Wisdomatic

liner notes to the 2025 Brahja album Wisdomatic

What is wisdom? What does it mean to be wise? Does it come with age and experience, or not necessarily? I distinctly remember the feeling of disillusionment when realizing in childhood that many adults were not wise at all: that just because you were older didn’t mean you had worked on yourself or had self-control with regard to your ego. I remember some teachers being as petty and cruel as some of the student population in school. Does wisdom have to do with kindness? What is kindness? Doesn’t kindness have to do with respecting the humanity of other people? Doesn’t kindness have to do with not being domineering nor condoning such behavior? One can’t be wise and be a bully at the same time. Treating people horribly is unwise, correct? How is kindness distinct from niceness or politeness? Doesn’t kindness have to do with honesty and respect for other people’s humanity whereas niceness often amounts to being non-confrontational towards people who are unkind and disrespectful? Doesn’t niceness often come from a fear of confronting people or offending people even when they are doing something harmful? Isn’t the kind thing to do to speak up and do the right thing even when it goes against the grain and causes discomfort? Perhaps this is why kindness is less common than niceness.

Is wisdom also about acquiring knowledge? But is having knowledge enough to be wise? Wouldn’t wisdom also be about applying this knowledge in real time? Isn’t wisdom about speaking and acting on the knowledge that one has come to understand? Perhaps this is why wisdom is generally associated with experience. It can take time to amass all the knowledge one needs in life, and to know what to do with it. Yet, small children can also say wise things. This can be understood as intuitive knowledge. Knowledge not only comes from life experience or from logical analysis, though children also learn this way as well, but also can be automatic and from within. Conscience itself is a form of knowledge. It is the knowledge of what is harmful to people and what is not: a crucial aspect of wisdom.

Does wisdom have something to do with knowing what is true? How can one distinguish truth from falsehood? It can be hard to know what is true in this world. One can hear a case made for all kinds of things. When trying to understand the reality of what is, one will likely come across conflicting historical accounts and perspectives. This doesn’t mean that truth is nonexistent, however. Just because pursuing it can be overwhelming, it doesn’t mean that events in the world don’t objectively happen independent of our perception of them. At the same time, our perceptions do, of course, affect our actions. And needless to say, our perceptions differ. Who’s to say whose perceptions are correct? There’s no question that people’s perceptions can be wildly divorced from truth. In order to be wise, doesn’t one need to be able to discern the truth?

One might make the distinction between the subjective truth regarding thoughts and emotions and perceptions of our experiences as opposed to the objective truth of that which takes place in external reality irrespective of thought and emotion. If several people are sitting in a room, to use a simple example, there is the objective truth that these people are indeed all sitting there. There is the objective truth regarding whether or not a lamp shade was dropped and broken. Whether everyone saw it or not, there would still be the truth as to whether this happened. There is the objective truth regarding which words have been spoken as well. If a recording device happened to be turned on, it would faithfully capture the exact words exchanged. People’s memories and perceptions may differ about what was said, but the recording device would have archived these words in an objective sense. Yet, there is also the subjective truth regarding what people were thinking and feeling in these moments. Even this you might say is objective in the sense that these thoughts and emotions really did happen, but it’s just that the internal reality of thought and emotion is not necessarily as easy for others to know or measure. We rely on one another to communicate thought and emotion, and yet even someone who’s trying to honestly communicate these can have difficulty in understanding or articulating them. So much inner truth goes untranslated and/or misunderstood even by the one who’s attempting to honestly express it. The ancient saying “Know Thyself” is not about being self-obsessed, but rather about coming to understand why one is thinking what one is thinking, why one is feeling what one is feeling, why one said what one said, why one did what one did. The more we understand about ourselves, the more we are able to understand others. The more we are united in thought, word and deed within ourselves, the more we are able to unite with others.

