Posts Tagged morphic resonance

Science Has Demonstrated That Psychological, Subjective Changes Affect the Rest of Reality: Everything We Think and Do Affects All of Consciousness


Simply Thinking New Thoughts or Acting New Behaviors Affects All That Exists: Science As Myth, Part Five — Subjectivity Is Primary and Morphogenetic Fields


Thus, Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance theory relates to a new-paradigm vision of evolution. The essence of this new-paradigm view — as opposed to the old-paradigm stance which holds that the world is basically matter and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter — is that the world is basically consciousness or subjectivity and that the material universe is an epiphenomenon of consciousness.


Affirming this, we have Sai Baba’s statement that all there is, is the “I” or the Atma and that this is the foundation for everything else; everything else is illusion. All that really exists is the “I.” This is the same as saying in Western philosophy that subjectivity is the only true reality.


This is in line with the viewpoint — a common Idealist, Eastern, Gnostic, and Jungian one — that the so-called “objective” reality is indirect perception and is dependent upon subjective reality; and so subjective reality is the only true reality that can be known.


Considering this traditional Idealist view together with Sheldrake’s ideas and their Lamarckian consequences, one realizes that the predominant view of evolution — that it is based upon natural selection caused by mutations of chromosomes and genes, and so on — is actually a rationalization based upon an a priori presumption of the prior existence of the material universe. That is, that since the Lamarckian version — which is that changes are made in the biology of an organism based upon psychological strivings — cannot be demonstrated within a Newtonian-Cartesian world view, a materialistic worldview, then and only then we must postulate a mechanism for accounting for biological changes over generations, as in the theory of natural selection.

This theory of natural selection basically states that random changes occur in the chromosomes — mutations; “billiard balls” from the universe come in, so to speak, and rearrange the molecules of DNA, changing the chromosomes — which then have effects on the psychology and the biology of the organism. According to the theory, this may have positive benefits in terms of natural selection. And if they are positive for the species overall, then the species that gets those particular physical characteristics will tend to reproduce more and will therefore reproduce those offspring with those physical characteristics.

But all of this is a justification based upon the idea that there needs to be some kind of physical substrate to explain the changes. Whereas, in fact we see that evolution happens much more frequently than would be possible to be explained by natural selection, as just described. Indeed, it happens much more frequently and much faster.




A Lamarckian view comes necessarily to mind because of this, and the only thing that keeps one from immediately suspecting the Lamarckian view is the old bugaboo of the prior assumption of a materialistic universe.

However, if we consider that all is subjectivity, that subjectivity is the prior reality, then the Lamarckian view stands supreme. Restated in terms of Rupert Sheldrake’s theory, it is that certain things that are learned through striving or effort or by a particular organism change the energetic field for the entire universe in that respect. So that not only offspring of that species, but also contemporaries of that species will be more likely to learn that.


What we are saying is that psychological changes — you might say changes in subjectivity — affect all the rest of reality, all the rest of consciousness . . . and this can be demonstrated. It can be demonstrated, for example in experiments dating back seventy years that demonstrate that successive generations of rats learn specific tasks more quickly than their parents and that a phony Morse code is more difficult to learn than the real one. More recently, studies have supported the theory. For example, it was determined that people will more easily solve a crossword puzzle after it has appeared in print than before, in both cases without any prior exposure to it. In such a situation, the only change is that a great many minds have undoubtedly been working the puzzle after its publication, and this must have some effect, albeit nonphysical, on the performance of the later group.1


In another experiment specifically involving Rupert Sheldrake’s theory, a group learned a particular random sample of items, memorizing them. It was discovered that just having that group memorize that series of items brought about the situation that in future learnings other groups were more easily able to learn that series of random groupings than other randomly created series.1

So what I am saying is this gives us a view of reality which is both deterministic and yet includes free will. This is true in that each and every thing that happens in the Universe has a tendency to happen, a probability to happen, based on particular fields that have to do with the way they’ve happened in the past or what’s been done in the past. But these fields are chosen and built up by free choice. Indeed, they were originally created by free choice.


So it is as if all of our actions or the greater percentage of our actions are determined by these fields or are pushed or pulled by these fields; that we have tendencies to act in particular ways; that every thought we have tends a particular way because of these fields of things happening the way they happened before.


But the full story includes the fact that we have the possibility to change those patterns; that we have the free will to create new patterns which are then more likely to happen.


This possibility, this view of the way things work, also helps explain the observed increasing likelihood or possibility for people to deal with their feelings — specifically, even, to re-experience birth feelings — to have increasing access to other unfamiliar (in Western culture) experiences such as cellular memory, ancestral memory, past-lives memory, and so on, when increasing numbers of other people have had those experiences.


