How I learned to teach myself to learn By Neil Mackay

Introduction While working on an article about the media and the way we discuss it, I began by breaking down the meaning of the word media, then looking at the different types of media... then I stopped. I realised that I had started using the trivium method of learning which Ive heard so much about recently. I immediately questioned whether I could write an article using this method without having learned it fully, but I decided to use it anyway and see what happens. First, though, I thought I should at least think about how much I know about the trivium and what structure it would give my article. For some reason it occurred to me that I should use the trivium method to explore what the trivium actually is, and how I can best use it to create my media article. As bizarre as it may seem, a basic understanding of the technique could be enough to dive in at the deep end and start learning how it works. I had heard someone on a podcast (possibly Gene Odening) say that if you use the trivium method, then you can teach yourself anything, so how about using it to teach itself? I decided to learn how to teach myself to learn.

I broke my task down into 3 simple steps:

look at the individual parts of the trivium method and discover how they relate to each other.

Test whether my understanding of the method made any sense. look at how I could efficiently and effectively convey this to others.

This was my idea of the basic structure of the method on the macro level. When I started to look at the parts I realised I should use the same 3 steps to investigate them too. I would look at Grammar using grammar, logic and rhetoric, then look at logic using grammar, logic and rhetoric, and lastly, Id look at rhetoric using grammar, logic and rhetoric. Suddenly the task looked a bit daunting, but I told myself that I would take my time, work methodically and if anything wasnt clear enough then I could always go and look it up or ask somebody for clarification. You cant learn to swim without getting wet, and I always have the Tragedy & Hope community as a life-jacket. What follows is my best attempt at explaining the whole experience.

Grammar GofG I started off by thinking about words, meanings and descriptions, and I soon realised that a major part of describing something was fitting it into categories. If you want to describe a car, you might say: Its a kind of vehicle. This could lead you to ask: what is my definition of a vehicle? or How is this different from other vehicles? but you could also ask: what kind of car is it? or how many doors does it have? So when we are exploring words, we instinctively arrange them in a kind of family tree of categories and their components. After thinking all this I

decided I should take some notes, because all of the abstract ideas were beginning to pile up in my head.

LofG To summarise the basic parts of grammar, I noted the things that words can describe, which were objects, situations, thoughts and feelings. Each of these things has a name and a description, which is made up of the category it fits in, the type that it is, the parts that it has and the properties of all of these things. But then I wondered: What makes a type or a category? In the example of a car, the category was vehicle but what makes a car a car, and not a bike or a truck? The simple answers in the example are things like the number of wheels, the specifics of the engine, the fact that it has doors and a number of seats, and so on. But each of these things taken on its own is just a detail, and the combination of these details makes the object a car and not a bike. It seemed to me at that point that I was getting into the logic of the description and I realised that it was going to be difficult to see where grammar ends and logic starts. Whenever I thought of new descriptions and relationships, I started questioning whether this was true and testing it against examples. Then I would go back and look at the descriptions again, modifying the ideas a bit before looking for examples to test them again.

To complicate things more, car can also be seen as a category, with different types and parts, each with their own properties. As well as the make or model of a car, there is also the simple description, a red car or a hatchback. My immediate reaction to this is that red is a property of the car, while hatchback refers to the style of the car; specifically that the rear window lifts with the rest of the back door to allow access to the boot. So hatchback is a type, with its own distinctive parts and the properties of those parts, but it still refers to the whole car. When seen as a family tree or a mindmap, the category has 2 children, the type and the part, but their relationships arent instantly clear.

