History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

More on original NK comment

March 23rd, 2016 · 1 Comment


Hi again: let me try again to answer your comment on ‘Sch. on genius’ and the question of Bennett. I tend to get so over-multitasked I can’t register: your original comment must have been, what is Bennett doing in the middle of a book on the Axial Age. Actually, you have a point. Once you open the door the whole gang of occult sufis he was linked with will follow. IN fact the Preface goes into that at length. And even goes into the question of what this has to do with Mayan sacrificial religion. I made use of Bennett but I undermined his position as an unwitting front for people like Gurdjieff. And I think Bennett moved on from his early associations, save that he didn’t say so.
He raised a question again about ‘demiurgic powers’ and their status in reality. Over time I have seen his point, but concluded the need to break the concept down and start over. I think the surprise here is the connection with the revolutionary left. The real demiurgic powers, as I guess, are ferocious and saw that capitalism was going to wreck a planet. Bennett and I both have a curious fixation with 1848, and that is part of the reason. It is an odd issue, but I have finally arrived at a new interpretation, or a range of them, of the Axial Age, and the issue raised by Bennett enters there. But his The Dramatic Universe is a train wreck, finally. I think my WHEE corrects some of his confusions.

The point that is so hard to figure out is 1. what was the Axial Age, and 2. how do we reexplain religions that come later? It is a tricky question, and I think I have roughly mapped it out.

Tags: General

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 NK // Mar 23, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    I don’t think you can take any of the details of Bennett’s system seriously. My point is that it gives an idea of the level of thought needed to create a science of the future.

Leave a Comment