HomeAudioTrivium series at Gnostic Media

Comments

Trivium series at Gnostic Media — 7 Comments

  1. Another point mentioned in this interview and in the series occasionally is the mind control technique of getting people to only think “positively” about the world so that they can’t see the bad stuff.

  2. Hi thanks for posting your review. I just had one question though, since we’re discussing putting our research before our conclusions before we pass along information…

    What points, exactly, didn’t you agree on about psychedelics? The Gnostic Media website has over 50 interviews with the world’s leading experts on that one subject alone, covering the latest medical science, religious studies, anthropology, archaeology, and nearly every other aspect about psychedelics in one of the most comprehensive overviews of psychedelics ever amassed at one location. So with all of that material there on the Gnostic Media website, which points in your general grammar (knowledge / research / who what were when) did you disagree with, before you thought *why* we’re wrong, and then expressed that on your blog without substantiation (how)? (FYI: today they’re mostly called entheogens. Rarely are they called “hallucinogens”, as almost no one in the scientific community thinks they cause hallucinations any longer – with the possible exception of Ayahuasca. You might want to update that so you don’t sound like you’re using outdated (circa 1960s/1970s) data.) As a recognized expert in ethnobotany, I must ask you to clarify exactly what you believed were false claims vs. your own possible emotional reaction?

    Best,
    Jan Irvin
    http://www.gnosticmedia.com
    http://www.triviumeducation.com

    • Thanks very much for your response. I wasn’t saying there were false claims on your site, only that I have concerns about the points of view, and I’m specifically thinking about the whole lifestyle issue of using them and their safety. I’ve read some positive things about them and some negative, Daniel Pinchbeck’s book “Breaking open the Head” and Graham Hancock’s “Supernatural” and I’ve heard the author of “DMT, the Spirit Molecule”. I’m looking forward to learning more about plant entheogens and what you actually say about those concerns. The other questions about the connection with the origins of Christianity I haven’t heard of before and am looking forward to hearing/reading more about that subject also.

  3. Hi, as I said in my previous note, I’ve interviewed 50 of the world’s experts on my site. No place did I ever mention … like Pinchbeck, or Hancock – except dismissively. That’s known as a straw man – citing people I don’t associate or study with and then comparing their works to what I’m discussing. I would never reference either of those two as experts on anything related to entheogens. …

    But before you can say you have “concerns” of this topic, find out by using grammar, exactly what we’re talking about, which researchers, et al, and then remove the contradictions. Using the trivium, you must know what, exactly, those concerns are based on the work that I’ve presented, not by those whom I’d never reference based on your own ideals. That’s putting your logic before your grammar – which was the point of my last message. So your concerns then are those which you dreamed up and don’t pertain at all to my work or discussions – illustrating perfectly the need for the trivium method.

    And just knowing of Dr. Rick Strassman’s work on DMT isn’t enough. You have to have read it. And I’m not sure we were discussing lifestyles or anything else with regard to entheogens, but I think we were discussing their traditional application in religion and the mystery schools that developed many of these philosophies – like say by Prof. Carl Ruck of Boston University who will be on my show next week. I don’t think that has one iota of bearing whatsoever on “lifestyles” as you picture them.

  4. I was just referencing those books to demonstrate the level of my knowledge on the subject, rather than an effort to make any kind of argument. With your comments, I can make my disclaimer clearer: “I don’t feel completely comfortable with the subject of the religious use of psychadelic plants”. So it’s a statement of fact about my own views and belief system, and not an argument in a debate, just like “I don’t necessarily agree with …”. So this condition might or might not change after listening to or reading your material.

  5. “So it’s a statement of fact about my own views and belief system”

    That’s the entire point of the trivium. You don’t base your decisions on views and a belief system. You base them on the facts of reality by the information available through your 5 senses – research. If you react in fear toward something, it’s because you don’t understand the subject.

    “So this condition might or might not change after listening to or reading your material.”

    As the old saying goes: “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”.

    Again, using the trivium teaches us HOW to think, not what to think. It teaches us to base or beliefs on available data, and not just put our logic before our grammar. We need to base our decisions on objective reality – what’s available to us through science, etc.

    See, for instance, this study by Prof. Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins University – we need to base our decisions on real, objective data – not the whims of our beliefs.
    http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bin/s/m/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

    Grammar = Research or knowledge (who, what, where, when), Logic = understanding, it’s the art of non-contradictory identification, answers WHY. Rhetoric, or wisdom answers the how of the subject, and it enables our ability to express what we’ve learned through knowledge and understanding.

    The trivium must always be in this order. We don’t put our logic, or why (a belief) before our grammar – or research.

    So you can say that your beliefs can’t be changed with research and facts, you’re making a statement of ignorance or hardheadedness. The entire purpose of the trivium is to not ever take such a stance before we’ve studied something. Our beliefs are always open to the information and change with the information in order to derive truth and certainty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial