I am pleased to say that my article “Gurdjieff and Contemporary Physics and Chemistry” has now been published in the Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review, 16:1, pp.70-84.
This is the abstract:
James Webb stated that the source of Gurdjieff’s ideas could be discerned, and that the enquiry helped interpret his method. He purported to identify Blavatsky’s Theosophy as an important source. I contend that the features Webb appeals to for this identification are better understood as being based on an understanding of 19th century chemistry and science more generally, both ante- and postdating Blavatsky’s work. I suggest that Gurdjieff’s system owed much to his wide reading in contemporary science, including Prout’s theory of hydrogen as the fundamental element, and the discovery of the electron. The essence of Gurdjieff’s system starts to appear more European than usually thought.
I set out what Webb said, then what Ouspensky knew about Gurdjieff’s sources. To date, these have been the two most important contributions to this question. When I turn to Gurdjieff’s debt to modern science, I start with the discovery of the electron, because, since he refers to the electron, he cannot have finalised the system before then.
I also deal with the names of the four elements in Gurdjieff: Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. I demolish the idea that Gurdjieff got this from Blavatsky, and what is almost as important, I deal with methodology, i.e. how we can rationally approach this question, what to take into account, and what not to. I highlight the pioneering work of William Prout (1785-1850) in physics, and how his work was taken up by alchemists – and from there influenced Gurdjieff: either directly or indirectly, but the possibility Gurdjieff did not know of the pertinent developments can be dismissed. I show that Gurdjieff’s vocabulary in All and Everything shows that he must have known of these aspects of contemporary science.
I also demonstrate how Gurdjieff was aware of contemporary views of the ether, and incorporated these in his “etherokrilno.” Gurdjieff likewise made use of the theories of triads and octaves associated with 19th century chemistry and physics, not least the periodic table of elements, and the research of J.W. Döbereiner. The latter, like Dumas, specualted that the new developments could explain and form a basis for the transmutation of elements. Anthony G.E. Blake had also noticed that John Newlands (1837-1898) had presented a periodic system revealing that chemical properties of elements would repeat in a pattern after regular intervals of eight elements, according to a “law of octaves.” Gurdjieff said that he knew of these developments, although he did not name Newlands or any other major scientist.
G.D. Hinrichs (1836-1923) is said to have taken a “rather Pythagorean approach,” finding numerical relationships between diverse phenomena.” If Gurdjieff did not know of his work, he knew of that current of work, and took it further, adding psychological and spiritual dimensions to it.
I close with some exploratory notes concerning Gurdjieff’s psychology and theory of the “I” in relation to contemporary research.
Needless to say, when so much of Gurdjieff’s intellectual system comes from contemporary European science, his reliance on Eastern and other resources is necessarily less.
The article can be purchased from the ASR Review.