The Trivium – How to Free Your Mind – Jan Irvin at the Free Your Mind conference – 04-10-11

This is my lecture on the foundations of mind control and freeing yourself through the trivium method of the classical 7 Liberal Arts.

For more information on the trivium method, please see

For other interviews, lectures and videos from Jan Irvin, please see

For more from Tragedy & Hope, visit:

The Free Your Mind Conference website is found at

  48 comments for “The Trivium – How to Free Your Mind – Jan Irvin at the Free Your Mind conference – 04-10-11

  1. jeremy
    April 18, 2011 at 2:13 am

    Rule #1 of PowerPoint presentations: DO NOT READ THE SLIDES. This is incredibly boring to the audience. Who needs a speaker if all he’s going to do is read the slides?

    Rule #2 of PowerPoint presentations: no huge screens full of text. People can’t read and absorb it all, and they can’t read while you’re talking to them (hopefully about something that’s not verbatim there up on the screen. See Rule #1).

    Rule #3 of PowerPoint presentations: don’t make PowerPoint presentations if you can avoid them. Engage with the audience instead. SPEAK to them rather than read to them. Discuss, lecture, preach. PowerPoint slides usually detract from a presentation.

    Just some constructive criticism.

    Also, it’s pulling the WOOL over someone’s eyes, not “world”.

    • Jan Irvin
      April 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

      Jeremy, thanks for the “constructive” feedback. Would you please point out to me exactly where these rules are published?

      1) Had to read the slides as this was the most concise we could make this type of info for people. As the video shows, in 15,000 hours of public education, people didn’t learn this. People won’t read the slides themselves, so if you want to complain that their getting something now that they never got before, criticizing my reading of it isn’t the way to go about it.

      2) Only a few larger quotes covered the screen – and that’s also why I read it, so get over it. Again, their education never gave them anything like this.

      3) Would have liked to engage the audience more, but they cut each presenters time down to 50 minutes. No ability to cover so much by interacting and getting the audience the information they needed, which again, they didn’t get in the 15,000 hours of public education. If you don’t like power point presentations, feel free not to watch them.

      We intentionally used the word “World” in case you missed it – as the NEW WORLD ORDER has the WORLD pulled over their eyes.

      Thanks for your opinions. I didn’t see you there presenting anything empowering anyone and spreading valuable info. Next time do it yourself and do it better – so as I can learn from your teachings.

      • Gene
        April 18, 2011 at 11:48 am

        They really cut every one back? And no q&a, WTF well that’s the east coast vibe I guess, hurry get it over with>

        • Jan Irvin
          April 18, 2011 at 12:10 pm

          More that they had too many presenters, including several hucksters with completely unsound information, which cut back the time on people who needed more and had sound information to offer. I wasn’t informed of the time constraint until a week before the conference. We had cut my presentation down as succinct as we could while still presenting a complete overview of the trivium and how it’s used against us by us not having it.

      • July 16, 2011 at 11:54 am

        Hey Jan, I’m a big fan. I have a lot of respect for you, so please understand I intend this only to be constructive.
        Though “jeremy” presented his points in a douchy way, some of his points (Not all) I feel still hold some water. They don’t need to be published to be true. (appeal to authority?) I just think that the main goal is to educate the masses. And in order to do so, it would be of value to make this information you have researched even more presentable. Don’t get me wrong, In no way am I saying you did a bad job, in fact, given that you were at said conference, presenting the material in text format was probably the most effective way in that arena, since your audience was probably more cerebral than an average audience.
        Unfortunately for me, and a lot of other people, I’m more of a visual learner and found the information very hard to process because of the format it was presented in. THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU DID IT WRONG, only that for some groups of people its less effective. I think thats what jeremy was trying to get at, but oh well.
        To avoid simply criticizing, I will give some other options that could possibly speak to different learning styles more effectively, and these are merely suggestion.
        An example of a possible way to make the presentation more concise would be this:
        It would have benefitted me if the concepts listed in the beginning did not have the definition typed out underneath, because I was getting lost. Instead, if the slide had said “13 Concepts” across the top, and then listed all 13 on that one slide, each showing up as you read the definitions from a note card, it would have been easier for my less-literate brain to wrap around. The fact is the people you are wanting to educates brains probably don’t run like yours. We live in a time where tv shows and internet run the masses, so their/our attention span has been reduced to 6 milliseconds.
        In order to epitomize the effectiveness of your teachings, I think its a fair point. I mean, look at Hitler. He was able to convince people of utter nonsense because of the way he presented it. All I’m saying there is, there seems to be more of a connection made by the audience when you are able to speak directly to them. At its simplest form, I think you can agree with the statement, presentation can dictate consumption. Thats the other thing i think j was saying.

