I've just read the last couple of days of posts. Not meaning to be
contentious on this one but Mike Hollinshead and I have both written on
morphic resonance and David Bohm's quantum language connection to indigenous
science in Canada. I believe Keith made one of his famous, "I really don't
understand statements at the time." Considering the fact that he wrote
this very articulate post I am confused by his earlier statements when we
were talking about this and relating it to the values that create meaningful
work. I would also relate this to the studies of Sir Herbert Read who in
his considerable writings on the arts drew contemporary scientific thought
together with modern art and showed how an artistic illiteracy would create
a world where large general understandings of science would become
impossible for the average person.
I congratulate Keith and Bob and would encourage their looking at Morris
Berman's "The re-enchantment of the World" or "Lighting the Seventh Fire" by
F. David Peat. The problem that I find with statements like the
Wheeler/Feynman that Keith quotes is that they seem just as Newtonian bound
as most conservative (neo-liberal) writings on the work of Art. 19th
century romantic thought is just that. Time-bound. If you population is
time bound and "rigid authority laden" then anything outside that system
doesn't exist or is "impossible to know." Anyone who studies the periods
of human expression will not make that mistake. Facts are system bound as
is truth. Facts are mutual agreements that are short term while truths
are culture wide and in some cases transcend cultures but to relegate either
to universal reality is a conceit not tolerated in my profession.
I would also like to complain about the tendency on this list to either
anecdotal thought or academic generalities. Keith wrote me a very
practical letter off list which has theoretical value for the Future of
Work. I think that we should not avoid our experiences but ground them in
our successes and failures and approach the issue theoretically but from the
expertise that each of us brings to the subject.
As for Quantum thought, Bohm found it in the culture of the Algonquin and
wanted to use their language in his science because English didn't fit.
I've written this before on this list. Quantum thought, like the mutually
agreed Christian or Newtonian thought (which neither Jesus or Newton would
agree was complete) is really just another system and will eventually, like
Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Minimalist art be superceded by the next
constructed system. That is one of the things that we human do.
Construct systems. Living within them is the way we entertain ourselves.
So the future of work must ultimately be tied with the next system that we
will evolve together. Discussion of that system is, IMHO not only
appropriate but necessary to the discussion of how work will evolve in the
future. I especially like the discussion on Memes and Keith and Bob's
observation about deep information. This seems primal since it is found
everywhere as an idea while proving that "life is but a dream" is still the
province of the imagination and art but is thus far beyond science.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Goertzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Morphic Resonance
> Hi Keith and Bob:
> Truely you guys are DEEP thinkers!!
>
> I'm neither physysist not theologian, however,
>
> My understanding of Morphic Resonance was an example of the behaviour of a
> flock of birds, They know which direction to swoop in by morphic
resonance.
> Some ascribe morphic resonance to the power of prayer.
>
> In our congregation we have a person given 6 months and it has been
claimed
> that by way of his prayer group alone, no chemo, his doctor is baffled
that
> his cancer is not only in remission, but indicernable. Me? I'm a doubter.
>
>
> Regarding God, I don't know if you are familiar with "monism" That is the
> idea that God is not a person, but a personality, a "Godhead" That all of
> humanity are one through Him.
>
> This is the first articulated definition of morphic resonance that I have
> come accross. Interesting.
>
> That's about as far as I'll go
>
> Regards
> Ed G
>
>
>
> At 03:56 PM 31/05/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi Bob,
> >
> >I've been on FW from its earliest months and this subject has never
turned
> >up before. Sheldrake's ideas about morphic fields are very close to a
> >metaphorical interpretion of quantum physics which I call a 'deep
> >information field' in what I write below. This doesn't make me any sort
of
> >expert but it's something I dwell on frequently and really underpins my
own
> >personal philosophy.
> >
> >(However, it's likely that some FWers will not be interested in quantum
> >physics or in philosophical interpretations of it so, as this is likely
to
> >be longish, please read no further if that's the case!)
> >
> >No-one understands quantum physics. At least this is what at least two of
> >the greatest contemporary minds on the subject, Richard Feynman and John
> >Wheeler, have said about it. Nevertheless, both of them have speculated
> >enormously about its implications, sometimes to verifiable effect, and
they
> >both seem to give the go-ahead to the worthwhileness of lesser mortals
such
> >as ourselves dwelling on the subject, even if only with awe.
> >
> >To my mind the principal wonder of the universe as partially revealed by
> >quantum physics is that there is a deep field, and this is mainly
> >characterised by information content rather than by mechanical things or
> >qualities that we are normally able to measure or conceive of. For
> >example, if previously paired electrons with opposite spins (and thus a
> >relationship with each other) are separated and fired off in opposite
> >directions then a change of spin on one electron will be detected by the
> >other electron instantly -- or at least, with a reaction time that is
> >faster than the speed of light or any other transmission method -- no
> >matter how far distant it is from its former companion. This effect has
> >been demonstrated in a well-known series of experiments that were
initiated
> >by Michael Aspect. So some sort of telepathy, morphic resonance or
> >information field seems to be involved here.
> >
> >Another way of glimpsing this information field is given by Richard
> >Feynman. Imagine, he says, an electron moving in a particular direction.
