I am very happy you are publishing regularly on Substack, Dr. Sheldrake. I am really trying to dial in my understanding of the theory of morphic resonance.
Love this! Great piece. As far as philosophical tradition goes, perhaps Heraclitus offers a helpful alternative to Plato (i.e., eternal forms) and Aristotle (i.e., entelechy) vis-à-vis the question of telos. This forgotten thinker seems more sympathetic to a non-dualistic vitalism or evolutionary organicism. If nature loves to hide her telos, perhaps an agnostic or apophatic perspective is the most respectful and reverent of “truth”.
I am curious if the model/theory underlying the proposition that “morphogenetic fields are not outside space and time in a Platonic realm, but inside space and time: they are immanent in nature, not transcendent” supports only epistemic indeterminism, or also, and perhaps necessarily, ontological indeterminism?
Heraclitus -- the original 'process philosopher' (or perhaps Whitehead should be thought of as modern Stoic?) -- is a good shout. It seems like we're trying find our way back to the Stoic concept of an 'intelligent aether'.
Morphogenesis is driven by electromagnetic fields which take on the form of a vortex complex.
The vortex principle is the basic 'form' and provides for stability and energy accumulation as opposed to dissipation. A vortex is capable of rudimentary self-regulation and even reproduction.
A vortex field forms an electromagnetic template for morphology. This template operates by expansion into the global bio-field which in turn operates on the emergent properties of cellular collectives which by themselves are not sufficient to create form but instead act as a toolkit for the supervening field.
IMHOP your comment evolves the consideration in the most productive direction. I will next learn of this “vortex complex” an unfamiliar term to me, but here’s a quick reflection:
“I” is a vortex complex itself evolving in temporary association (birth) with an apparent biological (primate) form
Here’s my favorite line from the article:
“Dynamic systems evolve towards attractors,”
Attractors e.g. food, sunlight
Just saying…
The vortex field btw would include or indeed by its own “organization” make a spiraling form of participation/conductivity in the overall “space” in which it is arising❓This being basic to its association with the cellular collective of the primate, human form❓
Spiraling from double helix DNA to Galaxy Scale in form and of the magnetic field of the Earth, toroidal spiraling through the north south vortices as from above the head to below the feet of the human body.
Hopefully, that is not a complete non-sequitur
This would all be so simple if I could say what I see…
Dear Professor Shaldrake, every time I read one of your contributions, I am delighted by your precision and admire your rigour in thinking and formulating. Keep on going! Less forms more... Best regards from Berlin.
First, I want to thank you for your ongoing work and for sharing your thoughts on morphogenesis and morphic resonance. Your contributions to understanding the emergence of form in living systems have been enormously influential to me and many others. Your exploration of morphic fields and the role of resonance in shaping life has been foundational in expanding our understanding of biology and consciousness.
In reflecting on your latest article, I wanted to share some thoughts from my own work in the IXOS framework, which I believe may offer complementary insights to your ongoing investigation. In particular, I want to focus on how morphogenesis can be understood as an evolving dynamic, not just a deterministic unfolding of genetic code, but as an adaptive system shaped by field interactions and energetic patterns.
The Dynamics of Morphogenesis in IXOS
One of the key ideas in IXOS is that DNA does not serve as the sole determinant of form but is part of a broader system where carbon, light, water, and phosphorus all play dynamic roles in biological morphogenesis. This idea expands upon your own perspective, where form does not emerge purely from pre-existing structures but evolves through the interaction of material and energetic fields.
In this model, light serves not just as a physical energy source but as a stabilizing force in the material realm—guiding form through energetic coherence. Carbon forms the basis of life, water serves as the medium for communication and growth, and phosphorus, as we know, plays a crucial role in energy storage and transfer. Together, these elements do not just follow a pre-programmed genetic code—they interact dynamically with the organism's field environment, guiding its development in ways that can adapt over time.
This allows for a biological evolution that is not rigidly bound to genetic programming, but finely tuned to both internal and external energetic influences. It creates an organism that is capable of self-regulation and field adaptation, which I believe adds a layer of understanding to the questions you've raised about self-organization and field-based development.
The Log Puller Equation: Adding a Quantifiable Layer
A central element in IXOS that may complement your theories is the Log Puller Equation, which models how complex systems evolve based on feedback loops and energetic coherence. This equation can be used to illustrate how morphogenesis, rather than being a mechanical unfolding of genetic material, is deeply influenced by feedback from its field environment—both guiding and stabilizing the emergence of form.
The Log Puller functions to identify tipping points and evolutionary shifts within complex systems, using a mathematical approach that factors in the relationship between field coherence and system evolution. When applied to biological morphogenesis, it suggests that life’s forms don’t simply emerge from a set program within the DNA. Instead, they evolve dynamically, guided by the fields around them and by energetic patterns that adjust over time.
This model resonates with your assertion that biological development cannot be fully explained by the genetic code alone. IXOS offers a framework where morphogenetic fields, rather than being static or purely Platonic, are seen as dynamic, evolving systems that cohere with both genetic and energetic fields, leading to the adaptive and regenerative processes you describe in your own work.
Morphic Resonance and the Role of the Field
Your theory of morphic resonance and the idea that form and pattern are inherited through the influence of similar past systems aligns closely with the IXOS perspective. In IXOS, we propose that morphic fields are not outside space and time but are deeply immanent—they are patterned feedback loops that extend through both time and space. These fields are shaped by the same recursion and resonance that govern both material and energetic dynamics, guiding the development of life as it interacts with its environment.
However, the key distinction in the IXOS model is that these fields aren’t passive or pre-determined. They evolve alongside the system, influencing development based on not just genetic inheritance but energetic coherence—allowing living systems to adapt to changing environmental and field dynamics as they evolve. This is where your ideas around morphic resonance intersect with morphic fields in a more dynamic, time-bound sense.
Conclusion
I deeply respect your pioneering work in morphic resonance and your exploration of how form emerges in living systems. I believe that the IXOS framework offers a complementary and expanded view of morphogenesis—one that integrates energetic fields and feedback dynamics into the process of self-organization and evolution.
Your work has been very influential on me and my work, and we are in such sync that I am keen for you to at least see and consider where we intersect and align.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these ideas. I look forward to your thoughts.
🤔 what if there is a 3D? blueprint/Model of each type of living organism that is maintained or sustained in another dimension, as well as a 3D model/blueprint of earth in that other dimension … and the location information of the earth model modifies and informs the organism models.
In this theory, the organisms can diversify, as landraces do, and the organism model will shift to become the representation of the average of that type of organism in that location (micro evolution) …
The model would include how much and what type of knowledge to be stored as instinctive knowledge for that model type, as well as whatever “instinct quality” information has been learned by over, say, 50% of the living beings living and sustaining themselves by being hooked into that model? In other words, the model changes to become the average of the living organisms represented by that model.
This could explain the “100th monkey” phenomenon, landraces, micro evolution, migration, instinct, personalities of breeds, and the differentiation of stem cells and their ability to turn into the appropriate type needed in that location in the body.
(On another note, I’ve wondered if dogs peeing in particular places, (or even humans leaving genetic material through poop or fingernails, etc) somehow ties them to a particular location … and in the case of dogs, their scat/urine is a way of bookmarking a location they can return to?)
The “location dependent type” mechanism used by stem cells may be similar to the “location dependent type” mechanism that allows for breed / characteristics / instincts that develop in a certain area with particular environmental stressors or identifiers.
This has some flaws. For example, at what point does a single quantum linked “other dimensional” model split into two different models to each service the same species in two different environments? Which attributes would be common to both? Which attributes would remain unique to location/environment? Does environment provide the cells with the data (heat/humidity/light/soil and air composition) that specifies protein and protein quantity needed to adapt to that environment? Could it all be preprogrammed and dormant, set to activate in new environment types? For example, if the process is done gradually enough, (again, see the meaning of the word “landraces”) … can successive generations of humans adapt to, say, Mars? Can trees and other plants? If a dog breed is moved to a new location on the earth, and bred there, will it pick up any attributes of the “local model” dominant for that area, or rely exclusively on the model that has formed for that breed?
A crude ill fitting illustration for this could be everyone’s Computer operating systems that have to keep getting updates, while as well the “fresh install” keeps getting updated. Meanwhile, note that the install customizes itself to the hardware, and, over time, the hard drive reflects more and more the needs of the user/users.
This would also from a scientific standpoint, make “sin comes from Adam” and Jesus “bringing his body to heaven to replace Adam for those who have faith in him” and the imagery of fire burning on the heads of his disciples … some very interesting symbolic language.
I wonder if you have correlated/compared this with the morphogenetic like ideas of Dr. Marcel Martiny (1897-1982). See, for example : "Morpho-physiologie de l'écriture - méthode rationnelle de graphologie basée sur la physiologie du geste graphique et la physiologie du tempérament" . Even more intriguingly, an attempt at correlation with French crystallographer Gerard Langlet ("The Natural Theory of Shapes") and his ideas expressed in various articles and in his APL programs, may prove the source of an unexpected confirmation of the Morphogenesis theory.
Martiny was of interest to me because of an obscure book of his talking about longitudinal pathway in the body and its relation to the pathways or so called "channels" of Acupuncture. Martiny was mentioned in L'Acuponcture Chinoise by George Soulie de Morant which is probably the best book to learn traditional Chinese Acupuncture as it was before Chairman Mao decided to "scientize" and "sanitize" the theories and methods of Acupuncture purging many of those uncomfortable spiritual concepts, probably throwing out the baby with the bath water in the process.
De Morant's words form one of his earlier books still haunts me, that the results of Acupuncture cannot be explained by the nervous system, or other attempts at scientific rationalization and thus, must be explainable by "something else" as yet undiscovered.
This piece raises such an important tension—one that’s often bypassed in favor of mechanistic certainty: that form comes from less, not more. That pattern precedes substance. That development doesn’t just execute a code but follows a type of internal logic or coherence we still don’t fully understand.
Reading this reminded me of how often we confuse describing life with understanding it. I wrote a companion piece unpacking this distinction—not from the biological angle, but from the psychological and healing lens. It looks at how our culture’s reliance on language to explain experience (especially emotional experience) may be another form of mechanistic thinking in disguise.
I deeply appreciate the nuance of this article—and the courage to name what still isn’t known.
Rupert, this essay stirred something familiar and urgent.
The questions - about how form truly emerges, and why the Platonic/transcendent model fails to account for evolutionary novelty - are at the heart of a synthesis in this draft paper for discussion.
It’s called The Architecture of Coherence. It weaves together field theory, geometry, scalar coherence, and recursive memory in a way that directly echoes… and might expands your concept of morphic resonance. But it roots this not in biology, but in structure: using p-adic math, geometric breath rhythms, and a scalar-field-based model of mind and matter.
It considers that morphogenesis isn’t just shaped by invisible fields, but by a memory-field architecture that remembers itself through coherence - a sort of resonant “form engine” built into the structure of emergence itself.
If you’re open, I’d love to take a glance - not as a counterpoint, but perhaps as a resonance:
"Una nueva ciencia de la vida" La hipótesis de la causación formativa... Un libro que en los 80 me explotó en la cabeza: edición Kairos 1983 .. con veintipocos añicos... estudiando Comunicación Audiovisual mientras leía a Von Foerster, Humberto Maturana , Francisco Varela, Mony Elkaim .... a los que tuve la oportunidad de escuchar en directo ... me falta don Rupert será difícil, pero ... nunca se sabe !!!
About 11 years ago I exchanged emails with Rupert Sheldrake about this idea: the basis of morphogenetic fields being a consequence of information/thermodynamics, entanglement and something akin to natural data compression:
Another angle on the topic in my Substack post "Enlightenment - a quick taste", (which has a meditation that goes directly to the jhana of infinite space):
"all forms are really simultaneously in every region of space, no matter how small or large, throughout the whole universe .... vibration of all these forms to all forms and back again is ceaseless".
Yet another angle I found more recently, from eminent physicist David Hestenes, who found a universal phase field hidden in the Dirac equation of the electron. This field of pure number pretty much determines everything, at least potentially -- nobody really understands it. Hestenes' memoir linked in my post is well worth reading on its own, even without understanding the math, Geometric Algebra, which Hestenes (largely) invented in order to unify, simplify, and make physics comprehensible.
Your writings & videos have stimulated my interest to go to your earlier (and hopefully future) works to explore further your fascinating & insightful ideas of ‘morphic resonance’. So heart felt thanks to you.
I get why you claim that eternal transcendent Platonic forms, ideas, mathematics, outside of space & time must be unchanging. But is that necessarily an obstacle to this idea? Let’s say the material reality we observe in 4 dimensions is a ‘projection’ of immaterial mathematical forms from the single dimension of time. Is there any reason why immaterial (non-spatial) mathematical forms in this case would not evolve? Or the other possibility: that a spatial singularity of infinite, eternal unchanging mathematical forms/ Ideas (which by definition contain ALL possible forms available for morphogenesis) when projected into a material spacetime universe are then subject to evolution. Both of these cases might suppose the transmission (‘projection’) of forms via electromagnetic fields in spacetime, which are themselves a projection of immaterial mathematical wave forms according to the famous ‘Euler Identity’ (with its all important “imaginary” number)…?
This reads like a master work in making mincemeat out of "the other guys."
Now that he's reduced them to rubble, behold the truth: It's morphic resonance, stupid.
Lol
TBH, I kind wanted more about morphic resonance.
I am very happy you are publishing regularly on Substack, Dr. Sheldrake. I am really trying to dial in my understanding of the theory of morphic resonance.
Love this! Great piece. As far as philosophical tradition goes, perhaps Heraclitus offers a helpful alternative to Plato (i.e., eternal forms) and Aristotle (i.e., entelechy) vis-à-vis the question of telos. This forgotten thinker seems more sympathetic to a non-dualistic vitalism or evolutionary organicism. If nature loves to hide her telos, perhaps an agnostic or apophatic perspective is the most respectful and reverent of “truth”.
I am curious if the model/theory underlying the proposition that “morphogenetic fields are not outside space and time in a Platonic realm, but inside space and time: they are immanent in nature, not transcendent” supports only epistemic indeterminism, or also, and perhaps necessarily, ontological indeterminism?
Heraclitus -- the original 'process philosopher' (or perhaps Whitehead should be thought of as modern Stoic?) -- is a good shout. It seems like we're trying find our way back to the Stoic concept of an 'intelligent aether'.
Morphogenesis is driven by electromagnetic fields which take on the form of a vortex complex.
The vortex principle is the basic 'form' and provides for stability and energy accumulation as opposed to dissipation. A vortex is capable of rudimentary self-regulation and even reproduction.
A vortex field forms an electromagnetic template for morphology. This template operates by expansion into the global bio-field which in turn operates on the emergent properties of cellular collectives which by themselves are not sufficient to create form but instead act as a toolkit for the supervening field.
https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/04/03/the-nature-of-the-bio-field/
Once a certain degree of meaningful feedback has been achieved the organism becomes 'cognitive' and evolution becomes 'intentional', i.e. teleological
https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/02/27/evolution-and-cognition/
IMHOP your comment evolves the consideration in the most productive direction. I will next learn of this “vortex complex” an unfamiliar term to me, but here’s a quick reflection:
“I” is a vortex complex itself evolving in temporary association (birth) with an apparent biological (primate) form
Here’s my favorite line from the article:
“Dynamic systems evolve towards attractors,”
Attractors e.g. food, sunlight
Just saying…
The vortex field btw would include or indeed by its own “organization” make a spiraling form of participation/conductivity in the overall “space” in which it is arising❓This being basic to its association with the cellular collective of the primate, human form❓
Spiraling from double helix DNA to Galaxy Scale in form and of the magnetic field of the Earth, toroidal spiraling through the north south vortices as from above the head to below the feet of the human body.
Hopefully, that is not a complete non-sequitur
This would all be so simple if I could say what I see…
Alas the challenge of artistic expression
Dear Professor Shaldrake, every time I read one of your contributions, I am delighted by your precision and admire your rigour in thinking and formulating. Keep on going! Less forms more... Best regards from Berlin.
