It happens – you are cutting vegetables in the kitchen; first your attention slips then the knife slips and you cut your finger. Luckily to didn’t damage a blood vessel, so it is not too much of a mess, but a small piece of your finger is gone… after a week or two the wound is healed and your finger is like before.
You cut a piece of skin off your finger and the healing restored the missing piece to its original condition – how? How did the cells that replaced the missing ones know to grow into finger cells and not skalp cells with hair or kidney cells? Is it the genes?
Genetics tell us that is not the genes, because the genes are all the same in whatever cell of our body; so genetically they wouldn’t know how to grow a piece of finger.
The answer to the riddle is given to us by Rupert Sheldrake with his theory of « Morphogenetic Fields« . Morphogenetic is composed of two words: morph = form and ‘genetic’= producing; it is a theory that explains how the forms in our universe are created. It refers to anythng form – visible forms and shapes, audible, olfactoric and even invisible behavoir forms.
He found that all information about anything « form » is « stored » in a non-local « field ». A non-local field is a « space » or a « container » the content of which is everywhere at the same time. So the component of the morphic field which is responsible for growing or healing fingers is everywhere we are; we are always embedded in the morphic field that is dynamic and supportive to us.
Rupert’s research into the behavior component of the morphic field showed that the morphic field is not a static metastructure « but a dynamic one: a certain behavior component can be created and spread through the morphic field as shown by the « 100 monkey experiment« . So it appears that the morphic field can « learn » new things, change it’s content. And THAT means that it appears to be a moving, living being.
These lines may also shed some light on the « origin » of the morphic field. As it contains the form and structure components for minerals, planets, wheather, etc. it came into existence when « things » come into existence; « things » in the widest and loosest sense possible. Without wanting to go into the « egg and chicken – which one was first » business, we know – for example by the discoveries of Marcel Violet – that life does not come from life, but it comes from resonance, the spectrum of sunlight. This suggests that the morphic field may be « eternal » and at a certain « moment in time » has triggered the creation of the material universe. And it is still doing that – creation has not been finished by « god » 4 1/2 thousand years ago but is going on « eternally ».
The qualities of the morphic fields aa being dynamic, eternal and non-local, may indicate towards « what the morphic fields ‘really’ are »: as the morphic field contain every bit of information on everything existing on any level, it can be understood as the blueprint and the cosmic 3D-printer that keeps on creating everyting. The same logic suggests that all parts of whole universe are simultanesously connected, networked into the morphogenetic field. At the same time are all the parts of the whole universe connnected in realtime each one with each other one. That means that the morphogenetic field is what new agers call « the One », « wholeness », « source », « existence » and « god ».
Voilà! Le tour est joué! Here we have the very simple, easy to understand, all emcompassing theory of evertything: each of us is connected with everything else in realtime – supporting our life functions, healing our systems (body, mind etc) and even thinking our thoughts.
Recent research of our brain or our mind for that matter have revealed something that for example Nicola Tesla has intuitively known all along: that both are not creative organs but receptive ones. We do not individually create thoughts, we only receive them.
But considering that the morphogenetic field is the network connecting everything. This network is alive.
In fact it seems to me as there is nothing not-alive in the universe – anyway the judgment « alive/animate » or « not alive/inanimate » is only a human mind creation to maintain a hierarchical view of the universe.
This network is creating, supporting and evolving all these forms. But this network is not only maintaining the universe – it is also, reciprocally, being maintained and modified by all the life forms; it is a gigantic, the biggest open source project happening since eternity.
It is true that we are not creating thoughts, we are receiving thoughts. This is corroborated in the 3 languages i know: in english you don’t say « i made this thought » but « i have this thought »; in french you don’t say « j’ai fait cette pensée » but « j’ai eu cette pensée »; in german you don’t say « ich habe diesen Gedanken gemacht » but « mir ist dieser Gedanke gekommen ». It seems that all languages reflect « thinking » as a receptive and not as an transitive, active process.
But then: where do the thoughts come from, where is the sender, where is the source? If the morphogenetic field is the source of the thoughts and the morphogenetic field is in a dialectic relationship with each of us (supporting us while at the same time being supported by us), then it becomes clear that we are direct receiver (with our individual brain) and indirect sender (partaking in the morphogenetic field). Each moment are we receiving the thoughts that we have been co-creating within the morphogenetic fields. In deistic terms this becomes: « Each moment are we receiving the divine thoughts that we have been co-creating. God is not an « entity » outside all creation, god is the source, the finality, the very fabric of all creation. God and creation are the same; they two aspects of the same « thing »: Creation is the visible, « material » aspect while God is the invisible, the « form- and life-giving » aspect.
So it seems that the ancient concept that god is the eternal creator who suddenly created the universe and everything and then men is too static – it looks like that MATTER, ENERGY, FIELD are appearing at the same time and they are a movement, a change rather than as fixed state. We don’t know if there was any of the 3 components of the natural reality (matter, energy, field) first and we don’t know where everything comes from either.
Considering the 3 levels on which we can live, the « creation » could look like this:
- On the level of non-duality, we would say that all ‘things’ seem to appear and disappear for no reason at all. We human beings as every other being are part of the ‘natural reality’, we are « meant » to live our life and we are not meant to understand it.
- On the karmic level, we would say that everything that appears in our perception is, including our perception and the karmic rules are not self-existing but consequences, flowerings of our karmic actions. For example the feeling of « separation » and even the physical concept of « distance » basically derives from us having been « distant » or « cold » towards another being.
- On the projection level there would still be an external god that had created all things in his image, meaning external and separate. And all this isolated things would interact, or rather fight with each other eternally…
On the non-dual level we cannot explain anything, we can « only » live it; on the karmic level it is very interesting that even the present discovery of the « Theory of Everything » is generated ultimately by my past karmic actions: a « Theory of Everything » would have the following karmic aspects: wholeness, aliveness, non-separateness, spiritually comforting, simple discovery. These aspects would have their respective equivalent as karmic « cause »: in the past i have favored wholeness before competition, aliveness before nihilism, emotional closeness before rejection, dare to discover before sticking to conventional rules…
Morphic resonance describes a phenomenon where living beings learn something easier after some individuals have already learned it; this applies also to the realm previously known as « inanimate » – after a new chemical has been synthesized, all further experiments with the same chemical happen easier and quicker. That indicates to how we learn. Learning is not only an individual process but a collective one; we could even say that it is primarily collective, as our individual mind is only an extention of the collective super mind. If molecules learn to combine themselves in a new way or individuals learn to associate things in a new context, in both situations, the original impulse is coming from the morphogenetic field, which in after the processing through the individual is changed in itself. – making the respective process easier to perform for other individuals.
This corroborates the karmic vision of « learning », described as nhappening i the « form » of a spriral. A spiral starts in a point and moves either up or down in concentric growing circles. If in given situation we refuse to learn, we enter into a downwards spiral which makes it more difficult the next time we want to learn something; and vice versa – each time we make a small effort to learn, we create an upward sprial which will make it easier for us to learn. Seen from the perspective of the morphogenetic field, by making an effort to learn, we create a growing potential to learn in the field, which will help us and will help our fellow species members to learn easier in the future.
This is how paradigms change. A paradigm as such has no « power » at all; it’s the corresponding habints that exercise the observable powerful effects within our communites or societies. Paradigms work very much like the pavlovian conditioned reflexes. For example one of the most prevalent paradigms in all societies is something like: « Every man or woman is first of all a citizen, who obeys the government. » This paradigm is coupled with negative consequences for disobedience (in action, word or thought), like fines, court trials, arrest by the police and other harrassments. So our (unconscious) obedience to everything government will provoque fear which will make it even more difficult to disobey the government in the future.
Vice versa; any criticism, resistance and disobedience towards the government will erode the obedience paradigm a little bit more each time, for us and for all our fellow humans.
That shows that it is not really the number of dissidents which is important, but the « intensity » of individual acts of disobedience, which will eventually bring the fake democracies down!