Systematics’ lack of convincing rigor/2009/10/15/systematics-lack-of-convincing-rigor/

Systematics’ lack of convincing rigor

Comment on Mechanization….

Andrew said,
15.10.09 at 4:18 am ·
The n-systems approach seems to be fundamentally bottom-up rather than top-down. The laws of 3 and 7 are presented by Gurdjieff/Ouspensky as objective laws–that is, they are really out there, part of the fundamental construction of the universe and that’s that. Systematics seems to be more a way of looking at things, based on the properties of integers. If you identify something as a 3-term system Systematics gives you various tools to model it and get some understanding of what’s going on. How succesful it is in practice, I don’t know. Also, I would agree that Bennett wasn’t working it all out from pure fundamentals, but blended in the Gurdjieffan laws of 3 and 7 and that sketch of the significance of the numbers.

It is easy to set up a something called Systematics, but the assignment of properties becomes a bit too facile.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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