More on Systematics and rigor/2009/10/16/more-on-systematics-and-rigor/

More on Systematics and rigor

Systematics and rigor

Daisy has seen through the pretenses of Bennett’s Systematics. I am not Bennett’s defender, and share Daisy’s feeling, but it is also true that there is a hope behind all this to really put on paper a set of concepts on the subject religion that can help people to sort out their evolutionary psychologies. It has never happened, although many have thought that Gurdjieff, with much borrowed material, succeeded in that. Ditto for Bennett.

We can stand back from Bennett’s DU (forget Systematics) and see the rough architecture as significant. In that sense I have found it useful at any earlier period in my life, once the chaff was discarded/

Beyond that is the fact that Samkhya, which Bennett/Gurdjieff are borrowing, can’t be judged just because Bennett made a mess of it. Samkihya is an entirely ancient discourse, whose history is needed to assess the attempts to borrow from it (without acknowledgement) we see in Gurdjjieffianity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s