David Harriman interview, pt. 2 – “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap” – #112


This episode is an interview with David Harriman, part 2 "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and the Logical Leap" and is being released on Sunday, May 8, 2011. My interview with David was recorded on May 01, 2011.

Today we continue our interview with David Harriman in this explosive two parter. Quantum theory, the big bang, String theory, what’s real and what’s based on Kantian delusions – or Kant-tradictions?

David Harriman earned his Master’s degree in physics from University of Maryland, and his Master’s in philosophy from Claremont Graduate University. He has worked as an applied physicist and he is editor of Journals of Ayn Rand. His book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics, presents Leonard Peikoff’s theory of induction as it applies to the physical sciences. Recently, he has co-founded Falling Apple Science Institute (with Tom VanDamme), a nonprofit that is developing a unique science curriculum based on the inductive method.

Falling Apple Science Institute
http://www.fallingapple.org

The Logical Leap:

Order here
Or help support Gnostic Media by ordering here: https://logosmedia.com/reading/

Please also listen to this Peace Revolution episode IN FULL:

The Philosophic Corruption of Physics:
http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-12T08_45_48-07_00

  73 comments for “David Harriman interview, pt. 2 – “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics and The Logical Leap” – #112

  1. a-bram
    May 8, 2011 at 1:55 am

    Many thanks to both the interviewer and interviewed for this two-parter. Gonna have to listen to this second part a couple more times to check and overstand all the concepts, but without doubt Mr. Harriman presents his information, analysis and critique very eloquently. His remarks on the education of physical sciences can, in my opinion, be applied to all the abstract (béta) subjects thought especially in secondary schools (at least here in western Europe). Sometimes I wonder if the education concerning these majestic subjects is being kept so disassociated from the everyday world we live in on purpose…
    It would be interesting to get a defender of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum physics as well as defenders of string & big bang theory on your show. See what they have to say, maybe in relation to this interview, apply critical thinking to both views, and see which of those are most rational.

  2. May 8, 2011 at 2:36 am

    part 1 was really great. I’ve been waiting for this.

  3. May 8, 2011 at 10:12 am

    Very Good Interview. Thanks Jan and David.

    In regards to dark matter:
    Plasma cosmology can demonstrate with simple physical principles the electrical formation and behavior of spiral galaxies and stars without recourse to hypothetical dark matter and black holes.
    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=wxse6f8q

    This Year’s Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference has more
    topics along the same lines of rational inductive thought.

    The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself.

    Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings. But the founding of the NPA in 1994 provided those struggling against this irrationality and intolerance with the strength, visibility, and credibility that comes from numbers and from collaborative, purposeful effort. It has also enabled them to share, expand, and refine their individual knowledge through contact with many other critical scholars, at NPA general meetings–held at least once per year since 1994–and by phone and mail, both postal and electronic.

    We call the NPA an “alliance” because our members hold a wide variety of different views, yet have joined forces in a common effort. We agree unanimously on little more than that something is drastically wrong in contemporary physics and cosmology, and that a new spirit of open-mindedness is desperately needed in order to correct this situation.

    http://www.worldnpa.org/main/

  4. david llewellyn foster
    May 9, 2011 at 7:11 am

    Big stuff David & Jan! A few “observations” based on what I’ve heard, not on reading the book, that must wait until I can afford it, regrettably. Firstly, my positive impressions: I heartily endorse David’s Falling Apple initiative. We desperately need a “revolution” in science teaching. Listening to David I am sure he is a very engaging teacher.
    Re sequential logic in history: he may find Patricia Fara’s “Science a Four Thousand Year History” worthy of perusal, she is Senior Tutor at Clare College Cambridge. By all accounts hers is a splendid overview. Also I think he would find the types of discourse developed at Schumacher College in Devon, of considerable value. They run an MSc in holistic science and now an MA in transition economics. I would personally recommend two videos available on their website from previous courses: Jean Boulton on Complexity as Worldview (Prigogine et al) & Elisabet Sahtouris on Living better on a Hotter Planet, first class “comprehensive” talks from extremely intelligent women – http://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/community/open-evenings
    There is a danger that stressing about “quantum theory”, ignores the fact that physics is meaningless outside the context of cosmology, a point David only began to infer in his remarks about the Big Bang, Hoyle’s allegedly pejorative term (a claim according to Wikipedia that is disputed, I note). Moreover, cosmology leads us to questions of evolution and process biology, the most essential aspect of science for us as humans.
    So, I was disappointed we heard nothing about Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”, nothing about post-Darwinian thinking on determinism and emergence, nothing about Feynman and QED, no mention of Hawking, Lee Smolin, Lisa Randall, nor Mae-Wan Ho’s “quantum coherence” and less than adequate discussion of the actual limits of our knowledge (that is to say the absence of proportionately representative data as for example: 98% “junk” DNA, 80% dark matter and its like, our estimated 2% bacterial understanding, vanishingly small qualitative testing of the toxicity of chemical compounds etc. qv “The Idiot Cycle” http://rt.com/programs/documentary/page-2/). Also what of the neuro-phenomenological quality of observational induction and how is it affected by our conditioned, cultural frames of reference? All science must operate within complex frames. We measure with instruments, how do we observe – with our mind and sensorium, so how does that work? (I’m looking forward to Beny Shanon’s new book on cognition and entheogenic experience, by the way…) A thought provoking approach to these issues is to be found in Alison Gopnik’s “How Babies Think” & more recently evidently, “The Philosophical Baby” http://www.slate.com/id/2223835/
    Arguably, in some respects Karl Popper’s great contribution was his fascinating discussion of the pre-Socratics, and the idea of the novelty of critical debate (see Ch.5 of “Conjectures & Refutations”) I have yet to study his deeply learned exposition of Kant but I am assured he (K. P.) was one of the most perspicacious thinkers to emerge from the post-war period. He famously quotes Einstein in the opening chapter of “Conjectures and Refutations”:
    “There could be no fairer destiny for any….theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on, as a limiting case.” Important point: intellectual humility. Great minds have little appetite for dogma, nor egotistical self-promotion & persoanl aggrandisement that we witness so much in today’s “competitive” celebrity non-culture; boring! Intelligent doctrine of course is another matter, advocating adherence to the trivium/quadrivium of the liberal arts, is a doctrine…
    Induction is a huge topic and so we cannot realistically expect an exhaustive discussion, but it would be wise to make it clear that no thinker or commentator can possibly ever present a “complete” version (cf Gödel’s theorem). Planes of discourse can overlap, but we need to be able to discern just how and why, without ambiguity. This is the essential virtue of inter-disciplinarity. How many experts today really understand ancient Greek, let alone Sanskrit or Chinese? I was relieved to hear David sum up by invoking the challenge of complexity. All history (and empirical theory) relies upon the quality of our historiography as explanatory discourse and therefore, must be limited by the judicious selectivity of the author. How big is the universe? Bigger than us.
    A bold effort, let’s hear more!

  5. Jesus Tequiere
    May 9, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Great interview!
    Hey Jan, I was wondering if you’ve ever listened to Nassim Haramein’s lecture “Crossing the Event Horizon” he doesn’t follow this quantum physics and he has a lot of great ideas about the universe. Would love to hear you interview him if possible. Thanks for all the work that you do.

    Peace.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 9, 2011 at 10:38 am

      I think if you study the materials available along with this interview and the trivium, you’ll discover that Haramein is a huckster, applying his math to the world, instead of using information coming in from the 5 senses and creating math. Haramein and Rodin think they’ve got the cure all to every thing in the world. That should tell you to be very aware that they’re selling bullshit. Rodin and these guys took their work from Stan Tenen who I had on my show last Dec. Rodin has lost a law suit and to my knowledge he’s not allowed to sell his ideas anymore, so Haramein and Powell seem to have taken over – with their own spin – and they’re all tied up with the Bahai religion. It’s a cult. I wouldn’t expect to hear any of them on my show.

      • Jesus Tequiere
        May 9, 2011 at 6:22 pm

        For sure Haramein endorses a lot of sketchy things like crop circles but he seems to be onto something regarding some fundamental principles in physics. He explains fairly well how current physics fails to deal correctly with the concept of infinity. He talks about our confusion with the wave/particle duality when as he points out its a vortex so it’s neither. we view our sciences from a 2 dimensional point of view yet we live in a 3 dimensional world. His vortex paper and his scaling law are his most interesting ideas. so what he believes in aliens, nobody is perfect. lol

        • david llewellyn foster
          May 10, 2011 at 5:51 am

          JT, you may find a more sophisticated approach in Mae-Wan Ho’s work on quantum coherence, she has an enormous amount of holistic science material on her website and Science In Society journal here:
          http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php
          For really spectacular cosmological ideas, it’s worth viewing Brian Cox’s BBC 4 documentary Wonders of the Universe, regrettably no longer available on iPlayer. But there is an accompanying book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonders-Universe-Brian-Cox/dp/0007395825 and some clips still here
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zf9dh

          • Jesus Tequiere
            May 10, 2011 at 9:11 am

            Brian Cox subscribes to the big bang theory, and as mentioned in this interview that’s like a creation story. Nassim haramein explains why the plank’s length is only a convenient way to make the current physics work. there is infinite small and there is infinite bigness. So instead of focusing on what’s the smallest fundamental particle Nassim’s approach is to find the fundamental pattern of division(creation). again he’s got a pretty straight forward way of looking at some of the current physics problems. He points out that our current approach is to try to find smaller and smaller particles building bigger and bigger colliders and thats a path to nowhere since you can divide infinitely. Also as mentioned in this interview the expansion is not real either, There’s the contraction of the vacumm which makes it appear as if the universe is expanding. Nassim may have a lot of crazy ideas about aliens and he talks about the knights templars and ancient visitations by these ET’s, but when it comes to thinking about the laws of physics he doesn’t deviate from logic and really does point out obvious errors in our current methods that anyone can pick up on.

            Anyone ever heard about the renormalization process in physics?
            from wikipedia (n quantum field theory, the statistical mechanics of fields, and the theory of self-similar geometric structures, renormalization is any of a collection of techniques used to treat infinities arising in calculated quantities.)

            “Renormalization? That’s what they tried to do to me in school.” Nassim Haramein lol

      • tOM
        May 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm

        Skeptiko Podcast
        137. Religious Cults Expert Provides Context to Spiritual Experiences
        http://www.skeptiko.com/

        • ranen
          May 13, 2011 at 5:50 am

          Logic is a construction. It’s an agreement amoung people to have a common denominator. It is the only way to objective truth in our shared world. It should be use in such a way for politics, law, sciences. However, it can never give a person knowledge of absolute or devine truth, or give any satisfactory meaning to one’s life. Again, is public affairs/policy, logic of the kind Harriman advocates is essential, but it is just a tool. It fails at solving a whole host of other matters, particularly for individuals and their growth. Kantian philosophy, used appropriatly may be a useful tool for finding meaning and purpose and other kinds of truth. Both these tools, philosphy of logic ,and philosophy behind quatum physics have different applications in different settings. Is not the mysitcal experience so often talked about on your show destroy the logic of non-contridiction, or the excluded middle?

  6. david llewellyn foster
    May 17, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Jan, I’ve been revisiting http://www.amazon.com/New-Metaphysical-Foundations-Modern-Science/dp/0943951119 a fantastic collection by Willis Harman ed 1994, and realise that virtually all the ontological/epistemological topics and cognitive bases are covered in this prescient anthology. Harman and Elisabet Sahtouris’ conversations in Biology Revisioned, also provide a very accessible introduction to issues of holistic science, problems with reductionist hierarchies, concepts of emergence & autopoiesis http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Revisioned-Willis-Harman/dp/1556432674
    I recommend the recent Sahtouris lecture at Schumacher College Living Better on a Hotter Planet http://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/community/open-evenings (scroll down to Jan 2010)
    And, your listeners may be interested to know about a new BBC2 series by Adam Curtis (includes intriguing Ayn Rand sampled material) All watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (taken from the title of R. Brautigan’s third book of poetry 1967) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/
    Curtis speaks about this on BBC Radio http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0112fz7

    • tOM
      May 19, 2011 at 2:58 pm

      the BBC radio also has:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/

      lots of good Culture, History, Philosophy, Religion and
      Science podcasts.

      • david llewellyn foster
        May 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm

        tOM, Thanks for your post. I heartily concur, but with only this caveat: despite the very high standard of broadcasting, BBC Radio 4’s In Our Time can be a bit narrow and the academic format sometimes comes across as a trifle lack-lustre. This said it is a remarkable archive. On the whole Radio 4 broadcasts are exceptionally professional, polished and eclectic. From Our Own Correspondent is almost always interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/default.stm.
        I also recommend BBC World Service Radio, as it makes a useful complement to Al Jazeera English TV.
        I recently suggested to Jan that he might find the recent radio 4 Archive On 4 programme about Julian Huxley enlightening, but for some reason it is no longer available on iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010y1x6
        It might help to contact Radio 4 & request they make it available again as it really is an extremely insightful piece of social history and an exceptional documentary artefact. I propose to ask the presenter http://www.jimal-khalili.com/ why it is not freely accessible – after all the BBC is financed directly by public money…

  7. Jan Irvin
    May 19, 2011 at 9:05 am

    It amazes me the lack of intelligent, thoughtful replies that people are making regarding this interview. I’ve deleted 4 or 5 absolutely idiotic replies to this thread – not to mention a few direct attacks on me for even having the guest on. For such an “open minded” crowed, I’m astonished at the closed-minded religious dogma like responses I’m getting.

    If you can’t post something intelligent and constructive, you’re replies will be deleted.

  8. tOM
    May 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Challenging the dominant paradigm is always going to be dangerous,
    science, religion, politics or whatever. Dogma and vested interests
    will move to neutralize the perceived threat, this can be a
    journal refusing to publish your paper, being caught with your
    pants down in a hotel room, nailed to a cross and crucified, or
    having your web site hacked. Truth, first casualty of any war.

  9. May 23, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    I’ve long been a critic of the Big Bang theory. One book which, which really opened my mind up to the possibilities is The Big Bang Never Happened, which raises some interesting problems with the Big Bang theory.

    This is the author’s website:
    http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

    I once discussed this with a Physicist and that did not go over well with him at all. He was of the impression that the big bang was essentially a done deal and that criticism of this theory is ridiculous. He even said they use the “Big Bang Never Happened” book as a coaster on their coffee table.

    To believe this Big Bang theory, it assumes a number of other theories are also true. It also assumes that Olbers’ paradox somehow proves that the universe is not infinite.

    It is unfortunate how the truth in Physics is a democratically decided matter; once the matter is voted on, they go on assuming something is true and building future theories on it. There doesn’t appear to be much room for debate on many of the most important matters which are foundational in Physics.

  10. Simon
    May 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    As they say, Science progresses one funeral at a time.

    I still think the observations of quantum mechanics hold a lot of significance, as senseless as their interpretation must perforce seem, in terms of psychology and human perception. You don’t have to accept the Copenhagen interpretation to recognize the implications, that observations are relative to the observer. David Harriman has a strong argument against absolute subjectivity, but I don’t think he has a solid case for absolute objectivity. May be a classic example of hubris to believe that the Universe can be reduced to satisfy simple Aristotelian logic. Even if induced from perspicacious observation, the human nervous system and every tool we use to measure and identify “reality” has its limitations and will veil the symbols we use. Quantum mechanics isn’t necessarily saying there is no absolute deep reality, it’s just bearing witness to the ineffable. Old school philosophy wasn’t entirely deluded, I don’t think. There is yet a great mystery in how the inner and outer coalesces. How even the space/time continuum seems to suggest a psychosomatic continuum. The best the human mind seems to be able to reduce about the world is false dichotomy, resulting of the problems inherent to language, and can only infer unity in abstract, indeterminate concepts like the Big Bang. I totally concur with the basic message here, just don’t follow the reactionary tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even if science has progressed with phenomenology as an illusory assumption, it nevertheless seems to have progressed and is churning out practical “knowledge” all the time. I don’t believe humanity’s modern day predicament has anything to do with whether or not we can ascertain absolute truth, but whether we have the wisdom to avert the certain disaster of assuming we live in a meaningless world. No probability needs be factored in here. Intellectuals will argue on forever about this kind of stuff, but it really behooves us to start asking meaningful questions and making the right decisions vis-a-vis our Faustian plight.

    • Simon
      May 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm

      “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.”
      Jimi Hendrix.

      I’d say that the love of power corresponds with humanity’s vain efforts to KNOW it all. To classify, divide, reduce, and thereby dominate nature. Our resistance to the power of love is in our inability to surrender to nature; the first step on the path toward WISDOM, to acknowledge that we know nothing. A nihilistic humanity interprets the declarations of Bohr et al. as a consignment of the world to empty meaninglessness. Yet the compassionate who embrace sophia, who find meaning innate to life, in nature, without necessarily presuming to “know it all”, can rejoice in that same emptiness and limitless light.

      • Jan Irvin
        May 25, 2011 at 7:54 pm

        Simon, have you listened to episodes 49 – 51, and seen my recent presentation on the trivium in Philly?

        Wisdom comes from being able to properly express that which we know by gaining proper knowledge of the things around us via our 5 senses, and then removing the contradictions to have understanding, thereby enabling us to express that knowledge and understanding to others – wisdom.

        If we go through life with only positive thinking, love, etc, nothing get’s done. Without verifying reality, we delude ourselves into fantasies. See my episode with Dr. Barbara Ehrenreich – Bright-sided.

        To be able to identify things around us is what gives us knowledge. It doesn’t have to dominate nature to understand nature. But to understand nature, you have to first have knowledge of it.

        And what is Sophia, but wisdom, and the love of wisdom is none other than philo-sophy. Again, wisdom is gained through knowledge and understanding, also known as grammar and logic.

        Having such knowledge and understanding of the world around us, removing the contradictions in our thoughts so that they’re clean, pure, reasonable, rational, is no bad thing, as consider that unreasonable, irrational, illogical, and contradiction driven are the very things that give us the problems we face: greed, war, usury, slavery, injustice, et al, – all based in irrationality and illogical thoughts of those who wish to dominate others.

        None of this (identification, knowledge, logic, understanding = wisdom) when used properly, prevents us from joining with the “emptiness and limitless light”, as you put it.

        • Simon
          May 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm

          Word. But does that mean anyone can SAY anything about absolute reality?
          One listens for two hours to an intellectual’s attempt at deconstructing reality, but the onus is always on the observant listener to put it back together again. Logic can’t properly handle these issues with language, so as to ensure that I receive the infallible truth from you or Mr. Harriman.

          What we can say must always belong to the phenomenal world, because words have no independent substantial meaning. Meaning is “dependent-arising” – just as the world itself is said to be dependent-arising, in the Mahayana tradition. Seems to me reality, truth, meaning, unfolds intimately and inwardly for each and every individual, without any need for arguing for absolute objective reality. There are external patterns that we must pay mind to, yes, from which to induce understanding. But if you look at it, many of the iniquities you mentioned have resulted from various historical crusades for “absolute reality”, whether by scientist, philosopher or priest-king. And none of these can or ever will be ascertained. I do bid you good luck in demonstrating your truth, but meantime declare myself a model-agnostic, as no model of the universe has yet satisfied all the dimensions of my observation and experience. Why regard this with contempt?

          As a self-reflecting human being, perhaps you are aware that the mocking tone in your voice, so constant throughout the interview, is also intoned in the lecture of your post. I wonder when authorities are going to realize that no free-thinking individual is ever going to accept that “this is how it is” when it is pronounced with such supreme derision. To be clear, i am not arguing for solipsism, or the extreme subjectivity that follows from the Copenhagen interpretation. Nor am I the new age, bright-sided philosopher you insinuate in your words.

          It’s a commonly held truism, perhaps something you also find laughable, but I think it holds true: the one thing we can ascertain in the world is impermanence, which is to say that our universe is ever changing, ever evolving – and it will continue to unfold in events of emergent property that simply astonish scientists. Events which will always defy 1+1=2 logic. Say 1+1=3: this is no ordinary Aristotelian logic. Indeed you can see the enigmatic Axiom of Maria in most forms of symbiosis. Truths that hold true only relative to order and scale of magnitude… None of what you said is over my head. You simply cannot conceive of Zero (the mathematical alternative to the Big Bang theory) without implying contradicting, complementary, or self-annihilating opposites. Without conceiving of both abstract and positive integers.

          I was wondering whether David was familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein. He never mentioned him in the interview, which i did find to be interesting, by the way. I had to wonder why he seemed so keen on throwing nonsensical eastern philosophies out the window, when in truth these traditions attest to an ageless wisdom with profound application in day to day existence. Wisdom that eludes words. And wisdom that certainly escapes your diatribe. You can tell by how irate both yourself and Dr. Harriman come across in the interview that you’re still occupying a fairly differentiated mindset, prone to conflict, which precludes peace of mind. And I suppose you will never have your peace until everyone believes in the one true objective reality that you are arguing for?

          Philosophy as therapy, as suggested by Wittgenstein, helps us from becoming “bewitched by our own words…” a common phenomenon when folk arrive at premature certainty, mistaking the menu for the meal, the map for the territory. This is existentially sound philosophy, which doesn’t seek to enforce an authoritative view on the world, but rather to cultivate virtue and truth in one’s life, for the better of the world. This is the only philosophy that seems to me to be worthwhile.

          In conclusion, i do agree Reason is an essential faculty when it comes to integrating consciousness. I do however think that reason can easily become overbearing and lopsided, and the clearest sign of this is when “irrationality” is regarded with such extreme derision. This is an attitude which can only exasperate the poverty of cognition you claim to ameliorate with the Trivium.

          • Jan Irvin
            May 26, 2011 at 10:31 am

            “Word. But does that mean anyone can SAY anything about absolute reality?”

            First, define absolute reality.

            “One listens for two hours to an intellectual’s attempt at deconstructing reality, but the onus is always on the observant listener to put it back together again. Logic can’t properly handle these issues with language, so as to ensure that I receive the infallible truth from you or Mr. Harriman.”

            Actually, if you study logic, you’ll see that it specifically deals with language. It doesn’t do well with things OUTSIDE language. Actually, if you’re properly using logic, identifying the subject and predicate, understanding the identification of words and seeking clarity, removing contradictions and fallacies, you most certainly can receive our signal without noise, the infallible truth as you call it. This was discussed in my Philly lecture that I recommended previously. This is also discussed in the trivium series talks that I referenced you in the last post.

            “What we can say must always belong to the phenomenal world, because words have no independent substantial meaning.”

            Harriman’s work, the trivium, etc, all deal specifically with such issues. Certainly the number 1 represents 1 item of 1 thing. This is why it’s important to define words specifically so that we know what, exactly, is being communicated.

            “Meaning is “dependent-arising” – just as the world itself is said to be dependent-arising, in the Mahayana tradition.”

            Again, this is why we define our words. If you establish arbitrary meanings, that’s what you’ll get. This is why having a firm understanding of logic is important. How, specifically, do the Mahayana tradition and the trivium and logic contrast? How have you compared these two? Was logic created before, or after the Mahayana tradition.

            If you can’t form any meaning from anything in life, then why do anything at all?

            “Seems to me reality, truth, meaning, unfolds intimately and inwardly for each and every individual, without any need for arguing for absolute objective reality.”

            If that were the case, you wouldn’t be able to use your computer, as it would work differently for every individual. In fact, the truth of turning on a light switch would always have a different result in your world – which, thankfully, we don’t live in. This is why having basic laws of physics, things we do know and understand is important, rather than just dreaming up what we wish in our own heads to be “reality”.

            “There are external patterns that we must pay mind to, yes, from which to induce understanding. But if you look at it, many of the iniquities you mentioned have resulted from various historical crusades for “absolute reality”, whether by scientist, philosopher or priest-king. And none of these can or ever will be ascertained.”

            It’s funny how you classify what I say as “iniquities” – or crimes. Yet, thoughtlessness and irrationality and not identifying what we’re dealing with is what creates these crimes. What you’re failing to understand is that these are methods in constant development, open for revision as we understand more. Again, try turning on your computer or typing your next reply if none of these can or ever will be ascertained. Your position is completely illogical and contradictory to the world around you.

            “I do bid you good luck in demonstrating your truth, but meantime declare myself a model-agnostic, as no model of the universe has yet satisfied all the dimensions of my observation and experience. Why regard this with contempt?”

            Did you listen to the episodes 49 – 51, and have you taken a specific course in logic so that you’re capable of understanding how these systems work before you discount them? A model agnostic, what does that look like, exactly, without being able to identify what a gnostic is, or have any knowledge outside you other than what you dream up on a whim?

            “As a self-reflecting human being, perhaps you are aware that the mocking tone in your voice,”

            I’m mocking you a bit now, but would you please show me where I did so previously?

            “so constant throughout the interview, is also intoned in the lecture of your post.”

            How, where? Would you please identify exactly how that’s so – substantiate this truth you claim, please.

            “I wonder when authorities are going to realize that no free-thinking individual is ever going to accept that “this is how it is” when it is pronounced with such supreme derision.”

            Clear, critical thinking is able to look at the evidence, gain knowledge of what’s there, remove the contradictions and discover, logically, “how this or that is” – but what you fail to realize is that the trivium, et al, don’t at all teach you “how it is” – they don’t teach you what to think, but rather now to think, logically, without contradictions. So it appears that you’re knowledge and understanding of these matters is off base. The trivium itself teaches one not to rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority in and of itself, so it negates the point of your argument.

            “To be clear, i am not arguing for solipsism, or the extreme subjectivity that follows from the Copenhagen interpretation. Nor am I the new age, bright-sided philosopher you insinuate in your words.”

            You’re not arguing for Kantian philosophy or solipsism? That’s very difficult to discern by your comments here. It seems your ideas are based firmly on Kant and solipsism, and that you’re arguing for contradictions and not being able to discern the world around you – as impossible to do – all the while you seem to be misunderstanding many of the key issues – and jumping to conclusions elsewhere.

            “It’s a commonly held truism, perhaps something you also find laughable, but I think it holds true: the one thing we can ascertain in the world is impermanence, which is to say that our universe is ever changing, ever evolving – and it will continue to unfold in events of emergent property that simply astonish scientists.”

            Who was it that argued these things, Heracles? It’s a good thing that Aristotle came along and refuted him, allowing us to move forward in science and history. Because the view that all was only change and we could know nothing, brought the ancient world temporarily to a halt – some philosophers refusing to ever speak again, for instance. Now we’re able to categorize the type of change: volume, age, locomotion, etc. This is why it’s important to identify the type of change specifically, rather than just seeing all as “change” – and never being able to understand anything.

            “Events which will always defy 1+1=2 logic. Say 1+1=3: this is no ordinary Aristotelian logic.”

            The problem with this argument, however, is that it’s not based in reality. It’s a non-argument, a straw man? Please give me one instance, EVER, where 1 + 1 = 3? It’s no ordinary Aristotelian logic because it’s simply not logic at all. You’re arguing the arbitrary and that is simply dismissed.

            “Indeed you can see the enigmatic Axiom of Maria in most forms of symbiosis. Truths that hold true only relative to order and scale of magnitude… None of what you said is over my head. You simply cannot conceive of Zero (the mathematical alternative to the Big Bang theory) without implying contradicting, complementary, or self-annihilating opposites. Without conceiving of both abstract and positive integers.”

            Why would I employ contradictions, etc. Even for you to argue the things you argue requires logic. But I think Maria’s axiom is properly explained under the quadrivium, the next level of the trivium. See episode #50. But even in symbiosis, this is covered and understood in the repeating, self-checking, self-correcting system of the trivium. To hold the concept of zero, even by allowing ourselves a model to compare it with – say 1, while we may use this model to understand zero, it doesn’t imply contradiction or self-annihilation in itself. It’s using a model, such as induction, to understand reality. If you have one of something and I take that one away, it doesn’t annihilate you. You’re then able to understand the concept of zero, or having nothing that you just had.

            “I was wondering whether David was familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein. He never mentioned him in the interview, which i did find to be interesting, by the way.”

            Why would you find that interesting? He discussed the 50 or so points that we wanted discussed after having read his books and listening to his lecture series. Other than asking him directly (as an interview is never meant to represent the whole of someone’s work – it’s just a method to introduce the work to people who may be interested – after which they can buy the books and lectures to gain deeper understanding of that particular body of work), I’d buy the books and lectures and find out – or send him an email. This is the process of the trivium, gaining proper knowledge of the items that are there and are discussed , without needing to find things interesting or whatever simply because you yourself didn’t put the interview together – or read the book or hear the lecture to gain your own systematic knowledge.

            “I had to wonder why he seemed so keen on throwing nonsensical eastern philosophies out the window, when in truth these traditions attest to an ageless wisdom with profound application in day to day existence. Wisdom that eludes words. And wisdom that certainly escapes your diatribe.”

            What is my diatribe, exactly? How much have you even studied my work? How many of my shows have you heard? Are you aware that I, just recently, interviewed a Buddhist Lama? What specific philosophies was David throwing out? Why, even with a disclosure at the beginning of every show, would you jump to the conclusion that what David believes is automatically what I believe? Did you just make that up and accept it as fact based on solipsism? And is every aspect of eastern philosophy valid, or is there invalid dogma even there? If they were nonsensical, as you claim, then why would throwing them out be bad? Which aspects of these traditions attest to an ageless wisdom with profound application? Which ones don’t? Does, for instance, the (appeal to) tradition of the Hindu cast system attest to their ageless wisdom? In what way? How could you express and explain this without logic? Without making up things as you go along – as you’ve done here?

            “You can tell by how irate both yourself and Dr. Harriman come across in the interview that you’re still occupying a fairly differentiated mindset, prone to conflict, which precludes peace of mind. And I suppose you will never have your peace until everyone believes in the one true objective reality that you are arguing for?”

            Please point out where I was irate. I don’t recall being irate at all. Rather, I’d say that your emotional reaction to our interview was irate – so that would mean your projecting your beliefs onto us, rather than gaining knowledge via a systematic method.

            But yet, here you are, claiming I’m prone to conflict, when you’re here stirring conflict. Do you see the irony, the hypocrisy? Where have I ever, anyplace on my show, books, et al, argued for “the one true objective reality”? Again, you’re not even familiar with what I say, with my show, with the fact that I’ve had leading academic experts from all over the world on my show discussing at length the very things you think I ignore. But your hypocrisy is beyond ironic. Again, do you see the importance now of having a systematic method to acquire knowledge, so that you don’t maintain such false ideas in your head?

            “Philosophy as therapy, as suggested by Wittgenstein, helps us from becoming “bewitched by our own words…” a common phenomenon when folk arrive at premature certainty, mistaking the menu for the meal, the map for the territory.”

            Had you listened to episodes 49 – 51, you’d have known that these are the very things discussed, not to mention when used properly as a system, this is an inherent property of the trivium method. In fact, we discussed specifically mistaking the map for the territory. I tried to share that with you before you replied, but apparently you chose to kill the messenger rather than to understand the message and avoid looking foolish.

            “This is existentially sound philosophy, which doesn’t seek to enforce an authoritative view on the world, but rather to cultivate virtue and truth in one’s life, for the better of the world. This is the only philosophy that seems to me to be worthwhile.”

            As is the trivium. Which you clearly didn’t bother to study before making your reply. Had you studied the trivium before your reply, you’d have seen that it’s exactly this. And you’ve clearly become bewitched by your own words, so it doesn’t appear to be working for you. But unfortunately your system doesn’t provide you with a method for fact checking yourself and not coming up with arbitrary ideas based on your own whimsical thoughts – as I’ve now pointed out several times.

            “In conclusion, i do agree Reason is an essential faculty when it comes to integrating consciousness. I do however think that reason can easily become overbearing and lopsided, and the clearest sign of this is when “irrationality” is regarded with such extreme derision. This is an attitude which can only exasperate the poverty of cognition you claim to ameliorate with the Trivium.”

            Based on your use of fallacies, jumping to conclusions, claiming things we’ve never said, attacking things you’ve not studied, et al, I can understand and see your distaste for reason and logic, and your need to stand up for and protect the irrational, unconscious, and illogical – claiming that not accepting (your) irrationality is somehow a poverty of cognition. That I’m perfectly willing to accept. By the way, reason, rational, is no longer reason and rationality when it becomes lopsided – that’s irrationality – by very definition. Something for you to consider.

            And please provide me an (obviously irrational, reasonless) argument as to how dismissing irrationality would exasperate the poverty of cognition. Isn’t cognition in itself rational and reasonable by very definition? Where does irrationality and unreasoning fall into cognition? How, in what way?

  11. Simon
    May 26, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    You’re getting yourself into a pickle, reacting fallaciously to my words, while at once accusing me of emotional reaction. For your information, I am not irate but rather most amused by this discussion. I could point to several instances where you mistook what i was saying, using the almighty word to label me as incoherent and irrational, in effect only arguing against yourself. Championing scientific bigotry: using the Trivium as a banner while all the while proclaiming “Tertium non datur!” Where is the verb between the subject and predicate in this? In your derision, accusing me of some form of intellectual terrorism, you are really only bewitching yourself of the notion that I “am” any of the labels and words you’ve called me thus far. You see, life is a process that will always defy your absolutist logic. It is and then it isn’t, it flows and is in flux.

    Since Wittgenstein, no serious advocate of logic would teach it without acknowledging its limitations. Without recognition that any logical proposition can be reduced to tautology.
    If you are a proponent of understanding, you wouldn’t have found my use of the term “compassion” in a previous post to be “bright-sided and irrational,” for “tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner.” Those who arrive at understanding in life have no use for contemptuous words.

    Numerous times throughout the interview David scoffed at the parallels that have been drawn between eastern philosophy and the observations (not interpretations) of quantum mechanics. He scorned these ideas, rejected them outright without ever entering into any logical discussion about it. This doesn’t speak too well in favour of true skepticism, which will, as you say, attempt to understand things before dismissing them. You then colluded with his ignorance by failing to give “objective” presentation of many ideas in the show, bringing your personal prejudices into it with certain peanut gallery comments, spinning the ideas without allowing your audience to think for themselves. Many teachers of eastern philosophy are far more profound when they point beyond language, never presuming to directly bestow the student with the essential formula for “truth” when truth must always be realized through one’s own critical thinking, personal observation AND internal contemplation.

    I see the strong dialectical tendency in your school to point the finger, accusing this and that of being “irrational,” “fallacious,” “unreasonable”: saying, “here is the source of all evil in the world.” There is an attitude here that’s beyond reason, with a tendency toward internal corruption. Some of the grossest examples of hypocrisy and tyranny throughout history have resulted of some form of bigotry or other. Like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, where those who sever the tyrant’s head become a tyrant in his stead. Remember, I never dismissed absolute objective reality, if you recall my first post. Let me know when you have zeroed in on it with your method, see if it’s not the number 42. I won’t hold my breath.

    I’m afraid you still have a fairly elementary understanding of the concept of zero. If zero stands between the abstract number -1 and positive integer 1, how can it exist as a mathematical concept without accounting for both complementary values? The magic number 3 is also beyond logic, in that it suggest the transcendent function that is the basis for Trivium symbolism. Deep study of logic, rhetoric and grammar will always lead one beyond the confines of a purely true/false, illusory objective perspective of the world. Again with “tertium non datur” as your Aristotelian credo, you could never arrive at this mystery. 1+1=3 is the evil irrational biological equation that is the basis for life. It is the formula for sex, which, as biological process, operates under the threshold of consciousness.

    Cognition employs subconscious processes, by definition “irrational” in the sense that they are below the threshold of reasoning consciousness. Memory, for instance, and imagination are both “irrational” aspects of cognition. They precede reason, but also entreat reason, cumulatively fostering our intuition. What’s more, in attempting to nullify the validity of the “irrational,” you take for granted many of the biological processes that allow you to breathe, and to speak the words you speak. The subconscious is subject to reason, but not if dismissed as invalid or somehow inferior.

    I listened attentively to your interview and was in concordance with a lot of it, especially where it concerned the systematic methodology of education. I was only challenging the arrogance that attends scientific bigotry, an intellectual attitude which always lauds reason over other aspects of intelligence, including emotion, intuition, and the five senses. But obviously I haven’t studied any of these things, and I’m a hopelessly irrational dreamer. Dream on Jan.

