Sand wrote:
Perhaps more simply, ideas are fruitful and acceptable by their utility more than by the character of their creator.
Thank you. Of course. That is my point - the character - highly dubious - of Gurdieff -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._I._Gurdjieff - can be ignored in light of the practical application of enneagrammatic insights to decoding otherwise incompreensible human interactions.
Although I have run across various aspects of Gurdjieff the general impression I have of him is not terribly different in intent with the idiocy of Scientology although they both seem to attract lots of gullible people. A reasonable look in at him is at
06 Jul 2011, 1:10 am
