The concept of hyparxis is very complicated. My take with the analogy of writing a novel is my own and you will find the idea in Decoding World History in the analogy of the ‘form factor’ with writing a novel. I think the connection to hyparxis stands, more or less.
There a lot of material on hyparxis at the Gurdjieff Con. Use the search box or this link: https://gurdjieff-con.net/?s=hyparxis
This isn’t mystical physics but the same strategy as that of classic physics, but it fails due to the complexity of biological structure. The idea here is to match ‘abstraction’ with physical structures. Newton did this and succeeded, no doubt because physical masses are simpler where organisms have a massively complex structure and species a still further complication. But in principle, the mathematics of physics is the ‘idealism’ part and the object the materialism’ part. They both coexist in physics which in the age of quantum field theory is something still more weird, yet successful.
Darwinists have totally stultified the whole subject and a whole culture.
Bennett wrote in the age of emerging quantum mechanics and general relativity and his six-dimensional model of space, three dimensions, eternity, hyparxis is based ultimately on Abbott’s concept of Flatland. His work predates but seems to impinge on ‘spooky physics’ where the obvious interpretation is of a dimension that is unseen but explains perhaps the confusions of entanglement. IN this sense entanglement is strangely obvious, but Bennett’s thinking is not reliable science but reflects the shock of early twentieth-century physics.
Keep in mind what evolutionary biology is about: it seems like a floating factory generating blueprints on the surface of a planet. The only idea I can think of is a field process that can interact with species fields. ???? A complete guess.
April 18th, 2018 This quote is from the old post below: The question of hyparxis, at the risk of a botch of Bennett’s far more complex account, might be considered with an analogy: a writer has the…