        Bear in mind I have yet to graduate college, and my weakest subjects were always language arts, so this is merely my humble opinion offered up in attempts to help. I hope this wasn’t disrespectful and in some way made sense. And I purchased a signed copy of Astrology & Shamanism, and made sure to do it through your websight so ya’ll would get more money! haha. What book would you suggest I read next? Thanks for showing me how much I dont know!

    • Nathan P
      April 23, 2011 at 9:17 am

      I understood everything he said and enjoy having someone read something that I’m reading. It helps me absorb the information. Powerpoints are not evil…

      Don’t be a douche.

  2. Mark B
    April 18, 2011 at 7:18 am

    Thanks Jan
    Just because Huxley recognized the methods of control doesn’t mean he was a proponent no?

  3. Ricardo
    April 18, 2011 at 10:01 am

    I’d like a pdf. of your lecture. I find it quite educating and would like to use it as a teaching tool.

  4. Gene
    April 18, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Very good, glad to see, I realize you have a lot to compress and deliver but take the following and hope it helps you. Just a tip, find the point of stillness you would have say doing your pod cast, and take that stimulus feeling and apply it to the public speaking. To say keep in mind your state of calm and over come the nervous sensation, it is not hard to do just hard to get your mind to do ;)! But still good presentation, even through your nervous tendency! The most important lesson I have to teach anyone is to not care what others may or may not think/say about you. By the way you have a very good voice for oratory presentation.

    Although I may not agree with every thing or every one, I do support the base of your and others effort in confrontational work.

    Keep up the very good work and, remain calm. For it is by this and yourself as well others that true order can be achieved.

    • Jan Irvin
      April 18, 2011 at 11:42 am

      “Although I may not agree with every thing or every one, I do support the base of your and others effort in confrontational work.”

      If you have specific points of contention regarding the presentation that you can show are wrong via the trivium, then please present them.

      Otherwise thanks for the comment, though nervousness on stage usually only goes away with practice, and I only give 1 or 2 live presentations a year. I didn’t get over the nervousness for the show probably until around episode 10.

      • Gene
        April 18, 2011 at 12:26 pm

        This was not critique, of your presentation. Just statement, of other things not “solely” related to it’s content, that you have produced through your pod cast.

        “Although I may not agree with every thing or every one, I do support the base of your and others effort in confrontational work.”

        And the base of your and others work is to question every thing and learn all you can from every perceivable perspective, and to not let/make opinion become sole reasoning? As I have come to see it.

        And I did not mean to say you were nervous as a whole, you became mainly nervous when the audience gave the “sicking laugh”, when you stated what government means! But what would anyone expect from the “KEY STONE STATE” well any way it was good, and you should at least give the same or using slight of hand give it to your children and possibly their class say once a quarter? Just suggestion>.

        • Jan Irvin
          April 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm

          “And the base of your and others work is to question every thing and learn all you can from every perceivable perspective, and to not let/make opinion become sole reasoning? As I have come to see it.”

          Gene, I’ve recommended several times that you re-listen to the Gene Odening talks. You also missed the point of the lecture. The trivium method is a systematic method for DERIVING CERTAINTY with any information coming in via the 5 senses. It’s not just to take things in from everyone. I made this point explicit that its about IDENTIFICATION and REMOVING CONTRADICTIONS to arrive at a decision based on logic and certainty.

          To say you may not agree with everything without supplying EXPLICIT evidence using the trivium method, the very method presented in the video to which you posted your comment, is NOT using the trivium: grammar, logic, or rhetoric, and if you’re just saying it to say it, you’re not getting it.

          How is it that you focus SOLELY on the “don’t kill the messenger” fallacy when the trivium is about grammar, logic, and rhetoric. It’s about all of the fallacies and identifying TRUTH, not just killing the messenger, nor is it about just avoiding EMOTIONS as a basis of conclusions (Don’t think we really discuss the word “opinion” as you present it.), but having a systematic method of deriving certainty.

          It seems you’re missing the *entire* point – which is why I’ve restated several times for you to go back and study it. Use the website, read the books and material, re-listen to the audio, and learn about it for yourself and gain explicit UNDERSTANDING.

        • Jan Irvin
          April 18, 2011 at 12:51 pm

          “This was not critique, of your presentation. Just statement, of other things not “solely” related to it’s content, that you have produced through your pod cast.”

          If you have specific things to say about specific podcasts, which you usually seem to, then post them to those threads. Why are you posting things about podcasts and not agreeing with everything or everyone in a discussion regarding this specific presentation video? Rather than making ambiguous statements, use the rhetoric portion of the trivium to communicate clearly and effectively so that we don’t have to deal with your ambiguity fallacies.

          And exactly what do you mean about confrontational? What’s confrontational about it? Who, what, where, when, why and how?


          • Gene
            April 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm

            No, got all of it, just quite matter of fact enjoy being obscure in language or as you purport “grammar/rhetoric = language” and using no obvious “points of logic = evident proofs”. Keeps the eye off of you so to speak. Rather that I will not be asked/invited for further discussions, is my goal, avoiding those awkward communion with others as anti-social am I, evidenced by my use of the most removed form of communication, and language.

            I am not, nor will ever be put in any box whether a square, cube or right triangle. Do not get most of mainly all-people/society they do not have any reason what, when, where, or why! Makes no sense to me, waste in fact as has been the result of my being forced among all of you. As for ambiguous statements well say what you like and will say what I like, as I like. But still have been aware of far more far earlier, in my time here than many would dare look at.

            “And exactly what do you mean about confrontational? What’s confrontational about it? Who, what, where, when, why and how?”
            Well it is the confrontation of the programming/teaching you say “all” have been through is it not.

            Something else to note I new about the pledge in 2nd grade and refused to repeat after and stayed seated. You see I have nothing to prove or refute as am in spirit never been one of you!

            This is the last, I will share with anyone as am done watching, both watcher and man. Time is upon too, well… tell all to f-ck off I want my energy back and am taking it, with every day the storm gets bigger.

            Bye Bye, black bird!

  5. temetnosce
    April 18, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Glad to see the Marshall Rosenberg NVC references. That’s some very interesting literature. NVC training was a very positive life-changer for a friend of mine and it deserves to be promoted.

    • Jan Irvin
      April 18, 2011 at 11:43 am

      Rosenberg was supposed to do an interview on the show, but I never got a confirmation.

  6. Kimberly
    April 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    Thanks Jan for an excellent lecture. You did an incredible job and it was obvious that you put many hours of research and time into your presentation. I learned a lot and will be getting the pdf as well. Keep up the great work!

  7. Kevin Harrington
    April 19, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Public speaking on the trivium and other deep topics is not an easy task. I have great respect for the work you do. I find it funny anyone would offer comments on your delivery, they are indeed missing the point. When wisdom is spoke intelligent people listen…

  8. david llewellyn foster
    April 19, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Thanks Jan, tour de force! Huxley, hmm, not too sure as the Huxley’s were all celebrated. The eugenicist brother you refer to was Julian I believe. Of course, those calibre of ideas were always qualified and very much a product of their epoch, so will look further into this as cultural/literary context is everything. Great minds in my estimation are distinguished by their openness and willingness to change. As for absolute certainty, I defer to Popper, as he makes such a very strong case for the power of reflexive critical/cultural evaluation through progressive scientific methodology – conjecture and refutation. His thoughts on the pre-Socratics are extremely interesting. A truly brilliant mind in my estimation. Russell? I believe you’re on shaky ground. I have about twenty or so of his original works on my library shelf, most of which are fairly well read and so I suspect that quote may have come from Education and the Social Order or possibly Authority and the Individual. Would you care to cite the source? Good lecture, packed a real punch, bravo.

    • david llewellyn foster
      April 20, 2011 at 3:02 am

      Jan, further re Russell:
      I strongly commend you to his On Education (1926,) approx. 160pp of text – it had already reached 16 printings by 1964 and remains a bold testament to (real) liberal values. Sound-bite citations from prolific and often controversial authors like Russell are unwise in my view, since although he was such a formidable logician, philosopher and brilliant rhetorician, you are bound to find contradictory statements. Unless one reads the whole essay or book or chapter as the case may be, there is always a possible susceptibility to erroneous readings or misinterpretations even to the extent of mistaking irony for literal opinion. Crowley’s authentic ideas suffer from the same type of sophist superficiality that is so common among both his enthusiastic but naive proponents, and equally virulent detractors. It seems absurd to attempt to quote adequately from this work of Russell’s therefore, but perhaps a brief sentence or two from his conclusion will suffice to suggest the character & quality, so to speak, of his argument:
      “We must let loose our natural kindliness; if a doctrine demands that we should inflict misery upon children, let us reject it, however dear it may be to us. In almost all cases, the psychological source of cruel doctrines is fear; that is one reason why I have laid so much stress upon the elimination of fear in childhood. Let us root out the fears that lurk in the dark places of our own minds…When we have created young people freed from fear and inhibitions and rebellious or thwarted instincts,we shall be able to open to them the world of knowledge, freely and completely, without dark hidden corners; and if instruction is wisely given, it will be a joy rather than a task to those who receive it…”
      This totally contradicts the sickening Jesuit policy of deliberately instilling terror in infancy. Let us not forget that the so-called Bavarian (yet…) Illuminati order was created by Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit “educated” canon lawyer, whose real intent may have been to infiltrate and thereby utterly discredit the authentic (in my opinion) Rosicrucian current of free-masonry, as part a greater long-term, “counter-reformation” (albeit, desperate rearguard…) strategy, by the Roman church whose staggering wealth and power had been so substantially augmented by their destruction of Europe’s bankers, the Knights Templar, through the agency of the French crown in the C14th. Hence the critical sense of the term occult – as also necessarily referring to secretive, prophylactic measures adopted for the purposes of self-preservation to resist clerical persecution. It may well be that the Illuminati bluff was effectively countervailed by the Egyptian Rites of(Count)Cagliostro in France who introduced sexual equality, or equivalence into the Lodge, also known as co-masonry or adoptive.
      I’d also dearly love to cite Lao Zi on aggression, but that will have to wait for another more adequate opportunity to dilate (!) on the virtues of the Dao-(Deh…) I trust this has been a helpful comment, you certainly have enough to cope with!

      • Jan Irvin
        April 22, 2011 at 7:24 am

        Dave, please feel free to check our citation provided in the transcript notes to the lecture (above), where the exact quote is provided, so that you can see if we’re taking the quote out of context:

        Bertrand Russell: “Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.” (Page 50 – The Intended Result of Education)

        Please note that the quote I’m referencing was published in 1951, 25 years AFTER your quote.

        Instead of a broad generalization regarding Russell’s works, you can focus on the publication listed there above.

        Education should aim at destroying free will
        Bertrand Russell quotes

        In the book “The Impact of Science on Society”, published in 1951, the following quotes are found:

        * “Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.” (Page 50 – The Intended Result of Education)
        * “After all, most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.” (Page 54 – Scientific Dictatorship)
        * “There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority.” (Page 103-104 – Bacteriological War, Population and World Government)
        * “My conclusion is that a scientific society can be stable given certain conditions. The first of these is a single government of the whole world, possessing a monopoly of armed force and therefore able to enforce peace. The second condition is a general diffusion of prosperity, so that there is no occasion for envy of one part of the world by another. The third condition (which supposes the second fulfilled) is a low birth rate everywhere, so that the population of the world becomes stationary, or nearly so. The fourth condition is the provision for individual initiative both in work and in play, and the greatest diffusion of power compatible with maintaining the necessary political and economic framework. The world is a long way from realizing these conditions, and therefore we must expect vast upheavals and appalling suffering before stability is attained. But, while upheavals and suffering have hitherto been the lot of man, we can now see, however dimly and uncertainly, a possible future culmination in which poverty and war will have been overcome, and fear, where it survives, will have become pathological. The road, I fear, is long, but that is no reason for losing sight of the ultimate hope.” (Page 113-114 – World Army & Massive Upheavals)

        Saying that the Jesuits were behind the Illuminati seems a bit Eric John Phelps to me, and since he doesn’t process information via critical thinking I tend not to trust many of his conclusions… and the bankers were NOT only the Knights Templar, as Zarlenga, Douglass Reed and others point out – the bankers were roughly 75 – 85% Jewish, and Phelps and his ilk are very pro-Zionist – as was the illuminati.

        I’m not sure what Crowley has to do with your claims of us taking this quote out of context.

