I've come across Mark Passio's work yesterday, via a post on Facebook from Bernhard Guenther (the lecture was presented on October 19, 2013):
Bernhard Guenther said:
The past couple of days I've been watching the "Natural Law" seminar by Mark Passio. I highly recommend watching the whole lecture. He lays out the basics in a very grounded and comprehensive way. 8hrs and 44 min long, worth every minute. I haven't seen so much common sense and application of the Trivium and critical thinking in a talk like this in a long time. He covers important esoteric/occult subjects and brings them down to an understandable format, showing that there is an absolute truth and objective reality, which we must align ourselves with if we truly want a shift in consciousness. He talks about the importance of gaining Knowledge and sincere self-work as well as understanding the true meaning and definition of certain words, which most of us are not even aware of. Some of you may get triggered by some of the things he says, challenging popular beliefs, but he hits the nail on the head about many issues and is very well spoken. Much of it aligns with my own works as well.
Here is the lecture (I recommend it highly, despite a few minor glitches):
I agree that this presentations is indeed brilliant in a "grounded and comprehensive way" that is easy to understand.
In fact it quite astounding how good and to the point it is. It sort of presents a lot of what we discuss here in a comprehensive and easy to understand way.
But there are certain things that make me wonder about Passio (that were also discussed here on this thread), how much of what he describes so brilliantly, he has actually applied, as he stresses so much?
There is a saying:
"By their fruits you shall know them"
and in the case of Passio I'm wondering how I can reconcile this obvious profound knowledge about our reality, to things like vegetarianism that he is practicing (I don't know if that is still the case?)?
I also get a feeling of some sort of stolidness in what he is saying. I have the feeling that it might be pretty difficult for him to be truly open minded to everything and see all always as a probability that can change at any time, with new information, despite his acknowledgement that he is truly open minded to everything.
And as in so many cases, I think he drastically underestimates, or does not know or understand fully, the problem of Psychopathy and Ponerology.
That is a very big and important piece of the puzzle. At one point he is saying something like, that he thinks he can trust his feelings about other people now pretty much, through the work he has done to get a sense of who they are and what their real intentions are. Well, kind of a dangerous thing to assume, as we know...
There seems to be some kind of disconnect, even though his presentation is indeed brilliant in more then one way!
Somehow he reminds me of Jan Irvin, who also seems to be quite brilliant in many aspects, but there are certain tastes (I would also describe it as some sort of stolidness) in how he is doing what he does, as well as some red flags like his continued usage of pot and believing in chemtrails etc...
In both cases I sort of get the feeling that they might have gone over the edge at some point, which might make it very hard for them to address their egos and possible sacred cows that they might still have and how that might effect their research that is supposedly based on "critical thinking" and the trivium.