<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not as challenging as it could have been.
Review: "Familiarity with concepts conceals a deep problem". Mr Sheldrake is right to point this out, but never quite gets to grips with the problem he is tackling because ironically, he is never quite able to escape the familiarity of his own field of expertise. Like every scientist who is trying to say something new, he struggles to keep it in the fold of accepted thinking and to that purpose does no more than invent a new language in his conception of morphogenetic fields which does little more than the old idea of psi-fields or holons. From a scientific point of view, it gives to the kind of information he is dealing with an acceptable image, but in the end it is the same as saying that there is a something-I-know-not-what going on. The fact that experiments he has performed or reported on suggests something extraordinary in the nature of reality amounts to no more than saying that there may be something in it. The book has a lengthy section analysing the notion of a law as it has come down to us from the Greeks, but he never actually challenges the familiarity of the basic concepts of science that are passed down the generations as immutable. Consequently, he picks on the notion of a "field" within whose boundaries he presents his case for the morphogenetic experience and causative formation, not noticing that this conception itself is designed to bolster the laws of inertia which are now some three hundred years old and still unrevoked. Consequently, he is blind to the role that death plays in the structure of reality and within morphogenesis itself, merely noting that dead languages or unfamiliar languages can be learnt faster than gobbledegook or invented languages never spoken before. Furthermore, it suffers from a flaw that was a criticism of the platonic Forms in that Mr Sheldrake thinks that new fields arise with the formation of new ideas. He does not consider that, in the event of a field existing, it is just as capable of being switched off! To try to demonstrate the drama of experience in a test-tube is to invite the drama to dissipate and leave only a husk of itself for eyes to pry. It was the same problem for those experiments exploring psychic phenomena: how can the interest of the phenomenon be sustained over long periods of cold examination? Usually the experiments are held up as evidence of disproof by the skeptical and the positivist. At the end of the day, given the narrow parameters of operation, and the desire to be scientific, the best one can say is that there may be something in it and that is the end of that. What is really needed are ideas that challenge the autocratic position of science which is self-assumed which demands that anything concerning the nature of reality must comply with the conditions laid down by etc.etc. Even so, it is an interesting read, as far as it is prepared to go.
Rating: 
Summary: Hmm? am i really the first to give 5 stars?
Review: I felt compulsed to write a 5-star review after seeing only 3 reviews, all of them giving 3 or 4 stars to this classic masterpiece. Hey, don't get it wrong! this is a superb book you can't put down once you've started. I have read it twice and intend to translate it into Estonian.
Although, yes, only maybe a quarter of orthodox biologists can stand Sheldrake's name, the implications of his theory - if correct - are enormous. It would thoroughly change our present understanding of the concept of memory, which means that we need new fields of science - physical semiotics, for example. It would push the "borders" of semiotics to include the very first particles after the BB. Followers of C.S.Peirce would drink lots of champagne and would celebrate the victory. It would also require a radical revision of the ideas of evolution.
So - yes, yes, this IS a popular half-science-fiction book, easily dismissed by orthodox scientists. However, several of Sheldrake's examples are convincing and his theoretizing makes sense. So, I prefer to keep Sheldrake's ideas in "Interesting unsolved cases" drawer. Sheldrake is very much like Ken Wilber. "Serious" philosophers don't call Wilber a philosopher, but an "interesting individual". I would take it as a compliment.
Rating:
Summary: UNFORGETTABLE IDEAS
Review: I read this book some years ago and find the ideas in it have stayed with me, as they go a long way toward filling some holes in our understanding of reality. Sheldrake's Morphic Fields mean living things communicate even when they are not in physical proximity. This explains some of his other research, such as psychic connections between human and animal. Read Sheldrake's book, Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, a fascinating look at the human-animal bond. But the idea that once a new technique is learned by part of the population, it is more easily learned by the rest is startling. Can it explain the rapid spread of computer literacy? Like the old joke in school, can we actually learn "by osmosis?" Sheldrake's examples of group behavior and generational learning in the animal world points exactly in that direction. What one generation learns can be passed to the next. What I learn can make it easier for you to learn. This is a radical idea! I've recently read astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell's book, The Way of the Explorer, in which he presents his view of reality, based on years of research into psychic and spiritual pehonomenon. His view incorporates Sheldrake's ideas in that he accounts for knowledge that does not come from standard learning methods. Knowledge received from spiritual insight or received psychically is part of the natural but unseen web underlying our universe, according to Mitchell. All knowledge of past and present is available, but is not sought by most people, since they do not know or practice the techniques for tapping into that source and there are no currently accepted scientific theories to explain how it works. Sheldrake's Morphic Fields are one such explanation. The Presence of the Past is an influential book that will continue to be consulted and discussed. Since reading it, I've had more reason to think Sheldrake is right and I've read nothing elsewhere that disproves his fascinating conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent place to start
Review: Sheldrake's ideas, while controverial are an excellent place to add to anyone's ongoing exploration of Metaphysics. I agree with a previous reviewer in that these ideas can be interpreted using old terminology. Instead I have found it better to synthesize Sheldrake's excellent works with David Bohm, and any other relevant source I can find. Where do these Morphic fields come from? That is the truly interesting question.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent place to start
Review: Sheldrake's ideas, while controverial are an excellent place to add to anyone's ongoing exploration of Metaphysics. I agree with a previous reviewer in that these ideas can be interpreted using old terminology. Instead I have found it better to synthesize Sheldrake's excellent works with David Bohm, and any other relevant source I can find. Where do these Morphic fields come from? That is the truly interesting question.
Rating:
Summary: good ideas more development needed
Review: Sheldrake's original idea expounded in his earlier : "A New Science of Life" is further investigated here, I say investigated rather than developed because he seems to have taken a step back towards the view of the science he purports to have surpassed. The idea of morphic resonance is very interesting indeed, however the use of the field concept is much the same as the fields proposed in physics. One feels Sheldrake is making use of such devices because a new idea is not at hand whereas a truly new approach would revitalise this idea of morphic resonance and perhaps consider the whole rather than a piecemeal approach such as fields which act like pieces, the common use prevalent in physics with the possible exception of quantum theory. In this aspect I agree with the previous reviewer but on the other hand there are some really fascinating ideas present, the basic one being morphic resonance, and the habits of nature. There certainly is a fair bit of experimental evidence to support at least a deeper investigation of these ideas rather than the usual "crank" reaction of mainstream science which of course considers it heresy. Crucial to such an investigation would be a device capable of measuring this "field" or at least the effect on the formation of structures such as crystals which Sheldrake notes should provide an interesting test of his ideas. I believe Sheldrake does not take enough care to avoid a certain feeling of uncertainty and even at times a sense that there is something not quite solid about the reasoning. I also believe this was not his intention and that his ideas have great worth and deserve the most serious consideration.
<< 1 >>
|