This is a new-paradigm view in that it links all events or says that each and every thing that we do is part of a consciousness that we all partake of, and so each and every thing that we do affects the whole in at least a small way.


In fact it affirms that what we do individually affects the whole in a great way if what we do is truly a creative act.


The new-paradigm essence of it is summed up in that — regardless of whether or not the thing was shared or expressed — simply the thinking of new thoughts or the acting out of new behaviors affect Consciousness in its entirety.


Continue with How End Times Can Be Seen as Beginning Times: Science As Myth, Part Six — Emanationism and the Cyclical Nature of Time and Change

Return to Restoring Nobility to Nature: Modern Consciousness Research Unveils a New-Paradigm Vision of Evolution Overturning the Dog-Eat-Dog, Darwinian One

Invite you to join me on Twitter:

friend me on Facebook:


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Restoring Nobility to Nature: Modern Consciousness Research Unveils a New-Paradigm Vision of Evolution Overturning the Dog-Eat-Dog, Darwinian One


Sheldrake’s Theory Points to Initiative and Effort, even Honor, as the Engine of Evolution: Science As Myth, Part Four — Morphic Resonance and Lamarck


Rupert Sheldrake’s theory gives rise to a conception of evolution — one that scientists have been taught to discredit, one which scientists have learned to smugly position themselves above, to pooh-pooh and snicker at. This alternative theory is the Lamarckian view of evolution.


Briefly stated, the Lamarckian view is that repetitive actions made by individual members of a species, leading to certain changes in themselves, will also cause certain changes in the genes, which will then lead to those changes being observed in the offspring.


Essentially the theory states that to some extent, however small, acquired characteristics of the parents can be passed on to offspring. And that it is the buildup of such minute changes in the generations that we observe as the process of evolution. This view attempts to explain, for example, how giraffes can come to have long necks by saying that it is the result of untold generations of giraffe progenitors straining to reach the leaves of high trees.


Supposedly this idea is discredited because it is not seen how either mental events or their resulting repetitive actions — that is to say, either the desires of the giraffes for the higher leaves or the behavior of reaching and stretching — could actually change or affect the physical composition of genes and the basic units of DNA of which they are comprised. DNA and genes are only known by scientists to be changed by mutations in their structure through radiation or other actual physical alterations.

All things considered, then, a Lamarckian theory is discredited because of a physicalist perspective (can we at least at this point begin to use the word bias) that says that mental or behavioral events can not be transferred from one generation to the next unless they somehow do this through physical matter. Remember that this is matter as defined by us and is that which is capable of being externally perceptible to us.


Physicalists assert that the only thing that can be transferred to subsequent generations is what is actually given to the next generation by way of the sperm and egg cells of the parents, and at base, the genetic material contained in them, the DNA. And since that genetic material is not in any way altered by such mental or behavioral events, the reasoning goes, there can be no connection between these events in these different generations.


Let us leave aside for now the exciting new research by Bruce Lipton and others demonstrating alteration of DNA as a result of the experience or learning of a cell. For the point I wish to make is that it is only after accepting this physicalist bias, and its resulting negation of an alternative hypothesis, that the neo-Darwinian’s theory of natural selection becomes viable, indeed, becomes at all necessary. It is only after discrediting the preceding, more organically plausible Lamarckian hypothesis, that the theory of occasional genetic mutations by radiation or other extreme factor leading to higher survivability among slightly different offspring begins to look like anything but a strained explanation.


Granted that some changes between generations of offspring do change in this way. That has been proven beyond a doubt in the laboratories. But it has yet to be demonstrated that these seemingly rare occurrences can account for the immense variation of life or the incredible rate of evolutional change relative to such a mechanism working alone.


Consequently, cutting edge scientists, in biology and elsewhere, are going against this theory on this last point alone. Lawlor (1991) says of them:

There is no evidence that random mutations can produce new species or that complex organs can develop as a result of mutation and selection. The eye, for example, could emerge only as a result of thousands of simultaneous mutations — a mathematical impossibility. Nor has it been explained how organisms could develop new behavior patterns to adjust positively to genetic changes. Mathematicians have protested that only one in 20 million mutations can be expected to be positive. Generating new species through natural selection by means of mutated genes seems about as probable, in the words of astronomer Fred Hoyle, “as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 707.” (p. 24)


initiative-in-evolutionStill, there is the evidence for morphogenetic fields, which not only overturns the need for the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection, but also highly supports the previously discredited Lamarckian view. And I might add it restores to humans a view of natural process much more complimentary to inner-directed behavior and much more supportive of good efforts made in honorable directions than is the Darwinian theory which, in its appearance of support for the physically strongest, and its seeming rationalization of a “dog eat dog” and “kill or be killed” world, has been used to justify all kinds of brutal uses of force — through war and forceful domination and suppression by powerful individuals and groups in governments and other social bodies.



ss-110127-egypt-01jb.ss_full ss-110128-egypt-protest-05-eg.ss_full

Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance” theory supports the Lamarckian view 224948_490648594313660_221819406_n (1)and makes the theory of genetic evolution in general obsolete in this way: Basically, the theory of morphogenetic fields is supported by evidence that indicates that information is passed between individuals according to their degree of similarity. Therefore, if knowledge from one generation changes a particular field which can then be picked up by succeeding generations, it means that the whole idea of genetic mutations, and so on, is completely unnecessary; that the whole idea of genetic mutations and evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest is simply an explanation that is based upon the assumption of the primacy of the physical universe or the primacy of our concepts of the physical universe.


However if we consider the primacy of consciousness “fields,” then we see that if consciousness is considered to be primary, and consciousness is considered to be fields which are affected simply by consciousness, then the whole idea of finding how a physical, biological organism is changed in order to affect evolution, is unnecessary. Furthermore, if consciousness is changed through learning, and consciousness is the basis on which later generations are changed, then we have a complete revolution, a total revolution, a total new-paradigm revolution in theories of evolution and natural selection.


Thus, Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance theory relates to a new-paradigm vision of evolution. The essence of this new-paradigm view — as opposed to the old-paradigm stance which holds that the world is basically matter and that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter — is that the world is basically consciousness or subjectivity and that the material universe is an epiphenomenon of consciousness.


Continue with Science Has Demonstrated That Psychological, Subjective Changes Affect the Rest of Reality: Everything We Think and Do Affects All of Consciousness

Return to “Science Itself Has Now Superseded the Mechanistic World View”: Science As Myth, Part Three — Dire Consequences of Scientists’ Closed-Mindedness

Invite you to join me on Twitter:

friend me on Facebook:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Wounded Healers, Heroes, and the Group Mind: The Universe Bears Up and Rewards with Renewed Life Those who Voluntarily Sacrifice Themselves for All

Centaurs, Shamans, Sacrificial Lambs, and Scapegoats, Part Two: Shared Experience, the Earth Hologram, Volcano-Jumping, and UFOs … Is That Gaia Calling?

I Am You, and You Are Me, and We Are We, and We Are All Together.

This is the second half of the Afterword of Apocalypse – No: Centaurs, Shamans, Sacrificial Lambs, and Scapegoats: Prospects on a Collective Pool of Pain. A description or synopsis of the entire chapter follows:

DESCRIPTION: The essence of Christianity is the idea that a person — Jesus Christ, of course, in Christianity – can suffer and die for the “sins” of others, so that those persons won’t have to bear the burden of their sins. This article addresses that theme in a larger, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious context: Are there people who take on the the “sins” or “Pain” of others, who take on the karma— in an Eastern sense or the mistakes and evil of others who are not able to handle the consequences of their actions? clip_image002 Is the Divinity inherent in the Cosmos compassionately concerned enough to manifest or call forth individuals to take on the same kind of task that Christ, in a most extreme brutal form, demonstrated? This article is not about Christ but about that theme of extraordinary individuals with a divinely-inspired mission of suffering for the sake of others who cannot “help” themselves in raising themselves above the consequences of their ill deeds. For are not people of all times and cultures children of the same Divinity, some would say “sparks” of that same Divinity, which others, including this author, have theorized is commensurate, i.e., equal, to all of Nature, including humanity each and every one of us? Assuming this, in this article the author discusses this phenomenon of people taking on, willingly and unwillingly, the pain and sins of their society from the small tribe to that of all of humanity. And it puts forth the proposition that there is a collective “pool of pain.” In that ultimately the distinctions between people are illusory, that we are all One, all interconnected, then both the evil, as well as the good, of each of us is both the result of the collective actions of us all as well as being a part of the consciousness that we all share more correctly the One Consciousness that each of us is.

Experience Is Primary

60s.hippies.peace.dovenormal_ButterflyOfHealingFINAL_LG_Jpg2It is important to keep in mind that all of this idea of a group psyche is built upon a perspective, a paradigm, in which subjectivity is primary: Experience or Mind being the only reality. Such speculation as engaged in here is not even conceivable within the dominant materialistic paradigm. Nevertheless, these possibilities have long . . . far longer than this upstart of “objective materialism” has been around . . . have long been the common currency of our species, and have been so in the vast majority of human cultures that ever existed.

Shared Experience: Morphic Resonances and COEX Systems

But, getting back to the subject, people having rape fantasies, both men and women, where apparently there has been no sexual abuse, is becoming ever more common. Is it that in some way when we are violated as children, psychologically and emotionally, that it’s part of a gestalt or resonance—Stanislav Grof[1] would say a COEX system; Rupert Sheldrake[2] would say a morphogenetic field or morphic resonance—that includes actual physical violations from a collective pool of pain?

