<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ironic value of Bennett on &#8216;evolution&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/02/22/ironic-value-of-bennett-on-evolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/02/22/ironic-value-of-bennett-on-evolution/</link>
	<description>Debriefing the Gurdjieff work</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:41:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darwiniana &#187; Bennett on human evolution</title>
		<link>http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2010/02/22/ironic-value-of-bennett-on-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-35875</link>
		<dc:creator>Darwiniana &#187; Bennett on human evolution</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=1551#comment-35875</guid>
		<description>[...] Ironic value of Bennett on evolution Going through Bennett’s material on ‘evolution’ could backfire as solemn (and mostly stupid) converts to Gurdjieffianity suddenly get an idea of what is being said, and proceed to a mystical belief system or screed on evolution. But I think not: Bennett’s view is New Age hokum, if you like, but actually still close enought to science to collapse via falsifying challenges. But this view is of use, not as a theory, but as a sketch with a set of questions that ordinary science tends to filter out of its deliberations. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ironic value of Bennett on evolution Going through Bennett’s material on ‘evolution’ could backfire as solemn (and mostly stupid) converts to Gurdjieffianity suddenly get an idea of what is being said, and proceed to a mystical belief system or screed on evolution. But I think not: Bennett’s view is New Age hokum, if you like, but actually still close enought to science to collapse via falsifying challenges. But this view is of use, not as a theory, but as a sketch with a set of questions that ordinary science tends to filter out of its deliberations. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