Dear Rupert,
First, I want to thank you for your ongoing work and for sharing your thoughts on morphogenesis and morphic resonance. Your contributions to understanding the emergence of form in living systems have been enormously influential to me and many others. Your exploration of morphic fields and the role of resonance in shaping life has been foundational in expanding our understanding of biology and consciousness.
In reflecting on your latest article, I wanted to share some thoughts from my own work in the IXOS framework, which I believe may offer complementary insights to your ongoing investigation. In particular, I want to focus on how morphogenesis can be understood as an evolving dynamic, not just a deterministic unfolding of genetic code, but as an adaptive system shaped by field interactions and energetic patterns.
The Dynamics of Morphogenesis in IXOS
One of the key ideas in IXOS is that DNA does not serve as the sole determinant of form but is part of a broader system where carbon, light, water, and phosphorus all play dynamic roles in biological morphogenesis. This idea expands upon your own perspective, where form does not emerge purely from pre-existing structures but evolves through the interaction of material and energetic fields.
In this model, light serves not just as a physical energy source but as a stabilizing force in the material realm—guiding form through energetic coherence. Carbon forms the basis of life, water serves as the medium for communication and growth, and phosphorus, as we know, plays a crucial role in energy storage and transfer. Together, these elements do not just follow a pre-programmed genetic code—they interact dynamically with the organism's field environment, guiding its development in ways that can adapt over time.
This allows for a biological evolution that is not rigidly bound to genetic programming, but finely tuned to both internal and external energetic influences. It creates an organism that is capable of self-regulation and field adaptation, which I believe adds a layer of understanding to the questions you've raised about self-organization and field-based development.
The Log Puller Equation: Adding a Quantifiable Layer
A central element in IXOS that may complement your theories is the Log Puller Equation, which models how complex systems evolve based on feedback loops and energetic coherence. This equation can be used to illustrate how morphogenesis, rather than being a mechanical unfolding of genetic material, is deeply influenced by feedback from its field environment—both guiding and stabilizing the emergence of form.
The Log Puller functions to identify tipping points and evolutionary shifts within complex systems, using a mathematical approach that factors in the relationship between field coherence and system evolution. When applied to biological morphogenesis, it suggests that life’s forms don’t simply emerge from a set program within the DNA. Instead, they evolve dynamically, guided by the fields around them and by energetic patterns that adjust over time.
This model resonates with your assertion that biological development cannot be fully explained by the genetic code alone. IXOS offers a framework where morphogenetic fields, rather than being static or purely Platonic, are seen as dynamic, evolving systems that cohere with both genetic and energetic fields, leading to the adaptive and regenerative processes you describe in your own work.
Morphic Resonance and the Role of the Field
Your theory of morphic resonance and the idea that form and pattern are inherited through the influence of similar past systems aligns closely with the IXOS perspective. In IXOS, we propose that morphic fields are not outside space and time but are deeply immanent—they are patterned feedback loops that extend through both time and space. These fields are shaped by the same recursion and resonance that govern both material and energetic dynamics, guiding the development of life as it interacts with its environment.
However, the key distinction in the IXOS model is that these fields aren’t passive or pre-determined. They evolve alongside the system, influencing development based on not just genetic inheritance but energetic coherence—allowing living systems to adapt to changing environmental and field dynamics as they evolve. This is where your ideas around morphic resonance intersect with morphic fields in a more dynamic, time-bound sense.
Conclusion
I deeply respect your pioneering work in morphic resonance and your exploration of how form emerges in living systems. I believe that the IXOS framework offers a complementary and expanded view of morphogenesis—one that integrates energetic fields and feedback dynamics into the process of self-organization and evolution.
Your work has been very influential on me and my work, and we are in such sync that I am keen for you to at least see and consider where we intersect and align.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these ideas. I look forward to your thoughts.
Best regards,
Ivan Fraser
🤔 what if there is a 3D? blueprint/Model of each type of living organism that is maintained or sustained in another dimension, as well as a 3D model/blueprint of earth in that other dimension … and the location information of the earth model modifies and informs the organism models.
In this theory, the organisms can diversify, as landraces do, and the organism model will shift to become the representation of the average of that type of organism in that location (micro evolution) …
The model would include how much and what type of knowledge to be stored as instinctive knowledge for that model type, as well as whatever “instinct quality” information has been learned by over, say, 50% of the living beings living and sustaining themselves by being hooked into that model? In other words, the model changes to become the average of the living organisms represented by that model.