    • Ashley Wildman
      August 15, 2012 at 8:39 am

      The way you write is overcomplicated and almost beyond comprehension. It sounds like your just trying to flex your intellectual and philosophical muscle but you end up sounding pompous. Kudos to Jan for his solid grammar, logic and rhetoric.

  12. g
    June 6, 2011 at 6:11 am

    Seemed to me, Harriman, another lamestream academic. Einstein was a complete fraud, Kepler ‘borrowed’so much research from Tycho Brahe. Why doesn’t Harriman at least touch on these points? How can you argue Physics has been corrupted when there has never been such a leap in scientific advancements in all of ‘mainstream’history? What is really incorrigible are these tired synopsis of the frauds who took all the credit. Kant does suck, and this I agree. I know i’m off topic here, I just found Harrimans Thought to be infected with establishment revisionist history of these philosophers, ‘philosophy’itself. Is he a Zionist? A great book on Einsteins massive plagiarism…http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/AEGRBook.htm. klmH
    Not to mention endless documents of Einstein talking gibberish, what a pys-op Einstein was, Kepler, Copernicus. Just like Fox news. Aristotle??? …has no disadvantage in academia by the way, LOL. Im taking Newton’s advice and not even bothering with Harryman.

  13. Bran
    July 17, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    I think you have raised very valid points and the key as in everything is discernment, separating the wheat from the chaff. Both of you guys have raised valid points and as a disinterested observer, in this phenomenon called existence. I can only point to two concepts and those are the predator’s mind in carlos castanedas works and process of ponerization as in Andrew Lobaczeski in political ponerology.

    We are already deeply already infected with the tendency to slip into fantasies and wishful thinking, rather than observing reality which is really truth and trying to understand it.

    These two books will give you the keys to unlocking the door to why exactly has science and virtually all else in our world gone down this path. It is by design. The design of the other, that which is truly foreign and alien to the nature of truth. For the when one knows or has discovered truth, they become more free than one who is in ignorance. So those who seek to control, enslave and dominate truly are ALIEN in the truest sense of the word because they seek to contradict reality. And as Ayn Rand said, you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

    Anyways, amazing site i am so glad i found it. Thanks for your effort in putting this together so far, and keep up the fabulous work you have going on here.

    • Jan Irvin
      July 18, 2011 at 8:44 am

      I wonder if you have heard my interview two weeks ago with Prof. Jay Fikes? Castaneda was a complete fraud and made up all his work: “We are already deeply already infected with the tendency to slip into fantasies and wishful thinking, rather than observing reality which is really truth and trying to understand it.”

      I’ll look into your other citation when I have a minute.

      • Bran
        July 18, 2011 at 11:59 am

        no i haven’t, but will do thanks for the homework.

  14. JB
    September 4, 2011 at 7:36 am

    I was led here from a podcast on another show. Harriman’s thoughts that science/physics needs to be built on observable facts seems absolutely logical. (I, myself, am on an absolute jihad against negative numbers!)
    My beef is that having been introduced to Ayn Rand’s philosophy over 20 years ago (which changed my thinking process, which changed my life), I excitedly followed the link to the .org website.
    It is clear that Peikoff, Harriman, and others in their movement have gone nowhere in the last 30 years in many matters. I searched for some writings of new energy paradigms, (specifically, since I believe this black tech is what is needed to get us out of this mess), and could only find the same worn out diatribes “solar not a realistic option,” “deforestation is good,” “zero sum thinking,” “drill, baby, drill.” (Does Dick Cheney get to op-ed on the site, too?) What the heck is going on here. It is no wonder that today Rand’s ideas are seen as being promoted by nutcase neocons, as it appears they are. What these people are doing to Rand’s work, in her name, is exactly what they say modern thinkers did to science. What a shame.
    Peikoff, get with the 21st century, dude. Philosophy should help us move forward, not stay stuck in the same arguments that do not reflect reality as we know it today. The regurgitated arguments these people put forth are a lazy (or maybe worse) attempt to distract from the actual philosophy AR was trying to get through to people. Confusing readers on trivia and not getting to the basic principles as they relate to new technology that is being kept from we, the people…paid for by, we, the people.
    Ayn Rand’s ideals have been hijacked IMHO. She is probably rolling over in her grave!!
    Anyone new to AR’s ideas need to go buy her books (realizing and taking into account the generation they were written) and stay far away from the supposed “intellectual heirs” stuck in the 1980s, putting forth nothing new nor relevant.
    Absolutely cointelpro, absolutely.

  15. Jan Irvin
    September 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Here are a few videos that support David Harriman and reveal that quantum physics and the big bang are gobbledegook.

    Universe: The Cosmology Quest:
    Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2827896363014586265
    Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1966820922322808100&emb=1&hl=en

    And also Thunderbolts of the Gods:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGGTrAKSJDo

    • Tim
      December 20, 2011 at 10:36 am

      Above videos are very good. Whole topic led me to want to learn more during my winter break from school which is a sign of a great thought provoker Jan! Will be purchasing your books for Christmas… HA!! What is the best way to purchase so you get the most dough?

  16. Akaeus
    December 5, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Very good interview. I suggest you take a look at David Wilcock’s book titled: The Source Field Investigations. Make of it what you will. Keep up the great works!

  17. Hog
    May 25, 2012 at 5:53 am

    it seems that both Harriman and Irvin have put their grammar before their logic … which is surprising as the logic is quite elementary – if the universe is finite and bounded and, as they claim, perfectly linear and mechanistic through and through in its causal processes, then this only begs the question: from whence did it come? and how did it arise? … This leaves them with only two options, both of which are fundamentally acausal, nonlinear propositions which defy any and all logic : infinite regress or unmoved mover(Aristotle went with unmoved mover and the electric universe theory goes with infinite regress)

    QM and Relativity need not even enter into it – the existence of the universe in itself defies all logic and causality is in essence an a priori assumption which crumbles to dust in the course of this very elementary line of reasoning. Given that this is indeed the indisputable, irrefutable case, it seems that QM and relativity are quite plausible and that this inane ‘objectivist’ crap is the real “gobbledygook” … rather ill conceived and illogical “gobbledygook” at that.

    “It’s almost as if science said, ‘Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.’”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS1cyNRUGEc

    • Jan Irvin
      May 25, 2012 at 11:01 am

      I suggest, before accusing us of what you have clearly done, is that you should AT LEAST listen to his full lecture series before you leap to further conclusions. I’m glad you at least seem to have taken the time to hear the interview, but as is always stated, the interview is NOT a substitute for the book, much less his lecture series. If you’re going to attack things, rather than setting up a straw man which you so over simplisticly then debunk, go line by line through his book and lecture series and debunk it – point by point. The onus of proof is now on you. You’ve made the claims. Use the trivium and debunk his work properly…

      Also, have you looked at all into Plasma Physics? Also debunks quantum mechanics.. try doing your grammer before you accuse others of the same.

  18. Hog
    May 31, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Jan wrote: “If you’re going to attack things, rather than setting up a straw man which you so over simplisticly then debunk”

    kinda like what Harriman did to Kant? …. anyway, objectivism debunks itself(talk about “overly simplistic”)

    Jan wrote: “Also, have you looked at all into Plasma Physics? Also debunks quantum mechanics..”

    Yes. Plasma Cosmology is interesting, but both PC and QM are beside the point. The irrefutable and indisputable point is, that at some point in time and at some level of scale, causality inevitably, irrevocably breaks down…
    .
    .

    • Jan Irvin
      June 1, 2012 at 8:52 am

      Hi “Hog” – I assume you’ve read the book and listened to the full lecture series this interview was based on before saying he’s using a straw man.

      In what way does objectivism debunk itself? This sounds like it’s coming from someone who’s never studied anything about it. Maybe he heard about Ayn Rand and never actually read any of her work critically. In what way, Hog, since the onus of proof is ENTIRELY on YOU, does objectivism debunk itself? Someone who’s critically minded and aware of logic and fallacies would never make such unsupported statements, and furthermore wouldn’t attack the work without reading the book and listening to the lecture series this interview is about – as that would be argumentum ad ignorantium – and, well – just plain dishonest… So back your claims – Hog.

  19. Hog
    June 1, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    “This sounds like it’s coming from someone who’s never studied anything about it. Maybe he heard about Ayn Rand and never actually read any of her work critically.”

    unfortunately you are incorrect … I’ve waded through a couple of those quixotic absurdities, not least of which was that most well known 8 lb utopian boner … I’m very well versed in that fanatical ideologue’s bunk-o polemics

    I’m also very familiar with Peikoff’s spiel(less so with his flunky disciple Harriman)

    Kant has been maligned and butchered by these half wit “objectivists” …. every thing I’ve heard Harriman say about Kant’s philosophy is a gross distortion

    • Jan Irvin
      June 2, 2012 at 1:51 am

      So you’re saying that Ayn Rand had nothing of value in her work? That even her disections of Skinner were incorrect, and that there’s nothing of value there what so ever? And yet you can’t quote any instances were he’s committed a gross distortion, violating the onus of proof which rests on you, and rather you must resort to ad hominem attacks to substantiate your claims, such as “flunky” and “half wit”? Wow…

      Is that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

      Exactly what of Peikoff are you familiar with?

      People capable of thinking critically don’t use fallacies (lies) to substantiate their claims. You act as if these people provided nothing of value, and you entirely miss the fact that we’ve spent extensive hours on this and the Peace Revolution podcast, showing exactly how their philosophy is flawed, but how one can go through it and gain a lot of valuable knowledge – not these sweeping, unsupported, ad hominem attacks of yours. Had you studied Peikoff, you’d have known that he teaches an entire logic course on fallacies – showing people how not to commit them (even though he often put his logic before his grammar, as you) – but had you studied his material, you’d have seen the obvious value in not using fallacies or lies in your own thinking and you’d not have committed them here.

      So, Hog, back up your statements, point by point, with quotes and no sweeping, fallacious, unfounded generalizations that you use just to make you look smart – because they don’t help you a bit.

      Maybe you missed the trivium information at the very beginning of the trivium study group? I suggest you go back and start from the beginning, and learn not to commit the very same poor logic you accuse of others.

  20. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 1:07 am

    Hog – objectivism debunks itself

    Jan Irvin – In what way does objectivism debunk itself?

    one very simple instance:

    “A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to it’s identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of it’s identity.” – Leonard Peikoff

    “All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe, from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life, are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved” – Ayn Rand

    “Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will—only to those actions which are open to his choice.” – Ayn Rand

    Volition, or free will, is a self-evident fact – Leonard Peikoff

    “Every entity has a nature; … it has certain attributes and no others. Such an entity must act in accordance with its nature. The only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of those are impossible. … In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature.” (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 14.) – Leonard Peikoff

    do you see the inherent contradictions?

    • Jan Irvin
      June 3, 2012 at 10:22 am

      Hog, maybe you misunderstood me. I said that you need to go through their work point by point and disprove ALL OF IT. Finding a few contradictory quotes does nothing but disprove those specific points. So how do these quotes disprove ALL of objectivism, and how do they invalidate EVERYTHING that Rand and Peikoff wrote? They don’t. You see, that’s the problem with your fallacious logic, not having studied Peikoff yourself, you fall into the traps of contradictions yourself that you accuse of them.

      So without resorting to fallaces, sweeping generalizations, poisoning the well, et al, how do these quotes destroy everything they wrote? Obviously you’ve not read much of what they wrote.

      But furthermore, you’ve tried to use these Rand and Peikoff quotes to dismiss everything Harriman says. This is nonsense in itself. It’s the fallacy of guilt by association. You’ve not provided a single point in Harriman’s work that you said he took out of context, so by providing the quotes to Rand and Peikoff, you’ve also committed a red herring fallacy. If you’re incapable of avoiding the contradictions and fallacies that you accuse of others, then I would say you’re no more capable of critical thinking than those you attack, and therefore, by your own logic, everything you say must be dismissed.

      I leave you and your fallacies to Jesus. Good luck with this type of “thinking”.

    • Reason
      August 14, 2012 at 10:54 pm

      There is no contradiction in the quotes posted by hog. The nature of human entities is one which possesses volition.Causality does not state what an entity can do only that it must act in accordance to its nature.

      Jan I’m curious how you discovered Harriman and if you read Rand before doing so?

      • Jan Irvin
        August 15, 2012 at 7:39 am

        How do you figure there’s no contradiction? Obviosly Hog has not read Harriman’s work, has not listened to his lecture series, and has set up an argumentum ad ignorantium and a straw man argument. You can’t know what harriman’s argument is if you dont’ study all of it. If Hog would just provide exact quotes of where Harriman has done this, then we might have a logical point to invistigate the matter. But no citations and argumentum ad ignorantum we’ve just got to toss out.

        How I discovered Harriman is completely irrelevant, but if you studied the rest of the trivium material before studying this, as this is near the end of the trivium study section, you may gain a bit more out of this and what it’s here for, not to mention studying the actual lecture series and book that we were discussing.

        But if I could be given quotes of these straw man arguments of Harriman’s and the like, such as the exact minute in his lecture, his interview series and his book, and taken in context with the others, then we could approach if in fact there is a straw man. But reading someone’s arguments who clearly hasn’t studied the material is just a waste of time, and clearly isn’t any form of logic.

        • Reason
          August 15, 2012 at 9:09 am

          Jan, you have misunderstood my post. Hog has posted various Oist quotes and claims they are contradictions. I am saying there is no contradiction in those quotes. I am an Oist and an advocate of Harriman as I peonally introduced his work to the Thunderbolts/EU community years ago.

          • Jan Irvin
            August 15, 2012 at 9:48 am

            Hog has committed the fallacy of guilt by association, not to mention throwing the baby out with the bath water, because a couple quotes don’t debunk everything they ever did, nor do those quotes reflect on what Harriman has written. Since Hog has not studied the work, everything he says is based on argumentum ad ingorantium, and arguing the arbitrary as well.

            I’m just trying to get some quotes from HARRIMAN and not everyone else under the sun in some retarted straw man argument of shit that Harriman himself never said.

            This is a thread about David Harriman’s work. Would it be possible to STAY ON TOPIC and FOCUS on HIS work?

            I don’t need anymore guilt by association fallacies or other bullshit. Anyone who’s studied Piekoff’s logic course, or any other for that matter, wouldn’t sit here committing fallacy after fallacy to argue against material he’s clearly never studied ITSELF. Do I make myself clear yet? Or do I have to go around and around about what argumentum ad ingorantum and the like IS?

            Everyone has contradictions now and then, the issue is recognizing them and removing them. We don’t use any quote one or contradiction in one place to then, in one broad brushed sweeping generalization fallacy to then state:

            “Hog – objectivism debunks itself”

            Which specific points, in what ways? Kant, for instance, and the irrationalists, not to mention the quantum physicists, certainly debunk themselves with their “as many contradictions in one space at one time as possible” philosophy.

            But providing 2 or 3 quotes doesn’t debunk an entire field of anything and no rational human being one ever argue otherwise.

          • Reason
            August 15, 2012 at 8:50 pm

            Jan, I can’t tell by your response if you realize I was agreeing with you.

    • Gregory Yudenko
      June 21, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      Objectivism doesn’t debunk itself, it’s your flawed understanding/ability to understand what you quoted does. Saying that “A thing cannot act against its nature” doesn’t negate the validity of free will the way Ayn Rand explained, it negates your ability to break the laws of nature. There is a very wide range of the ways you can act according to your nature and things you can not do because of the nature of what is as such, including you.
      do you see the inherent contradictions?
      I see classic foolishness.

  21. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 7:12 am

    Also, if you take Objectivist metaphyics all the way to its logical conclusions, you will find that it is no more or less absurd than Quantum Theory or Creationism or Spaghetti Monster or david harriman’s hero’s(alchemist and astrologer Isaac Newton) theory of absolute space an absolute time…

    “Every ideology, in order to be operative, shouldn’t go to the end, it has to leave it’s true implications a little bit in shadow” – Slavoj Zizek

    • Jan Irvin
      June 3, 2012 at 10:30 am

      So because you found a catchy quote that you believe, that means nothing as to research, and claims that it needs to leave things in the shadows – ie left to be understood – or can’t find truth – you buy this and use it as a reason to dismiss them?

      I asked you to go point by point through their research… You must prove how any error substantiates your claims that everything they wrote is incorrect. .. an impossible feat as it would be a lie in the first place.

      Again, I see that you’ve still not gone back and started from the beginning of the trivium study section. I recommend you do so, so as to avoid getting hammered on for your poor use of logic.

  22. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    your full of shit

    • Jan Irvin
      June 3, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      Wow, that’s a fantastic, logical, cogent argument. Amazing!

      • Ashley Wildman
        August 15, 2012 at 9:03 am

        hahahahahahahahahahaha

  23. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Jan – I said that you need to go through their work point by point and disprove ALL OF IT.

    because that’s a perfectly reasonable demand 😀

    Jan – Finding a few contradictory quotes does nothing but disprove those specific points. So how do these quotes disprove ALL of objectivism

    actually, those contradictions are devastating to the objectivist system of thought

    I understand that you are heavily invested in this stuff and so very reluctant to see it for the bolshpoct that it is

    • Jan Irvin
      June 3, 2012 at 5:51 pm

      Obviously I said at the beginning that we show how their much of their work is flawed, but if you understand something in particular, you can gain much else from it.

      Exactly how do these quotes disprove everything they ever wrote, as you claim? My request was specific. Let’s not use another red herring.

      If they’re so devastating, support your claims. You’re the one making them.

      Clearly you don’t even understand logical fallacies as you continue to commit them. Every post you’ve made here shows that you’re incapable of thinking without them – the very things you accuse Rand and Peikoff of. I asked you to support your claims, EXACTLY WITH QUOTES of how Harriman used straw man arguments against Kant. You’ve provided NO evidence. You’re committing argumentum ad ignorantum. The onus of proof is on you to substantiate your claims, which you repeatedly fail to do, and your fallacies, name calling, unsupported accusations, guilt by associations and all of your other fallacies, or lies, don’t support your arguments. I’m waiting for you to prove that disproving one quote disproves all of it. I’m waiting for you to go through and use the trivium, and begin to use logic to support your arguments. But you repeatedly fail to do so. How, exactly do your above quotes disprove all of Harriman’s interview with me, his book, and his lecture series? Back up your statements, point by point, with quotes, or stop lying on my forum. If you’re incapable of substantiating ALL of your claims without fallacies, or lies, then admit you’re intellectually bankrupt and leave it.

