08.02.10
Life, evolution vs mind and cosmic energy
Bennett’s views are outlandish, no doubt, but he raises an issue that won’t go away: is mind evolution in man the same as life evolution in general? Bennett’s outrageous speculations nonetheless force the question. His system is divided into three levels, the mechanical, the life, and the cosmic levels. Man’s consciousness (what he calls sensitivity or life energy) is on the threshold of self-consciousness, the first level of cosmic interaction. (The terms are reversed in Bennett, consciousness means self-consciousness).
There is no way I know of you can proceed to verify or prove these ideas, but they have a mysterious potential plausibility that, stripped of speculative nonsense or the extravagance too present in Bennett, goes a long way to explain many things. That man’s mind is interacting with a domain beyond life via the vehicle of self-consciousness is an idea that is worth considering, without becoming a convert to it. Much that is garbled in standard accounts of human evolution suddenly might make sense if we adopt this perspective.
Much confusion arises in cosmology because we don’t make this distinction: the universe looks dead, by and large, but that is no impediment to the presence of ‘consciousness’ which is beyond life.
In any case, never become ‘convinced’ of these views. They are already so vitiated by Gurdjieff cult idiocy (although Bennett’s version is entirely alone and off by itself in a corner, unread) as to be toxic. But a few glimpses of what Bennett is driving at contributes at least a very good question to the enigma of human evolution, so badly treated by Darwinian incomprehension.
Note in passing: this issue arose very early in Bucke’s sense of ‘cosmic consciousness’ contrasted with consciousness. Bucke’s version is as confused as the rest, but it points to the similar thought in Bennett.
Jim Buck said,
09.02.10 at 3:12 am
This looks to be an interesting discussion. I’m leaving for North Africa, right now, but look forward to reviewing the discussions on my return, a week from now.
Regards
The Gurdjieff Con » Wrecked scholarship based on Gurdjieff lies said,
09.02.10 at 7:09 pm
[...] Bennett material… The discussion of Bennett here is tricky: I am not a supporter of his views, despite the interest of his general effort. But I think that as one goes over the material in public, well, that is the best critique. You can never do work based on the lies of Gurdjieff. Remember that if you have scholarly ambitions, and remember the sad case of Bennett who took Gurdjieff lies at face value, wrecking his scholarship. [...]
The Gurdjieff Con » Ray of creation and other bunk said,
14.02.10 at 3:58 pm
[...] Bennett scanned material I will get around to some more material tommorrow, but it is significant to note the way that Bennett grafts the cosmology of Gurdjieff onto his system, with contradictory, or not very satisfactory results. The scheme is bascially the ray of creation idea. Once you try to mix this with the science that Bennett has under his belt, the result is a muddle. The material on this by Gurdjieff has wasted immense time for many. It is claimed that this is ‘objective knowledge’ of great antiquity. It is suspiciously ‘mystic nineteenth’ century and probably the creation, if not of Gurdjieff, then some idiot ’sufi’. [...]