-

-

The first act of freedom is to become aware of the necessity" - Jacques Ellul

The second act is to try and define what fair freedom is and how it can operate in a society

-

Haudenosaunee, I actually read the above and will actually hear the podcasts when I can, thanks. From what I read on the internet the Trivium, is older than the ancient Greek philosophy and is not the same as what it was before, changed of course, just as the article talks about deceptive arts.

The trivium is presented to methodically gather raw, factual data into a coherent body of knowledge (grammar); then to gain
understanding of that body by systematically eliminating all stated contradictions within it (dialectic or logic); and, finally, to wisely express and utilize that valid knowledge and understanding in the objective, real world (rhetoric). Once a student is conversant with this three-fold procedural pattern, he is now capable - and this is one of the great values of the Trivium - of teaching himself, with minimal guidance from an instructor or facilitator, how to learn any established subject such as mathematics, geometry, musical theory, astronomy (the Classical Quadrivium), physics, chemistry, history, philosophy, etc.; or of fully grasping any propositional topic he is motivated upon which to focus.

In other words, through the process of learning how to learn, he learns how to critically and creatively think . . . for himself.

There is a technique which is prevalent in the annals of the Deceptive Arts which is used in many fields of thought. That is simply to find a classical story, update it for a contemporary audience by changing the names of the characters and adding detailed fluorishes of the day, and re-telling the tale to achieve the same compelling results among its audience which it has always achieved in the past.

new religious threads must constantly be brought forth to update the current needs of the status quo social power structure.

Baha'i's lists of ideals include some very worldly prescriptions: universal compulsory education (whose curriculum, and under whose compulsion?); obedience to government and non involvement in partisan politics (become less than a fully functioning, critical, independent human?); elimination of extreme wealth and poverty (the ideal 'hive' mentality - where have we interminably heard this collectivist idea before?); and, the ultimate New Age/Globalist recommendation, the harmony of religion and science. These are all worthy considerations, but not for a centralized, bureaucratically administered, hierarchical religion which would dictate a static culture from its self-created top to the bottom levels, as has been the usual case for the last six thousand years.

If major populations (often called the "mob" by the status quo) can be kept living in states of illusion, without benefit of the trivium as a tool to discover objective truth, a very minor population can dictate the terms of perceived reality.

Now, there is a great difference between the objective passage of time and the 'apparent' and variable passage of time on a clock face in a figment of imagination!

Max Mueller was a 19th century German philologist and Indologist. He translated a number of the last portions of the ancient Hindu Vedas - the Upanishads - into German. Two of these Upanishads, the 6th and 8th of the Brihadaranyaka, mention the female philosopher named Gargi asking her guru, the sage Yajnavalkya, "What is the fabric of reality, Oh Yajnavalkya: what is its warp and what is its weft ?". As a young adult, Einstein read this particular passage, which was still available only in the German translation, and concocted what was to become the famous General Theory of Relativity. That is, space is the warp and time is the weft which weave the fabric of space/time (?!!). In other words, space and time are the same and, additionally, they (it-?) can be warped to produce the effects of gravity. -- No . . . space is extension, time is duration, and the causes of the effects of gravity are still unknown. The bigger and more outlandish the myth (lie), the more easily accepted by the uncritical mind.

Another supposition I make is that Einstein, while working as a Swiss patent office clerk, was rewarded with fame and renown for intercepting (read - stealing) a patent application which outlined the engineering problems and solutions in starting a chain reaction of atom splitting within a heavy element like plutonium. This fission reaction would yield comparatively immense amounts of energy from a small mass of matter. And that is exactly the type of problem a heavy-element fission reaction entailed at that time, an engineering problem, not a fundamental physics problem.

Einstein was also allowed to publish his charming mythology of Relativity - which has no logical basis or reliable, self-evident demonstration of theory - for consumption by the uncritical public.

I assume Darwin was promoted too.

Contrast the convoluted yarn just woven (pun intended) of a theoretical-physicist dealing in an artificial and highly restricted area of human endeavor (applied atomics), with the straight forward story of accomplishments by experimental-scientists like Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla. Through his efforts at understanding the natural world, Edison provided the incandescent electric light bulb and the phonograph for recording sounds - period. These devices and their workings are self-evident to us all. Ditto for Tesla's work in providing alternating electrical current generation which can travel on a wire for several hundreds of miles. Tesla's inventions might also include the fluorescent and neon light tubes, wireless radio (co-opted by Marconni), what is called Zero Point or free electrical energy and HAARP resonance technology. A great deal of Tesla's work was patented, but many records are now non existent, and has been kept from public eyes. Like Einstein, both Edison and Tesla led complex personal lives, but much of their genuine science is there to see and to be understood.

Einstein, the funded physicist, was a front it seems, and had all the wicked backing him up. While,Tesla an electrical engineer, had EVERYTHING taken away from him. Like I said folks, what lies behind a physicist is very misleading, and most is there only to confuse you and to make you believe things that will only leave your mind fizzed controlled. That type of science was made to mislead.

Phillip, as you had first indicated the direction to me, both Marco Rodin ( Vortex Based Math ) and the popular pseudo-physicist Nassim Harramein ( Resonance Project Foundation ) base themselves at a facility in Hawaii (a state with a large Baha'i presence) with ties to the Bah'i' organization. My subsequent research has confirmed this fact. Their so called 'work' is based on modern Theoretical Science, in the traditions of Einstein.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that physicist was psuedo. I would never go to one of their presentations.

Super post Haud

That last sentence sums up the process. The first aspect of systematic thinking is to learn the elements of a proposition or subject in order to critically define a problem or an opportunity (this is done in the grammar and logic stages). Once defined, we use our creative thought capacity to solve the problem or find ways to take advantage of the opportunity (the classical rhetorical mode accomplishes this task). This makes a person a first-hand, independent thinker rather than remaining a second-hand, dependent thinker. In not relying on his own organized thoughts, a second-hand thinker (usually one marked by low self-esteem) has his mental content filled by various so called authorities like the mass media and its advertising; professionals and politicians, some of whom may be unscrupulous; officials, both benign and despotic, in schools and in the work place.

Should be an early skill taught to people, but that would lead to a scarcity of "puppets"


In recent reported times , Human understanding used Myth then philosophy to understand the phenomena of being, then science announces itself as the close up an personal super-magnification of understanding, but then over the centuries as scientists are basking in their apparent conscious glory , with their scientific certainty , something very very important is revealed in the "unconscious" of their science consciousness
It is that science itself had begun to realise that the super-magnification and repetitive technique of understanding was in itself limiting understanding, and so science had to quietly reverse itself out of that intellectual cul de sac and it did this very craftily inventing its own mumbo-jumbo terms which now allow science itself to use philosophy and also myth to continue its own further understandings , lovely piece of shadow work at play if i say so myself

The discovery of science itself now being shown as a case of "in through the outdoor" , it was just another skill that had to be collected and taken back and implemented to further activate what was already established in human consciousness , so it was never a superior , just a compulsory add-on

I was wondering how they were going to introduce nanotechnology and I happened to watch a documentary on Jan Hendrik Schon. It sounds to me that they used him as a front, and then all of a sudden dumped him. That doesn't make sense because they make famous and back up their front men, like darwin and einstein, and schon was supposed to be their new wonderboy.
The circumstances are very strange regarding him and how everything was deleted and hushed.

Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970) is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1] Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002.

Schön's field of research was condensed matter physics and nanotechnology.
In other words..........

that year he announced in Nature that he had produced a transistor on the molecular scale. Schön claimed to have used a thin layer of organic dye molecules to assemble an electric circuit that, when acted on by an electric current, behaved as a transistor. The implications of his work were significant. It would have been the beginning of a move away from silicon-based electronics and towards organic electronics. It would have allowed chips to continue shrinking past the point at which silicon breaks down, and therefore continue Moore's Law for much longer than is currently predicted. It also would have drastically reduced the cost of electronics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n

At the time he was exposed as a fraudster, Jan Hendrik Schön was a 32-year-old German staff scientist working for Lucent Technologies at Bell Laboratories. The fraud had involved a number of breakthroughs in the area of organic and plastic electronics that involved making electronic devices out of materials related to plastic. Schön had supposedly built a large number of such devices and measured, among other things, transistor characteristics showing that they worked as effective electronic switches.

