How to think, learn and behave - The Ancient Trivium

[Brian Blackwell]

The following is a basic primer on the ancient Trivium method of education. It forms the basis for how to think critically and apply sound knowledge in practice. It is comprised of three subjects, each representing a step in this all-important process:

KNOWLEDGE: Also known as "grammar", this step is raw data collection; the input stage. Success in this area is what we call "having on open mind". Contrary to common misconception, an open mind does not mean accepting all opinions as equally valid. It merely means that all information is permitted to pass into the next stage of the process without gaining automatic admittance into our belief system, or being blocked at the door due to preconceived notions.

UNDERSTANDING: Also known as "logic", this is the step of evaluation; the processing stage. Building associations, recognizing patterns, determining validity through reason and logical consistency... This is where we separate wheat from chaff, and decide which ideas are worthy of admitting into our worldview or belief system. It is the process of establishing principles which will guide our behavior.

WISDOM: Also known as "rhetoric", this step is the application of valid conclusions; the output stage. Though many equate the word "wisdom" with deep understanding, it is actually the implementation of that understanding through behavior. This step requires the commitment and courage to act in accordance with our experience and understanding gained in the previous two steps.

This method is the foundation for sound judgement and right action, and I thought it appropriate to mention it here on USMB, where we discuss matters of great societal import. It requires an earnest effort, being willing to evaluate honestly, accept truth even where it conflicts with previously-held positions, and bring our perspective into better alignment with what we discover.

For more information on the Trivium, you can visit the Trivium Education website, located here: Trivium Education Home - Trivium Education.com

Thanks so much for checking out this post!
Brian Blackwell

 

[emilynghiem]

This is so cool Brian Blackwell

What's funny to me, one of my friends with independent volunteer outreach in schools
has this as the theme of the clubs: Wisdom Knowledge and Understanding

So you are EXACTLY on the same page.
She doesn't take time to spell things out, but just does the work.
I have tried to put what she does in writing,
but you do a better job than I do. We definitely need to work together.

Would you like to take on a series of educational primers
on Natural Laws and where our current system came from?
What is still based on natural laws, ie what and how people can do things ourselves,
and what is corrupted and depends too much on govt?

I wanted to produce an educational series on "church and state for liberals"
how to explain Constitutional laws to secularists or the Bible to Atheists.
And just spell out "what things MEAN" so people can choose to adopt
the laws and knowledge for their own benefit, and it's not about groups controllling people.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This is so cool Brian Blackwell

What's funny to me, one of my friends with independent volunteer outreach in schools
has this as the theme of the clubs: Wisdom Knowledge and Understanding

So you are EXACTLY on the same page.
She doesn't take time to spell things out, but just does the work.
I have tried to put what she does in writing,
but you do a better job than I do. We definitely need to work together.

Would you like to take on a series of educational primers
on Natural Laws and where our current system came from?
What is still based on natural laws, ie what and how people can do things ourselves,
and what is corrupted and depends too much on govt?

I wanted to produce an educational series on "church and state for liberals"
how to explain Constitutional laws to secularists or the Bible to Atheists.
And just spell out "what things MEAN" so people can choose to adopt
the laws and knowledge for their own benefit, and it's not about groups controllling people.

Oh wow, cool. She must know about the Trivium. That's great that she's employing this essential practice and teaching it to others.

I'd like to spread understanding of Natural Law, but I'd have to know specifically what you're asking me to do before I could say whether I'd like to do it. Are you asking me to make posts here? Together, or by myself? It sounds like you're referring to how Natural Law relates to our current government, but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If government was doing only what Natural Law permits, it would be indistinguishable from any other individual. That being my position, I don't really have much to say about government specifically, unless there's something specific you'd like me to address.

Love your ideas about explaining what things mean. Clarity is so important. I've heard so many atheists speak as though they are atheists simply because the Bible is not the word of God. Like their whole position is founded on that denied claim. That's not a position rooted in clarity. The Bible being the word of God has nothing to do with God existing in some form, quite obviously. And the Bible not being the word of God doesn't mean it has nothing of value to say, either.

Great to see you here, by the way!

 

[emilynghiem]

This is so cool Brian Blackwell

What's funny to me, one of my friends with independent volunteer outreach in schools
has this as the theme of the clubs: Wisdom Knowledge and Understanding

So you are EXACTLY on the same page.
She doesn't take time to spell things out, but just does the work.
I have tried to put what she does in writing,
but you do a better job than I do. We definitely need to work together.

Would you like to take on a series of educational primers
on Natural Laws and where our current system came from?
What is still based on natural laws, ie what and how people can do things ourselves,
and what is corrupted and depends too much on govt?

I wanted to produce an educational series on "church and state for liberals"
how to explain Constitutional laws to secularists or the Bible to Atheists.
And just spell out "what things MEAN" so people can choose to adopt
the laws and knowledge for their own benefit, and it's not about groups controllling people.

Oh wow, cool. She must know about the Trivium. That's great that she's employing this essential practice and teaching it to others.

I'd like to spread understanding of Natural Law, but I'd have to know specifically what you're asking me to do before I could say whether I'd like to do it. Are you asking me to make posts here? Together, or by myself? It sounds like you're referring to how Natural Law relates to our current government, but I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If government was doing only what Natural Law permits, it would be indistinguishable from any other individual. That being my position, I don't really have much to say about government specifically, unless there's something specific you'd like me to address.

Love your ideas about explaining what things mean. Clarity is so important. I've heard so many atheists speak as though they are atheists simply because the Bible is not the word of God. Like their whole position is founded on that denied claim. That's not a position rooted in clarity. The Bible being the word of God has nothing to do with God existing in some form, quite obviously. And the Bible not being the word of God doesn't mean it has nothing of value to say, either.

Great to see you here, by the way!

Hi Brian Blackwell great to be back
though my time and energy spans are limited due to "two job" overload on the brain.

These are two critical avenues of focus that are well worth exploring and explaining, and very needed
* how to explain the "spiritual" or "collective" laws of humanity, relating secular terms for the process with Biblical representation of this process
* how to explain the natural laws that govern humanity, spelling out the Constitution or other derivations/terms for these principles also in secular universal terms

I find the Constitutional terms to be closer to universal.
Sort of like how the French came up with the term "deja vu" that everyone uses.
I use "due process" to cover the general concept of "not assuming people are guilty or wrong or lying,
and issuing punishment judgement or rejection based on that" but first informing them directly in person of the charges
or "accusations" against them and allowing them full defense in a democratic process before coming to a conclusion
of who did or said what and for what reason (as well as how to resolve the conflict or grievance which I believe is
equally part of the First Amendment under "redressing grievances" where "people are the government" and
thus we should be petitioning ourselves as equal people and peers in order to redress all grievances and complaints of abuses).

People use different terms from "civil liberties" to "freedom of choice" to explain individual rights that govt should not abridge or regulate.
The terms I would use from Constitutionalism are "consent of the governed" as the basis of laws and social contracts,
and "free exercise of religion" to cover not only established/recognized religions, but also political beliefs, and personal values whether or not these are incorporated
as a collective identity as other "religions" are (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism). So atheism and secularism, conservativism and liberalism,
and YES anarchism and beliefs in autocracy and isonomy etc. would all be people's own beliefs or personal "religions" that should
be protected and treated equally as people of larger religious affiliations or political parties. Or else it's "discrimination by creed"
only to protect or police the "established larger groups" and not offer the same defenses and enforce the same standards for individual beliefs, values and principles.

If we are going to uphold "equal protection of the laws" or "equal justice under law"
then the person like you or me who represents our own beliefs and may not have any other peers or groups to identify with
should be treated equally as someone whose beliefs are shared among a large enough group to have a national or worldwide organization and affiliation.

Right now, the abusive and oppressive behavior by political parties, pushing their own beliefs by greater force in the media
or financial influence and legal or political presence in govt, is basically VIOLATING the First Amendment principles
of "not abusing govt to establish religion or BELIEFS" and calling to censor, punish or deprive free exercise of individuals or groups
of competing or conflicting BELIEFS, as well as violating Fourteenth Amendment principles of "equal protection of the laws" for
people of diverse BELIEFS who are supposed to have equal protection from govt biases from "faith based BELIEFS."
Thus we have "discrimination by creed" going on, which is a violation of Civil Rights. And the parties ABUSING collective power and
influence to ABUSE govt to impose such biases in laws that either establish, impose, exclude, or penalize "faith based beliefs"
of ANY political party are in essence "Conspiring to Violate Equal Civil Rights" of citizens and taxpayers punished or forced to comply with contradictory beliefs
that violate our own.

I could see us writing this out, and editing it as a team, to be as "neutral" as possible in explaining these violations.
Right now, whenever someone claims to "hold BOTH parties accountable to the same standards" (including myself
as an active participants in both Democratic and Green Party outreach on a precinct and district level of conventions and meetings),
this ends up being biased for or against one party more than the other, so the discussion gets derailed into "who is more at fault
for the same problems affecting both parties."

What you offer Brian is a more objective and neutral approach, by picking apart the issue without favoring or excusing, accusing or
attacking, one party more than the other. You are even questioning how much the so called Conservatives and Constitutionalists
among the Republicans and Libertarians are allowing in that isn't consented to as univeral agreement on natural laws. There
are still a lot of gray areas where American traditions, culture and govt have set up derivations or extensions/expressions of
the natural laws, which still require people to CONSENT to them, or else it ISN'T natural to all people. Not unless we BELIEVE
it represents us and is serving the public good where we AGREE on that application or implementation of natural laws into real life practice through institutions
and structures that exist to fulfill the natural laws.

Where I think you question the most, Brian, is where do individual rights and processes under natural laws
DO or DO NOT align with the "collective" versions of these rights/processes through govt.

Something is lost in the translation from the individual level to the collective level and attempts to manage or express these.

You point out if individuals do not have rights to the property of others (which Constitutionalists might call "involuntary servitude"
or seizing of labor or fruits of one's labor by govt or other outside control without consent of the people so it isn't "voluntary"
and a violation of "due process" of laws BEFORE depriving anyone of life, liberty or property unless a crime is committed
as proven and established by lawful conviction for which the AGREED penalty by law is followed) then what gives
Govt or any other collective authority the right to coerce people in this way?

My answer was that if people CONSENT to follow laws by which USES or ABUSES invoke an obligation
on behalf of that person, then they can be held to honor a contractual agreement; and if they refuse to
meet their obligation, then that's what compels or gives authority to coerce that person -- NOT to do things "against
their will or agreement" but to ENFORCE the agreement and terms by which they either used or abused the labor or resources of others.
I gave examples of CIVIL cases and of CRIMINAL cases where people can be held to uphold contracts or laws "as agreed upon."
(Such as if people AGREED to pay for services, whether club membership or benefits or car insurance and used those services,
then they can be obligated to pay for them. That's USING services or labor of others. In cases of ABUSE that can get into
Criminal violations and the penalties or restitution owed for that level of abuses, wrongdoing, damage, harm or death caused
which are the wrongdoers' responsibility.)

Brian: one area of natural laws that gets overlooked. By natural law if some commits a severely damaging crime, including
rape or robbery, theft of millions of dollars, etc., the "natural" consequence should include paying back the costs of one's actions
incurred to others who did not have any "due process" to prove or establish an agreement before being deprived of life, liberty, health, property or income.

Natural laws of justice say that the person in the wrong should OWE it to the person wronged to "make them whole" again.
But our SECULAR laws under govt do NOT require the robber or embezzler to pay back every dollar they stole.
(so if the company cannot absorb or afford this loss, it can get written off taxes as a loss, and the costs of mass
fraud and crime end up costing taxpayers several times over since we also get charged the bill for the high costs
of prosecution, incarceration, etc. None of that is required under natural laws to get paid back by the Wrongdoers Responsible
to affected victims including taxpayers having to pay for the whole process of policing and prosecution violations of the law.)

So Brian if you really want to go back to natural laws, we could NOT afford any crimes or abuses at all!
We'd have to live like Buddhists who don't violate or cause any suffering to others WHATSOEVER
but meditate and live in the mountains, or restrict our interactions to peaceful Sangha communities where
everyone agrees to the same rules, where we don't impose on anyone and cause infractions.

We could not address things like mass shooters or foreign invasions that occur
because the attackers don't respect "consent of the governed" and not doing anything to others by coercion against free will.

We'd have to have both local and international agreements to respect consent and sovereignty of
each individual and community, in order not to need guns or law enforcement etc. for bully types who
take things by force and don't respect free choice "civil liberties" or consent of individuals they affect with such actions.

So in order to achieve and establish that level of Peace and Justice,
we'd have to go through this SAME process of teaching concepts of
* due process of laws
* equal representation, respect and protection of all persons regardless of creed or beliefs, either religious or political, personal or secular
* how to resolve conflicts, and redress grievances to correct or prevent complaints of abuse or oppression or discrimination

And that is why I have focused on language for these universal principles and process.
The most effective and recognized terms for "due process" that I use the most to establish understanding
and agreement with others being the natural laws in Constitutional terms and the spiritual process in Christian terms.

What you bring to the table is how to spell out and explain these using secular common sense terms
that are so universal that you and I could agree on the concepts even if we speak different languages for them.

So thank you for that. Even the Bible speaks to the Gentiles or "secular" tribe
coming forth at the very end to serve this role in "establishing" the law.

I believe you are part of that process, and so am I. So whatever we work out
between us is helping others to do the same, aside from party politics skewing and derailing that process.

The way we interact and discuss/debate the finer details and concepts,
that may steer more people toward understanding the universal principles
and getting away from the blame/shame game of bullying between parties for domination.

Since these concepts are universal, that's why we are going to be on the same
page even if we didn't draw from the same sources. What you cited above happens
to match what another friend of mine derived from her Bible based meditations
and visions from God. So you offer this from a secular source and another person
who agrees with you got it from divine inspiration, and they still coincide exactly
word for word, as Wisdom Knowledge and Understanding. I will check with
her where she got that from, and maybe she did get it from the same source you did.
But she doesn't do a lot of reading and research as you do, only studies the old
Jewish and Hebrew history to find out where this came from and where it's going.

Thanks Brian
I took notes on the first half of that video you posted
and will try to post the summary of those points today,
and my comments/responses, before taking on part 2!