Assessing Borrowing
The Case of Gurdjieff
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21750499 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joseph Azize (0000-0001-9556-7189, The University of Sydney, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-30 |
| Publication date | 2020-01-22 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Aries (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1567-9896 • E-ISSN: 1570-0593 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1163/15700593-02001001 |
| OpenAlex | W3034703058 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 2 |
The history of esoteric currents cannot be intrinsically closed to scholarly research and query. Here, we shall examine just one question: that of methodology in examining the sources of esoteric systems. We shall take but one case study: that of Tobias Churton’s recent book-length efforts to “deconstruct” George Ivanovich Gurdjieff and his teaching. Like others before him, he traces diverse aspects of Gurdjieff’s teaching to different sources, viewing Gurdjieff as a synthesiser, who disguised his debt to Western Esotericism and presented it as his “Fourth Way”. How can such a theory be evaluated? Is it possible to draw up a canon of principles for assessing borrowing? In evaluating borrowing, does the whole of a teaching possess a significance over and above the parts? What is the significance of the phenomenon of borrowing? After noting some results of research on inter-cultural borrowings in ancient mythology, I make suggestions for sound methodology
Art · Epistemology · History of religions · Intellectual history · Literature · Mythology · Phenomenon · Sociology · Classics · Education Methods and Practices · Ego Development and Educational Practices · History · Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs · Philosophy · Religious studies
| Highly cited | No |
|---|