He had always been republishing the same data sets in different papers. He had a quite impressive output—he sent 17 papers to Nature and Science over a four-year period.

In a response appended to the report, Schon wrote that he disagreed with several of its findings, but "I have to admit that I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret."

Schon blamed some mistakes on the work's complexity or errors he did not notice before publication. But he said all the scientific publications he prepared were based on experimental observations.
A phone message left at Schon's New Jersey home yesterday was not immediately returned.
Malcolm Beasley, an applied physics professor who headed the committee, said yesterday that Schon's motive remained unclear.
Scientists began questioning the validity of the research because they could not reproduce the experiments.

In May, Bell Labs retained five prominent scientists and engineers to investigate. The committee's 125-page report, submitted to Bell Labs late Tuesday, concludes that Schon did not maintain proper laboratory records, and devices that might have been used to confirm his results were all either damaged or discarded

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/88624_bell261.shtml

More interesting, I think, is that his co-author Batlog became a
professor at ETH-Z and has still his chair. EHT-Z did seemingly nothing.
They left him where he is, withouth further investigation of his role as
co-author.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=67863

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-interview-with-eugenie-samuel-reich
continued from above.......
Barf! The plants are trying to cause fighting with the other posters are so transparent................

While revising the course webpage for the class that I'm teaching this coming semester, I noticed something interesting and disturbing. Anyone out there remember Jan Hendrik Schon? This fellow was the focus of arguably the most serious fraud in the physical sciences in the last 50 years while he was working at Bell Labs. As you can see from the wikipedia entry above, there was a thorough investigation and the fraud was discovered, though only after hundreds of person-years had been wasted by people around the world trying to replicate work that turned out to have been fabricated in the first place. The results of that investigation had been archived on the Bell Labs website. However, now that Alcatel has taken over Lucent, those links are dead, and a seach of the new Alcatel-Lucent site does not find any trace of Herr Dr. Schon. At the moment the links on the Internet Wayback Machine still work, but there is no guarantee that these will last forever. I know that old links to, e.g., previous years' problem sets from my courses go away after some time.

That boggles my mind is that Schon's papers are still being cited on regular basis, almost as if nothing happened

In 2000 he had 5 papers in Science and 3 in Nature. All first author of course. That makes it 16 first-author paper during the 2-year span. I don't know that many people nowadays who manage to publish even two first-author Science/Nature in the same year, so that type of "productivity" must have raised some eyebrows somewhere, no?

Thanks for doing this - it was only a few months ago that I downloaded the report to read it in depth, and now... poof. They seem to have done a good job erasing the record on the new website

Amazingly there are still people out there who have some notion that some of JHS's "work" may have value. Again, this is why the investigation records need to be somewhere accessible.

I don't think that further citations of Schon's papers are necessarily unjustified. A lot of his fraudulent work represents good ideas for experiments that someone should perform (since he didn't). Some of the experimental results that he fabricated may, ironically, be reproducible.

The strangest aspect of the whole Schon affair is that he obviously was very talented. It's hard to understand what made him cheat in such an obvious way.

http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2007/01/internet-memory-hole-and-jan-hendrik.html
And on another note, was physics supposed to be their psuedo science??? Or did they cleverly turn it into one. Forgive me for the tangent Haudenosaunee

-

Gnostic Media:

Part 2, March 14, 2010

Podcast #69 - Another Brick in the Wall #2

An interview with John Taylor Gatto

This show is being released on Friday, March 15, 2010. Part 2 of my interview with John Taylor Gatto was recorded on February 24, 2010.

Today we continue learning the significance behind Pink Floyd's song Another Brick in the Wall, part 2, and how utterly fubar our public education system is in our second interview with John Taylor Gatto.

We continue with some important questions: Is there a relationship between eugenics, mind control and compulsory education? Is compulsory education good for anyone and what are the negative effects of our "modern" education system? Where did our education system originate, and by whom? What's happened to our educational system since the 1800s? Has there been an intentional effort by the elites and government to dumb us down? What do compulsory education and Pavlov's dogs have in common? Are children better off working, or being in school?

http://gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/