29.11.08
From Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe
Since one of the Bennett family has sent me out of the blue the whole of The Dramatic Universe (why?) the question remains of what to do with it. I must be one of the few people on the planet able to deal with it, even as I reject by and large the starting premises of Bennett’s self-created task. Nonetheless there is an audacity to what he did that deserves some kind of historical account, even as a kind of wariness arises with respect to what some might think a Gurdjieff work. In fact in this Preface Bennett politely, much too politely, makes clear that he is moving beyond Gurdjieff. Unfortunately Bennett did not completely free himself from Gurdjieff and, although the connection in The Dramatic Universe is virtually broken, there is still the lickspittle idiocy of the Gurdjieff follower unaware of the danger of putting such a complex and original piece of work anywhere near a caliban like Gurdjieff. Fortunately it is all too complex for the village idiots in the so-called work, Gurdjieff included, and it is not likely we will see svengali tactics of the Gurdjieff gang using this as propaganda. It is too cleaned out, but, too bad, not completely. The other problem is the way (if you read his autobiography, the point somewhere in the late thirties to late forties) he was kidnapped by some kind of unknown esoteric something that left him a doctrinaire Christian Catholic. This resulted in compromises in his basic scheme. But with a little experience you can see where these ‘fixes’ enter the work and disregard them. As noted here before, the Christian layer on what is in essence a scheme of classical Samkhya is a monumental impostion of scholarly/sufistic thievery without acknowledgment, and the response should be to extract the original classic from the trappings, but with some indication of the original interpretation Bennett put on it. Samkhya was not about Christian theology or God.
In reality, a close reading shows that Bennett was not conventional theist, a confusing Catholic Christian hypocrite, I guess, (he calls ‘god’ the third reconciling force in all triads, and never refers to god the ‘higher power’ save as the unfathomable expressed in some jargon from Cantor). So once we get Bennett’s number we can skulk away with the real substance of Samkhya with an interesting new take on it in modern language. As indicated the whole game is dependent, it seems, on the brilliant insights of Schopenhauer, thence of Kant, so we can manage to survive without Bennett’s metaphysics, which really is quite extravagant.
In the process we can pull rank on that silly degenerate Gurdjieff who picked up some hint of Samkhya and distorted it for his devious and dark teaching. We can see in Bennett that the grafting of the two things is not seamless and we can profitably recover some glimpses of the original ancient teaching, in the process sending the Gurdjieff wolf pack packing.
I scanned up a passage from Bennett’s Preface (to the first edition of Volume I, not the later shortened version)
We cannot doubt that we men have our roots in the natural order, but we can and do wonder if our fruits belong to the same world. The question whether there is some affinity between the total man and the total universe, or whether we are but accidental intruders upon the cosmic scene, is one that must concern every man-for upon the answer hangs the decision as to the values that should rule our lives. A total question demands a total answer, and this could not be given except in terms of the whole of human experience-including all that man has learned in recent centuries about himself and the universe. Such an undertaking is manifestly impossible of accomplishment unless all experience can be brought into a coherent system capable of apprehension by that limited and capricious instrument, the human mind. The Systema Universi has proved a will-o’-the-wisp, leading many a powerful intellect into a morass of vain speculation. Since the failure of Hegel’s Cosmosophy, Comte’s Panhylism, Fechner’s Panentheism, and Bergson’s Panpsychism -to name but four noteworthy essays at an all-embracing scheme¬philosophers have turned away from the question of questions to follow the prevalent cult of specialization in the hope that to be precise about little things may prove safer than to be vague about everything.
Meanwhile the frontiers of human knowledge have been thrust back in all directions-history, prehistory, and palreontology; ethnology and comparative religion; psychology and physiology; biochemistry, embryology, and genetics; physics, astronomy, and mathematics¬each has brought its quota of well-ascertained facts that collectively have created a situation that has perhaps never before existed in the long history of human cultures. We need no longer speculate about many things that our forerunners assigned to metaphysics or theology; no~ is it permissible to do so. Science has killed the old speculative philosophy, but has put nothing in its place. There is now before us the mat~rial for a new synthesis; but it is so immense in its extent and so bewIldering in its variety that no one human mind can compass one hundredth part of it. No modern Pico della Mirandola could challenge ~e learned world to discourse on every known subject. No modern
escartes would venture to assert that he had mastered all the sciences.