The properties of one type could differentiate it from the other similar types in the same category, like the colour of a bird, (e.g. a type of finch which is a different colour to other finches). We could think of other birds which have the same colour, theyre just not other finches. So the same properties appear on different levels of description, sometimes as a defining aspect of the type, sometimes as an irrelevance and sometimes as a defining aspect of the part which could sometimes define the type. Each type and part can also be seen as a category which has its own type and part, in a branching pattern.

category

type part (new category) (new category)

type part type part

Looking at the left side of this hierarchy, we can see the types as different levels of the same category. For instance, within the category vehicle is the type car and within this new category there is the make Ford, then the model Fiesta and even the version mark 1 and so on. These are all still vehicles, and therefore still on the same physical level, but if we had looked at the right-hand side of any of these forks, we would have gone to a lower physical level, with the parts of the vehicle. These parts would differ depending on the definition of that type of vehicle. For instance, the type bicycle wouldnt normally have the part engine, whereas a car normally would.

car

ford engine

fiesta engine diesel engine piston

The main thing Ive learned here is how complicated the seemingly simple task of defining our terms can be. I still have many questions about how these structures can be put together, but at least I know what to look for.

RofG As you can see, by using grammar and logic to explore what grammar is, a pattern has automatically developed, giving me a better understanding of (at least some of) the elements involved. Without realising it I had already found a way of showing my findings to others. The examples and patterns that I used to explore my ideas are the same ones that I used in my explanation. I didnt think much about the rhetoric, as it came naturally from the learning process. As others have noted, this experience can be seen as a spiral pattern, and the more that I question my assumptions, assessments and the emerging patterns, the more complete my understanding becomes. Each part of the process informs the other and they arent as clearly defined during the process as they seem to be in an abstract description of each word. The simple use of the 3 separate words, grammar, logic and rhetoric, leads us to believe that they are 3 separate processes, but the more I study them, the more I get used to this spiral pattern, and the more I see this combination of simplicity and complexity in the systems which surround us. The next revolution of this spiral (using grammar, logic and rhetoric to study logic) should reveal more of this simple yet complex system.

Logic GofL When I started to use grammar to explore logic, I was looking for particular words and their descriptions which would explain what logic is. Up until now, Ive focused on the naming and categorisation of things, whether theyre concrete, like a car or a bird, or abstract, like friendship or politics. After a while I realised that grammar doesnt always deal with words, but

also with facts and claims. So I had to revise my basic understanding of grammar before moving on. These words, facts and claims the basic forms found in any subject. In Logic, the most common forms seem to be statements. Ive seen these statements in a basic pattern, with 2 claims and a conclusion, like this:

Claim 1: A dog is a kind of mammal. Claim 2: An Alsatian is a kind of dog. Conclusion: Therefore, an Alsatian is a kind of mammal.

At first I thought this pattern was called dialectic, but this word is used to mean so many different things that it has almost become meaningless. Dialectic seems to be synonymous with logic, but it also describes specific things, such as the historical pattern which Hegel discovered where the 2 claims are a thesis (original situation) and an antithesis (threat to the situation), and the conclusion is a synthesis (resulting situation). Philosophers through the ages had different meanings for the word, which seem to contradict each other, and until I want to delve into masses of research into the works of Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, its probably safe enough just to think of dialectic as a synonym for logical argument or discussion.

LofL

If the 2 claims are correct, and the logic is correct, then the conclusion is said to be sound, but if either of the claims or the logic is faulty, then the conclusion could also be faulty. It could still be correct, but this would only be by chance or intuition, and not as a result of the argument. Ive also realised that the claims and the logic could be basically correct, but the conclusion could be faulty, due to a limited focus on particular facts or due to over-simplification. We have lists of the common faults in logic, called fallacies, but once again, these dont disprove the conclusion. They just show an absence of proof. A fallacy in someone elses argument doesnt strengthen your own argument, but a lack of fallacies in your argument does prevent weakness. Spotting fallacies in the arguments of others just helps us to search for the truth, without being instantly convinced by nonsense.

The main question that I have about logic is how these simple 3-line arguments relate to reality. If you take the example of the current climate change debate, the arguments are based on a massive network of scientific study, such as chemistry, biology, climatology, astrology, palaeontology and probably a few more I havent thought of. If we wanted to study the relevant parts of all of these fields by critically examining simple 3-line arguments it would take us until the next ice age. The difference between a simple statement (like a dog is a kind of mammal) and a 30 page scientific study is so vast that I find it hard to see the practical use of these logical patterns.

RofL When I thought about statements like A dog is a kind of mammal, I noticed that the categories in grammar have a big influence on how these statements interact. Ive seen lists of these logical arguments before and they can be represented using letters, like this:

If A = B and C = A then C = B

But when these are all represented in a table of abstract, meaningless patterns, without the example, I struggle to hold on to these concepts and relate them to real situations. I cant see how I would ever be able to learn these patterns. If we add the categories and their relationships, the concepts are still abstract, but they have some meaning and it becomes a little bit clearer, although its still hard to imagine memorising these or using them in any practical way.

If type A belongs in category B, If A is a part of B And lower type C belongs in category A OR and type B belongs in category C Then type C belongs in category B then A is (sometimes) a part of C

If I think about how all the claims and arguments in the climate change debate could be shown, I immediately think of a more dynamic structure like a 3D network made by the personal brain programme, but the practical issue is still a mystery. One thing I have to keep in mind is that Im not trying to repeat the work of Aristotle and all the logicians who followed him, Im just trying to assess how much I know and how best to learn more. This is an area where I need to look at the forms more closely and check how my understanding of categories, types and parts fits in with the traditional logical structures and any new ones which are developed. Words like always, sometimes and never change the dynamics too, and I can see this small aspect of the trivium becoming a massive study on its own.

Rhetoric GofR

It's ironic that it was a thought about the media which led me to this study, because the first thing that occurred to me when I thought about rhetoric is the massive role that media have. I write 'have' because Im referring to the plural of medium. I've never taken a media studies course and I have no idea what a typical definition would be, but I define a medium as 'anything which is used to convey a message'. I found 3 types of medium, which I classed as external, intrinsic, and internal. External refers to the things which we usually associate with media, such as television, radio, and newspapers, but it can also refer to a pen and paper, a message board

or a theatre. The intrinsic media are ways that the sender conveys the message without external tools, like speech and body language, and internal media are the words and symbols which we create in our minds to encapsulate the message. This can be something which only exists in the mind, and is later used as a memory tool, but it can also be spoken, written or drawn. Each medium that we use to promote our ideas has a different effect on how the message is received and the various combinations of media also have different effects. The body language of an actor on stage can give a different meaning to the same words spoken in a radio show or a podcast.

LofR

The philosophers through the millennia who have written about rhetoric were, as far as I know, only talking about the use of speech or writing to convince others of the conclusions based on their grammar and logic. The modern worldwide displays of graphics and video have changed the way that we convey messages, and if the ancient Greeks had been able to use the internet, their ideas of rhetoric would have been totally different. The basic ability to link your words and images to more information anywhere in the world has totally revolutionised the way we share ideas, but the basics of reason and understanding will probably never change. Aristotle investigated the content of the message and discovered the 5 canons of rhetoric. This is an area that I need to study further and I wont try to guess at the principles which have already been investigated, but when I do read the theory, Ill use modern examples to test the validity of the claims. For instance, if the study of style includes theory about the use of dramatisation, I could look at what messages modern film-makers are promoting in their films. For instance, I could look at the different styles of New Jack City, Blow, Reefer Madness and Trainspotting to test the effect that the style has on the way the issue of drug use is handled and the way that the conclusions are accepted or rejected by the viewer.

To get back to the basics of communication, no matter what medium we use, there is always a sender, a message and a receiver. The word rhetoric has often been used to mean a kind of trickery or manipulation of others through the use of misleading language. This sounds to me more like a description of cleverly crafted fallacious arguments which are easily mistaken for truth. The sender often knows that the arguments arent logically sound, but by wrapping them in a convincing message the receiver is fooled into accepting it as truth. If the receiver uses the trivium then they should see the fallacies, and realise that the sender is more concerned with winning an argument than seeking truth.

If the sender has taken the time and effort to work on the grammar and logic, the rhetoric should be more about ensuring clarity and openness than about clouding issues. There are various questions to consider when creating the message. Who is receiving the message? What information is necessary? What real-life examples help to clarify the theories? What words,

statements and styles would discourage the receiver from considering the information? Ill be interested to see how these questions are handled in the 5 canons, but I expect more questions to come up as well.

RofR

Other than the rhetoric of politicians and other sophists which I mentioned before, rhetoric hasnt been discussed much in the mainstream media. People talk about propaganda techniques and how people can be manipulated into believing almost anything, but the question here is whether the techniques are different when the message is based on grammar and logic. For it to be true rhetoric, does the trivium method have to be implicit in the message or is it ok to use the same propaganda techniques, as long as you know that your own reasoning is sound? Its the responsibility of the receiver to question the information coming in, but since people dont always take on this responsibility, the inclusion of the method in the message could be a way to encourage critical thinking. This may not be a necessary part of rhetoric, and it certainly wouldnt help you win an argument if your logic was unsound, but now that I know about the trivium, I look for that openness in the information I find. An argument where no facts or sources are given is nothing more than gossip in my opinion.

All 3 elements As I worked on ideas for this article it struck me how important it is to move from abstract ideas to the concrete examples which are found in reality. This enables us to test the logic of our ideas. Once we understand how the example works we can test it against other examples and find the general principles which seem to fit the emerging patterns. To help bridge the gap between the abstract and the concrete, we automatically create words, images and analogies which symbolise the patterns and relationships we have discovered. These 3 elements, the abstract, the concrete and the symbolic, seem to directly relate to grammar, logic and rhetoric respectively. Grammar is the process of finding, describing and naming abstract ideas or forms, Logic tests these against the concrete objects and facts which we find in reality and rhetoric is the creation and use of word combinations and imagery to convey these ideas to ourselves and others.

Summary I have the feeling that Ive only scratched the surface of what the trivium is, but I do feel that I have learned a bit about the details of grammar, logic and rhetoric and the holes in my understanding, and by using these tools for my study Ive also learned about the ways that they interact and ways to use them to guide my thinking.

There may be some confusion about whether the title of this piece has one learn too many, so let me explain why its there. It may seem that using the trivium is teaching yourself to learn,

but its merely another way of learning. So teaching yourself the trivium is teaching yourself to learn. There is, however, an initial hurdle that we need to jump over before we can start. There are so many books, articles and interviews on the subject that it can seem quite daunting, and we could spend a lot of time looking around for the right course material then reading lots of theory before daring to begin. We can read what philosophers through the ages thought about the nature of the world, but we can also search our own experience and reasoning to find out what we think. These two things arent exclusive, in fact they complement each other very well. Reading classic works is a great shortcut to finding ideas, and it means that we arent constantly re-inventing the mental wheels, but reading isnt a replacement for thinking. If you dont practice a skill, you never fully learn what it is. In the last few weeks I have learned to stop waiting until I know enough details before developing my critical thinking skills. So the extra learn in the title is learning to put what you already know into practice.

My aim here wasnt just to study the trivium method, but to explore my own understanding of it and the possibility of learning through practice. I feel that Ive been successful and I hope that this has come across well and will encourage others to produce something similar. Handing each other links to useful study material is a great help, but we need to be able to apply the trivium in real-life situations, and practising these skills and sharing our experiences should give everyone a clearer picture of the whole method, the difficulties we find while learning, and the details where we need to improve our own technique. So my challenge to the Tragedy and Hope community is this: choose any subject and study it using the trivium method, then create something showing your own personal experience and explaining the trivium with examples from the study.

IntroductionGrammarLogicRhetoricAll 3 elementsSummary