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.