Rupert Sheldrake: The Morphogenic Field (General)

by BBella @, Saturday, September 10, 2016, 07:01 (559 days ago)

More on RS's morphogenic field. Some examples (proof?) and excerpts. A substantive read from an odd site.

Rupert Sheldrake: The Morphogenic Field

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 10, 2016, 16:26 (558 days ago) @ BBella

BBella: More on RS's morphogenic field. Some examples (proof?) and excerpts. A substantive read from an odd site.

Thank you for the reference. The blue tits, the hundredth monkey, the animal training and the human cross word studies, etc., are all in my first book plus lots more. I view that as strong evidence of species consciousness and said so. I also agree/agreed that body form or plant form is not explained by our current knowledge of DNA functions. Something is missing, but RS's theory is just that in this article, a theory with no proof. That is why I have kept the two concepts apart in my thinking. There is no question there is species consciousness, but energy fields of form are not the same, although they are mixed together in this article.

And measuring electromagnetic fields around any biologic organism is to be expected. Life runs on charged particles called ions, therefore E-M fields! RS is absolutely correct to point out this deficiency in scientific thinking in ignoring the creation of form. The Watson-Crick hoopla stopped at coding for proteins, and shows, in retrospect, how short-sided was the thinking at that time. What they discovered was a momentous step forward, but probably about 15% of the explanation of how life works.

Rupert Sheldrake: The Morphogenic Field

by dhw, Sunday, September 11, 2016, 13:45 (557 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you again, BBella, for the article, which I have now read, and thank you, David, for your comments. The distinction between the concepts of species consciousness, energy fields of form, and personal electromagnetic fields is particularly helpful, as I also had an uncomfortable feeling that there was a bit of fudging here but am in no position to elaborate.

I'd be very interested to know more, BBella, about how these ideas fit in with your own experiences - and although currently only three of us are discussing this, I'm sure there are others out there who would be equally interested. But only if you want to go further.

In passing, I see that Sheldrake is using the terms morphic and morphogenic here - not morphogenetic!

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum