Replying to LO27885 --
Dear At and Dear all learners,
At you wrote,
>Dear Organlearners,
>Greetings to all.
>Some time ago we had an interesting LO-dialogue on Archetypes.
>Those of you still interested in the topic may have a look at
>"The Emergence of Archetypes in Present-Day Science
>And Its Significance for a Contemporary Philosophy of Nature"
this is a long paper but in it about two thirds in is written...
"We need an evolutionary theory that unites a molding outside (natural
selection producing adaptation to local environments) with a guiding
inside (the structural laws that Owen sought, with an antiquated apparatus
to be sure, but with a pre scient vision)."
That reminds me very much of the relation between St Francis and Leo and
them both and the world the inhabited;-)...the article carries on...
"-Besides, the general idea behind the archetype is not wrong. At some
level, unity of structure must underpin the diversity of life: such order
cannot proceed from formlessness. Owen failed by seeking order at too high
a level- - in the explicit bits and pieces of an archetypal morphology. We
would seek it today in the universal structure of genetic material, in the
blueprint of DNA. That blueprint constrains evolutionary possibilities as
surely as Owen's archetype channeled vertebrate form. (68) In 1981, a
highly speculative and controversial account of morphogenesis was offered
by Rupert Sheldrake which has been at times associated with Jung's
concepts of the collective unconscious and of the archetype.(69)
Sheldrake's hypothesis of formative causation postulates the existence of
morphogenetic fields as presently unrecognized causal agents responsible
for producing all of the forms, or patterns of structural organization, of
matter and of living organisms. These fields are held to be actual
physical fields, although they are non-energetic and non-local- - they are
distributed without diminishment throughout space and time. Sheldrake
proposed that the forms of molecules, crystals, cells, complex organs such
as eyes, etc., the overall structures of all living creatures, and even
the structure of entire societies are all established by a process of
morphic resonance by which a seed structure is guided to its final form by
resonating with a particular pre-existing morphogenetic field. Each
aspect of form is associated with a unique morphogenetic field; thus
Sheldrake's hypothesis involves unfathomably many of these fields which
may grow or diminish in strength in relation to the degree of morphic
resonance within the particular field. New structures may appear through
the action of a morphogenetic field, giving it an inherently creative
aspect as well. The morphogenetic fields, then, act as a collective memory
by which previously established patterns guide the emergence of new forms
and by which novel occurrences of form proliferate. This collective memory
would include established behavioral patterns which help to form specific
types of behavior. Sheldrake speaks briefly about archetypes, which he
seems to understand as ideal, perennially fixed forms in the same sense as
the Platonic Ideas, rather than as patterns of behavior which are fluid
and manifold in their representations. He therefore rejects the notion of
archetype as a formative cause and characterizes the resonances in the
morphogenetic fields as something similar to habits. In a subsequent
publication, he has developed his theory of morphic resonance further by
proposing that nature is governed by habits rather than by changeless laws
and pursuing the implications for the individual and the evolution of
human culture.(70) Following upon Sheldrake's conception of a
morphogenetic field, Michael Conforti has adopted an approach that
characterizes archetypes as field resonance patterns. (71) He has then
uses this approach to discuss the interpersonal dynamics of the
therapist/patient relationship. Conforti has also organized annual
conferences at Assisi, Italy on, "The Confluence of Matter and Spirit in
Psyche and Nature". In the context of the Assisi Conference lectures,
David Peat, a physicist whose interests have ranged from Jung's concept of
synchronicity to Bohm's notion of an implicate order, has discussed
archetypes as generative principles of the material world and has
questioned how they might be best characterized- - whether as eternally
fixed, `crystalline' structures or as evolving `dynamic' fields. Brian
Goodwin, a biologist, has discussed holistic dynamical forms as factors in
morphogenesis. Ervin Laszlo, a systems theorist, has advanced the
possibility of the existence of holographic information fields associated
with fluctuations of the quantum mechanical vaccuum state as a source of
biases put into quantum mechanical probability distributions, thereby
establishing tendencies for certain forms in nature. Archetypal Behavior
in the Dynamics of Non-Linear Systems ..."
By a strange coincidence I have just recently met with David Peat via this
electrical (mercurial;-) medium. I found him through reading Bohm's work
and related works. David (Peat) seeks many fine;-) connections within art
practice and theory to relation with yes, quantum physics. I have
mentioned to David my recent interests into Ceta research regarding the
notions of local time ( biological time) and Kitada time that seeks to
join the inner time of man and the explicate version of mechanical time.
For Ceta researcher Peter Beamish nature holds open for the members of
kingdom animalia a special place/space in which Rhythm Based Signals are
the causes of knowledge giving/sharing and joy shown through often
spontaneous behaviour patterns...he sense (Peter Beamish) that humans in
certain densities (fields) can communicate directly with say, whales. I
think six people<>brains/minds in the brain density department is required
at a certain proximity for such communicationing. I have sent Peters
address to David so they can communicate with each other more directly by
the normal human method of Signal Based Communication. One of the lovely
things about RBC is that it is predicated on a low stress life
resonances/fields/practices (I really am playing with the words here
folks...but staying true to the notions I believe) which ties in nicely
with what John Dicus' and Barry's seem to be resonating with or to...
(most certainly Bucket is as we return from the fields;-) wherein and
whereupon BTW the mists and fogs may now be clearing for those who a few
years ago in backofficemodality sought Bucket's and my expulsion from this
learneding;-) ListServ. Mmmmmmmmmm. Viz: listening with the kingdom of
animalia.
That phrase, "Archetypal Behaviour in the Dynamics of Non-Linear Systems"
is for me, I think, surmise, the closest a living, conscious human may
ever get 'closeness wise' to the sought after Holy Grail ;-) of a
'simplicity on the far side of complexity' via a living hand, in the
biological sense. It is the doing of the doing, one up from the doing of
the knowing, one step up from the knowing of the doing, one step up from
the knowing of the knowing, one step up from having information of the
knowing...and so on.
I call it art, some call it poetry. Animals don't need it. So Bucket
informs me;-)
I could go on and on and on....but I wont.
Love,
Andrew
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.