesies. Whether or not you believe the testimony of the 66, 74, or 73 books, is irrelevant to me. But, that you violated the straw man principle which you taught me, is what I dislike. Now, I will not, as they say, throw out the baby with the bath water, and dismiss everything you say, thereby being guilty of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy – again, thanks to you.

    Keep up the good work, and thanks again.


    1. Liked your talk regarding straw man, just wanted to ask if you have read up on gerald massey a hetrodox poet and auther of light of this world?

    2. This is a reply to the presentation on the trivium rather than to the last comment.

      Of course it can help people to consider the way in which they think and it may help them think and read more critically up to a point.

      However, if we are to commit deeply to critical thinking then the trivium itself must be brought into question, to which end I would like to make the following points:

      1. You spoke about paradoxes and the natural/ man made distinctions and said
      that all man made knowledge is contradictory. Is this all man made knowledge including the trivium? Or is the trivium a miraculous exception to this rule?

      2. If part of the value of the trivium is that it reflects how the mind works (a grossly reductive account of how the mind works, some might say), then what is the point? If that is actually how the mind work, then we apply the trivium whether we like it, know it, or not because it is how the mind works. If it is how the mind works, then why aren’t we already all ‘on the same page’? (To use your phrase).

      3. You make an assumption that nature is not contradictory – how could you possibly know this? Isn’t this another man made view (and therefore contradictory)

      4. If we apply logic to remove contradictions and thereby arrive at some kind of ‘truth of a subject’ are we not ignoring part of the truth of the subject? Who is to say that the contradiction is not part of the truth of the subject? Who is to say that contradiction is not the truth of every subject? You come close to saying this.

      4. Aristoltle is probably the most influential thinker in western history but philosophy has moved on. The work of Russell (after Frege) proves that Aristotle’s logical syllogism is actually wrong because he confused subjects and predicates. Then Russell’s own
      attempt at logical elaboration runs into it’s own paradoxes.

      5. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason changed philosophy addressing a similar question of how the mind works in a much more sophisticated way, i.e. We need to understand the mind works and what it can know because this will determine the limits of possible knowledge/ what kind of knowledge is possible (see Dan Robinson’s lecture How is nature possible).

      6. Hegel’s dialectic is an account of how reason works within this Kantian framework.

      7. Genealogy (Nietzsche), deconstruction (Heidegger/Derrida) and discourse/ power knowledge (Foucault)
      all look at knowledge as originating in discursive, historical, socio political contexts. Truth, rationality, logic etc themselves are features of western philosophical discourse and not truths as such.

      8. Knowledge does not exist outside of a context. Where is context in Aristotle’s trivium? What is Aristotle’s context?

      9. There seems to be an assumption underlying all of this that it is possible to know the truth by applying a systematic
      approach to knowledge, are you not making the assumption 1. That truth exists rather than being a function of human discourse? 2. That the individual human agent is able to access these truths and come to something approximating perfect knowledge? Are we perfectly permeable knowledge membranes that can understand the universe in which we are embedded while simultaneously being able to understand ourselves from the outside? Would not we have to be able to understand our own subjectivity and how this conditions our own knowledge? How is this possible?

      10. Another way of thinking about knowledge is simply to make sure that as far as possible opinions are supported by facts, but then we run into another paradox – that we are prone to select facts according to our pre existing interpretation.

      Maybe the truth of human discourse – as you say yourself – lies in the contradictions, not the elimination of these contradictions. Contradictions are indeed part of our reality.


      1. 3/6/2015
        Jewish thought is criticized on the internet a lot on the basis of this notion
        of context. While the traditional culture of Europe had ethics based on what was right or true, and implicit in this is the knowledge or belief that one can know what is morally or factually right or true.
        With the ever increasing dominance of Jewry over culture in America and the West, the Jewish notions, sometimes ascribed to an Eastern mode of thought, of right and true are emerging as prominent and are contrary to the traditions of the West in this notion that what is right depends on the context. For Jewry, or so I have read, the question is always “What is good for the Jews?” i.e. what favors Jewish interests. This has led to attempts by organized, powerful Jewry to determine what is right by a consensus of agreement among the preeminent Jews concerned with a given question.
        By this manner, Jewry, once fierce and vocal proponents of the Constitutionally protected God given right to freedom of speech because it served Jewish interests during the period of secret, and open, scheming and plotting to push for a communist style of political organization to be imposed on the West including America. Also, this belief that what is true is relative to context has led to a falsification of various academic disciplines such as cultural anthropology and history. Some power group determines the truth. a truth that is deemed good for the Jews, and that truth is vigorously enforced, and dissenters ejected, and perhaps punished.
        Instructive to consider is the elderly Jewish couple in Chicago who a few years ago wrote a book, which was published , in which their love story in the midst of a putative “Nazi” concentration camp garnered good
        financial reward and fame; he even was brought onto the Oprah show. When it was exposed that his story was a fraud and the events recounted were false, he insisted, even while acknowledging that the story was
        a fabrication, that for him the story/the book, was true. He appeared quite sincere in this protestation.
        [This filmed interchange with a TV reporter is on the internet.]
        Perhaps Jewish philosophy and European generated philosophy are like apples and oranges and are best examined and understood separately.

      2. at least about 1, he said that man-made knowledge CAN have contradictions, not that it always does. so nature can’t have contradictions (cus it is what it is), and man’s thoughts can (cus we have to think about it first, creating an opportunity to make a mistake).

        1. The trivium is how we identify contradictions and do our best to always self correct and identify such situations. It’s being ignorant of such things were the issue comes in. There are no contradictions in nature.

          1. If there are no contradictions in nature, then why do we think:
            that the stars are bigger than the sun?
            That the sun is bigger than the moon?
            That the earth is another wandering star?
            That the ground is spinning at 1000 MPH?
            That water forms to the outside of its spinning container?
            The surface of water is curved 8” per mile squared?
            That the locally radial rays of sunlight are really 93,000,000 miles away?
            That even though the unobstructed horizon always rises to eye level, it is curving downward in all directions?
            That we move around the sun 1.6 million miles per day?
            That objects of mass are attracted to each other by just the function of mass alone?
            That constellations are changing shape?
            That if we go high enough, we will somehow pop out of the earths magical tractor beam and not fall back down?

            All these heliocentric concepts are less than 500 years old coming from a centralized source.

            Does truth change?

            I contend it doesn’t. I contend nature doesn’t either. We have been lied to on a massive scale.

            Land where you land.

            Your interview was brilliant. The trivium method of learning is a new concept to me and I will be researching it until it becomes natural for me.

            This interview was my introduction. Thank you.

            , Jason.

          2. That’s quite the spin on the meaning of “no contradictions in nature”. Check your hyperbole. Use critical thinking. The next level of the 7 liberal arts is called the QUADRIVIUM and is designed to answer these. My site is not for promoting FE. Until you have a rocket to go check for yourself, you can’t prove it either way. The centralized source is the Royal Society.

      3. This is a very superficial attempt at delving into areas that demand many years of study. The Trivium is a time-tested system of freeing the mind of certain shackles that hinder it from working efficiently and effectively. Grammar is the study of language, and its mastery enables us to understand what we read well and to communicate with the least amount of confusion. Language does not have the precision of the symbolic language of numbers; hence, language must be mastered to a high degree to be as precise at possible. For instance, many words today are misused due to a loss of nuance. I could give many examples, but perhaps a simple one is the difference between a republic and a democracy. The Founding Fathers of America understood the distinction, but it is lost on most people today. Logic has two branches: formal and material. Both are important and both necessary, but today most people who study “critical thinking” at school receive only a welter of so-called fallacies. The mind needs to be disciplined in order to function, just as a child needs to learn to walk, talk, and take care of itself to be independent. Russell never denied the effectiveness of Term Logic, despite his helping to create Propositional Logic so popular in schools today. The truth is, however, that our entire legal system is based upon classical logic. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means just that: reasonable is what the intellect accepts as reasonable. All of us have intuitive knowledge of what is or is not reasonable; logic simply enables us to avoid the snares of loose thinking. Finally, rhetoric is at the means of persuasion afforded people who want to argue intelligently their points as opposed to fighting to prove that might makes right. Hence, this was the most important subject in the classical periods of Greece and Rome, two civilizations that believed in the rule of law, at least for themselves.