        • david llewellyn foster
          April 26, 2011 at 6:23 pm

          Thanks for taking so much time and trouble to respond to my comment Jan, I appreciate your attention to detail and your respect for the sincerity of your listeners.
          In fact, I do have a first edition of this Russell book you refer to that was first published in 1952 (in the UK.) I’ll try to find the time to examine the whole book over the next few days, but the final quotation for example is actually the closing two paragraphs from the Conclusion to the work on pp.139-140. The heading you give as “World Army &…etc.” does not exist in the original concluding Chapter (VII) that is entitled: Can A Scientific Society Be Stable? An appended footnote states that this chapter was first delivered as a lecture in 1949 at the Royal Society of Medicine, London. The bulk of the work it states in the prefatory note, is based on lectures delivered at Ruskin College, Oxford. Perhaps those headings you cite are from some American edition. I’ll read through and try to establish the context, that seems on the face of it pretty dated and a product of the immediate post-war years, striving for an almost naive optimism. Anyway I’ll study the style and content more closely and let you know what I think.
          I’m no Phelps fan, but I don’t see anything flaky about referring to the Jesuits as capable of such mendacious tactics, as it is common knowledge that the Order’s avowed aim was counter-reformation. While I very strongly and unequivocally reiterate my remark that the policy of instilling terror in the young is insidious, indeed perverted and iniquitous.
          I wholly defer to your expertise in banking history however, as I know very little about this, but 75-85% does seem a rather implausibly precise estimate if we are talking about a long & complex history. I’d be very interested therefore, in your considered opinion of the Harvard academic (& Rothschild biographer) Niall Ferguson’s, Channel 4 documentary series, the Ascent of Money – that has an accompanying book (2008.) My colloquial understanding is that within “Christendom” Jews were frequently excluded from many professions, so they merely exploited the limited available opportunities offered to them, like money changing.
          I don’t quite understand your characterisation of the “illuminati” sect as pro-Zionist though; unless you are suggesting Weishaupt actually invented the idea? Or do you just mean pro-Jewish, since Zionism-proper is, surely, only a late C19th development emerging from a quite different experience? I thought Shlomo Sand made that quite explicit.
          As for A.C., I was merely inferring that the frequent misconceptions & misrepresentations about his formal methodology and intent are a clear example of how superficial opinions can distort and caricature, through occlusion or by elision, the authentic extant evidence. I was not actually making any overt claim that you were irresponsibly misreading Russell by the way, only drawing attention to the possibility that there might be a richer intellectual & literary context, reflecting a more nuanced cultural landscape to explore.

          • david llewellyn foster
            April 27, 2011 at 5:13 am

            Hi Jan: having done my homework this morning, it is clear that the rhetorical context of your Russell quotes unequivocally contradicts the “obvious” inference you are drawing from them. The first two citations are from Chapter III: Scientific Technique in an Oligarchy. This chapter is a devastating critique of totalitarian methods and the abuse of science. The first quote is therefore entirely misleading in the way it is presented and moreover, was rendered incomplete. Here is the embedded context from pp. 65/6 of the original text (first delivered at Ruskin College in Oxford in the late 1940’s):
            “Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It may be worth while to spend a few moments in speculating as to possible future developments of those that are oligarchies.
            It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so…”
            In my view this speaks for itself. As for Fichte: this is a helpful link –
            Your second quote is from the same chapter, p. 71. The other two are from the last Chapter (VII.) You are at great risk here of falling prey to your own cardinal sin of not becoming thoroughly acquainted with the entirety of a work. Russell was a Nobel Laureate and arguably one of the most significant thinkers of the C20th. To attribute to such an intellectual giant such intellectual naivete is unwise to say the least.
            I shall not attempt to tackle the eugenic questions relating to Huxley here nor the cold-war arguments about population and birth control that Russell also raises in various contexts, but I do think we are advised to examine the whole body of work of any widely appreciated author, especially a celebrated philosopher and logician, or arguably invite a deserved measure of tacit dismissal for our perceived sophistry and lack of depth.
            I look forward to listening to your next discussion now. Keep up the good work Jan, you’re helping a lot of people think more analytically, including myself.

          • Jan Irvin
            April 27, 2011 at 2:10 pm

            Hi David, Zarlenga goes into population numbers of bankers in his book based on populations per capita from historical European sources. I also cited Douglass Reed above. I highly suggest you read his controversy of zion. In the first 140 pages (including the preface) all of your questions are covered:

            Thanks for your checking on Russell. I’ll verify that again myself. However, here’s an article on Russell you may find interesting. It’s by LaRouche (sometimes questionable), so I recommend verifying the sources:

  9. Kars
    April 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Hi Jan,

    Great work you delivered in this presentation!
    Wonderful insights in a style I strife to use myself, clear, concise and complete.

    I was very happy with your explanation why one would like to start thinking, it’s a question I get often when I meet people who are afraid of the world around.

    With your work I think it would be great to invite Philosopher Stephan Molyneux to your podcast. I like Stephan’s work because it provides, like your podcasts, great insights into how the world and people work. I can recommend the Bom in the Brain series.

    Jan I’m very pleased with your great work, it has and is helping me become a healthier and better man, better equipped to communicate to myself and others.

    Love, Courage and Water!


  10. Mick
    April 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Jeremy = fail

  11. Jeb Murphy
    April 22, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Powerful content in this presentation – and your entire collection of works! I have dug into your works over the last year and a half. Scales have fallen from my eyes. I see and name logical falacies everywhere. I can no longer tolerate TV – even if I really want something to watch! I am controlled less and less by the misinformation of others and feel more in charge of myself.

    I consider you a friend, even though we have never met, because your podcast is a weekly unsolicited gift to everyone. That’s what friends do for each other.

    Thanks – big time,

    • Jan Irvin
      April 24, 2011 at 5:58 pm

      Very nice comment, Jeb. Thank you for that.

  12. April 24, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    I tend to agree with the initial commenter jeremy’s remarks about not reading in front of a crowd. Jan, you are a good speaker and are good on your feet, and I felt your fluidity was compromised a bit in this talk. Remember mckennas memory method? The walk through the campus…

    Keep up the good work buddy, you’re a beacon of thoughtful resixtance and are an inspiration.

  13. Stan
    April 26, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    I hope you are aware of the consequences that self-learning has. Self-learning alienates men from each other. If Jack London’s book, Martin Eden, teaches us anything, doesn’t self-learning, if taken too far, lead to suicide? London was keen to stress that it was this individualism that eventually led to Eden’s suicide. He described the novel as a parable of a man who had to die “not because of his lack of faith in God, but because of his lack of faith in men.” Just something to think about…

    • Jan Irvin
      April 27, 2011 at 3:15 pm

      I understand what you’re saying, but you’re jumping to conclusions. We’re talking about input, processing and output. There are many (most) autodidacts who don’t commit suicide. I haven’t read London’s book (as you said, it’s a NOVEL), but it seems an attack on learning how to learn and becoming self sufficient, and identifying when you’re being lied to. Because learning is a process of asking substantial questions and obtaining valid answers. Valid answers are found by asking the 5 W’s + How in order to identify a subject. This is known as thinking. So that I can clearly address your question, are you against learning, thinking, or both? But if not, we’re in agreement.

      Have you listened to the trivium episodes, 49-51, with Gene Odening?

      More info on Jack London. Thanks for bringing him up. I learned a lot due to your inquiry:

      Jack London was a member of Bohemian Grove (not to poison the well, but you might want to take that into consideration of his attack on self-education).
      Bohemian Club
      London (right) at the Bohemian Grove with his friends Porter Garnett and George Sterling. A painting parodies his book The White Silence.

      On August 18, 1904, London went with his close friend, the poet George Sterling, to “Summer High Jinks” at the Bohemian Grove. London was elected to honorary membership in the Bohemian Club and took part in many activities. Other noted members of the Bohemian Club during this time included Ambrose Bierce, Allan Dunn, John Muir, Gelett Burgess, and Frank Norris.

      Beginning in December 1914, London worked on The Acorn Planter, A California Forest Play, to be performed as one of the annual Grove Plays, but it was never selected—it was described as too difficult to set to music.[27] London published The Acorn Planter in 1916.[28]
      [3:28:55 PM] Tragedy & Hope:

      Is London really someone you want to emulate?

      His views on race:

      Racial views

      London shared common Californian concerns about Asian immigration and “the yellow peril”, which he used as the title of a 1904 essay.[42] This theme was also the subject of a story he wrote in 1910 called “The Unparalleled Invasion”. Taking place in a fictional 1975, London describes a China with an ever-increasing population taking over and colonizing its neighbors, with the intention of taking over the entire Earth. The western nations respond with biological warfare and bombard China with dozens of the most infectious diseases. The genocide, described in considerable detail, is throughout the book described as justified and “the only possible solution to the Chinese problem”.[43]

      Many of London’s short stories are notable for their empathetic portrayal of Mexican (“The Mexican”), Asian (“The Chinago”), and Hawaiian (“Koolau the Leper”) characters. London’s war correspondence from the Russo-Japanese War, as well as his unfinished novel Cherry, show he admired much about Japanese customs and capabilities.[citation needed]

      In London’s 1902 novel Daughter of the Snows, the character Frona Welse has a speech about Teutonic virtues in contrast to the characteristics of other “races”. The scholar Andrew Furer, in a long essay exploring the complexity of London’s views, says there is no doubt that Frona Welse is acting as a mouthpiece for London in this passage.[citation needed]:

      London’s 1904 essay, “The Yellow Peril”, criticizes Asians. He admits, “[I]t must be taken into consideration that the above postulate is itself a product of Western race-egotism, urged by our belief in our own righteousness and fostered by a faith in ourselves which may be as erroneous as are most fond race fancies.”

      In “Koolau the Leper”, London describes Koolau, who is a Hawaiian leper—and thus a very different sort of “superman” than Martin Eden—and who fights off an entire cavalry troop to elude capture, as “indomitable spiritually—a … magnificent rebel”.
      Jeffries (left) vs. Johnson, 1910.

      An amateur boxer and avid boxing fan, London reported on the 1910 Johnson-Jeffries fight, in which the black boxer Jack Johnson vanquished Jim Jeffries, the “Great White Hope”. In 1908, according to Furer, London praised Johnson highly, contrasting the black boxer’s coolness and intellectual style, with the apelike appearance and fighting style of his white opponent, Tommy Burns: “what . . . [won] on Saturday was bigness, coolness, quickness, cleverness, and vast physical superiority… Because a white man wishes a white man to win, this should not prevent him from giving absolute credit to the best man, even when that best man was black. All hail to Johnson.” Johnson was “superb. He was impregnable . . . as inaccessible as Mont Blanc.”[citation needed]

      Those who defend London against charges of racism cite the letter he wrote to the Japanese-American Commercial Weekly in 1913:

      In reply to yours of August 16, 1913. First of all, I should say by stopping the stupid newspaper from always fomenting race prejudice. This of course, being impossible, I would say, next, by educating the people of Japan so that they will be too intelligently tolerant to respond to any call to race prejudice. And, finally, by realizing, in industry and government, of socialism—which last word is merely a word that stands for the actual application of in the affairs of men of the theory of the Brotherhood of Man.
      In the meantime the nations and races are only unruly boys who have not yet grown to the stature of men. So we must expect them to do unruly and boisterous things at times. And, just as boys grow up, so the races of mankind will grow up and laugh when they look back upon their childish quarrels.[44]

      In Yukon in 1996, after the City of Whitehorse renamed two streets to honor London and Robert W. Service, protests over London’s racialist views forced the city to change the name of “Jack London Boulevard” back to “Two-mile Hill”.[45]

      • Stan
        May 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm

        Sorry for the late response. I didn’t want to get off-topic. I listened to your interview with Gene Odening on trivium on the Gnostic Media youtube account. Listening to that interview only left me with more questions. My main question, which remains unanswered, is how does one master the trivium?

        No, I do not wish to emulate Jack London. The reason I brought him up is because his book, Martin Eden, shows just how important a proper mastery and understanding of the trivium is. The protagonist of that book refused to pass his knowledge and wisdom to others, which is a crucial part of the trivium. So, I think the rhetoric part of the Trivium is the hardest part to grasp for me personally. Grammar and logic is the easy part, but rhetoric requires the right side or feminine side of the brain, which most people in the developed world don’t use on a daily basis.

        By the way, Wikipedia lists Martin Eden as one of the books in its article on Autodidacticism.

  14. April 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    I keep coming back to this posts comments because they’re rich in information.

  15. eric
    May 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Thank you for uploading. That was a very interesting lecture. I already knew about the 7 liberal arts from your podcast, but the comparison with computer code was new for me.

    Did you know that Gottfried Leibniz, the person that created the binary numeral system, used the Fu Xi sequence. It’s based on Yin and Yang.

    “Leibniz was a convinced advocate of a Eurasian policy and published a collection of documents on China (Novissima Sinica, 1679). Leibniz’s interest in China was prompted by the Jesuit Claudio Grimaldi, who had spent seventeen years in Beijing and whom Leibniz met on on journey in Italy. He saw that China was better than Europe in the elegance of life, but Europe was ahead in abstract mathematical sciences and metaphysics. Moreover, for his surprise he noten that Chinese philosophy in its ancient form looks like his own philosophy. When Father Joachim Bouvet, who had been in China, described in a letter the I Ching, an ancient book of wisdom and oracles, Leibniz recognized in the enigmatic hexagrams representations of his binary digits. To demonstrate this he wrote Explication de l’arithmétique binaire (1705). “The I Ching was important for its divinatory contents, but for Leibniz it becomes further evidence in proving the universal value of his formal calculus (and in a letter to Father Bouvet he suggests that its inventor was Hermes Trismegistus; as a matter of fact, Fu-hsi, the legendary inventor of the hexagrams, like Hermes was considered the father of all inventions).” (Umberto Eco in Serendipities, 1999)”

    The I Ching or Yì Jīng is like a decoder of the language that the universe speaks. It’s a bit hard to explain, but do you remember the movie The Matrix? That a guy was watching his computer and was reading symbols codes on his screen? It’s something like that.

    The jesuits are aware of it, so are the freemasons. Freemason symbol has a square and a compass. Now look at the picture of Fu Xi
    It represents Yin and Yang, circle and square. I haven’t read the book but I believe this is discussed in Sacred Geometry: Philosophy & Practice by Robert Lawlor.

    I think I told once you before, but I think that you should look into it.
    I have to give a warning. I’ve read somewhere that some versions of the I Ching are not in the correct order. Like in the sequence of the 7 liberal arts, some publishers like to switchs things to make it confusing.

    Best regards,


    One last thing. I would like to download the pdf file from the lecture but I can’t without a facebook account. That really sucks.

  16. eric
    May 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    After listing in to Dr. Scott Olsen interview – “The Golden Ratio” – #108 I have some more about the I ching.

    Richard S. Cook states that the I Ching demonstrated a relation between the golden ratio (aka the division in extreme and mean ratio) and “linear recurrence sequences” (the Fibonacci numbers are examples of “linear recurrence sequences”) :

    …the hexagram sequence, showing that its classification of binary sequences demonstrates knowledge of the convergence of certain linear recurrence sequences … to division in extreme and mean ratio… that the complex hexagram sequence encapsulates a careful and ingenious demonstration of the LRS (linear recurrence sequences)/DEMR (division in the extreme mean ratio relation), that this knowledge results from general combinatorial analysis, and is reflected in elements emphasized in ancient Chinese and Western mathematical traditions.


    …The Golden Proportion is the key to a fuller understanding of phenomenal unfolding – for it manifests in organic forms such as seashells and pinecones, as well as our own DNA. The involuting spiral of consciousness – the unfolding of the spiritual flower – this is what the Golden Proportion describes. Yet, the I Ching is fortunate in that it has a philosophical number scheme that goes with it; it has the 8 trigrams and the 64 hexagrams to encode and make known its secret workings. The Golden Proportion, being essentially a ratio usually approximated as 1.618, does not have a conventional system of numbers to encode its workings. Or does it? What if we combine the spiral unfolding of the Golden Proportion (PHI=1.618) with the exponential expansion of the I Ching? This is what we get:

    2 x PHI = 3.25 8 x PHI = 13 32 x PHI = 52
    4 x PHI = 6.5 16 x PHI = 26 64 x PHI = 104

    These are all the essential numbers of the Mayan Venus Round system!…

  17. April 12, 2012 at 11:15 am

    I used to be suggested this web site by means of my cousin. I’m now not sure whether or not this put up is written through him as no one else recognise such certain approximately my difficulty. You’re wonderful! Thanks!

  18. Greg
    April 22, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Mr Irvin,

    Ive always been skeptical of the world, and society. All through highschool, and college (wasted my time)I realized what ive been learning and studying is irrelevant to address world and social problems of today. Your presentation is extremely useful and relevant. I have always been serious about studying independent of a institution but have always been discouraged. Your hard work definitely shows and people like are hungry for more REAL INFO that empower our lives. I look forward to read, listen, and watch you share more very enabling knowledge with us. Moreover, I have started my journey to acquiring true and accurate information because of your work. Thats very selfless act, appreciate it.

    In harmony,


  19. Bill
    April 26, 2012 at 7:47 am

    I really wish I learned this stuff before I spent a decade of my life researching the occult. Better late than never, I guess. It is exciting though because now I have a new direction to go with my work (which seemed to be at a stand still). Conspiracy mixed with psychology plus the trivium seems to be where I want to focus. I can tell you that in a few months of learning the trivium (almost totally on your websites), I am already starting to get really comfortable with it (especially the logical fallacies). I will donate to your work as soon as I can. Please accept my sincere thanks for now.

  20. Keith Knight
    February 27, 2015 at 10:31 pm

    Excellent video. I had trouble seeing some of the slides, anyone know if the PowerPoint is available for download? Please and thank you!!

Leave a Reply