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.