And yet a synthesis is necessary; for unless all knowledge can be brought into
coherent system, we shall have either to abandon the hope of finding man’s
place man’s place in the universe or else to accept with pious
resignation, dogmas that disregard the lessons of natural science, and acquiesce in the continuing divorce of fact and value that has been the chief cause of our present bewilderment.
More than thirty-five years have passed since, in the spring of 1920, I became convinced that many intractable problems would be resolved if we could overcome the handicap of thinking in terms of events in space and time only, and could widen our horizons to include the unseen and unexplored dimension of eternity. I set myself to study the dilemmas of science and philosophy-such as the ether paradox or the antinomy of free-will and universal law-to see if the material for knowing eternity might not be lying unnoticed before our eyes.
Soon afterwards I met Gurdjieff, who made me see that to know more is not enough, and that it is necessary to be more if we would penetrate beyond the veil of space and time. In the succeeding years, I learned from him the elements of a comprehensive cosmology that gave promise of reconciling fact and value and of laying the foundations of a new Weltanschauung. Gurdjieff’s cosmology, though magnificent in its bold outline, was nevertheless far from adequate in its treatment of the data of modern science. For many years I wrestled with the problem of reconciling the two. Finally, in 1940, I decided to make a fresh start, and the present book began to be written. Little by little I saw the fragments fall into place, and realized that the systematization of all human experience was more than a remote possibility. The task was quite beyond my own powers, and could not even have been attempted with¬out the co-operation of specialists who helped me with what I regarded as the crucial problem-the demonstration that the mathematical and physical sciences required an ampler framework of dimensions than those of space and time, even as generalized by the work of Minkowski and Einstein.
The undertaking continued to expand, and it became clear that the two great problems of systematizing all fact and reconciling all values could be accomplished if only we could put aside for ever the narrow terrestrial ism that is so strange a relic of the Middle Ages and still dominates all discussion of human destiny.
. The present volume deals only with the systematization of facts; but It was written in parallel with the second volume, which I hope to prepare for publication within one or two years. Only when read together ca~ the relevance of the work for the question of man’s place in the umverse become apparent. In the meantime, I wish to make it clear that this book is not a presentation of Gurdjieff’s cosmology. It is my own essay, and much that it contains is derived from sources quite uncon-
nected with Gurdjieff’s teaching. It aims at a presentation accessible, not only to professional philosophers, but to every reader who is pre¬pared to undertake the not inconsiderable task of mastering the basic conception and gaining familiarity with the special terminology necessary to avoid misleading associations. Nevertheless, it could not have been written without the stimulation of Gurdjieff’s inspired insight into the cosmic scheme, nor without the grounding in his methods which I have been fortunate to receive from him personally, and from his great pupil and exponent, P. D. Ouspensky.
Not long before Gurdjieff’s death in October 1949, I spoke to him about this work and told him of the line I was taking. He showed by his comments that he fully grasped its implications, but disclaimed any personal interest, saying, “It is your work and not mine-all the same, it will be good publicity for Beelzebub”, referring to his own book, All and Everything, published posthumously in 1950. I accept this assess¬ment. In Gurdjieff’s All and Everything there are insights far deeper than I myself could attain, and the reader who feels the need to find not merely a new world-outlook, but a new way of life, is counselled to’take Gurdjieff’s work and study it as I have done. After perhaps thirty careful readings, I still discover in it new depths of meaning and-I am glad to say-new evidence that the main conceptions of my own work are in accord with the direct intuitions of a genius that I do not hesitate to describe as superhuman.
Among the many ‘crumbs from the ideas-table’ of Gurdjieff that have nourished my thinking, I count as of first importance the doctrine of Reciprocal Maintenance according to which every recognizable entity on every scale of existence participates in the universal exchange of energies-supporting and being supported by the existence of others. Recipr.oc.al M~intenance is the corner stone of Gurdjieff’s teaching in so far .as It 11lum.1I~ates both fact and value, yet it is but one of his many danng and onglOal conceptions. He left behind him no orderly system of thought, nor did he appear to be interested in systematic exposition -leaving it to his followers to reap the harvest of the ideas which he had sown.
” Several books have appeared treating of one or other aspect of Gurd¬~leff’s teaching and methods, and still more have been inspired by his Ideas without mentioning their source. I do not wish to claim Gurdjieff’s authority for anything I have written, nor even for the interpretation I have placed upon his own written word; but I do wish to acknowledge the inspiration of his teaching and, perhaps even more, the influence of his individuality upon my life.