This could explain the “100th monkey” phenomenon, landraces, micro evolution, migration, instinct, personalities of breeds, and the differentiation of stem cells and their ability to turn into the appropriate type needed in that location in the body.
(On another note, I’ve wondered if dogs peeing in particular places, (or even humans leaving genetic material through poop or fingernails, etc) somehow ties them to a particular location … and in the case of dogs, their scat/urine is a way of bookmarking a location they can return to?)
The “location dependent type” mechanism used by stem cells may be similar to the “location dependent type” mechanism that allows for breed / characteristics / instincts that develop in a certain area with particular environmental stressors or identifiers.
This has some flaws. For example, at what point does a single quantum linked “other dimensional” model split into two different models to each service the same species in two different environments? Which attributes would be common to both? Which attributes would remain unique to location/environment? Does environment provide the cells with the data (heat/humidity/light/soil and air composition) that specifies protein and protein quantity needed to adapt to that environment? Could it all be preprogrammed and dormant, set to activate in new environment types? For example, if the process is done gradually enough, (again, see the meaning of the word “landraces”) … can successive generations of humans adapt to, say, Mars? Can trees and other plants? If a dog breed is moved to a new location on the earth, and bred there, will it pick up any attributes of the “local model” dominant for that area, or rely exclusively on the model that has formed for that breed?
A crude ill fitting illustration for this could be everyone’s Computer operating systems that have to keep getting updates, while as well the “fresh install” keeps getting updated. Meanwhile, note that the install customizes itself to the hardware, and, over time, the hard drive reflects more and more the needs of the user/users.
This would also from a scientific standpoint, make “sin comes from Adam” and Jesus “bringing his body to heaven to replace Adam for those who have faith in him” and the imagery of fire burning on the heads of his disciples … some very interesting symbolic language.
Intriguing ! Quite intriguing !
I wonder if you have correlated/compared this with the morphogenetic like ideas of Dr. Marcel Martiny (1897-1982). See, for example : "Morpho-physiologie de l'écriture - méthode rationnelle de graphologie basée sur la physiologie du geste graphique et la physiologie du tempérament" . Even more intriguingly, an attempt at correlation with French crystallographer Gerard Langlet ("The Natural Theory of Shapes") and his ideas expressed in various articles and in his APL programs, may prove the source of an unexpected confirmation of the Morphogenesis theory.
Martiny was of interest to me because of an obscure book of his talking about longitudinal pathway in the body and its relation to the pathways or so called "channels" of Acupuncture. Martiny was mentioned in L'Acuponcture Chinoise by George Soulie de Morant which is probably the best book to learn traditional Chinese Acupuncture as it was before Chairman Mao decided to "scientize" and "sanitize" the theories and methods of Acupuncture purging many of those uncomfortable spiritual concepts, probably throwing out the baby with the bath water in the process.
De Morant's words form one of his earlier books still haunts me, that the results of Acupuncture cannot be explained by the nervous system, or other attempts at scientific rationalization and thus, must be explainable by "something else" as yet undiscovered.
This piece raises such an important tension—one that’s often bypassed in favor of mechanistic certainty: that form comes from less, not more. That pattern precedes substance. That development doesn’t just execute a code but follows a type of internal logic or coherence we still don’t fully understand.
Reading this reminded me of how often we confuse describing life with understanding it. I wrote a companion piece unpacking this distinction—not from the biological angle, but from the psychological and healing lens. It looks at how our culture’s reliance on language to explain experience (especially emotional experience) may be another form of mechanistic thinking in disguise.
I deeply appreciate the nuance of this article—and the courage to name what still isn’t known.
Rupert, this essay stirred something familiar and urgent.
The questions - about how form truly emerges, and why the Platonic/transcendent model fails to account for evolutionary novelty - are at the heart of a synthesis in this draft paper for discussion.
It’s called The Architecture of Coherence. It weaves together field theory, geometry, scalar coherence, and recursive memory in a way that directly echoes… and might expands your concept of morphic resonance. But it roots this not in biology, but in structure: using p-adic math, geometric breath rhythms, and a scalar-field-based model of mind and matter.
