morphic resonance

[Guest guest]

Alice says: >>Since then I have applied Rupert Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' as a hopeful possibility.<< --The Hundredth Monkey idea may have been based on a flawed study (the part about monkeys imitating each other was true, the part about doing it on many islands without contact may not have been) but in human societies where there is constant communication and energy exchange, it completely applies. Add to it the six degrees concept (we only FEEL unconnected to the mass of humanity, in large part because television is such a one-way medium) and the "pay it forward" idea, and there is not only hope, but so much opportunity and potential that cynicism is, for lack of a better word, a sin. C. Lockhartwww.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

Yahoo! Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

My ph has been out all day!

Rupert Sheldrake, the biologist, has written a bk called ON MORPHIC RESONANCE wh proposes a new theory of evolution. Basically the idea that when enough numbers of a species develop a new syndrome, the tipping pt results in all members of the species evolving simultaneously. The best ex: The Hundredth Monkey story. [bef Dan pooh-poohs the story, I share it to give the idea!] RS has conducted the exp in laboratories.

I mention this as an antidote to despair over the world situation. As I have told bef my teacher M in 1944 predicted that future spirituality wld not consist of dichotomy of preacher/cong but rather in small grps gathering for meaningful conversations led by free desire n not fear of hell or greed for heaven, etc. Then he cocked his head n smiled n said - 'Only one prob - u won't know how many of u there are!'so true. As I host such a monthly grp (22 yrs) I thought sharing Sheldrake's idea as applied to humanity as a hope to the dire pessimism present. Like the Widow's Mite parable, each of us has only one indiv gift to give to what Jung called the Collective Unconscious n that is our unique lifetime's consciousness, as we die. Our Widow's Mite is all we cn give, but if Sheldrake is right, any one of us, no matter how obscure, might provide the tipping pt that cld result in a world transformation. This gives vital importance to each one of us! As Jung remarked, the fate of the world hangs on the string of the individual psyche.

I hope u will take this notion to heart n share it w/others - it is a message that we need to hear.

-------------

I had the pleasure of meeting RS in Bombay wh we were both lect at the ITA Conference 25 yrs ago n ag in CA. He was there attended also by his mentor Bede Griffiths of the Christian/Hindu ashram fame, n Fritjof Capra (THE TAO OF PHYSICS) n others. {I taught w/Capra on the Chiops trip in 1979]. Both men are open-minded scientists on the cutting edge of science/spirit, as was Jung, of course. As such, they n others are pioneers exploring the unus mundus. I wld add Stan Grof, Karl Pribram, Tiller, Tarnas, Freke n the author of Implicate/Explicate Order, Bohm, theoretical physicist n frnd of Krishnamurti. I asked him, at a lect, if his ideas were not similar to Jung's n he replied - of course!

Each one of these guys are 'brothers' in diff fields and there are a host of others that will occur to some of u n mebbe u cld share.

These are gruesome times, a Pandora's Box! but as with that myth, a butterfly of hope was incl. The Greek for butterfly is psyche!

Glad the ph worked ag -

love

Old Lady

ao

ps to newcoms my abbrevs are bec a strke 9 yrs ago has left me w/useless rt hand. Karma for an Eng teacher!

[Guest guest]

I don't know how evolution works. I am, as I think I have mentioned, highly sceptical of the narrative that says that inorganic matter somehow just spontaneously organized itself into primitive life, which was then subject to natural selection

Sheldrake doesn't either.........

u n yr garage, I n my desk!

AND THE MUSIC GOES ON>>>>>>>>>loveao"by that I mean RS wld agree w/u n so wld I.

[Guest guest]

Dear Alice,

I try not to pooh-pooh teachings of which I am essentially ignorant. I

am willing to give both you and Carl Jung the benefit of the doubt on

astrology, for example. That is more than can be said for most people,

esp. those "educated" ("'Bildung' nennen sie's, und blinzeln") types

with their touching, indeed religious, faith in the (current)

"scientific" orthodoxies as explicated in the pages of the New York

Times. (Those Kansas voters, what rubes. We "scientifically

enlightened" ones, with our 110 IQ's and our Bachelor's degrees from

Enormous State University, we know the score.)

I don't reject "morphic resonance" uncritically for the same reasons

that I don't accept global warming uncritically - (1) I don't know that

much about it and (2), what I do know suggests that the experts don't

really know enough either.

I *do* know, from my own experience, that the notion that "scientific

research" is somehow untainted by the usual all-too-human factors -

politics, money, desire for professional advancement, fear of ridicule

- is nonsense. Chances are that Associate Prof. Plebester of Enormous

State is concerned first and foremost about his tenure, and will not

say or do anything to jeopardize it. When someone begins (first wrote

"beings," lol) a statement with, "The research shows...," I turn the

dial on my Acme Crap Detector up to 11.

I also know from experience that, when the newspapers write about

something of which I am not completely ignorant, whether it be hifi or

the work of Leo Strauss or the psychology of Carl Jung, they almost

always get it partly, if not mostly, wrong. This makes me suspicious of

newspapaer accounts of teachings about which I really *don't* know

anything. You can't become an expert on something in a week, but that

doesn't stop the papers from trying.

I don't know how evolution works. I am, as I think I have mentioned,

highly sceptical of the narrative that says that inorganic matter

somehow just spontaneously organized itself into primitive life, which

was then subject to natural selection. I keep waiting for my garage to

organize itself, but so far it is just as junky and cluttered as ever.

A disappointment for one as constitutionally lazy as I, but there it

is. As far as I can see, all organization comes from nous. I shouldn't

wonder if the cosmos itself were intelligent.

All that said, I have heard that the "hundredth monkey" story isn't

actually true in the sense of having, you know, really happened. And I

must say that it does have the smell of legend about it. How well

documented is it, actually?

Best,

Dan

IonaDove@... wrote:

My ph has been out all day!

Rupert Sheldrake, the biologist, has written a bk called ON

MORPHIC RESONANCE wh proposes a new theory of evolution. Basically the

idea that when enough numbers of a species develop a new syndrome, the

tipping pt results in all members of the species evolving

simultaneously. The best ex: The Hundredth Monkey

story. [bef Dan pooh-poohs the story, I share it to give the idea!] RS

has conducted the exp in laboratories.

I mention this as an antidote to despair over the world

situation. As I have told bef my teacher M in 1944 predicted that

future spirituality wld not consist of dichotomy of preacher/cong but

rather in small grps gathering for meaningful conversations led by free

desire n not fear of hell or greed for heaven, etc. Then he cocked his

head n smiled n said - 'Only one prob - u won't know how many of u

there are!'

so true. As I host such a monthly grp (22 yrs) I thought sharing

Sheldrake's idea as applied to humanity as a hope to the dire pessimism

present. Like the Widow's Mite parable, each of us has only one indiv

gift to give to what Jung called the Collective Unconscious n that is

our unique lifetime's consciousness, as we die. Our Widow's Mite is all

we cn give, but if Sheldrake is right, any one of us, no matter how

obscure, might provide the tipping pt that cld result in a world

transformation. This gives vital importance to each one of us! As Jung

remarked, the fate of the world hangs on the string of the individual

psyche.

I hope u will take this notion to heart n share it w/others - it

is a message that we need to hear.

-------------

I had the pleasure of meeting RS in Bombay wh we were both lect

at the ITA Conference 25 yrs ago n ag in CA. He was there attended also

by his mentor Bede Griffiths of the Christian/Hindu ashram fame, n

Fritjof Capra (THE TAO OF PHYSICS) n others. {I taught w/Capra on the

Chiops trip in 1979]. Both men are open-minded scientists on the

cutting edge of science/spirit, as was Jung, of course. As such, they n

others are pioneers exploring the unus mundus. I wld add Stan Grof,

Karl Pribram, Tiller, Tarnas, Freke n the

author of Implicate/Explicate Order, Bohm, theoretical physicist

n frnd of Krishnamurti. I asked him, at a lect, if his ideas were not

similar to Jung's n he replied - of course!

Each one of these guys are 'brothers' in diff fields and there

are a host of others that will occur to some of u n mebbe u cld share.

These are gruesome times, a Pandora's Box! but as with that

myth, a butterfly of hope was incl. The Greek for butterfly is psyche!

Glad the ph worked ag -

love

Old Lady

ao

ps to newcoms my abbrevs are bec a strke 9 yrs ago has left me

w/useless rt hand. Karma for an Eng teacher!

[Guest guest]

>small grps gathering for >meaningful conversations led by free desire n not fear of hell or greed for heaven, >etc. Then he cocked his head n smiled n said - 'Only one prob - u won't know >how many of u there are!'<<

Sounds like it came from the book, _The Cultural Creatives_ only that was written a *whole* lot later.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

>Jesus did not tell the pure factual truth in parables, and people seem to think his stories were >important enough.