When people say that there is no objective truth regarding events that occur in external reality, we enter into a solipsistic zone where every perception of what takes place is considered equally true and valid. According to this perspective, there would be no truth about external reality in general: not even regarding the Sun, Moon and Cosmos. Doesn’t this seem unwise to you? It may sound like a good thing to someone since it gives everyone the opportunity to have their own truth, and yet there is nevertheless a difference between perception and reality that ought to be respected. For instance, the Earth’s shape is the Earth’s shape regardless of what people happen to say about it. It is our responsibility to try and align our perception to this reality, and to provide evidence so that we are not asking others to believe us, but instead, offering proof. Not everyone’s perception will be accurately aligned with reality, and so debate will ensue. This is what science is supposed to be for: to prove something with experiments that are repeatable and falsifiable. To say that there is no such thing as truth, which is a sentiment people often express, is also to say that there is no such thing as lying. It is also to say that there is no such thing as confusion. To recognize the existence of lying is to recognize the existence of truth. This points to the reality that there is a truth regarding real-world events that people seek to hide. For instance, if a bomb hits someone’s home and people die, this bomb really did fall and those people really did die regardless of whether other people say it happened or not, and regardless of how the event is reported in the mainstream media. There is also the truth about who dropped the bomb and why, which is what investigative journalism is supposed to uncover. Naturally, if one isn’t in a position to know of such things with firsthand knowledge, one ends up relying on other people’s reporting and testimony. This, of course, can leave one vulnerable to being misled. Mind you, even people who intend to report accurately about an event might have been misled themselves. It is not only deliberate lying that spreads confusion, but also the dynamic of being misinformed and spreading misinformation inadvertently.

It’s hard to speak and act wisely if one has not first discerned the truthfulness regarding events in our world. This predicament has everything to do with where we find ourselves today overall as a species. What is the truth about our coexistence? What is the truth about history? What is the truth about contemporary events? How can we be wise among a society or world without widespread understanding of these things? Wouldn’t we need to be on the same page in enough numbers regarding what is true in order to choose a wiser coexistence moving forward? Can you and I at least agree that the current configuration of the world is unwise? Isn’t it unwise for widespread poverty and food shortage to exist on a planet as abundant as this? Isn’t it unwise that a few people own the equivalent wealth as billions of people combined? Isn’t it unwise for so many people to be murdered and enslaved by the various systems of oppression and invasion that exist?

Even if we can agree that the world is highly unjust, how might we get on the same page as far as what to do about it? Not having a consensus on reality makes it very difficult to unite. How is one to know the truth though? What should the societal goal be? You can hear people swear by communism, swear by capitalism, swear by socialism, swear by democracy, swear by constitutional republics, swear by anarchism. You can hear people define socialism as the means of production in the hands of the workers. You can hear other people define socialism as the means of production in the hands of the state. You can hear people define capitalism as corporate monopoly where profit is placed over people, where the capitalist class amasses wealth on the backs of the workers without fair compensation, and where governments team up with international corporations and banks to legalize corporate policy; and where these entities team up to impose violence to enforce a monopolistic and extractive paradigm. You can hear other people define capitalism as a laissez-faire economic system where governments do not interfere in the economic exchanges of ordinary people, and where mom and pop shops thrive. You can hear people define democracy as rule by the people. You can hear other people define democracy as a ruling class system where the people are only given the choice of who will rule over them. You can hear people define communism as a community-oriented mode of existence, where individual greed is no longer prioritized over collective wellbeing. You can hear other people define communism as an authoritarian state bureaucracy where the state monopolizes ownership of pretty much everything at the expense of the citizens who are kept poor and oppressed. You can hear people define anarchism as advocating for chaos and mayhem. You can hear other people define anarchism as advocating for consensual relationships between people, which is the antithesis of chaos and mayhem. Agreeing on the solution to our current human condition is next to impossible when we cannot first agree on our definition of terms. In a world where so many people disagree on what kind of society is worth striving for, it might be tempting to tune it all out or otherwise say that everyone has their own truth. But is there actually a truth worth striving for? Is there an objective difference between freedom and slavery that ought to be understood?

