He made certain of his conclusions clear in his opening argument. I can state with reasonable confidence that I think he is missing things if his opening conclusions are repetitions of arguments that I've heard many times before, and that I think are almost certainly not true based on my own study of the topics.
For example, if someone says "the earth is flat" and then gives a list of reasons why they believe the earth is flat as opening argument, and those reasons exactly mirror other such arguments I have heard and investigated in earnest, and they do not address certain counterarguments that I have already made, what could possibly motivate me to listen to the rest of their argument? They have started from what I consider to be a false premise; the same false premise as many others. How could it possibly get better from there?
As an example from this persons opening statements he states:
"Hermetical thinking is dialectical thinking." This isn't true as expressed. It has elements of the truth, but is missing important context. Hermetic teachings aren't founded on a dialectic, that is more a method of reasoning, and it isn't the only method of reasoning they employ. His conclusion is both a contextual miscategorization and a false generalization.
"Dialectic thinking is Alchemical thinking." Again, framing a problem in terms of what one imagines its opposites to be is a mode of reasoning, it isn't something intrinsically bad as he implies. No method of reasoning is complete or perfect unto itself. It is simply a method of reasoning. Also, alchemy uses a lot more methods of reasoning than just the dialectic approach. He has again made a categorical error and a false generalization.
"Alchemical thinking is making something out of nothing." That is not true at all. Alchemical thinking is how to make something out of something else. It's just chemistry. What we call "alchemy" is just chemistry. Did anyone in the past inject more into some of their formulas than perhaps they should have? Maybe, but that doesn't mean a) they were always, or even often wrong, or b) that we need to throw out the entire body of knowledge, or categorize it in its entirety without actually considering the entire body of work and the individuals who worked as chemists (apothecaries, alchemists, etc.). The alchemists made great accomplishments. Shoving them into a box with a false label is a very poor opening argument.
I could go on. He makes claim after claim like this. Shoving everything into a box and putting a label on it that is only partially true to the point of being not true at all. It's like packing up the garage and putting "tools" on a box when the box contains several different tools, each of which deserves its own label for the box to be useful, and contains several other non-tools besides, all of which is completely obscured in that one word label. "Where's my blue tie?" "It's in the box labeled 'tools'."
These are statements that he is making that are incomplete and malformed. It frankly doesn't matter what his argument is since his opening statements make it clear his argument is based on what I consider to be false premises. My own investigation into these topics, which I consider to be quite extensive, suggests that by his opening argument, he has a very likely incomplete understanding of these things. I'm not just saying that without reason. I have heard virtually identical statement from others, investigated their claims deeper, and found their arguments to be missing really important context.
People believe things such as "Gnosticism" (which is very poorly understood by most) or "Hermeticism" (ditto), or "Freemasonry" (ditto), or even the works of Hegel or Marx are a certain way; that they had a certain intent; that they said specific things, when investigation suggests that they don't really know what these people or groups said at all. Usually their conclusions come from someone else and they think "I understand everything now." "I can safely put them in this box, because I've read x number of books on the topic, and they all put them in that box." I suggest until you actually go to the source, look at their own internal conflicts, and then investigate the context of the time, you can't appreciate what people are really saying at all.
People believe that these things are evil. They open up their investigation with that conclusion in mind. People, especially those that believe they already know the truth about the nature of things (those who believe The Church, or The Science has taught them the truth e.g.), tend to believe a priori, that the things these groups or people say have a built in intent to "lead to the devil."
Just because I think there is "more to the story" on these topics doesn't mean I think there is no fuckery in there. The Cabal have their tendrils in everything, but credit is not given to the "other side" where it's due. In order to dig at the truth, you have to start from a position of "I don't know what the truth is," and you have to mean it completely. From there, listen to everyone. EVERYONE. Listen to exactly what they say. Don't begin that "listening" by believing they are evil, or that you already have their "true motives" figured out. You have to listen.
I came to the same conclusion as you and I ONLY listened to ~5 minutes of it...This is what gets into the young peoples heads at an early age...and then the thinking patterns start changing when entering POST-HIGH SCHOOL and into college AND THEREIN lies the potential of what we are seeing today in the world of young people!!!
How can you declare what he is missing or rate this without even watching it in its entirety?
He made certain of his conclusions clear in his opening argument. I can state with reasonable confidence that I think he is missing things if his opening conclusions are repetitions of arguments that I've heard many times before, and that I think are almost certainly not true based on my own study of the topics.
For example, if someone says "the earth is flat" and then gives a list of reasons why they believe the earth is flat as opening argument, and those reasons exactly mirror other such arguments I have heard and investigated in earnest, and they do not address certain counterarguments that I have already made, what could possibly motivate me to listen to the rest of their argument? They have started from what I consider to be a false premise; the same false premise as many others. How could it possibly get better from there?
As an example from this persons opening statements he states:
"Hermetical thinking is dialectical thinking." This isn't true as expressed. It has elements of the truth, but is missing important context. Hermetic teachings aren't founded on a dialectic, that is more a method of reasoning, and it isn't the only method of reasoning they employ. His conclusion is both a contextual miscategorization and a false generalization.
"Dialectic thinking is Alchemical thinking." Again, framing a problem in terms of what one imagines its opposites to be is a mode of reasoning, it isn't something intrinsically bad as he implies. No method of reasoning is complete or perfect unto itself. It is simply a method of reasoning. Also, alchemy uses a lot more methods of reasoning than just the dialectic approach. He has again made a categorical error and a false generalization.
"Alchemical thinking is making something out of nothing." That is not true at all. Alchemical thinking is how to make something out of something else. It's just chemistry. What we call "alchemy" is just chemistry. Did anyone in the past inject more into some of their formulas than perhaps they should have? Maybe, but that doesn't mean a) they were always, or even often wrong, or b) that we need to throw out the entire body of knowledge, or categorize it in its entirety without actually considering the entire body of work and the individuals who worked as chemists (apothecaries, alchemists, etc.). The alchemists made great accomplishments. Shoving them into a box with a false label is a very poor opening argument.
I could go on. He makes claim after claim like this. Shoving everything into a box and putting a label on it that is only partially true to the point of being not true at all. It's like packing up the garage and putting "tools" on a box when the box contains several different tools, each of which deserves its own label for the box to be useful, and contains several other non-tools besides, all of which is completely obscured in that one word label. "Where's my blue tie?" "It's in the box labeled 'tools'."
These are statements that he is making that are incomplete and malformed. It frankly doesn't matter what his argument is since his opening statements make it clear his argument is based on what I consider to be false premises. My own investigation into these topics, which I consider to be quite extensive, suggests that by his opening argument, he has a very likely incomplete understanding of these things. I'm not just saying that without reason. I have heard virtually identical statement from others, investigated their claims deeper, and found their arguments to be missing really important context.
People believe things such as "Gnosticism" (which is very poorly understood by most) or "Hermeticism" (ditto), or "Freemasonry" (ditto), or even the works of Hegel or Marx are a certain way; that they had a certain intent; that they said specific things, when investigation suggests that they don't really know what these people or groups said at all. Usually their conclusions come from someone else and they think "I understand everything now." "I can safely put them in this box, because I've read x number of books on the topic, and they all put them in that box." I suggest until you actually go to the source, look at their own internal conflicts, and then investigate the context of the time, you can't appreciate what people are really saying at all.
People believe that these things are evil. They open up their investigation with that conclusion in mind. People, especially those that believe they already know the truth about the nature of things (those who believe The Church, or The Science has taught them the truth e.g.), tend to believe a priori, that the things these groups or people say have a built in intent to "lead to the devil."
Just because I think there is "more to the story" on these topics doesn't mean I think there is no fuckery in there. The Cabal have their tendrils in everything, but credit is not given to the "other side" where it's due. In order to dig at the truth, you have to start from a position of "I don't know what the truth is," and you have to mean it completely. From there, listen to everyone. EVERYONE. Listen to exactly what they say. Don't begin that "listening" by believing they are evil, or that you already have their "true motives" figured out. You have to listen.
I came to the same conclusion as you and I ONLY listened to ~5 minutes of it...This is what gets into the young peoples heads at an early age...and then the thinking patterns start changing when entering POST-HIGH SCHOOL and into college AND THEREIN lies the potential of what we are seeing today in the world of young people!!!