> >Its progress cannot be measured in any way (say, by a photon) without
> >greatly disturbing it and the path of the electron is best conceived of
as
> >appearing at a definite place at one instance, disappearing, and
instantly
> >reappearing at another specific place. What we conceive of as a smoothly
> >unfolding reality, as previously described by classical physics, can only
> >exist as a huge stack of discontinuous "stationary states" -- of
electrons,
> >photons, protons or what have you -- that is produced, or directed, by a
> >deep field of information. This is the fundamental postulate of quantum
> >physics as laid down by Bohr in 1913. In anthropomorphic terms, this deep
> >field obviously 'knows' what has been going on previously in the
> >superficial world in which we live.
> >
> >Looking at reality in this way, the world that we see and touch is
actually
> >subject to some sort of record that is being kept at a deep level and in
> >terms that we cannot comprehend because our sense organs are limited in
> >scope (and all scientific apparatus has to translate their performance
into
> >sensual terms). And this applies to everything, even to the whole world,
> >the solar system, whole galaxies containing hundreds of thousands of
suns,
> >and concatenations of galaxies that stretch to the furthest edge of the
> >universe -- far beyond the conceptions of most of us unless we happen to
be
> >astronomers. And the reason why the projection of all this can be
> >'comfortably' held in total detail in a deep field of information is that
> >the 'inner layers' of reality (from mankind's position as somehow half
way
> >between) is far deeper than the extent of the 'outer layers' as mentioned
> >above. (For example, the proportionate extent of space between an
electron
> >and a nucleus within an atom is billions of time greater than the space
> >between the sun and the earth. And deeper still at the layers of smaller
> >particles, proportionate space is larger still.)
> >
> >This 'all-knowingness' of an information field is very close to the
notion
> >of the omniscient God at the heart of all mankind's religions. It's
almost
> >identical, except that the different religions have different cultural
> >notions of God's other characteristics -- the Christian one being that of
a
> >very anthropomorphic God with whom an individual can have a preferential
> >relationship, Allah being similar, though with a different personality,
the
> >Buddhist one being so impersonal that it's almost no God, and so on and
so
> on.
> >
> >In my view, this cannot be taken further by science. Quantum physics has
> >re-interpreted the idea of an omniscient God in perfectly acceptable
> >scientific terms. It can only be taken further by faith. By this I mean
> >that even a deep field of information (or one of the Gods of the
different
> >religions, if you like) doesn't totally determine what happens in all the
> >'higher' levels that we call reality. The universe can unfold in
different
> >ways (also called Chaos Theory). Even we, by a mysterious process that we
> >rather crudely call 'freewill' and which is associated with that other
> >equally mysterious essence that we call 'consciousness' also has some
input
> >into what actually unfolds. Even though our new inputs are
infinitessimally
> >small compared with everything that has gone on before, and thus laid
down
> >only as a sort of provisional overlay upon a template in the deep
> >information field, they are still important. We still have a degree of
> >significance. Not much! But some. No matter how small this is, it makes
> >all the difference.
> >
> >I believe it is this feeling of significance which is the true source of
> >the survival instinct of all lifeforms, ourselves included, deeper even
> >than memes or genes and, at a conscious human level, the source of
> >creativity. Without it we would have no possible feeling of significance,
> >no curiosity, no art, no science, no religion, no speculation, no basis
for
> >morality -- indeed, no reason for living. We would be no more than
> >automatic vehicles for chemical reactions with no responsibility for what
> >we do.
> >
> >I am sure that quantum physics will come up with experiments in the
future
> >that will further refine what I have vaguely called the deep information
> >field and make the notion more widely acceptable, but I am also sure that
> >what we sense as our freewill or consciousness or creativity will never
be
> >explicable or demonstrated in scientific terms because it's an embedded
> >part of a larger universe that can never take a truly objective view of
> >itself, nor we of it.
> >
> >Keith H
> >
> >
> >At 16:11 30/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
> ><<<<
> >Controversy follows Sheldrake at every turn, and little wonder. The
> >existence of
> >telepathy, a radical notion by itself, is just a subset of Sheldrake's
> >larger premises-- that invisible, but onetheless pervasive "morphic
fields"
> >are responsible for both the shape and behavior of all hings, from atoms
to
> >zebras, organizing them much as a magnetic field lines up iron filings.
> >Just as controversial is Sheldrake's hypothesis that these fields
broadcast
> >across time and space, a phenomenon he calls morphic resonance. Result: A
> >carrot seed grows into the shape of a carrot because it is directed by
the
> >cumulative morphic resonance of all previous carrots. A million blind
> >African termites build a 10-foot-tall nest, featuring top-to-bottom
> >ventilation shafts and ther complex architectures, because they are
guided
> >by the morphic resonance of previous termite nests. A newspaper crossword
> >puzzle is easier to solve late in the day, because the morphic resonance
> >broadcast by thousands of successful solvers facilitates the task. A dog
> >anticipates its owner's return because the bond they forge through close
> >association is what Sheldrake terms a "social" morphic field, which
> >stretches, but does not break, when they are apart. Sheldrake contends
the
> >same transcendental bonding explains how
> >pigeons home, fish school, and dogs and cats find owners who have moved
> >hundreds of miles away. Humans, Sheldrake says, retain only vestiges of
> >morphic-resonance telepathy, possibly because telephones and mass media
> >make the ability less necessary for survival. In animals, he contends, it
> >remains robust.
> >>>>>
> >
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >
> >Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
> >6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> >Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
> >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
>