  24. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    Jan – I asked you to support your claims, EXACTLY WITH QUOTES of how Harriman used straw man arguments against Kant.

    Do you take your understanding of Kant from Harriman, or have you arrived at the same view firsthand? … have you made a thorough study of Kant’s philosophy?

    Harriman claims that Kant posits that there is no “objective reality” … Kant does no such thing, Kant merely asserts that objective reality can only be experienced subjectively and can only be known to the limited extent of the degree to which perception corresponds to actual reality …

    “though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.” – Kant

  25. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    “Now, let me engage in a flight of fancy. Imagine a debate under this rule taking place between Ayn Rand and Immanuel Kant. Ayn Rand would start out as follows:

    Man is blind, because he has eyes – deaf, because he has ears – deluded, because he has a mind – and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them. Is this a fair summary of your philosophy, professor Kant?

    What would professor Kant answer? “Oh, yes, that is indeed the essence of my philosophy. Thank you, Miss Rand, for summarizing it so succinctly.”?

    Or would he answer: “Oh, no, that is a total distortion of my philosophy. Before you come here to debate me, you should read my Critique of Pure Reason carefully. Or if this book is too heavy, you should at least read my Prolegomena. I know it is a common misconception that I should have claimed that the world of phenomena is a mere delusion; but this is precisely the misconception I answer in Prolegomena. As for the argument that I should deny the evidence of our senses, I refer you to my book Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View: in this book I maintain explicitly that our senses neither betray us nor confuse us. Of course, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the English translations. But I have heard that you can read German, so you may consult the originals.”

    Maybe I should turn the table and let Kant summarize Ayn Rand’s philosophy – but I haven’t figured this out. All I can say off-hand is that he would probably brand her as “the most evil woman in womankind’s history” – because she elevates to a virtue what Kant regarded as the “radical evil” in man: egoism or self-love as the base of ethics.”
    http://perolofsamuelsson1.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/rand-debating-kant/

    • Jan Irvin
      June 3, 2012 at 9:45 pm

      Nice straw man. Let’s see if you can follow instructions. The onus of proof is on you to QUOTE David Harriman, and substantiate your claims that he took any quote out of context and used a red herring on Kant. Do you understand this simple task put before you, repeated several times now? Or are you going to persist in using fallacies to substantiate your lies? You need to go through David Harriman’s work, not Rand’s nor anyone else’s, and you need QUOTES FROM HARRIMAN’S work that substantiates your claims. Do you understand this simple task of logic put before you? or are you going to insist on changing the entire conversation, quoting someone ELSE to debunk Harriman? You’re not THAT stupid, are you?

      Again, Harriman wrote and entire book and gave an entire college course on this, and you’ve yet to quote one instance to substantiate your lies that he took things out of context. It’s a simple matter of reading his book, listening to his lecture series, and hearing his interview here. Do you understand this simple task?

      I don’t think you even listened to this interview, much less read his book or heard his lecture as required of you via logic to substantiate your claims. You’re all over the place like a kid with ADHD. Do you think you’re capable of focusing on the task at hand?

      You even quoted me above, and then you took quotes from Kant, as if they were quotes from Harriman as required by you! Listen up, Hog, your tricks don’t work around here. Your lies that you pulled on others on other forums, it doesn’t work here. I see your tricks. Show me how Kant’s work is taken out of context by Harriman, whom you’ve not even studied!

      Again, Hog, go through David Harriman’s work and substantiate your claims, point by point – each and every case – with quotes – or be banned for stupidity.

      And you’ve entirely failed at showing how your quotes dismiss Rand, Peikoff et al… again, I said you need to prove how these quotes disprove ALL of their work. Are you too dumb to know what poisoning the well is? Surely you’ve studied the logical fallacies since you’ve studied all of Peikoff’s work and surely then you’re educated and intelligent enough to stop with all of these lies of yours? No? Fallacy comes from Latin – fallare – to lie. Each time you use your tricks, your fallacies, you’re lying.

      The real fact of the matter is that you’ve never studied any of this material and you’re using straw mans to debunk Rand, Peikoff and Harriman. You have to use a false presentation of their arguments, straw mans and snappy quotes, because you don’t seem cogent enough to study the actual material and get real quotes that keep things in context – as you don’t seem smart enough to see that even if someone has one error in their life, it doesn’t make everything they do wrong – else your life, Hog, would be a completely worthless piece of shit by the examples you’ve put forth here.

      So let’s see if you’re capable of following instructions. .. No sweeping generalizations… no ad hominem attacks, no straw mans, no fallacies – period. You need to prove that those quotes you provided above disprove ALL of Peikoff, Rand, and Harriman – and you need to show how, point by point, that your claim is true. You need to show how you’ve not falsely misrepresented each of their works – since you’ve provided no quotes or citations, we can’t tell if you’re lying – since you’ve obviously not studied it in the first place – much less the trivium, recommended to you multiple times now. You need to focus on the task at hand here. I’m tired of repeating myself like you’re def, dumb and blind.

      This idiocy of yours is really trying my patients. Either run with the big dogs or get the fuck back on the porch.

  26. Hog
    June 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Jan – or be banned for stupidity

    there is definitely at least one stupid ass here and it sure ain’t me

    • Jan Irvin
      June 4, 2012 at 12:46 am

      Hi Hog, I’d appreciate you not misquote me. The entire quote said specifically:

      “Again, Hog, go through David Harriman’s work and substantiate your claims, point by point – each and every case – with quotes – or be banned for stupidity.”

      Again, Hog, as I said:

      “So let’s see if you’re capable of following instructions. .. No sweeping generalizations… no ad hominem attacks, no straw mans, no fallacies – period.”

      Your reply:

      “there is definitely at least one stupid ass here and it sure ain’t me”

      The definition of an ad hominem attack:

      “Description of Ad Hominem

      Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

      An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim [“ass”], her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

      Person A makes claim X.
      Person B makes an attack on person A.
      Therefore A’s claim is false.

      The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).”

      Calling people names, Hog, like you’re in second grade, doesn’t change the fact that you’ve constantly used fallacies and have utterly failed to substantiate a single claim you’ve made.

      Why is it that you need to infer that I’m an ass rather than just substantiate your claims with quotes so that you don’t look foolish, stupid, and you’re not banned? Wouldn’t it be easier to just substantiate them, rather than name call like you’re a child?

      I didn’t call you stupid, I said prove your arguments OR be banned for stupidity. Need I remind you that you started this conversation by calling my guest a flunky, half wit, etc… but yet, he provided hours of citations, evidence – the onus of proof – all of which you chose to ignore – IGNORANCE – rather than get those quotes that back your statements up. Everything you need is RIGHT THERE – published for you. You said that he took everything that Kant said out of context and presented Kant as a straw man. You said those quotes disprove everything that Rand and Peikoff and Harriman ever did. Where’s your proof, Hog? If you can’t back your lies, you are the ass.

      Notice the word IF… That makes it YOUR choice.

      It’s real simple. You listen to the audio, read the book, listen to the lecture series, and post up your quotes, your arguments, and debunk him. Simple as that. You can’t just sit here and and make up bullshit and switch the argument and name call at everyone who calls you out for being intellectually bankrupt and full of shit for the simple fact that you’ve provided NOTHING to back your claims.

      Someone who’s honest with himself and actually seeks truth would go out and do their home work and find out exactly who says what, what’s of value, what’s not. They’d toss what isn’t of value without throwing the baby out with the bath water. They keep what’s of value as an improvement to themselves and they’re able to learn without prejudice – without killing the messenger. This is standard stuff right out of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. It appears you didn’t read that one either.

    • Ashley Wildman
      August 15, 2012 at 9:24 am

      Hog, Jan gave you so many chances yet you didn’t substantiate your claims and just kept resorting to ad homonym attacks and logical fallacies, resulting in a flawed argument on your behalf.

  27. valiantx
    July 13, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    I have the solution to what Harriman stated @ 1:07:05 regarding a new explanation to causality.

    Switch the phrase ’cause and effect’ to ‘effect and cause’ and that’s it. Reality and its processes are inherent and axiomatic, but the human body is an extension growth, not creation which infers putting parts together to make it work, of nature and is finite. Reality was here before humans ever ‘existed,’ and is composed of individual entities that summarizes in collaboration into a whole system, which we observantly call the universe and is infinite. Thus it is not ‘causing,’ since it is what is, but in fact is always effecting or changing everything and anything that growths from its system i.e. humans. So if reality is always effecting a human, then this gives rise to the reason why humans ‘causate’ in reciprocation to create an ‘effect’ back towards nature i.e. since one does not control nature, but can influence it as Wilheim Reich had shown with his orgone energy, then when the cold outside effects an individual’s senses and thus it bodily core temperature, he\she causate its own effect to work with or against nature by using his\her mind to observe, grammarize, logicize, and act in accordance to maintain heat to survive by adapting its biology or using technology. Another example would be the phenomenon of light, which Deeprak Chopra stated himself that it comes in and out of the universe, and how it effects who we are as a whole from birth to death. Humans use the effects of light to exist and cause it to effect its thinking, its observations, its differentiation of entities, and to reflect how its effect causes one to understand its relationship with everything else in reality.

    Lastly Martin Heidegger had stated philosophers since Plato to now, and I shall include scientists and theologians with this contradiction too, that their search for the essence in nature is spawned from what he labeled their mysteria or the shadow which the ego creates over the unconscious mind. I would like take Heidegger’s stance here and infer it to the false logic that causality comes first before effect, which Harriman stated comes officially from Aristotle who was a student of Plato, and how the mysteria created this false logical schism that is contradictory to the natural order of things which is that effect comes first before cause. To simplify what I’m inferring here, walk outside or just stay in your seat and observe without prejudice from reasoning, how reality effects you constantly and infinitesimally without you ‘causing’ nothing, with the exception of your existence to be of course because that an effect from nature per se, and see how it is not cause that determines the effect of life, but the effect of life that determines one to cause a change. I believe adamantly that if people simply do this switch of logic, which in fact I’ve just epiphanize and summarized after years of re-learning and hearing this very talk that you Jan and Harriiman were discussing about the problem of causality, will prove to be a stepping stone of understanding to allow humans to the reevaluate what they have observed and hypothesize about reality – to see and understand it for what it really is and should be relative to the human mind and body.

    I am serious about my hypothesis here. Please do respond if you have anything antithetical or that my opposite idea of ’cause and effect’ is wrong. Only a wise human cares to reflect on his\her own ignorance, for it encourages one to continue their arduous discovery of knowledge.

  28. Hog
    September 20, 2012 at 1:03 am

    There is great irony in David Harriman’s criticism of the rationalist dogma, Harriman proves himself to be a dogmatic rationalist through and through by his rejection of the overwhelming empirical evidence for the irreducible randomness found at the quantum level of reality, preferring instead to dogmatically insist that this irreducible randomness is impossible on the grounds that it isn’t rationally comprehensible. What else is the “Inductive Leap” if it isn’t pure dogmatic rationalism?

    David Bentley Hart, writing in First Things, skewers Objectivism:

    And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? It isn’t so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about what is “rational” or “objective” or “real.” Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with an “-ism.” Rand was so eerily ignorant of all the interesting problems of ontology, epistemology, or logic that she believed she could construct an irrefutable system around a collection of simple maxims like “existence is identity” and “consciousness is identification,” all gathered from the damp fenlands between vacuous tautology and catastrophic category error. She was simply unaware that there were any genuine philosophical problems that could not be summarily solved by flatly proclaiming that this is objectivity, this is rational, this is scientific, in the peremptory tones of an Obersturmführer drilling his commandoes.

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/87328/ayn-rands-pseudo-philosophy#

  29. Hog
    September 20, 2012 at 1:54 am

    Reason on August 14, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    “There is no contradiction in the quotes posted by hog. The nature of human entities is one which possesses volition.Causality does not state what an entity can do only that it must act in accordance to its nature.”

    But that is not what Rand, Peikoff, or Harriman claim, they claim that there is only one possible action for any entity under any given set of circumstances, furthermore, ‘chance’ or irreducibly random behavior is explicitly stated to be impossible.

    “The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so.” – Leonard Peikoff, “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”
    Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 108–109

    Objectivism makes a huge blunder in anchoring causality to identity. This was pointed out to Rand by none other than Nathaniel Branden, he refuted this Objectivist axiom by simply pointing out that unpredictable, irreducible randomness could be within an entity’s nature, thus allowing it more than one possible action in response to identical causes. This destroys the Objectivist axioms of identity: (1) “Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so” (2) “there are no facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise”

    I recommend you go back to your grammar, and then, for reason’s sake, revisit your logic as well.

  30. Abu
    November 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Jan, I really enjoyed this interview!

    I listened to all of your interviews on the Trivium and Quadrivium, and they were very enlightening. I don’t question the importance of critical thinking and non-contradictory understanding. However, I’m conflicted on the issue order of the Trivium which you present. I’ve seen many different arrangements for the three subjects. Is there any hard evidence showing that the order you present us (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) was the order used in the medieval times? Thanks, and I appreciate all of the effort you dedicate to empowering us!

    • Jan Irvin
      November 7, 2012 at 11:10 pm

      It’s almost always been taught out of order, such as logic, grammar, rhetoric. To LEARN the trivium, it helps to have a background in logic first, but to APPLY the trivium it’s always grammar first. Grammar is who what where and when, or more simply INPUT, or data gathering. Logic is why, or PROCESSING. Therefore you must always gather data before you processes it.

      As you read through all of the suggested study materials, this will become more clear.

      Teaching the trivium out of order is a simple way to control people – for instance – by putting logic first in application, the person is always to come to false conclusions or must appeal to authority simply because they do not check all of the facts they are dealing with before they attempt decision.

      The sophists have long developed elaborate arguments to fool people into putting logic first, as it behooves them and their personal agendas, but by making these issues clear, the neophyte may easily avoid such pitfalls.

      • Abu
        November 8, 2012 at 10:46 am

        I see how it all makes sense, I really do. I just don’t know if I should fully buy into it or not. I think the appropriate question to ask is, when do we know when to apply it? Does it do away with intuition? It seems like there should be a balance of some sort, using both intuition and the trivium method, because to use soley one or the other is inefficient. What do you think Jan? When do we apply the trivum, and when do we apply intuition/emotional instinct?

        • Jan Irvin
          November 8, 2012 at 10:57 am

          That’s just it. The trivium is all about learning to trust your own judgement and 5 senses to derive certainty.

          You don’t have certainty because you’re caught in the old paradigm. I get it, as I was there a few years ago.

          The trivium doesn’t tell you want to think, but teaches you HOW to think.

          The trivium is applicable to all areas of life, pretty much any situation at any time.

          Intuition is the very first step in applying the trivium. Unfortunately, most people think intuition is the end all be all, as they’re caught in this Kantian thinking that Harriman explains.

          It’s effectively: 5 senses > Intuition > grammar > Logic > rhetoric.

          The 5 senses trigger the intuition “huh? What’s that? Where did it come from, who, when?”

          It’s just the STARTING point, not the end point. New Agers and quantum physics people typically put it as the end all be all without the data gathering processes, much less removing the contradictions – logic = the art of non-contradictory identification.

          As you progress through each of the talks here, and I hope skipping none, you’ll see that this is also explained in #51.

          You apply the trivium all the time. It takes about 2 years for it to integrate with regular thinking on an automatic basis.

          You’re not removing emotion, you’re learning how to control your emotion, rather than it controlling you.

          For instance, many people react with emotion regarding some belief they have when new information comes in that challenges their beliefs which cause the knee jerk emotional reaction. With the trivium, you’re able to put your emotions aside and look at the information, putting truth and certainty before emotional appeals – as you’ll filter those out during the logic process. It doesn’t mean you don’t love you’re family, or can’t hate some idiot, or what have you, it just means that you learn not to be controlled by those things, and learn to put grammar, or information and facts before emotion and preconceived ideas.

          This way you’re always able to grow and analyze new information, while maintaining a systematic understanding of how you derived any conclusion and you’re able to go back and review, unattached, should new data come in that challenges present conclusions. This way you have a systematic inventory of everything in your mind and you then learn not to hold on to things that you haven’t done the grammar and logic on.

          • Abu
            November 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm

            Thanks for the response.

            I totally agree with you on the controlling of our emotions, especially since I’m hiding my distrust in the dogmatic principles upon which I was raised, as I know my “peers” and close family members would lash out at such a threat to their conditioned and subjective understanding of reality, which would demand a drastic restructuring of their thought processes lacking the ad verecundiam and appeal to emotion they relied upon for so many years. In short – it would be a pain in the ass to think about, especially with their appeal to consequences of a belief.

            What I really meant by ‘intuition’ was the instinctive understanding of something. For instance, if one can come to a rational conclusion to commit suicide, should one do so? Or should one rely on one’s human survival instincts to intuitively, without rational thought processes, understand and justify one’s existence? Scenarios such as those puzzle me. What do you think about it?

          • Abu
            November 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm

            I totally agree with you on the controlling of our emotions, especially since I’m hiding my distrust in the dogmatic principles upon which I was raised, as I know my “peers” and close family members would lash out at such a threat to their conditioned and subjective understanding of reality, which would demand a drastic restructuring of their thought processes lacking the ad verecundiam and appeal to emotion they relied upon for so many years. In short – it would be a pain in the ass to think about, especially with their appeal to consequences of a belief.

            What I really meant by ‘intuition’ was the instinctive understanding of something. For instance, if one can come to a rational conclusion to commit suicide, should one do so? Or should one rely on one’s human survival instincts to intuitively, without rational thought processes, understand and justify one’s existence? Scenarios such as those puzzle me. What do you think about it?

  31. oats tao
    June 12, 2013 at 1:40 am

    Have yet to listen to part 2 but this series is right up my alley with the way I view the world and why I’m such a sceptic of neu science and it’s approach to presenting theory after theory that is obviously based on wild imagination. Sad to be brought up in an age that has thrown away the fantastical paperback called Science Fiction to superimpose things like Quantum Theory as something that is tangible and part of our reality. At least imagination was championed but also spelled out as fiction but now certain organizations and persons simply cash in on duping people en masse without that line of clarity. They have taken the fun out of presenting wild ideas and just made it seem like something that most people just can’t quite grasp because they are not ‘special’ enough. So shameful.

Leave a Reply