Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields and morphic resonance have always inspired debate—and imagination. He glimpsed a principle: patterns recur not by mechanical instruction, but through fields that shape possibility. In our Collective Morphogenesis series, we have explored a relational repair of this insight, reframing morphogenesis in terms of reflexive alignment, semiotic actualisation, and persistent relational topology.
What might Sheldrake himself make of this reinterpretation? A thought experiment offers a lens:
1. Recognition of intuition
Sheldrake would immediately recognise the core insight: form and pattern emerge because potential is actualised coherently. From embryonic development to social norms, ritual, and symbolic systems, the principle of recurrence without central control aligns with his own observations. He would likely nod approvingly at the idea that habit, stability, and recurrence are consequences of relational fields rather than stored instructions.
2. Surprise at the repair
Where our series diverges is in the mechanism of persistence:
-
Morphic resonance as an influencing force is replaced by reflexive alignment—a relational, semiotic process.
-
Memory resides in topological potential, not in an external field or prior instantiation.
-
The semiotic dimension—construal, meaning, and symbolic actualisation—extends the principle into social and cultural realms.
Sheldrake might find this both stimulating and challenging: it honours his intuition but recasts it in a more relational, less causal framework.
3. Points of fascination
He would likely be intrigued by:
-
The scaling of morphogenetic principles from cells to institutions, culture, and symbolic systems.
-
The framing of innovation and novelty as perturbations in the field, maintaining coherence while allowing evolution.
-
The unifying lens of reflexive alignment, which provides continuity across domains without appealing to hidden forces.
4. Gentle critique
Sheldrake might ask:
-
Does relational actualisation fully account for transgenerational recurrence observed in biology?
-
Are symbolic and social fields truly analogous to biological morphogenetic fields, or are they metaphorical extensions?
-
How might these ideas be tested empirically, in the spirit of scientific exploration he valued?
5. Closing reflection
The thought experiment suggests that Sheldrake would recognise the spirit of his insight: that patterns recur, that form is self-organising, and that fields of potential matter. Yet he would also see a bold reconceptualisation, one that extends morphogenesis into social, cultural, and symbolic realms through the lens of relational ontology.
In other words, this series is both a continuation and a reinterpretation: a dialogue across time with the intuition that first sparked a revolution in thinking about form, habit, and possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment