Having cited J.G.Bennett it is interesting to transpose the issue of consciousness into another mode, as it were. Strangely, while the new age movement tends to follow dualistic interpretations, not all such in fact do so, viz. Bennett and his different foundation with speaks not of dualism but of a triad: ‘being, function, will’. This formulation echoes vast ancient spiritual paths, viz. Samkhya with its universal materialism, yet even with a duality of ‘consciousness’. With Bennett and his sufi friends, the framwork or Samkya is adopted but without the dualism.
The point here is that consciousness is not fundamental (as against many new age, e.g. Advaita,formulations) as such but an aspect of a larger ‘triad’: consciousness and matter are two poles of the ‘being’ fundamental, next to function, and ‘will’. Note the resemblance to Schopenhauer: Bennett’s idea is influenced by that philosopher, and by the sufis via Gurdjieff who remarkably was determined materialist.
The issue of ‘materialism’ is relative and the ‘matter’ aspect of ‘consciousness is beyond observation as yet. The confusions of consciousness and ‘will’ are important and show that the restricted fundamentals of science AND most religious/new age thinking can’t resolve the issues.
Those who would understand immaterial realities like consciousness should not speak so disrespectfully of dualism as Dr. Pigliucci does. Source: Yes, Consciousness Is Real But That’s Not the Half o…