        1. This might make more sense if you refrained from using the label “language” to create a seeming assumption that all languages fail to be precise. Math itself is a language so what are you talking about specifically when claiming “language does not have the precision of the symbolic language of numbers”? … So words fail to be “symbolic language” while numbers somehow succeed at being labelled “symbolic language”? Do you relate “symbolic” with “specific” in some way? A language is as specific as it is made and/or used. I can write contracts wherein there is a far more specific definition of every word within the document itself and it is as strict as someone using numbers in the common AGREED UPON fashion. One reason numbers are specific is because most people fail to understand, or even care to understand, that there are other ways to deal with numbers than base 10… and that’s just a the start of how the interpretation of numbers seems possible.

          1. As of 12/17/18 you should see how words are being changed which would not happen to numbers. A simple example of this is Bill Clinton saying ” I did not have sex with that woman “. Words are manmade and do change in meaning over time while numbers do not and you can never write a contract as tightly as a math formula.

      4. You say ‘then we run into another paradox – that we are prone to select facts according to our pre existing interpretation.’

        This is not a paradox. It is called selection bias. There are strategies for overcoming this problem. gi

      5. “You spoke about paradoxes and the natural/ man made distinctions and said
        that all man made knowledge is contradictory. Is this all man made knowledge including the trivium? Or is the trivium a miraculous exception to this rule?”

        Actually, what he said was that all contradictory information is man-made; not that all man-made knowledge or creations are contradictory. This means that, as he said, just because something is written in a newspaper doesn’t make it true. If it’s man-made, it’s open to questioning.

    3. Beautifully said! Thank you, Robert, for putting such clear thought into your response. I, too, am concerned by the 66 books of the Queen Jimmy Bibble…and have wondered since childhood at the discrepancies between the text adored and worshipped by the scrambled Protestant masses, the Catholick’s grotto version and Tyndale’s. Yeshua taught directly from Torah, whilst referrencing well-known/respected books like Jasher, Jubillees and Enoch – no longer extant to our current cannon of scriptures. What Bozos thought it a bright idea to scour the scriptures of these texts, burnt down the Library at Alexandria, squirrelling more really excellent, revelatory stuff to their deep underground Vatican processing plant, are likely the same Bozos who reduced Grammer to mean
      “Grades K-5” and expunged Trivium/Qudrivium from their flocks of sheeple.

    4. Thanks for confirming my misgivings. I was looking for some guidance on the philosophical worldview undergirding this author.
      Science is a search for TRUTH. Unless it is built on God’s word, the Bible, “they labour in vain that build it”.

      1. You seem to make a lot of circular arguments rather than learning and studying the material. It seems you’re only looking for confirmation of what you already believe, rather than thinking. There are lots of things that search for truth, and not just science. The trivium is a systematic way for keeping consistent with reality, to know and understand the world around you. “How do you know the Bible is true? Because it says so right here in the Bible”. All of your arguments are covered if you study the material here. This is PART 1 – you haven’t even gotten past the INTRODUCTION.

      2. Some consider science the search and confirmation of what works. We probably don’t know the truth of why electricity flows through a copper wire but we know it does and how. Truth is not a proper subject for science.

    5. Maybe you should re-listen to the part about emotion vs. reason? Any argument over the bible is emotional, as he clearly states. You spent 90% of your (thanks message) showing why you are upset.

  2. I would add to Paquette’s point that not only is the Bible made up of multiple books, but that those books are also written by multiple authors from different nations, different time periods and who spoke different languages. Despite the varying and seemingly uncoordinated viewpoints with distance between them in location and time the varying accounts taken together present a theme consistent enough to be considered as one viewpoint, or “one book” as you put it.

    1. I would like to add to Barry’s point that the heptadic (7’s) structure of the Bible and gemetria show that nothing less than supernatural intelligence could have written the Bible. Google mathmetician Dr. Ivan Panin and physist Missler for details.

      1. This is the trivium website. First and foremost, there are no contradictions in nature. When you look into nature, you don’t see books growing off trees. When you go to a library, you don’t think “all of these are written by man, but no, this one, is written by “supernaturals””. You’re appealing to magic and one authority. Please study the trivium and the logical fallacies.