I don't know who said it but I certainly subscribe to it: Something can be profoundly true without being factually accurate.

Blissings,

Sam

The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. ~Gloria SteinemThe best mind-altering drug is truth. ~Lily Tomlin

[Guest guest]

Alice says: >>As I have told bef my teacher M in 1944 predicted that future spirituality wld not consist of dichotomy of preacher/cong but rather in small grps gathering for meaningful conversations led by free desire n not fear of hell or greed for heaven, etc. Then he cocked his head n smiled n said - 'Only one prob - u won't know how many of u there are!'<< --I read something not long ago about megachurches losing members to small study groups. Hopefully the Christian myth will diversify and renew itself in more positive ways than the Left Behind Armageddon thingy. Internet is changing the ways people find other people (as opposed to having school or work sort them by default) and that may resolve the problem of groups not knowing about other groups. There are many groups in the Seattle area focusing on nonviolence, reconciliation and peace, and they seem to be cross-connected

often by internet links. C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- AirdHaving power makes [totalitarian leadership] isolated; isolation breeds insecurity; insecurity breeds suspicion and fear; sucpicion and fear breed violence. - Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Permanent Purge, Politics in Soviet Totalitarianism __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dan says: >>I don't know how evolution works. I am, as I think I have mentioned, highly sceptical of the narrative that says that inorganic matter somehow just spontaneously organized itself into primitive life, which was then subject to natural selection. I keep waiting for my garage to organize itself, but so far it is just as junky and cluttered as ever.<< --Why would your garage do that? The molecules involved in biology have attractive sites that form the basis for an organizing code. Your power tools aren't likely to self-assemble the way molecules can. They're too hampered by gravity and they don't have those attractive properties. You're comparing two totally different systems, wondering why they don't do the same thing.>>All that said, I have heard that the "hundredth monkey" story isn't actually true in the sense of having, you know, really happened.<< --The story is probably false, but it still works on the level of mass communication, where one person really can trigger a cascade of new learning in others. The lesson of the story is still helpful, even though the factual basis for it may not be. Jesus did not tell the pure factual truth in parables, and people seem to think his stories were important enough.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

The junk in the garage has no " organizing code. " You say that the " molecules in

biology " contain an organizing code. Fair enough. But " biology " implies life

already, yes? My question is, how could inorganic molecules - non life, no

organizing code, the junk in the garage - organize themselves spontaneously into

life, organic organizing code and all? It is as though a life, organizing code

included, somehow emerged from the equivalent of the junk in the garage.

---- Lockhart wrote:

> Dan says:

> >>I don't know how evolution works. I am, as I think I have mentioned,

highly sceptical of the narrative that says that inorganic matter somehow just

spontaneously organized itself into primitive life, which was then subject to

natural selection. I keep waiting for my garage to organize itself, but so far

it is just as junky and cluttered as ever.<<

>

> --Why would your garage do that? The molecules involved in biology have

attractive sites that form the basis for an organizing code. Your power tools

aren't likely to self-assemble the way molecules can. They're too hampered by

gravity and they don't have those attractive properties. You're comparing two

totally different systems, wondering why they don't do the same thing.

>

> >>All that said, I have heard that the " hundredth monkey " story isn't

> actually true in the sense of having, you know, really happened.<<

>

> --The story is probably false, but it still works on the level of mass

>communication, where one person really can trigger a cascade of new >learning

in others.

In other words, it is not true, it is (perhaps) a salutary myth.

>The lesson of the story is still helpful, even though the factual basis for it

>may not be. Jesus did not tell the pure factual truth in parables, and >people

seem to think his stories were important enough.

People may, but I'm not sure I do. Lots of mischief done, according to Herr

Nietzsche and others whose opinions I respect. I'm not really sure that Jung is

all that sold on Jesus, despite admitting that Jesus carries a powerful

archetypal image.

I understand the importance of the salutary myth though - " We hold these truths

to be self-evident, " etc.

Best,

Dan

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

I don't know who said it but I certainly subscribe to it: Something can be profoundly true without being factually accurate.

Jung said of myths that they were not to be taken literally but they were true of the psyche! This is also true of much in the Bible - the incredible wisdom in it is there for those who can think symbolically.

Noll's bk attacking Jung sev yrs ago came from the fact that Jung was writing symbolically n assumed that his audience knew that!

Literalism is a form of idolatry.

love

ao