This post needs a cautionary dissent on itself: I have been critical of dialectic, indirectly of ‘triadic’ arguments, which are quite different, and I stumbled into a ‘triadic’ argument in this piece. In fact the argument doesn’t require it and the core of what was being said was that a hypothetical ‘hypernomic’ realm intersects at its low end with man at the high end, i.e. this potential for ‘consciousness’ and his partial realization of such ‘consciousness’ blended with animal to man/animal sensory functions.
I critiqued the idea of the hypernomic as ‘spiritual’ but let it pass with a wave of the hand. But the Bennett model is a descendant of Samkhya materialism, which allows no exception and recasts the ‘spiritual’ as a series of ‘higher material triads’. The ‘spiritual’ emerges from Samkhya dualism, with is prakriti/purusha. I think the real meaning of this has been lost, but we see at once in Bennett’s version that the ‘purusha’ factor is not there, and the whole scheme from low to high is all of a piece, and material/spiritual all at the same time.
In any case the origin of life is not explained by this new model, but it highlights clearly why the OOL question is so complex and remains unsolved.