Karl

I would go see your doctor. You might be having the beginnings of psychological episodes possibly triggered by the drugs.

Labour will split, with Chukka and Liz Kendall starting a new Blairite style party I suspect. Then Labour will collapse as it should. This two party politic is over and done. I think-conspiracy mind engaged-that this is an attempt to continue the status quo by pushing a more leftist Labour Party in order to re-engage an apathetic electorate who despise politicians.

Well Corbyn won.

It sounds quite funny. Wheat flour is mostly pale in colour so that's why it created white people. Native Africans mainly ate meat which is a much darker brown when cooked, so they retained their skin colour. I'm sure there is some scientific argument for it. However one thing is certainly right-corn syrup is nasty stuff as is corn derived ethanol for fuel. The weird thing about corn is that no one really wants it. It's as if farmers had to discover things to do with it in order for people to want to eat it. There is something inherently objectionable to corn as a food. Now they are being subsidised to plant huge acerages of the stuff- which consumes lots of water-chopping down rain forests and planting it in areas of magical top soil sustainability. It's eating human beings alive and it eats motor vehicles alive by clogging filters on newer models and corroding engine parts on older models. Corn-just say no.

I'm hoping he wins. Then we can get to it, building the Labour coffin and writing the obituary. Next we need to dump 'Mr slippery' ( TM peter Hitchens ) and his pretend Conservative party. I still think that it might well be Burnham at the ballot box, I cannot believe they are really going to elect Corbyn. If they do, then that first PMQs will make unusually popular viewing.

Right, but what if you stop playing the game ? Instead you focus purely on reality without caring if it confers any advantage at all ? I said this in earlier posts but perhaps you didn't get this, or maybe you cannot comprehend it ? I'm beginning to see why this might be an impossibility to explain. It's like trying to explain to a desert dweller how abundant water is because you live near a lake. The desert dweller is occupied with the careful gathering and conserving of water, where as the lake dweller sprinkles it liberally over his car or lawn.

Ah, it's the way in which it is taught and not the tuition itself I grabbed this from one website : The Classical Trivium is based on the emphasis of “effective” rhetoric, towards sophistry and clever oration as an art. This creates a false correlation that “good” speech, convincing speech, makes you a “good” person. It is to convince people and thereby create a status of being a person who is honest and true, all to gain favor and influence over others. This is part of Emotional Mind Control. Modern age sophistry is the politics to make people “feel-good” and applaud for their leaders because they are convincing. It is making promises they can’t deliver, a false pretense. It is telling people what they want to hear, things that sound impressive. It is counterfeit wisdom, anti-truth. The Trivium Method is direct truth, not focused on “effective” communication to convince someone, but of simply speaking the truth about the condition of reality. The modern “magician” uses our attention against us to trick us into seeing things that are not really there, and buy into things that are not real. A modern “magician” can make us pick the card they want us to pick, or make us see what they want us to see. In life, this is having us “choose” our “own” path, while actually offering predetermined pathways for “success”. They have us looking at certain aspects of reality they want us to so that we just go along with it. Much of it is based on suggestion, influence, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and greater comprehension of the sensual and psychological domain to create various deceptions .

its this bit that I think is the key to the methods having differences. This is Aristotles version of grammar. I'm busy digesting it. I think it was referred to in some of the Trivium method instructions.

Call that pain, you don't know you were born.....try a stone in the Kidney now that's proper pain. :-) Call that pain.....that was luxury

You should stop drinking out of damp cups.

I have emailed Gene with that question. I shall be interested to see what he says. Personally, as things stand, I cannot see why someone who has studied logic would be any more or less capable of high levels of reasoning. I can believe that people have different degrees of reasoning ability. Let me get a reply. Gene is pretty fast at responding and I will post it. If he doesn't respond then I would be very curious. All grist to the mill :-) Edit: Right I looked at that wiki entry as it gives a translation. It's clearly straight into logic and no mention of grammar. I don't understand why this would make a difference if you have already studied grammar ? Presuming you studied grammar during English Language classes. Hmmm it's a bit of a mystery. Let's see what Gene says.

Right. I didn't start with Aristotle. I began with grammar by relearning all the nouns, verbs etc and how they build into sentences. What each part of the construction meant. In other words I re-taught myself to read. I hadn't realised that I couldn't read but simply copied. That sounds weird but I assure you that is the case.

Nikolai logic is only an intermediate tool. Read what I have said. Going 'beyond logic' doesn't mean anything. you go beyond logic once you have ceased to use logic for the concepts that are being integrated. Once that is done then the new concept is created. You cannot knit a jumper without needles. Once the jumper is finished then the needles are set down. The jumper gets used and it doesn't require the needles to be as it is,

Can't you see the circular logic in that argument ? This is what I'm getting at. You are clearly very bright and intelligent, but you can't see the basic errors in your argument. If you can't see those then you will accept any old thing. We don't know why Buddhists are doing it, only what Buddah purportedly said. He didn't not say to go beyond mind. It's a thing when a mans philophy is perverted by those who can pretend they knew what that man really meant. This is what happens all the time. Some people sense a movement, a vulnerability, a fashion and realise they can jump on its back and make money, obtain power, sex, property, adoration by aligning themselves as gurus and disciples. I say, look at al, the Buddhist monks-I've know several through my sister living in a Buddhist place. Seriously they would sell their own mothers if they thought it got them more adoration, sex or money. They were constantly back stabbing each other. I don't know why they wore orange because red would be better to have covered up all the blood.

I agree and you are right, I don't know. Let's explore that. I'm as interested to see if what you are saying is correct. I have never learned the classical method and it would do me no good at all just to accept the words of some guy telling me that there is a difference. I would be failing in my application of the method by doing so. Where do we start ? I know you studied the classic trivium, so you have a better basis than I do for assessing the differences. I used the books as recommended to become familiar with grammar and then did the peikoff course. Peikoff does not say he is teaching anything other than a basic logic course. He isn't teaching 'the trivium method' just an introduction to logic. I know peikoff is careful to refute the work of some logicians for others.Lionell Ruby is the guy that Peikoffs lectures are built around. That's why I was asking which text books you had used at college ? We didn't get very far with the discussion because I felt I was intruding on your personal life, but that was where I was headed by a long winding road. See, present an argument that is logical and I will sit up like a demented squirrel and start looking about. Keep telling me things are beyond mind, unknowable and mystic and I just need to do practices and I'm going to get snarly. :-)

You only have your mind Brian. You have 5 senses with which to know the universe and one mind to make sense of those inputs. We can simply analyse any incoming data then we figure out if it's junk or relevant. Once you open the window to 'I don't need to do that with mystical things' then you stop analysing and start accepting without reasoning. You have already made a fatal decision and by that action you may voluntarily accept a Trojan horse as a genuine prize. It is not forbidden to go checking out the horse for signs of hidden traps. You would do so if you bought a car. If the salesman said 'don't bother checking the engine because it's beyond your ability to do so' would you accept it ? If he said that 'mind could not comprehend the condition of the body work' would you be won over ?

It's only because you say illogical things. This is an example: Getting 'enlightened' through the ordinary mind is considered a sin ! Really ? a sin ? I don't believe Taoists ever used that term or even knew what it meant. Ordinary mind ? Is there an extraordinary mind ? No there isn't. You have a mind and that's it. You have to know if the person who is spouting things like-'don't use the discriminating mind' is saying so because they don't want you to start questioning their power. This is the first thing that should be learned. Anyone who says you should not question things is a dud. Ignore them. Question everything. In fact I'm sure that is precisely what Buddah said. Now, if such an enlightened being as Buddah should say this, then surely those that follow these things should be motivated to use the discrimination of the mind. In armies soldiers are taught 'don't think, just do'. Anyone trying to pull a con will tell you that 'it's already been thought about by experts' it's 'too hard to think about' or 'thinking will impair the effect'. That's traditional con artistry at work. Do you think that's a wise use of the natural reasoning ability you have ?

No. This is the classical Trivium. I noticed Brian thanked you for it. That's because this is the way he was taught to do it. The first part is to be able to understand the grammar. Everyone glosses over this most important part because they believe this is an elementary thing which they learned at primary school. It is the most important thing and most people are unable to do it because they have had an education which has ensured they cannot really think the way that tells a person what is being said. Logic only works once that stage is past, it is a transitory stage for integrating concepts.

I have clearly shown that I do not believe it to be 'the be all and end all' which you insist I do. It is not that there isn't much to read, experience, think about, but that our exposure to new material and ideologies is entirely predicated on our ability to understand what is said or written. Our comprehension is built on the same use of words. The Tao does not how to teach how to read the Tao does it ? You must be able to read and discriminate correctly or you mill mistake glass for diamonds. A man who cannot understand an argument relies on the man who says he does. Those that be Believe they are infallible are the easiest to fool. Do you believe we should learn to read and write and that the spoken Tao or Buddhist philosophy is sufficient ? Surely not.

Yet another fallacious statement by the supposed master of logic :-/ Logic is useless without grammar, it has no use on its lonesome and I have never claimed it was, it isn't a chainsaw or a sledgehammer . Come on Brian you can do better than that. You are trying desperately to prove your advanced superiority like a peacock showing its tail. I already accept you are far cleverer than I am, there is no dispute, you are likely far more successful in your career and have a great deal of respect from those you know so why the fluffing ?

Your arguments are based on your 'faith'. You believe it is some form of competitor for your religious faith and are acting to defend your belief system. Why are you so concerned ? I have not said you should drop Tao or Buddhism or that they are a waste of time in any sense. Study it alongside all your other practices. Indeed most of those who have come to the Trivium method ( which I would prefer it not to be called as it's just what we all do ) have done Tao, Buddhism etc and have been teachers of both methods. None have abandoned it completely, but they have been able to discern the bad teachings (power motivated) from the good. Google Gene Odening and look up his background.

No it doesn't claim anything of the sort. It's just how we do thinking. No more or less than that. It doesn't promise any unlocking of ancient wisdom anymore than learning to correctly pedal a bike will lead to being a famous Tour de France winner. If you have read anything that has promised that then you have most definitely alighted on some new age site. What's stunning is that you don't believe that what you are studying isn't new age. There is no 'trade mark' on the trivium method either, you are trying to create an impression of a cult so please quit doing so as it is no more a cult than the Tao method ( TM) Neither did you 'prove' anything. You believed that you did because you convinced yourself you had.

Go do it. That's all I will say. NLP is effectively the backwards form of the Trivium. It's the classical version mixed with Kantian and the Hegelian dialectic. The idea is to use rhetoric as a method of breaching the minds conscious defences. I could have made a lot of money doing just that. I was very good at it. You are equally taken in by the stuff you believe, we are exactly the same, neither impervious nor superior in any way. Your ad hominem attacks (the great we of the forum you like to constantly refer to) is an attempt to strong arm any dissenters. You should know it isn't going to happen you may as well kick a mountain or grab air with your hands. You could be so much more and put away these childish tools. That you think this is anything to do with Aristotlian logic shows how much of a mistake that you are making. Forget Aristotle, he is as much of a manipulator as Plato, but he did investigate the form of thinking and we get his written method of how the mind works to absorb experience. Neither did I say it was the be all and end all, it's just a way of putting things in order in order to avoid being taken for a ride by those who can use it in reverse. Effectively confidence tricksters. Learning the method is about questioning everything including the tutors of the method. I learned using Peikoff, but I'm clear from learning the Trivium exactly where his logic goes wrong. Even the recommended books are deliberately drawn from clever logical argument which presents a difficult puzzle for learner logicians. The idea is that at first that those learning the Trivium will be attracted to what these arguments expound- only to find that they are just as fallacious. Anyway, whatever you want. I'm not going to be around much longer so you can get back to whatever you have been doing and get a bit of welcome peace :-)

Of course lots and lots of people have studied them Brian and many are very accomplished, but not the Trivium method approach. The church, the masons and elite schools have taught the backward form referred to as the classic Trivium method which is different. I asked you about this in another thread. The Trivium method is the antidote to the classical Trivium. Its a reversal. I wasn't taught either method like you, so perhaps I'm less indoctrinated to begin with. You have learned the attacking form of the art, I have learned it purely as a defensive.

Go do it and then report. If you are already so enlightened then it won't be an issue will it ? I'm saying that what you think you know is pre-planned, it is what and how you are supposed to think if you are trying to extricate yourself from the imposed social hierarchy. It's a kind of stray dog catcher. If you do it and discover it's a waste of time then report that it was so and in what ways it wasn't useful. I know it looks too base for you, it doesn't appear to be spiritual, but you are like a person who takes mind opening drugs-everything that isn't a mind expanding drug can't possibly be anywhere need as efficacious and direct.