Widespread disagreement on history and religion also gets in the way of coming together towards a common goal. You can hear people deny the history of the Soviet-caused Holodomor in Ukraine. You can hear people apologize for Mao in spite of the millions of people who died under his policies. You can hear people deny or try to justify the genocide against the Native populations of the Americas. You can hear people deny or try to justify the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis against Jewish people and other minority groups in Europe. You can hear people deny the reality of the ongoing Palestinian genocide. You can hear people deny the reality of the Armenian genocide. You can hear people declare the supremacy of the white race. You can hear people say that men should have authority over women. You can hear people speak as though Hindu people are superior to Muslim people. You can hear people say that conflict in the “Holy Land” is a sign of the messiah’s imminent second-coming. You can hear people say that “illegal immigrants” need to be kidnapped and deported. You can hear people say that the Earth was created within the last ten thousand years, as opposed to 4.5 billion years ago. You can hear people say that Jesus is God incarnate. You can hear people say that Mohammad was God’s messenger. You can hear others say that there is no God at all. You can hear people say that Jewish people are the chosen people. You can hear other people spread the idea that Jewish people are in control of every power center in the world. You can hear people say that Donald Trump will save America. Though diversity in thought could be a good thing, and though people have the right to believe what they want so long as no one is being harmed, the fact that so many ideologies espouse bigotry and unequal rights keeps humanity trapped in its current condition. The fact that so many belief systems are massively harmful makes collective wisdom a mere hope as opposed to a reality. The fact that people conceive of reality so differently makes it all but impossible to come together in a common pursuit. It makes it next to impossible to arrive at the same conclusion as far as what to do about the mess the human species is in and the mess humanity is causing for other lifeforms. The fact that so many people hold unwise beliefs is disheartening to say the least, yet giving up and doing nothing is not a good option.

Our differing perspectives on controversial topics can make it hard for anyone to know where to look for wisdom. You can hear researchers present evidence that the moon landing is not real. Others will laugh at you for bringing this up. Does anyone know for sure what happened? You can hear people say that the Earth is flat. We can’t even seem to agree on the shape of the Earth. The trope of the flat-Earther is often brought up when people question the nature of reality. It’s as if you’re assumed to be a flat-Earther just because you question an official story about something else. There’s also widespread disagreement on how humanity got here in the first place. Some say God created us as we are. Others say that Darwin’s conception of evolution is the most accurate representation of human origins. Others point to the missing link: i.e. the lack of archeological evidence showing the various transitional species between the apes and us that you would expect to see. Even Darwin acknowledged in his own writings the lack of archeological evidence to prove his theory on human origins since an abrupt leap between chimpanzees and Homo sapiens or Neanderthals is nonsensical. Even our origin story is shrouded in mystery. You can hear people say that we’re living in a simulation. But a simulation designed by whom? You can also read the work of archeologists and historians and translations of accounts from ancient civilizations that say that humanity was created by the Anunnaki: an off-planet and technologically-advanced species who came to Earth to mine gold, and who genetically spliced their own DNA with earthling hominids to create humanity as their slave race. You can hear the testimony of people who say that they have seen UFO’s with their own eyes. You can now even hear mainstream sources reporting on the phenomenon of unidentified flying objects. You can hear people say that they themselves were abducted by extraterrestrials. Others would call these people crazy. Is it wise to automatically dismiss people who go against the grain, or is it a better approach to seek out evidence before committing to a perspective? Is it perhaps wiser to admit that one doesn’t know even if it feels like you should know? If one has not yet taken the time to gather and consider much of the evidence at hand, why even commit to a perspective? You can hear people say that they remember past lives. You can hear people say that reincarnation is real. You can hear others say that it isn’t. You can hear people talk about demonic entities that attach to human beings and influence human behavior. It’s hard to know what’s true in such a world. When the Universe itself is real, which seems as improbable as it gets, who am I to declare that other seemingly improbable things could not be true?

