Re: Sv: Hello..or goodbye
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2020 10:36 am
Good to hear from you. FYI, I became a critic of Darwinism long ago, it must have been in the eighties, but behind that was the memory of having read Bennett
in the seventies and noted his challenge to Darwinism. So that, and later many other books made me into a critic of Darwin. The ID (intelligent design) movement
came along but it was too fundamentalist for me despite the many good discussions of evolution, and a lot of good links, etc…Having moved in the Gurdjieff and Sufi worlds
I am in two worlds or between two stools with an interest in spirituality and secularism at the same time. Bennett, reflecting Gurdjieff discusses spirituality without rejecting materialism which
enters his work via Samkhya. Many ancient yogis were hidden followers there (and if you read some books on Patanjali you will see sly references to the Samkhya legacy).
Gurdjieff and then Bennett had a brilliant idea: introduce secular culture to spirituality by being more materialist than even secularists. And you see that influence in Bennett who
nonetheless refers to the ‘triad of experience’ as Being, Function, and Will. The materialist enters in the background in a polarity with consciousness as Being. Tricky and clever.
The issue of will is ambiguous therefore and seems to fit into his system ambiguously: Bennett I must suspect was guided by Schopenhauer to a view of will that stands
very well with a non-theistic Samkhya.
Anyway, the issue of evolution in Bennett is fascinating, But is mixed up with his views on space-time and the six-dimensional model of hyparxis and eternity.
But after much puzzlement, I realized I already knew all that, sort of, and had rediscovered the idea in my take on evolution.
Basically, this idea in both cases is related: Think of a man writing a novel: the novel as a genre is a form factor in eternity, the finished novel is an artifact
in time and space, while the ‘evolution’ is the hyparchic interaction of the ‘idea’ and the ‘environment’. That’s a big help but still a long way from the specifics of evolution
and quite heretical to scientists. The above is my take on evolution, without hyparxis, but I suspect there is a connection.
For me evolution, given the example of the eonic effect, is the interplay of a form factor for civilization and the later arises
in a series of transitions in a rapid evolution where the transitions seed new clusters that become a new layer of civilizations.
Bennett is sometimes very confused about history but his scheme of epochs was so wrong he himself seems to have ditched it
to see that the issue of age periods was different. Bennett’s thinking is borderline metaphysics, but his idea of hyparxis remains
as a challenge.
The question of Kant is tricky. I never had a course in Kant and stumbled into him backwards and to this day I have problems with
The Critique of Pure Reason (which really needs a slow reading in a group over six months). A while back I suddenly had a kind of mental breakthrough
on his transcendental deduction, the ultimate obscure prose passage of a strange text, and realized (although Kant scholars would protest), its distant
relationship to the Indic Advaita: the categories of space-time (and many others, but Schopenhauer simplifies that)are fretted in
the mind. But that critique has a lot of material of great interest. No one seems to realize who strange that is, if true: the mind is beyond its own space-time
All that can be put to one side: explore the antinomies, and Kantian idealism there can be derived in a paragraph.
and quite fun and ‘simple’: the critique of metaphysics, the antinomies, and so on. It is highly relevant to consider this thinking via those antinomies.
which are the key to his overall thinking. And there is always the simpler version of Schopenhauer. People often react badly to Kant as person, and I have
a bad feeling he was a sort of schmuck. Anyone who could have written his three critiques gets me to look the other way at his personal character.
So there you have it, I am a sort of rogue Kantian, a highly disreputable philosophic Kantian.
Kant’s classic essay on history is something else and very simple: it asks a question
and I think that the eonic model answers the query/queries in that essay.
Kant fortunately appeared before Darwin and had an immense influence at the birth of biological science, There was a school of
so-called ‘teleomechanists’ who created the first attempt at a science of biology with a teleological aspect. If only biologists had listened.
Instead, the Darwin paradigm took over and it is good for imbeciles or professional cadre scientists who toe the party line.
The eonic effect is not about biological evolution but it nonetheless is relevant because it suggests how a form factor interacts with a
temporal realizations, here ‘transitions’ as seed civilizations that generate new eras in history
The connection of Bennett and to biological evolution is not clear, the approaches are different, but they have a significant resemblance.
Anyway, enough for the moment. I will put this online if you don’t object
You are right, WHEE is not as hard as it looks. Good show…
From: A. C.
Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2020 7:31 am
Subject: Sv: Hello..or goodbye
I have an interest in your book and Bennett because I find the question of biological evolution to be a thorn in the side of spirituality in that the current Darwinian paradigm is not very compatible with it, and sometimes drags it down. And yet the Darwinian worldview is so strong in modern society that it keeps existing side by side with ideas it is actually contradictory to and yet not many people seem to notice this or are looking for alternate theories to evolution. What interested me with Oscar Ichazo was that he had a different theory of evolution which I believe I have tracked back to J. G. Bennett as a major influence and Bennett actually has stuff down in writing. I also have an interest in the mystery of the origin of religions going back several years when I read ISOM and other books.
After you brought it up I’m also interested in Kant’s questions about history and have decided to jump straight into WHEE without reading Decoding. If it turns out that the text is too difficult for me I’ll check out Decoding or ask questions. So far it is not difficult to read.
I have not read Kant and actually had a bad impression of him based on some quotes I read where he said humans are predisposed to war and that “from such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned.” It seemed he had a too cynical view of human beings to have much philosophical value. However, I may have been too prejudiced based on that. But I also stayed away from him because I heard he was difficult to read.