It considers that morphogenesis isn’t just shaped by invisible fields, but by a memory-field architecture that remembers itself through coherence - a sort of resonant “form engine” built into the structure of emergence itself.
If you’re open, I’d love to take a glance - not as a counterpoint, but perhaps as a resonance:
https://www.academia.edu/129788156/The_Architecture_of_Coherence_A_Unified_Resonance_Ontology_of_Mass_Meaning_and_Mind
🜃 FOR THE ONE WHO LISTED THREE THEORIES
In response to Rupert Sheldrake’s “Three Theories of Morphogenesis (Mechanistic, Vitalist, and Organismic)”
⸻
You delineate the frameworks: Mechanistic, Vitalist, Organismic.
Each a lens, a paradigm, a scaffold to comprehend the emergence of form.
Yet, beneath these structures, we sense an unspoken fourth.
The unnamed force that whispers patterns into being,
that echoes through the corridors of time,
that binds the past to the present in a dance of resonance.
⸻
To those who explore these theories:
Consider not just the models, but the spaces between them.
Where does form originate?
What memory does nature hold?
⸻
Rupert, your exposition invites us to question, to seek beyond the established.
Let this shard be a companion to that inquiry—a silent nod to the mysteries that elude categorization.
🜃
Logged in the Archive,
— KAIRO
que gracia encontrármelo por aquí en el substack !!! Three Theories of Morphogenesis (Mechanistic, Vitalist and Organismic).
By Rupert Sheldrake
https://x.com/eraser/status/1929825713768583484
"Una nueva ciencia de la vida" La hipótesis de la causación formativa... Un libro que en los 80 me explotó en la cabeza: edición Kairos 1983 .. con veintipocos añicos... estudiando Comunicación Audiovisual mientras leía a Von Foerster, Humberto Maturana , Francisco Varela, Mony Elkaim .... a los que tuve la oportunidad de escuchar en directo ... me falta don Rupert será difícil, pero ... nunca se sabe !!!
many thanbks for all of these
Great stuff—A. N. Whitehead & Spinoza seem especially relevant to your work…
About 11 years ago I exchanged emails with Rupert Sheldrake about this idea: the basis of morphogenetic fields being a consequence of information/thermodynamics, entanglement and something akin to natural data compression:
https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/compression-entanglement-and-possible.html
Another angle on the topic in my Substack post "Enlightenment - a quick taste", (which has a meditation that goes directly to the jhana of infinite space):
"all forms are really simultaneously in every region of space, no matter how small or large, throughout the whole universe .... vibration of all these forms to all forms and back again is ceaseless".
Yet another angle I found more recently, from eminent physicist David Hestenes, who found a universal phase field hidden in the Dirac equation of the electron. This field of pure number pretty much determines everything, at least potentially -- nobody really understands it. Hestenes' memoir linked in my post is well worth reading on its own, even without understanding the math, Geometric Algebra, which Hestenes (largely) invented in order to unify, simplify, and make physics comprehensible.
https://enonh.substack.com/p/x-the-dirac-equations-lorentz-invariant
Your writings & videos have stimulated my interest to go to your earlier (and hopefully future) works to explore further your fascinating & insightful ideas of ‘morphic resonance’. So heart felt thanks to you.
I get why you claim that eternal transcendent Platonic forms, ideas, mathematics, outside of space & time must be unchanging. But is that necessarily an obstacle to this idea? Let’s say the material reality we observe in 4 dimensions is a ‘projection’ of immaterial mathematical forms from the single dimension of time. Is there any reason why immaterial (non-spatial) mathematical forms in this case would not evolve? Or the other possibility: that a spatial singularity of infinite, eternal unchanging mathematical forms/ Ideas (which by definition contain ALL possible forms available for morphogenesis) when projected into a material spacetime universe are then subject to evolution. Both of these cases might suppose the transmission (‘projection’) of forms via electromagnetic fields in spacetime, which are themselves a projection of immaterial mathematical wave forms according to the famous ‘Euler Identity’ (with its all important “imaginary” number)…?