Also we should consider all the current stories of people being sexually abused; there seems to be an epidemic of people claiming to have been sexually molested as infants by their parents. No doubt much of this is true. The evidence is there to confirm it. But is it also possible that people in processing their stuff, or coming close to their repressed feelings, are at times tapping into transpersonal resonances that are only similar in quality to the corresponding real-life trauma? This is a possibility we should consider; for I know it to be the only plausible one in my own case, in the case of the panelist mentioned at the outset , and in the cases of several others whom I know personally or whose cases have appeared in print.[3]

UFOs: Is That Gaia Calling?

Another item related to this pattern is the current UFO abduction experiences—the incidence of which is also increasing.[4] One interesting explanation for such experiences of being abducted and then examined, probed, and sampled—which corresponds to this collective pool of pain theory—is derived from the idea that in fact the Earth herself (Gaia) has consciousness and is therefore part of a collective consciousness to which we also belong. This idea of an earth hologram is propounded by Goddess theorists and by others as well. Joseph Chilton Pearce claims we have primary access to such an Earth hologram as children and lose it later through our normative indoctrination into society.

He writes:

The brain as a hologram is representative of the Earth. So long as this is undifferentiated, the personality, or consciousness within that brain, receiving its perceptions from that brain, is literally an undifferentiated part of the hologram effect. It is part and parcel of the world system, which, because it radiates out from the child, places him at the center of thought, with the world a body extending from him. The clarification of the hologram (to use that model) is a period of breathless wonder and excitement for the child because he is discovering his larger self. . . . [5]

The primary process is the function through which we are conscious of the Earth as a thinking globe, the flow of life, the general field of awareness, and almost surely, even larger ecologies of thought. The primary process is also past, current, and potential possibility and experience. Other cultures have maintained a much greater openness to the primary process than Western culture has. . . . [6]

Nevertheless, the potential for access to this “primary process” always exists, since it is repressed but continues to exist in the unconscious.

With these things in mind, is it possible that UFO abductees may be inadvertently stumbling into primary Earth process and picking up on the feelings of Earth herself as she is being poked, violated, measured, and having things inserted into her in this modern, high-tech, resource-exploiting era.

If so, one has to wonder whether some of the feelings of the Earth herself might not be being expressed or be trying to be integrated by her through these people. Is it possible that these people have become unwitting channels for Mother Earth’s pain—to help to express and integrate it—as she is systematically being defoliated, polluted, violated, and destroyed?

This may sound farfetched, but then, considering our actions in the face of global disaster . . . well, so are the times! Furthermore, I helped facilitate at least one inner journeyer whose experience was exactly this. Her interpretation of the powerful experience my wife and I both witnessed was that she was feeling and releasing pain and distress of all women throughout history and then Mother Earth herself. What gave extra credibility to her experience for me was that I observed what looked like her experiencing the pain of women in birth. Yet, like the rape reliving that was not of this life, this woman had never given birth herself … not in this life, anyway.

Volcano-Jumping for Bliss and Profit

Anyway, I offer these speculations in the hope of stimulating renewed appreciation of the roles as journeyers and shamans — as they have reemerged in their modern form in the deep experiential growth modalities such as Holotropic Breathwork and Primal Therapy, both of which I have substantial experience with. It may just be that what we do on our “inner” forays into consciousness has significance in the “outer” world — in these incredibly delicate and precipitous times—far beyond what we normally think. Indeed we may be volunteering for an ancient role, and in these days, perhaps, a very much needed one. Like Joe in the Tom Hanks movie, “Joe Versus the Volcano,” we may find ourselves “jumping into the volcano to save the community.” But also like Joe, and my experience attests to this, I believe we will find that the Universe provides, not death, but rather bears up and rewards with renewed life those who voluntarily sacrifice themselves this way.

Continue with For Earth’s Sake, Get Real Already: “Sure It’s Hard! But Always Are We Here Helping You,” Part One

Return to Why We Scapegoat … Why We Insist on Saviors: Reflections on a Collective Shadow and Of Sacrifices—Human, Animal, and Cucumber

Related Book: Go to Primal Renaissance: The Emerging Millennial Return by Michael D. Adzema.

Related Article: Go to “Nature As Alive: Morphic Resonance and Collective Memory by Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.d.

Related Article: Go to “Sathya Sai Baba, Avatar“ by Mary Lynn Adzema.

Related Article: Go to “The UFO Abduction Phenomenon’s Challenge to Consensus Reality” by John E. Mack, M.D.

Invite you to join me on Twitter:

friend me on Facebook:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: