An email exchange: hyparxis and an attempt to understand it….

Sv: Hyparxis
From: A. C.
To: Nemonemini
Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 4:41 pm
Sorry, I made an error. Bennett says (in DU vol.1 in 7.17.1. Unipotence—The Emergence of Materiality) that “Time, eternity, and hyparxis can be likened respectively to the shores, the bottom, and the surface of the ocean, and space to its extent, but the ocean itself knows nothing of shore or surface. It lies peaceful in its immensity, swaying unceasingly yet timelessly in the rhythm of some cosmic tide that ebbs andflows through the fathomless being that is beyond existence itself.”

So I guess the ocean would be existence, the bottom Eternity, the shores Time, and the “determining factor” of waves effecting the shores would be Hyparxis.

I like your metaphor with the drafts of a book. Time does seem to be the effect, while Hyparxis is the force of action or interaction. You are more experienced with this material than me.

Från: Nemonemini
Skickat: den 2 augusti 2020 14:51
Till: xeno_ac@
Ämne: Re: Hyparxis

I also need to think through your statements. Bennett reminds of the old roadrunner cartoons with the roadrunner leaving the coyote in the dust: Bennett goes off the deep end in ways it is hard to figure out. The combination of superintelligence and idiocy is confusing.

But one idea I had about hyparxis is the situation of someone writing a book: a series of drafts can occur in sequence and in parallel (a book with drafts and parallel drafts of chapters)…the book is unpublished hence it is along with the idea of the book virtual, or in a timeless eternity, but each draft is an interaction with that timeless idea for the book, but not yet realized in time, even though the drafts are temporal, but not finished. The idea of the books is in eternity, the drafts shows the interaction as hyparxis (interactions of the timeless and time) and the finished book is temporal, in time…
Dunno, probably didn’t get it right.

But Bennett applies the idea to evolution: the hyparchic regulator??? there is a timeless pattern, versus animals evolved and in time: the evolutionary process somehow hyparchically interacts with the environment as a form becomes realized???
Note quite Darwin.
And what about the elephant”s trunk?

—–Original Message—–
From: xeno_ac@
To:
Sent: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 7:55 am
Subject: Hyparxis

I started reading the DU books several years ago, and still haven’t finished them. I wish I had taken more notes or tried to summarize some of the concepts in a glossary of terms or something so I could remember more what the first books cover.

The way Bennett illustrates Hyparxis as the surface of an ocean (with the ocean itself being Time and the bottom being Eternity) makes Hyparxis seem more prone to change and having a volatile character. I can’t recall, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Bennett makes an analogy between Eternity, Time, Hyparxis and Being, Function, Will respectively. You brought up the connection with Schopenhauer (whom I am not so familar with, but I do know of his infamous idea of the Will being central to existence) and so it would seem that Bennett attempts to do the same by giving Will a space-time dimension in the term Hyparxis.

Från: Nemonemini
Skickat: den 31 juli 2020 22:41
Till: xeno_ac@
Ämne: Re: Sv: Sv: [The Gurdjieff Con] Contact

It has been said by a notable yogi that Gurdjieff’s system was pure Samkhya,
if so, ditto for Bennett. But the subject in Bennett has turned into something new.
I guess you read or tried to read the cascade of laws/triads three, six…twenty four, fortyeight..
It is tour de force, but is it really sound as a system?

If you understand triadic logic let me know. You get an extra cracker jack surprise.
I am impressed you are at volume four. The fourth volume is in some ways the best, after
the first.
The Hidden directorate must be another version of the secret chiefs (Crowley).
I am fairly sure there are mad sufis in Afghanistan. And they all hate me, attempted murder
through magical thought. Gurdjieff was a black magician, that means Bennett is another,
or maybe a clueless idiot. The mad sufis of the hills of afghan probably can’t be
a directorate of anything. But the world of sufism is a bit arcane and obscure,
one should be wary not to join anything, or call oneself a sufi:
if you do someone can pull rank and chose you as their victim, the ‘work’, etc…
Be careful. Steering clear of gurus is thus a bon idee…
My essay isn’t really finished, but the connection to Trinitarian theology is the oddest thing.
The whole text of WHEE is fairly tough going, or so I am told.
Perhaps when I finish Decoding History, that will help.
But the core idea is astounding…