  3. “I’d like to call you out on your use of a straw man […] The bible […] is comprised of more than one book.”

    why does that matter? the idea is the same: something is true because it’s written somewhere, in one, or in 66 books, doesn’t matter.

    “But, that you violated the straw man principle […] I will not […] dismiss everything you say, thereby being guilty of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy”

    no, that’s a fallacy fallacy: dismissing an entire position as false because the opponent has made a logical fallacy in one of his arguments.

    an ad hominem would be you saying that he’s wrong about god because he stinks.

  4. Paquette and Barry – Here’s why the argument regarding logic fallacy in support of the Bible is actually a logical fallacy in your argument – your understanding and acceptance of the Bible as “Truth” or the “word of God” is based entirely on “FAITH” – there is no irrefutable, concrete evidence that proves the Bible to be the “TRUTH”. That’s not to say that the Bible is not the “Truth” or the “word of God” – but, it’s all based on one’s faith to believe the Bile to be the truth – there;s no way to prove that. Faith is NOT reason i.e. reason is the employment of logic in the application of critical thought/questioning. Even though I believe our ability to reason is a gift from God reason still does not and cannot prove the Bible to be truth – although I have faith that it is the truth – with a grain of salt. God Bless

    1. Thanks for posting this information.

      To Robert and Christians in general:

      Writing from a Christian view point, I used to believe that Christianity was all about faith, that nothing about God could be proven, only believed. I know longer see it that way.

      God can be tested and proven. He tells us to taste the Lord and see that He is good. He also asks us the reason with him. He says he reveals his wrath for those who hold the truth of his existence (hold meaning “suppress”). His wrath is revealed because he makes it very obvious that he exists in creation, but there are those who are “willingly ignorant.” Just as a beautiful work of art has an obvious artist behind it (it would not be logical to assume it painted itself), creation has an obvious creator. The reason for their ignorance is that by acknowledging his existence, they by default become accountable to him. You are very right to assume that your ability to be logical comes from him. He is not only logical, but very wise. He says that a “fool says in his heart there is no God.”

      One way to prove God exists is to seek him. He says that those who seek him will find him. It also is true that some who do not seek him find him. Another way to prove God is try the spirits. The Bible says to try the spirits and see if they be of God. There are clear definitions of the spirit of God and the spirit of anti-God. Given those clear definitions, one can logically assume which spirits originate from him and which do not.

      Lastly, God promises to give us his spirit. God says everyone who receives the spirit of God is born again. When you are born again, you give evidence of this. In the book of Acts, those who received the spirit gave a birth cry and spoke a new language that they had been given supernaturally. If you would like to prove if this scripture is true, you just follow the steps given. The steps are very simple. If you repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That’s it. If it happens, you can prove that receiving the spirit is possible. If not, you can assume that it may not be possible, or that you did not fully apply the steps.

      Everyone I know who has applied the first 2 steps always receives the spirit of God, thereby proving that it is possible to receive God’s spirit. The evidence is that they are given the ability to speak languages they have not learned in the natural way. The fruit of the spirit is love.

      Prove God. He’s provable. I dare you. Double dare you.

      Love, joy, and peace to all.

      1. God said these things? So please tell me why people from the past had all these communications with God? Anyway these people you speak of were more than likely enlightened, but through this interpretation of enlightenment the information becomes confused. Jesus was not the God. He was manifested just as you and I are.