You can read the work of virologists who say that viruses are not the cause of illness. You can read the work of researchers and scientists who present a paper trail of evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a bioweapon that came from a lab in Wuhan, China. You can hear other people say that Covid came from bats in Wuhan. You can hear people say that 5G, and electromagnetic radiation in general, can cause an array of health problems, including flu-like symptoms. You can find others who scoff at this. You can find researchers who say that most people are infected with parasites. You can find the work of researchers who say that the USA was founded by freemasons as part of a plot to bring about the New World Order. You can find the work of other researchers who say that the US constitution was written as a line of defense against the tyranny of monarchs. You can read the work of researchers who say that Patrice Lumumba was an operative of both the US and USSR and that Moïse Tshombe was the real target of neo-colonial exploitation. You can find other historians who would say that this is nonsense. You can read books about how African peoples came to North America long before the Vikings or Columbus. You can even find the work of people who say that African peoples are in fact indigenous to the Americas. You can listen to people who say that the Rockefellers infiltrated the neo-feminist movement in order to encourage women, in greater numbers, to join the workforce and corporate world so that they could be taxed and separated from their children. You can research information regarding how the crack epidemic was the result of a CIA plot to devastate Black neighborhoods in the US. You can research how the Twin Towers and Tower 7 could not have been brought down by two planes. You can hear testimony from people who say that they heard multiple explosions in the towers that day, suggesting a controlled demolition. You can find researchers who present evidence as to how weather modification technology and chemtrails exist. You can find climatologists who say that carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is not the cause of climate change. You can find other climatologists who say that it is. You can find scientists and doctors who say that vaccines are safe and effective. You can find other scientists and doctors who say that they are not. It can give you a headache just thinking about how little people agree on.

You can hear people say that taxation is necessary because people wouldn’t share of their own accord. You can hear other people say that taxation is theft since it comes with the threat of dispossession, abduction, incarceration and violence, and because people lose the right to consent for how their body and labor is being used. You can hear people say that the world’s most powerful governments, corporations, banks and think-tanks are controlled by a network of extremely powerful internationalist social engineers behind the scenes who have a shared nefarious agenda. You can hear other people say that this is just conspiracy nonsense. You can research evidence presented that many of the world’s most powerful people belong to pedophilia rings. You can hear testimony from the various people who have accused several US Presidents of rape and sexual assault. One may also not even know what is an authentic video anymore since AI-generated videos (i.e. deepfakes) can imitate the voice of people very accurately.

What is someone to do in such a world? If speaking wisely necessitates knowing the truth, how can one go about trying to do this? How can one know what is true? How to stay afloat in a sea of contradictory information? How to deal with the array of counterarguments and tension that arrises when we disagree on reality? Many have referred to our times as “post-truth.” But is it really that truth no longer exists, or is it that, given the amount of contradictory information out there, it is difficult to know what is true? It’s also not as simple as dismissing everything that goes against official narratives as “conspiracy theory” nonsense. Official narratives have, of course, time and time again turned out to be untrue, or at least, incomplete. The mega corporations who own corporate media obviously have financial and political interests to protect, and have indeed been untruthful in the past: “Weapons of Mass Destruction” comes to mind. And so, there’s no good reason why people should assume that they are being told the truth by mainstream outlets. Yet, it’s also, of course, easy to be misled by independent media as well.

People lying in order to further an agenda of power and/or profit is presumably as old as humanity itself. This brings to mind the famous Hannah Arendt quote: “This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want.” She also said: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.” Many people feel that the bombardment of conflicting information from various mainstream sources is being done deliberately to destabilize and divide people and create a population that disassociates from reality. As Arendt says above, people who cannot distinguish truth from falsehood are especially at risk of losing the distinction between right and wrong. Many people even consider themselves moral relativists and declare that there is no objective difference between right and wrong at all. Yet, things like racism and genocide and slavery and raping and torturing people is wrong whether the perpetrators or sympathizers perceive it as such or not. To lose connection with our moral conscience is just what psychopathic people would want victims and bystanders to do. If there is one truth that is most important to understand in order for peace, justice, and freedom to manifest between us, is it not the difference between right and wrong? When it comes to right and wrong, there is an important difference between violence and self-defense to consider. Many have described the two pillars of morality as non-aggression and self-defense. Both pillars are needed to uphold human freedom and justice. Non-aggression is needed to maintain peace and order between us. Self-defense is needed for when people refuse to live by non-aggression and instead choose to violate and enslave others. This wouldn’t mean that every act of violence by an oppressed person is self-defense. Self-defense should be against the actual perpetrator of harm, and not towards a random person who has nothing to do with it. Self-defense is distinct from revenge in this way since murdering a perpetrator’s child, for instance, as an act of revenge is taking a new life rather than defending yourself against the perpetrator. Self-defense should also be proportional to the harm inflicted or else it becomes a violation in and of itself. If one suffers a transgression that could be resolved without escalation, it is out of the realm of self-defense to respond with disproportionate violence or collective punishment. Yet, there are times that even deadly force is truly an act of protection. Discernment is needed to distinguish between the two. Even most people who point to nuances when it comes to right and wrong nevertheless tend to agree that certain egregious acts are objectively harmful, unwise, destructive, and cruel.

So far as I can tell, there are at least two kinds of truth: historical and philosophical. One requires research and verification of historical data to come to an accurate understanding. The other doesn’t require information regarding external events that took place, but rather, necessitates the internal processes of contemplation, intuition, imagination, logic, reasoning, honesty and conscience. For instance, if someone says that human beings are not the rightful owners or slave masters of one another, this is not an informational truth so much as a philosophical one. Sure, such a statement is corroborated by an understanding of historical evidence. We can look at a body of historical evidence that shows how much chaos and suffering and trauma and abuse comes from people claiming to own others. But you wouldn’t need to look at the history of human slavery to know that slavery is wrong and harmful. That is to say, so long as you were being honest with yourself and were in touch with the force of conscience within you. You would only need to consult your own heart-based intelligence and power of reasoning. One can understand that slavery is wrong by considering hypothetical scenarios just as easily as consulting a body of historical information. If one person enslaves another, they are stealing the freedom and inherent rights of that individual. People who enslave others obviously destroy other people’s lives and drastically limit their potential. People who enslave others have absolutely zero proof that other people are their rightful slaves. They can write it down on pieces of paper perhaps, and can even stamp it, but this doesn’t make it true. There is zero proof whatsoever that one person is the rightful property of another. On the other hand, there’s ample proof that enforcing such an unjust paradigm causes physical and psychological harm, and leads to a world of chaos and trauma and danger. Thus, as should be obvious, slavery and oppression are highly unwise. If a critical mass of human beings alive at once could even come to see eye to eye on this, we would have the numbers needed to transform our collective reality for the better. The problem, however, is that to coherently honor the principle of self-ownership and equal rights alone calls into question the very legitimacy of government. This is because government, and its many artifacts, including prohibition of substances, borders, taxation, war, military draft, prison labor, surveillance, licensure, and the authority to threaten and/or initiate violence and dispossession in order to enforce obedience to the dictates of people in power, is not a societal arrangement that respects bodily autonomy or consent or equal rights whatsoever.

Honoring the reality that no one is the rightful slave of another is the basis of moral conscience, and the basis of philosophical wisdom. But honoring this principle alone brings you into radical terrain. The very principle of people’s inherent sovereignty and self-ownership is why rape, murder, assault, theft of land and labor, coercion, invasion, and psychological abuse are unwise. The problem, once again, is that the political, militaristic and economic systems of the world perform the bulk of these transgressions. To be wise and conscientious, therefore, is to be against the power structures of the world. To coherently honor the principle of bodily autonomy, consent, and equal human rights in one’s thoughts, words and deeds is the basis of a workable moral philosophy; and when put into practice, it does indeed create freedom, justice and equality between people. Philosophy, of course, means “love of wisdom.” It’s safe to say that knowing and understanding the truth regarding people’s inherent sovereignty and equal human rights, and to speak and act according to this truth, is genuine wisdom. On the other hand, if a set of ideas leads to totalitarianism, tyranny and slavery, then this would be highly unwise to say the least. It’s a big problem that all political ideologies promoting the existence of governmental authority promote unequal rights. If we’re being honest, a philosophy proposing unequal rights is not even a philosophy at all, but rather, an ideology. An ideology is based on ideas, of course. Some ideas are good, no doubt, but other ideas lead people directly into bondage. A true philosophy, on the other hand, to be deserving of that name, would acknowledge the reality that all human beings are born with the identical human right to be free from all forms of slavery and domination. Many ideologies pose as emancipatory, of course. They claim they will lead people into equality and justice and prosperity. Yet, you will find, again and again, that there is the ingredient of unequal rights and ruling class authority contained within them. If one looks carefully, one will find contained within the prevailing political and economic ideologies a recurring premise that some people should have the authority to rule over the lives and labor of others. Given how widespread these ideologies are, is it any wonder why the overall human condition is so unwise?

Others might say that given how unequal human history has been, equal rights alone won’t accomplish justice or liberation now. Given how much land has been stolen and how unequal people are economically, won’t it take more than respecting equal human rights now to restore balance and justice? This brings us into a discussion on how many billions of acres of habitable land exist on Planet Earth—plenty for everyone—and also how many billions of acres have been monopolized by governments, banks, corporations, royal families, and billionaires who acquired this land through one form of theft or another. Yes, individual people, acting not as a soldier of a government but as an independent settler have, of course, also acquired land through violent and dishonest means. But when it comes to billions of acres of stolen land, if humanity were to ever liberate itself from the current power structures of the world, this monopolized land could at that point be taken back by the people who it was stolen from (and by those whose ancestors had it stolen) and from the precise institutions that did the bulk of the theft. When it comes to the United States, nearly a third of the land, 640 million acres, are currently owned by the US government: all of which was stolen in a multi-century process of genocide. Liberation on a scale that could ever correct the course of this horrible history, would, of course, require widespread philosophical unity across ethnic and current ideological lines: something many will say is damn near impossible. But for there to even be a remote chance of such widespread unity, the equal human right to be left alone from domination and enslavement would have to be recognized as identical for all people. Otherwise, the deal would recognize the human rights of some people and not others, and unity would remain elusive. Widespread liberation such as this would also necessitate a willingness to share with others when one can, or at times give away what one has in a voluntary capacity. To break free from a paradigm in which the human masses are dependent upon abusive ruling class systems that nevertheless offer a degree of protection and assistance, more and more people would obviously need to step up and be willing to share and exchange with one another directly, consensually and non-hierarchically. Again, people might point to the unlikelihood of this ever happening. But discussing what widespread liberation would take and predicting that it will happen are two different things.

The other kind of truth, as mentioned, is historical. This is related to philosophical truth, but also distinct. Collective wisdom is difficult to manifest given that we cannot seem to agree on what right and wrong are (philosophical truth) nor on the reality of what has taken place up to now (historical truth). Is there such a thing as a tried-and-true truth-discovery methodology that can be used to arrive at the truth regarding events that have taken place in our world? This brings us to what has been called the Trivium. The trivium has apparently been taught since ancient times, but is currently left out of most modern school systems. It’s not about teaching people what to think, but providing a methodology for people to verify information for themselves. It’s called the trivium because it consists of three steps: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Others have referred to these steps as input, processing, and output. Still others refer to these steps as knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

If one wants to know the truth about something, it is a good idea to amass as much information about it as possible, and to collect this data from a wide variety of sources. Only relying on a small bandwidth of information and select few sources is not enough in a world where information is as contested as it is. Gathering this information is phase one: the grammar, input, or knowledge phase. Phase two is processing this information and coming to an understanding about this information. Logical thought and contemplation is needed while considering evidence of conflicting information. Phase two is the phase that seems to be clogged in many cases. When one’s input is overwhelmed and flooded with contradictory information, one has the tendency to shut down. We all know how much time it can take to research matters thoroughly and consult a wide variety of sources. Considering how busy people are and how much economic pressure most people are under, it’s understandable why many would prefer skipping phase two altogether, and go straight from acquiring information to speaking and acting on it without deeper research, contemplation and verification. It’s also tempting to put one’s trust in the “expert class.” Certainly true expertise does exist and is deserving of one’s respect, but it’s also difficult to say who is a genuine expert when financial and political interests can place a false expert in front of the masses to mislead them. It’s tempting to put one’s faith in established institutions and believe what one is being told without a period of verification coming first. But belief, of course, is very different from knowledge that has been verified. It’s unfortunately common to claim to know and understand something when one is merely believing in it. As mentioned, phase two—the processing phase—often involves dealing with contradictory information and grappling with differing historical accounts and perspectives. If one encounters two fundamentally different and mutually exclusive pieces of information that cannot both be true, then this contradiction is usually eventually resolvable through further research—by consulting even more sources—and by logically considering all the information at hand. The processing phase demands of us to neither immediately reject nor immediately accept information, but to consider it, and to suspend judgement until one has obtained substantial evidence. This second phase of the trivium requires a willingness to admit that one doesn’t actually know the truth yet. The human ego often interferes in this phase. The ego seems to not want to admit to not knowing, especially once we get older and feel we should already know. Yet, when dealing with contradictory information, it takes maturity and intellectual honesty to consider something from multiple angles before rushing to a conclusion. It requires a willingness to not let our emotions control our logical processes: to be able to distinguish between what we want to be true versus what might be true even if we don’t want it to be.

The third phase of the trivium is the output or rhetoric phase, or in other words, wisdom. Wisdom is action. It is not merely knowledge, but knowledge applied through words and actions. Wisdom is to speak and act on the knowledge that one has sufficiently processed and understood. Wise words and actions have the power to influence human consciousness towards a wiser coexistence for us all: an outcome that would involve less brutality and cruelty and confusion and division. The three-phase trivium methodology is certainly a more failsafe approach to information than a knee-jerk response to dealing with information. The trivium can help people reach spiritual adulthood. It is that powerful. The trivium is also the basis of the scientific method. The scientific method starts with an observation, and a question as to why a phenomenon exists. Through a period of trial and experimentation, one gathers results that may point to an explanation. These results need to be verified and tested against to make sure they’re repeatable. Once one has amassed sufficient evidence, one now publishes a theory for what is causing the phenomenon so that other scientists may repeat the experiment, and either challenge or accept the results. The trivium and scientific method both require honesty to not dismiss results that we may be tempted to dismiss; even if they are at odds with our financial interests or contradict our previously-held beliefs. Truth-discovery also necessitates not losing touch with conscience: to not lose touch with the knowledge that harming and subjugating others is not OK. Logic without heart-based intelligence will veer towards cruelty. Emotions without logic will perpetuate confusion and injustice as well. With heart-based intelligence intact, and with the intellectual honesty to consider and verify information that may at times be uncomfortable, and with the courage to then speak and act on what one has come to understand (even when it contradicts commonly held beliefs), we now have the makings of what it means to be wise. This is a different definition of wisdom than what many others would suggest. Many would describe being wise as being strategic and savvy to maximize one’s financial, career or political gains even at the cost of truth and conscience. Yet, if we’re being honest, enough human beings living by this misguided definition of wisdom produces a world of folly.