Claude Caspar provided a link to Bennett Books in post 5933. There is
a brief description of Bennett's many books there, including his
major work "The Dramatic Universe".
The first volume is subtitled "The Foundations of Natural Philosophy".
One of the key ideas in the first volume - which resonates somewhat
with Sartre - is that there are three elements of experience: Being,
Function and Will. Being has to do with consciousness, Function with
knowledge and Will with understanding. So what we can "know" is only
a small part of what's going on.
Another central idea of the first volume, which comes from Ouspensky,
is that the universe can only be understood in terms of six
Another central idea is that the first twelve numbers can represent
twelve categories, the monad, the dyad, the triad, etc. In volume
three he expands this to twelve systems.
Another key idea is that the "entities" of the universe can be placed
in three "groups": Hyponomic entities which are non-living things,
Autonomic entities which are living things, and Hypernomic entities
which are conscious, intelligent things.
If Bennett had disassociated himself from Gurdjieff and Ouspensky,
perhaps his great work would have been considered in philosophy
departments. Because he did not do that, his work has been relegated
to the so-called Fourth Way. Unfortunately "The Dramatic Universe" is
not considered canonical in the Fourth Way, so those people don't
read it. And most of them would be incapable of reading it anyway.
The modern philosopher who most greatly influenced Bennett was
Whitehead. But "The Dramatic Universe" probably most closely
resembles Teilhard's "The Phenomenon of Man".
Teilhard and Sartre seem to be very different. But the Fourth Way is
divided into a cosmological side and a psychological side. When it is
considered that Teilhard is primarily dealing with the cosmological
side, and Sartre with the psychological side, much similarity can be
found between the two.
Gurdjieff presented a great system which he claimed to learn from
those who, in turn, learned it from others. There is definitely a
mystery here. Perhaps thinkers like Sartre and Santayana, who appear
to be completely independent, are in fact members of something we
know nothing about.
--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com
> Are they talking about Bennett the "values" man? I don't know
> --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, anjo3jantz@a... wrote:
> > Someone made the comment that Bennett was "the greatest
> of the
> > 20th century." I must confess my ignorance because not only am I
> > with his work, but until now I had never even heard of the guy.
> Generally the
> > names I hear when people talk about "the greatest" of the 20th c.
> are people
> > such as Sartre, Heidegger, Russell, Wittgenstein. But Bennett?
> > Would anyone care to give a brief synopsis of his major themes?
> > Thanks.
> > Andrew
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]