    2. I love reading peoples posts about faith, religion, and/or related truth. All of these abstract subjects are up to the individual. Truth in the abstract is nothing more than what we choose to believe… Most “TRUTH” is subject to conditions (perceptions) which we may interpret differently as individuals. The even more important/influential “TRUTHS” of ideological, philosophical, and moral standings are often clouded by emotion and are typically not in fact “TRUTH”.
      For example, The Bible states that theft is bad. Therefore, is a thief good or bad? If someone steals necessities from you is it bad? Is theft good or bad? Is a thief who steals for starving children bad? If someone places themselves in harms way for others, with nothing to gain for themselves is it good or bad?
      Are multinational biotech companies creating possibly toxic GMO crops that may alter the natural genome of existing crops? Can GMO crops create a dangerous spread of invasive species resistant to herbicide? Should GMOs be stopped?
      Can Biotech firms create GMO crops that may grow with less water? Can GMO crops be created with added nutritional values? Could GMO crops be used to help curve starving populations? Could GMO crops be responsibly grown and harvested to feed malnourished populations?
      Can situation, perception, or outside influence change truth? A definition of truth summarized is… Truth=Fact. Ultimate facts cannot change. Truth however, usually does or can very easily. Is the world flat? The truth to this question is different depending on who and/or when you ask it. Ultimately, logic may be used to find truths. However, with limited perception we all can find but only limited truth. Some areas we are well equipped to perceive. Did the ball bounce……..? Did Tim lie when he told me his dog was as big as a bear? Did I just get hit with a rock? We can easily perceive these answers.
      Was Jesus an amazing man who taught a righteous lifestyle? Was Jesus a divine messenger of god? Was Jesus the son of the almighty creator? Was Jesus the living breathing form of the one true god on planet earth sent here to guide his creations to the kingdom of heaven for an eventual war against the forces of evil? Is Jesus the god? No person alive today can prove the truth to these questions either way… We simply don’t have the perspective, perception, or abilities… However we can decide to believe whatever we want in these regards and even accept them as “TRUTH” if we wish… I will say this though people as a whole, as a group don’t know sh-t. there is lots more to our world that we cannot perceive than we are able to acknowledge.

      1. GMO crops are genetically modified with pesticides built in. If you understand that, you have the answer to your questions. The answer is as long as they are using pesticides built into an organism to modify it it is not food. It is frankenfood and go ahead and eat it if you want…

    3. Well thought Robert. It is vital to distinguish between truth and faith. Faith involves certainty of view and any one person may attain certainty. Truth is a completely illusive element. You could state the truth of your conviction for that is only internal. To state the truth of the universe requires validation through the universe. This is not easily transmitted from one person to another or from one subject to another. Truth in short can easily exist within one subject or person but not easily between subjects. One can agree with certainty but that is still personal, from each side of the agreement. People often use faith to impugn the certainty of others. I think this is the judgement that Christ eschewed.

  5. I might add – my understanding of God is a force of goodness, that some of us call God, that exists in opposition to evil and intervenes in life to that end i.e. to push back against evil using us as the weapon. Evil is created via the misapplication of our ability to reason. I have no idea what form this force of goodness takes – whether it be a supreme-being, a supreme-intelligence, extraterrestrial, extra-dimensional, or… ? I just don’t know I do know that a force of evil exists so, therefore a force of goodness exists and I am on its side. From my research of the history of the Bible’s existence, I’ve discovered that during the dark-ages the Bible went missing for 400 years (est). It’s hard to believe that the Bible has not been man-ipulated, by men with the desire to control mankind. The modern Bible mostly used in the western world is called the King James Version – question: how many versions of the truth is there – or can there possibly be? I tend to use the Bible to learn how to navigate life to act on the side of that force of goodness. If I first and foremost live to do no harm to another I will be rewarded in the end with some sort of further existence – if that’s possible. The only thing that I see that the Bible proves is that there is a force of goodness that many of us call God – and that force of goodness is most powerful – all about knowledge and exists everywhere.

    1. Hi Robert: This is reminiscent of Kant in his proof of God as the Moral Will. You might appreciate it. The will to right action is the only proof of God that Kant accepts as universal. Also his two Categorical Imperatives are instructive.

  6. It is in accordance with Man’s nature to need, and to seek an explanation for the natural world he found himself in, along with all the other creatures he shared it with. We have sought to understand who created all we see and why it was created since the dawn of man, and for millennia ever since. When it comes to “God”, “the spirit of all life” or “the creator”, I believe, Man simply does not posses the intellectual capacity to understand who and why the world was created any more than a super computer can understand the person who created the super computer, the reason for creating it or the technician who assembled it.

  7. Hoooooly! What an Awesome talk ?? All of my life, I have been using these ideas, unwittingly… When Gene started listing off the Assumptions along with their Latin definition, the lights came on for me… “The Science is settled” is a famous quote from Al Gore… The IPCC says it’s so, therefore the World should just accept it… and the idea that “5 Million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”… Gaud, I could go on… What excites me the most lies in the idea that I am just learning about what I have held to all of my life, but simply haven’t been able to put it into context… Thank you for giving me the meaning, understanding and definitions I was lacking ?? Recently, I’ve been encountering one synchronicity after another… The right knowledge comes along, when I wasn’t looking for it… Recently, I’ve been blown away… and I’m loving it… Being straight and sober, I’m having an Ayahuasca experience, according to people who have experienced it ?? I can’t wait to see what synchronicity happens next ?? This one is very special for me… I feel totally vindicated from hundreds of useless arguments… Thanks again ?? For years and years, I thought there might be something wrong with me… A close friend jokingly tells me that I am a magnet for Controversy, mainly because I rip apart many arguments, without so much as an apology… But, when I am presented with a BS point of view, I have the brains and balls to say so… I guess some people don’t like that… lol It’s great to find like-minded people in this world… ??

  8. For those who would like to play with the various toys- logic, belief, contradiction, paradox, truth may I provide some scenario? With apologies to Zeno.
    Most people would assert they live in present time; they don’t live in the future and they don’t live in the past.; they live in present time. However all periods of time, even one trillionth of a second can be divided into past and future- any period of real time can thus be divided so that logically present time does not exist. Do we then exist?
    For those who would claim The Bible (including the Gospels) present a generally unified view I suggest you read on line “Shredding the Gospels” and “evil Bible.com”

  9. Jan, I cannot thank you enough for sharing this information with the World. I was not aware of this method of teaching and critical thinking, until recently, and although I became aware of it, it had never been explained to me in any depth. The first two talks with Gene have offered more knowledge regarding thinking, than all of my education previously and I am 49 years old.

    Blessings to you both. ??

  10. Unfortunately, this type of causal conversation only does a disservice to the foundational trivium knowledge required for the quadrivium — both are preparatory study for any serious discussion of philosophy. ?The Allegory of the Cave?is a ?simple ‘dialogue’ and perhaps the most important philosophical teaching in Western Civilization — it’s meaning completely destroyed and invalidated in short order.

    Perennial?Tradition?Embodiments of Philosophy 

    The Hermetic Writings
    The Pythagorean System
    Oriental Perennialist Systems
    Plato’s Philosophy
    Esoteric Christianity
    Esoteric Wisdom Teachings
    Authentic Sufism
    Gothic Cathedral Philosophy
    The Cambridge Platonists
    Renaissance and Enlightenment
    The Perennial Tradition


    1. That’s nonsense. You clearly haven’t studied the trivium method and are confusing it with the classical trivium. Gene is the very person who put the Trivium Method out and this is the very first talk about it!

      You also apparently didn’t bother to study the study notes or go through the study materials, and you’re spreading Huxleyan propaganda like the Perennial Tradition, then you spread occult like Hermeticism and have confused the whole thing entirely… though that was probably your point of posting such misleading material – apparently attempting to confuse those interested in a real study of it – which you clearly haven’t done. Also, Plato’s Cave, et al, is covered extensively. So learn to use the trivium and gather all your grammar before you misspeak and mislead others into your own sophist confusion.

        1. Please, I’d like you to point out the sophistry, Duwain, by quoting it – with consideration of all of the occult, Huxleyan material you’re trying to misdirect people with. You come in here posting everything we’ve already exposed in the last several years and are clearly trying to mislead people about the trivium method. At least try to spell the name correctly. You misrepresent everything the trivium method is. What have you even studied of it? From the looks of it, only the sophist form – ironically – which you poorly attempt to spin onto Irvin.

        2. For those who’d like to know more about the twisted Hermetic occultism that Duwain is trying to promote here, see the Brain Database, where we see the like of CIA/MI6 MKULTRA architect Aldous Huxley promoting it, along with the other agents out of the Esalen Institute, et al. People are free to study the citations and all so that they can see how Duwain here is trying to fool them. Obviously if Duwain had any citations, he’d have already provided them:


          We can see how this goes directly into the CIA’s operation:

          Into transpersonal psychology:

          And right into Harvard with all the key MKULTRA players:

          Which then exposes Duwain’s poor attempt at sophistry, and his typical use of spin to try to put it onto me, when he clearly doesn’t know the difference between the trivium method, and the Classical Trivium – which is mind control – or maybe he does know the difference..? Obviously since he’s promoting CIA’s crap on my site, he can’t be trusted.

          What he’s promoting is the exact antithesis to the trivium method.

          These guys hate getting caught and the trivium method is the #01 way they always get busted. Of course they’re going to be on here posting gibberish to confuse people.

          Just be careful out there, folks, there are occultists and Satanists all over the place trying to mislead you into more magical thinking and mind control.

          Duwain Powell, your further spin and nonsense posts will be blocked.

  11. Isn’t “Facebook” CIA? Or how ’bout WIKI? ALL mastery of mind is “mind control”,by default, that includes the “trivium” in all aspects whether classical or otherwise, whether it’s YOUR OWN MIND, or another’s.

    “just be careful out there folks, there are occultists and Satanists all over the place trying to mislead you into more magical thinking and mind control”.

    Does that include YOU? Because by your method, I would have to reply with a resounding, YES! Your reaction to DP’s comments smack of ‘Scientism” and other materialist fanaticism, for instance. your use of the word “occultists” is meaninglessly facile and your attempt to equate such a phantasm with “Satanists”, like some febrile Christian fundamentalist, is the epitome of “guilt by association” fallacy, I also view the fact that you capitalise one, yet not the other, as a ,”Freudian slip”.
    I will gladly discuss these comments if you are up to it, but I guess they will be dismissed as “crap” and summarily blocked, your intolerance seems to be your Achilles heel.

  12. I’ve only watched about half of this video and I am highly encouraged with its content. I wanted to take a break in watching and make the comment that, due to your discussing the bible, I was once a futurist, end times/last days believer due to the teaching of pastors and family members and friends who read the bible as if it was written directly to us for today. After many years of self study and research, I came across the preterist view of reading the bible that places the original audience of the letters that make up the New Testament to be the first century Jews who were under the Old Covenant laws. Basically Old Covenant Israel Only. I’ve come to the conclusion that most people who call themselves “christian” today, have been brainwashed to believe they’re sinners under a law that passed away (I am quoting Michael Bradley here), and need a savior who said he came for someone else who will save them from a sin that’s already been removed and a judgement that already happened and allow them into a covenant that was made with someone else. The fact is, we today were never and are not part of Old Covenant Israel’s redemptive narrative. The trivium practice is needed greatly today to help more people read the scriptures correctly. I will finish watching your great video now.

  13. Ok. Despite all the “geniuses” that have commented, I’m not here to prove I’m smarter than Arisplutoarch or but only to ask questions about things not to question them. These question are for TriviumEducation. I seek no other opinion from anyone else. Let’s say I’m from the “old country”, I was raised by certain teachings that basically no longer exist and I do have many of the old ways. But in this day and age the thinking has changed and I no longer fit into societies mold but this I don’t mind. My only concern is that I’m raising my 12 year old son on my own. I was a bit younger than he when I started my “formal studies” but those were much different times and I wonder will/can these teachings help him in this day and age? Education is necessary but the advent of the Internet, the loss of attention to self and the raise of the 2 minute culture; I wonder do the old schools of thought have a place in the future? And if so, how can/could I infuse those teachings into my son’s life without crippling his walk through life? I’m very happy with the wander, the seeking of the unknown and dying amongst my books and experiments but I know that he may require more for his life. Would it be wise to teach him in the old ways or modernize and accommodate his learnings more towards the future of what this world is becoming? -I use the term “old ways” and “old country” because that how I was taught and refer to them.- I hope it’s understood I speak of Pluto, Aristotle and the likes…not Nietsze, Jung or any of their contemporaries. Thanks

    1. Yes, critical thinking helps in any day and age. Don’t be concerned with ad populum fallacies – what the majority think and believe. Just think for yourself and verify. If you need to home school, that’s what you’ll need to do. The trivium is a method for seeking and finding Truth and certainty in any information. I would focus on teaching him what is True, rather than focusing on what is old and new. If you go up to the study materials page, you’ll see that the trivium is based on Aristotelian logic. This teaches you HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Hope that helps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top