Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it.
There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic, UFOlogist and astrologist, who is linked on HN, also? Or should we accept such articles as if they have something useful to contribute, just because someone took the time to write them?
There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic, UFOlogist and astrologist, who is linked on HN, also? Or should we accept such articles as if they have something useful to contribute, just because someone took the time to write them?