12.07.09
The Dramatic Universe, page one…
DU1a
I have been ambivalent about doing some commentary on Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe, and, having put up a whole matrix of chapters at http://eonic-effect.net/DU/, I have failed to get started on it, perhaps just as well. Since I am not a proponent, the question lingers, why?
Because in setting up and tearing down a Samkhya scheme one can learn something.
Thus, if one can manage to review the history here, it is possible to create a new kind of Gurdjieff critique, and maybe in the process challenge those who will inevitably turn Bennett’s work into a kind of dogmatism to be used to exploit people.
Such a critique is not so simple as total rejection in the name of scientific reductionism.
Bennett is typical of the ‘puppy dog’ disciples who foolishly worship a teacher, and, here, Bennett ends by ascribing all his creative initiative to that source. In the process he became dishonest, and having stared into considerable horror, ended by sugar coating it.
Fortunately, most of The Dramatic Universe is free of that.
Bennett could have produced something very useful, but instead validated Gurdjieff’s plunder of Samkhya (even as he mystified many ‘ancient teachings’). In many ways Bennett’s version is better than the jumping jelly bean baraka bullshit that Gurdjieff inflicts on us in All and Everything.
Gurdjieff’s thinking on the subject would be one thing if he were honest, but he has wiseacred the whole genre. Samkhya is poorly understood by Indian scholars and students of yoga and the guru worship extended puppy dog style from a guru to a sufi black magician, in all innocence, will probably destroy the last verstige of credibility for that teaching.
No matter. We can learn from it, then bury it with the other ‘plutononium’, and proceed to a new understanding along those lines.
With Bennett, a study of Kant’s critique of metaphysics is essential. Bennett is afraid of Kant, as he starts his venture, and tries to concoct a way to bypass him, which is highly questionable.
The passage below is the first page of The Dramatic Universe, cited for that reason only. It already shows a characteristic Bennett theme, his distinction of sensitivity and consciousness, instead of the more usual distinction in yoga of consciousness and self-consciousness.
It would be nice if we could independently verify this rather interesting distinction in Bennett’s formulation, where ‘awareness’ is a life energy, while ‘consciousness’ is a cosmic energy that man can bring to that awareness.
People who write books often enter a realm of self-created linguistic ‘verbiage’ that can go on forever, making little sense to anyone but the author. That problem hits Bennett in a bad way, and it is important to be aware of that, so that the endless passages that sound profound, but then don’t make sense, can be grappled with and rendered comprehensible (or not). He has synthesized an immense amount of material, and the result is often a kind of facile stream of consciousness in his writings. Don’t be intimidated.
To exist means to be what one is. It
Bennett’s son complains about a quote. So we can delete it. Not needed, really.
It is hard to believe the cowardice of this Bennett group that they would cite copyright to prevent any critique.
Ben Bennett said,
12.07.09 at 5:04 pm
Hello,
Please ask for permission to publish or post a book which has a copyright. The copyright for Dramtic Universe is held by The Estate of JG Bennett. I represent the Estate, and wish that you would be considerate and ask before posting as this is in violation of the DMCA.
Thank you,
Ben Bennett
ben@jgbennett.net
The Estate of JG Bennett
The JG Bennett Foundation
The Gurdjieff Con » Bennett’s son tries censorship said,
13.07.09 at 2:21 pm
[...] Comment from Bennett’s son [...]
The Gurdjieff Con » Bennett’s dishonest game said,
13.07.09 at 3:29 pm
[...] Ben Bennett’s comment on The DU page one… To mr. Ben Bennett: I have not idea what you think you will accomplish with these copyright tactics. You have guaranteed that our treatment of Bennett will have any last trace of ‘human affection’ stripped away, with the resulting negative portrayal, which is what should have been the case from the beginning. [...]
Ben Bennett said,
17.07.09 at 5:54 pm
Dear John
I sent you those copies of DU as I was happy that you had read even enough of the book to write a review of it on Amazon.com. I am sorry if this has caused offence. As for any intentions of making money – you probably realize that this is absurd. We re-printed in 1997 1000 copies, for which we raised the entire cost by private subscription. (This was a facsimile of the original typesetting which unfortunately perpetuated some errors which technical readers discover from time to time.) I watched my father working on this book through most of my childhood, and I knew that his prediction had been fulfilled that nobody would read it who could undertand it. In 12 years we have sold about 400 copies, so nobody is getting rich or ever expects to do so. Stigmatizing my father as a crook was a popular pastime in many quarters throughout his life and while I knew him it never bothered him, and neither does it concern us. If you do succeed in posting DU online in violation of copyright, I don’t expect very much harm will come of it, or interest be taken.
So good wishes to you and all you readers
Ben Bennett
The Gurdjieff Con » Clarification on recent edition of The Dramatic Universe said,
17.07.09 at 6:38 pm
[...] Comments Ben Bennett on The Dramatic Universe, page one…The Gurdjieff Con » Bennett’s compromise with sufi/gurdjieff mafia on Bennett/Idries [...]